MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA

Transcription

1 MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP The Active Transportation Working Group may take action on any item appearing on this agenda. Thursday, October 10, a.m. to 12:00 noon SANDAG, 7th Floor Board Room 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA Staff Contacts: Christine Eary (619) christine.eary@sandag.org Chris Kluth (619) chris.kluth@sandag.org AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE REGIONAL PLAN: DRAFT PERFORMANCE MEASURES DRAFT UNCONSTRAINED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT REGIONAL PLAN: INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSED STOP AND STATION AREA TYPOLOGIES SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or see for route information. Secure bicycle parking is available in the building garage off Fourth Avenue. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) , (619) (TTY), or fax (619)

2 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP Wednesday, October 10, 2013 ITEM # 1. INTRODUCTIONS (10:00 a.m. to 10:05 a.m.) RECOMMENDATION 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (10:00 a.m. to 10:05 a.m.) Members of the public shall have the opportunity to address the Active Transportation Working Group (ATWG) on any issue within the jurisdiction of SANDAG that is not on this agenda. Anyone desiring to speak shall reserve time by completing a Request to Speak form and giving it to the ATWG coordinator prior to speaking. Public speakers should notify the ATWG coordinator if they have a handout for distribution to ATWG members. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. ATWG members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item. +3. JULY 11, 2013, MEETING SUMMARY (10:00 a.m. to 10:05 a.m.) APPROVE The ATWG is asked to approve the July 11, 2013, meeting summary. REPORTS (4 through 9) 4. icommute UPDATE (Maria Filippelli) (10:05 a.m. to 10:15 a.m.) INFORMATION icommute is the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) division of SANDAG with a focus on reducing single occupancy vehicle trips. This update will include a re-cap of Bike Month activities, the North Coast Corridor TDM plan overview, the upcoming Rideshare week, and other activities. +5. SAN DIEGO FORWARD: DRAFT OUTLINE OF WHITE PAPER ON ECONOMIC PROSPERITY (Jim Miller) (10:15 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.) DISCUSSION The purpose of this item is to provide opportunities for the ATWG to discuss economic issues for inclusion in the Economic Prosperity White Paper for San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. Comments from economic stakeholders and from the public (from the San Diego Forward workshops) will be relayed. +6. SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE REGIONAL PLAN: DRAFT PERFORMANCE MEASURES (Rachel Kennedy) (10:30 a.m. to 10:50 a.m.) DISCUSSION The SANDAG Board of Directors accepted the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan vision and goals on May 10, In past Regional Transportation Plans, SANDAG has utilized transportation project evaluation criteria and performance measures informed by these goals as elements of a multistep process to develop the revenue constrained multimodal transportation network. SANDAG has developed preliminary draft performance measures to be used for evaluating alternative revenue constrained multimodal transportation scenarios for San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. The ATWG will be asked to discuss and provide input on the preliminary draft performance measures. 2

3 +7. SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE REGIONAL PLAN: DEVELOPMENT OF DRAFT UNCONSTRAINED TRANSPORTATION NETWORK (Phil Trom) (10:50 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.) DISCUSSION Defining the Unconstrained Transportation Network is an important step in developing the Regional Plan, because it establishes the broadest network from which revenue constrained scenarios will be identified. The Transportation Committee reviewed the current 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Unconstrained Network along with changing demographic, jobs, housing and population trends from the draft regional growth forecast. SANDAG staff has been seeking input from various Working Groups, Community-Based Organizations, Tribal governments, and the Regional Planning and Borders Committees in September. The Transportation Committee will be asked to review any potential revisions to the network in October or November for use in the development of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. +8. DRAFT UNCONSTRAINED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK (Christine Eary) (11:00 a.m. to 11:25 a.m.) DISCUSSION As part of its Unconstrained Transportation Network, San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan will include a Draft Unconstrained Active Transportation Network for the first time. Staff will describe how the proposed network was developed, and will ask the Working Group for its feedback regarding the proposed active transportation network projects. +9. SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT REGIONAL PLAN: INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSED STOP AND STATION AREA TYPOLOGIES (Christine Eary) (11:25 a.m. to 12 noon) DISCUSSION Staff has begun development of the Safe Routes to Transit Regional Plan, a key component of the Active Transportation Implementation Strategy and San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. Staff will describe this work effort. Draft proposed typologies have been developed in order to classify the over 6,000 transit stop and station areas in the region. These typologies are associated with levels of bicycle and pedestrian improvements, for the purpose of identifying potential active transportation projects and cost estimates in transit project areas. These projects will be included in San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. The Working Group is asked to discuss the proposed typologies and provide feedback. 10. ADJOURNMENT + next to an agenda item indicates an attachment 3

