Alternative A3 – PAL 2 o Traffic Analysis 15 Alternative A8 – PAL 2 o Traffic Analysis 16 Alternative B1– PAL 2 o Traffic Analysis 17 Traffic Analysis Results (1 of 2) o Traffic Analysis TRAFFIC A2 A3 A8 B1 Harbor Drive SEGMENTS • LOS F for A3 and without project North Harbor • Improves to acceptable LOS with A2 and B1 (from Drive F to C) Rental Car Rd / 1 4 3 1 • Slight improvement but still unacceptable LOS with Laurel A8 (from F to E) Grape Street Grape Street • LOS F on all segments without project Harbor / Pacific 2 3 1 2 • Harbor/Pacific segment improves to acceptable Pacific / Kettner 4 4 4 4 LOS with A8 (from F to C) Kettner / I-5 4 4 4 4 • Pacific/Kettner and Kettner/I-5 segments remain LOS F with all alternatives Hawthorn Street Hawthorn Street Harbor / Pacific 2 3 1 2 • LOS F on all segments without project Pacific / Kettner 1 1 1 1 • Harbor/Pacific segment improves to acceptable Kettner / I-5 4 4 4 4 LOS with A8 (from F to C) Laurel Street • Pacific/Kettner and Kettner/I-5 segments remain LOS F with all alternatives Harbor / Pacific 1 1 1 1 Laurel Street Pacific / Kettner 2 2 3 2 • Unacceptable LOS on all segments without project Kettner / I-5 1 1 1 1 • Harbor/Pacific segment improves to LOS A under Subtotal 22 27 23 22 all alternatives • Pacific/Kettner segment improves but remains at unacceptable LOS under all alternatives Key: • Kettner/I-5 segment improves to LOS C under all LOA A, B, C = 1, LOS D = 2, alternatives LOS E = 3, LOS F = 4 18 Traffic Analysis Results (2 of 2) o Traffic Analysis TRAFFIC SEGMENTS A2 A3 A8 B1 Pacific Highway Pacific Highway Washington / 1 1 1 1 • LOS acceptable for all segments with or Sassafras without project Sassafras / Palm 1 1 1 1 • Slightly higher use with A2, A3 and B1 Palm / Laurel 1 1 1 1 • Slight improvement to LOS with A8 on Laurel / Hawthorn 1 1 1 1 select segments Hawthorn / Grape 1 1 1 1 India Street India Street • LOS F on all segments with or without project Laurel / Palm 4 4 4 4 Rosecrans Palm / Sassafras 4 4 4 4 • LOS unacceptable on all segments Sassafras / 4 4 4 4 without project Washington • Barnett/Sport Arena segment improves Rosecrans to acceptable LOS with A2 and B1; Barnett / Sport Arena 1 2 2 1 remains unacceptable LOS with A3 and A8 Quimby / Barnett 2 2 2 2 • Quimby/Barnett segment remains at Nimitz / Quimby 2 2 2 2 unacceptable LOS with all alternatives Subtotal 22 22 23 22 • Nimitz/Quimby segment improves TOTAL 44 49 46 44 slightly with all alternatives but remains at unacceptable LOS (from E to D in all OVERALL 1 4 3 1 cases) RANKING Key: LOA A, B, C = 1, LOS D = 2, 19 LOS E = 3, LOS F = 4 p Relationship of Goals and Objectives to the Alternatives Evaluation Goals and objectives Quantitative criteria Qualitative criteria 20 Process – Evaluation of Alternatives p Alternatives Evaluation GOALS & OBJECTIVES SCREENING MATRIX ALTERNATIVES QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE 1 Improve access and parking SCORE SCORE Family 2 Develop intermodal facility A regional connectivity 1 Economic / Financial 3 Develop efficient terminal facilities and user satisfaction 4 Develop best airfield configuration for horizon PAL 2 Operational ITC 5 Incorporate environmental stewardship best practices 6 Develop a financially feasible 3 Environmental plan 7Provide social and economic benefits Family 8 Integrate airport facilities into 4 Social Responsibility B fabric of community through urban design 21 Vision, Goals and Objectives p Alternatives Evaluation The vision statement will be developed based on agreed-upon goals and objectives Preliminary goals and objectives are presented on the following slides for Policy Committee consideration Vision: concise focus of the airport, typically defining the role of the airport in the regional air network and development pattern Goals: specific statements expanding upon the vision statement to guide future airport development Objectives: under each goal, identify the specific items that would be important to achieve; objectives are measurable under either objective or subjective criteria 22 Goals and Objectives (1 of 8) p Alternatives Evaluation Ground Transportation Applicable Screening Criteria Goal Economic •Improve access and parking •Landside capital cost allowance Objectives Operational •Provide direct access from I-5 to •Overall roads level of service the Airport by auto •Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) •Reduce traffic on city streets in •Competitive position of auto v. transit the Airport vicinity •Impacts to Interstate 5 •Accommodate appropriate levels •Short-term parking of airport and regional demand for •Long-term parking long-term and short-term parking spaces to ensure sufficient user Environmental satisfaction •Total emissions (based on VMT) Social •Land acquisition •Community controversy (includes overall