4 San Diego Association of Governments ACTIVE TRANSPORATION WORKING GROUP October 10, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3 Action Requested: APPROVE JULY 11, 2013, MEETING SUMMARY File Number Please note: Audio file of meeting is available on the SANDAG website ( on the ATWG page. Agenda Item 1: Welcome and Introductions The meeting was called to order by Chris Kluth (SANDAG). Self-introductions were conducted. Item 2: Meeting Summary ATWG members were asked to review and approve the minutes for the May 2, 2013, ATWG meeting. Action: Upon a motion by Elyse Lowe (Move San Diego) and a second by Andy Hamilton (Air Pollution Control District), the May 2, 2013, ATWG summary was approved unanimously. Agenda Item 3: Public Comments and Communications Members of the public had the opportunity to address the ATWG on any issue within the jurisdiction of the respective group that was not on the agenda. There were no public comments. Agenda Item 4: Nomination of Chair and Vice Chair Kathleen Ferrier (Walk San Diego) nominated Bryan Jones (City of Carlsbad) for Chair, Seconded by Elyse Lowe (Move San Diego). Ali Shazhad (City of Escondido) nominated Frank Rivera (City of Chula Vista), Seconded by Tom Ritter (City of Coronado). The ATWG voted and the majority of members supported Mr. Jones for ATWG Chair. Howard La Grange (City of Oceanside Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee) nominated Ms. Ferrier for Vice-Chair, Seconded by Andy Hanshaw (San Diego County Bicycle Coalition [SDCBC]). Mr. La Grange also nominated Andy Hamilton (County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District) for Vice-Chair; Mr. Hamilton declined. The ATWG voted and the majority of the ATWG members supported Ms. Ferrier for Vice-Chair. The meeting was turned over from Chris Kluth to Chair Jones. 4

5 Agenda Item 5: Caltrans District Report (Information) Seth Cutter (Caltrans) spoke about the Cabrillo Bridge seismic retrofit project, scheduled to be completed in 2015 before the Balboa Park Centennial Exposition, with Lou Melendez (Caltrans) being the Project Manager. Mr. Cutter also spoke on State Route 56 Bike Path under Interstate 5 (I-5), currently in design face with an expected completion date of Everett Hauser (County of San Diego) asked if the bridge deck would be resurfaced; Mr. Cutter confirmed that it would be. Sam Hasenin (City of Vista) inquired about the drainage at the bridge base; Mr. Cutter replied that the despite the retrofit improvements, drainage will continue to be a challenge as the bridge is not designed to withstand the 100-year flood. Chris Kluth (SANDAG) asked if there has been a construction cost estimate; Mr. Cutter replied that it s currently around $1 million. Agenda Item 6: icommute Update (Information) Maria Filippelli (SANDAG) gave an update about the icommute program. Kathleen Ferrier (Walk San Diego) asked how many people participated in Bike to Work Day Ms. Filippelli estimated 7,400 last year and 8,400 this year. Ms. Ferrier also asked for clarification on icommute s Genesse/I-5 project. Ms. Filippelli responded that icommute is developing a web portal for that specific project. Bryan Jones (City of Carlsbad) suggested SANDAG get the California Coastal Commission more involved with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. Howard La Grange (City of Oceanside Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee) asked for clarification on the dates of bike and walk day events and how the promotion and information was being distributed. Jim Baross (SDCBC) asked for clarification on the parking terms being used in her presentation. Elyse Lowe (Move San Diego) complimented the icommute program and asked for clarification on the outcomes of the modeling. Dirk Epperson (City of La Mesa) mentioned that the La Mesa-Spring Valley school districts are off during the Bike-to-School week. Bryan Jones (City of Carlsbad) asked if there will be more supporting documents for TDMs. Ms. Filippelli responded that the Policy white paper will mainly focus on parking but that staff can provide additional assistance to jurisdictions on TDMs. 5

6 Agenda Item 7a: San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan: Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria Rachel Kennedy (SANDAG) presented the Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria. Seth Cutter (Caltrans), Carol Dick (City of Lemon Grove), and Elyse Lowe (MOVE San Diego) had questions about the rail-grade separation criteria. Sherri Ryan (Public Health Stakeholders Working Group) asked about the relationships and tradeoffs in the evaluation criteria. Kathleen Ferrier (Walk San Diego) asked about the how the points were scored in the evaluation criteria. Jim Baross (SDCBC) commented that the rail-grade separation didn t mention bicycles. Randy Van Vleck (City Heights Community Development Corporation) asked for more clarification on what accessibility for highways to communities of concern meant Andy Hamilton (County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District) asked if the models can better predict transit ridership. Agenda Item 7b (Pushed back after Item 8 due to speaker time restraints): San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan Draft Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria (Information) Christine Eary (SANDAG) presented the Active Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria including safe routes to transit projects, active transportation projects in RTP Highway project areas, and regional bicycle path projects. Everett Hauser (County of San Diego) asked if soft-service facilities will be an option for transportation. Ms. Eary replied that it will depend on the location. Andy Hamilton (County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District) suggested the evaluation criteria be more weighted on points for geographical or low-income areas. Elyse Lowe (Move San Diego) suggested the active transportation criteria and work that committees are doing is connected to the TOD strategy. Tina Zenzola (County Health and Human Services Agency) Suggested Safe Routes to School be included in the Active Transportation evaluation criteria. Agenda Item 8: Safe Routes to Transit Regional Plan: Proposed Stop and Station Typologies Christine Eary (SANDAG) presented the Safe Routes to Transit Regional Plan. Samir Hajiri (City of San Diego), requested clarification between the Centers and Corridors Regional and the Centers and Corridors-Local typologies. Ms. Eary clarified that the Regional 6

7 typology refers to transit station areas served by commuter rail and Bus Rapid Transit, whereas the Local typology refers to transit station areas served by light rail, Mr. Hajiri replied that factors other than just transit service should be considered in the typology, such as regional versus local funding. Ms. Eary clarified that in this framework, the regional versus local distinction does not refer to funding, but only to the type of transit service. Randy Van Vleck (City Heights CDC) asked if there was any relationship between the typology and the prioritization and selection of the project. Ms. Eary replied that that was open for discussion from the members. Elyse Lowe (MOVE San Diego), wanted clarification on the typologies. Samir Hajiri (City of San Diego), Sam Hasenin (City of Vista), Ali Shazhad (City of Escondido), Bryan Jones (City of Carlsbad), Tom Ritter (City of Coronado), and Frank Rivera (City of Chula Vista) made comments and had questions. Agenda Item 10: Adjournment and Next Meeting (Information) The next ATWG meeting will be held on, October 10, 2013, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Action: The ATWG meeting was adjourned by Chair Bryan Jones at 12:55. 7

8 San Diego Association of Governments ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP October 10, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 5 Action Requested: DISCUSSION SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE REGIONAL PLAN: File Number DRAFT OUTLINE OF WHITE PAPER ON ECONOMIC PROSPERITY Introduction SANDAG is preparing a white paper on economic prosperity as part of the process for San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan). Staff will present a proposed outline (Attachment 1) and solicit input on topics and key considerations. Staff expects to have a draft white paper ready by December. Discussion In a survey conducted by SANDAG last spring, respondents rated economic development as their highest concern. The economic prosperity white paper is intended to present a background of SANDAG s role in regional economic development and initiate discussion on key economic considerations and policies to be included in the Regional Plan. A draft outline is attached that presents general discussion points and the overall format of the white paper. In a general sense, the paper will be challenging in that it will be limited in length, and the topics for discussion are many. Recognizing SANDAG s appropriate role in economic development will be key to a fruitful discussion. Next Steps SANDAG staff is working to solicit input from economic stakeholders and working groups; an initial meeting with Economic Development Corporations, Chambers of Commerce, and municipal economic development staff was held on August 23, in addition to the Regional Plan public workshop on July 19, which focused on the economy, borders, and public facilities. During September and October, the outline will be presented to SANDAG working groups, policy advisory committees, and economic stakeholders for discussion and comment, and will then be used to draft the white paper and inform the economic component of the Regional Plan. Work on the economic analysis for the Regional Plan is also beginning, with the analysis including four areas: an economic impact component to measure the effects of construction activity on the regional economy, a benefit-cost analysis to examine the ratio of benefits such as time savings versus the costs of scenarios, an economic competitiveness analysis to investigate the broader economic effects of transportation improvements on the San Diego economy, and a fiscal analysis to focus on the costs to infrastructure providers from geographic outcomes of the Regional Plan. The white paper should provide valuable context for conducting and communicating the economic analysis. Attachment: 1. Preliminary Draft Outline: Economic Prosperity White Paper Key Staff Contact: Jim Miller, (619) , jim.miller@sandag.org 8