roads LOS) 23 Goals and Objectives (2 of 8) p Alternatives Evaluation Intermodal Facility Applicable Screening Criteria Goal Economic •Develop intermodal facility •Landside capital cost allowance regional connectivity Operational Objectives •Overall roads level of service •Increase transit ridership and •Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provide ITC •Competitive position of auto v. transit •Accommodate the parking •Impacts to Interstate 5 requirements for both airport and transit passengers •Short-term parking •Long-term parking •Provide a land envelope necessary to accommodate the Environmental ITC •Total emissions (based on VMT) Social •Land acquisition •Community controversy (includes overall roads LOS) 24 Goals and Objectives (3 of 8) p Alternatives Evaluation Applicable Screening Criteria Passenger Terminal Economic Goal •Terminal capital cost allowance •Develop efficient terminal •Support facilities capital cost facilities and user satisfaction allowance Objectives •Operational costs •Ensure a positive passenger • Baggage transport system experience • APM • Duplication of passenger processing •Maintain appropriate level of functions service throughout terminal Operational •Minimize walking distances •Passenger experience • Complexity of phasing – duration • Complexity of phasing – passenger service • Short-term / Long-term parking • Average walking distance •Complexity of baggage system 25 Goals and Objectives (4 of 8) p Alternatives Evaluation Airfield/Airspace Applicable Screening Criteria Goal Economic •Develop best airfield •Airside capital cost allowance configuration Operational Objectives •Runway crossings Environmental •Provide the necessary flexibility to accommodate industry •Impervious surface area changes Social •Minimize airfield and airspace •Enhance MCRD mission congestion •Land acquisition •Community controversy (eliminated •Develop airfield in accordance concept involving shifted runway) with FAA safety regulations 26 Goals and Objectives (5 of 8) p Alternatives Evaluation Environment Applicable Screening Criteria Goal Economic •Incorporate environmental •Environmental mitigation costs stewardship best practices Operational Objectives •Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) Environmental •Mitigate noise on surrounding •Air quality emissions (total and communities concentration) •Reduce emissions through •Impervious surface area improved access •Hazardous materials •Utilize sustainability solutions in •Effect on T&E species all parts of the Airport •Historic properties •Aesthetics (view shed) Social •Community controversy 27 Goals and Objectives (6 of 8) p Alternatives Evaluation Financial Applicable Screening Criteria Economic Goal •Revenue evaluation •Develop a financially feasible •Capital cost allowances plan •Operational costs Objectives • APM • Baggage transport •Balance short-term, long-term • Duplication of passenger processing and legacy benefits for new functions investments •Funding sources •Maximize existing funding •Environmental mitigation costs resources through appropriate Social facility planning •Land acquisition •Seek innovative funding methods •Change in revenue to governmental and expand pool of potential entities funding sources •Opportunities for off-airport land development 28 Goals and Objectives (7 of 8) p Alternatives Evaluation Greater San Diego County/ Southern Applicable Screening Criteria California Economic Goal •Capital cost allowances •Provide social and economic •Revenue evaluation benefits Operational Objectives •Overall roads level of service •Provide necessary air service to •Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) support and grow the regional •Competitive position of auto v. transit economy Environmental •Enhance surface transportation •Air quality - total emissions access to support the economy and quality of life of the region •Historic properties •Aesthetics •Improve the regional quality of life for visitors and residents Social •Work with regional entities to •Enhance MCRD mission provide opportunities for satellite •Community controversy development to strengthen •Change in revenue to governmental regional economic development entities •Opportunities for off-airport land development 29 Goals and Objectives (8 of 8) p Alternatives Evaluation Downtown, Convention Center, Adjacent Communities, and Cruise Terminal Goal Applicable Screening Criteria •Integrate airport facilities into fabric Environmental of community through urban design •Aesthetics Objectives Social •Ensure airport facilities fit within the •Enhance MCRD mission context of plans for central San Diego •Community controversy •Opportunities for off-airport land •Recognize the importance of the development scale relationships between airport facilities and surrounding communities