9 Attachment 1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT OUTLINE: ECONOMIC PROSPERITY WHITE PAPER Purpose: To provide an opportunity for review of existing plans, policies, and accomplishments in the region, and an opportunity to update and adjust priorities. Will include background information and summary data, describe interrelationships between economic prosperity and other Regional Plan topic areas, and initiate discussion on key economic considerations and policies to be included in the Regional Plan. Approximately 10 pages in length. A. Introduction Discussion of the intersection between land use/transportation planning and economic prosperity, including historical context. Explain how San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan could influence the region s economy. Introduce contents of White Paper. B. Current Economic Conditions in San Diego Existing Setting: Brief, and not overly quantitative, discussion of regional economic strengths and weaknesses (backed by and referring to the Regional Economic Prosperity Strategy, Indicators, etc.). Discuss differences within the region and the impact of the 2008 economic downturn. Highlight changing demographics. Existing Plans, Programs, and Policies: Include list of historical and current SANDAG (and maybe other) initiatives on economic development. Emerging Concepts: Brief review of current research in regional planning and economics and list of some of the region s major economic concerns. Some that have been identified: cooperation with Mexico, housing costs, job training, and Redevelopment Agency dissolution. C. Interrelationships How Transportation and Regional Planning Can Influence the San Diego Economy: Explore the concept of viewing the region s transportation infrastructure (transit, freeways, airports, ports) as economic habitat, enabling economic activity, and providing essential freedom of choice. Examples: transit-oriented development, revitalization of local downtown areas, housing affordability, commercial/industrial activity centers, border-related employment and trade opportunities, research/healthcare activity in the region, industrial land preservation, Smart Growth and economic growth, de-coupling economic growth from physical growth. Highlight the importance of public investment to economic prosperity. Describe the economic analysis to be performed on San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. Communities of Concern from an Economic Perspective: Explore inequity as a threat to prosperity, equity of opportunity, Communities of Concern as having high potential for economic development, and education and mobility access as a requirement for economic growth and public health. Relationships between the Economy and Environment: Explore environment as an asset (maybe some discussion of externalities ), Sustainable Communities Strategy, and unique nature of the San Diego region as an example of how the economy and environment can both prosper. 9

10 D. Future Funding, Trends, and Possibilities Discuss SANDAG s ability to directly influence economic prosperity, long-term global and regional trends, and San Diego s position and opportunities in the global economy. Explore potential strategies for influencing the region s economic prosperity. E. Key Policy Questions For Discussion Summarize and identify key questions for further discussion. 10

11 This Relates to Agenda Item #6 Active Transportation Working Group October 10, 2013 San Diego Association of Governments REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP October 10, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 6 Action Requested: DISCUSSION SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE REGIONAL PLAN: DRAFT PERFORMANCE MEASURES File Number Introduction The SANDAG Board of Directors accepted the vision and goals for San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan on May 10, In past regional transportation plans (RTPs), SANDAG has utilized project evaluation criteria and performance measures informed by the plan goals as elements of a multistep process to evaluate and prioritize transportation projects in the development of the revenue constrained multimodal transportation network. Project evaluation criteria are used to rank and prioritize individual transportation projects in the Regional Plan. The preliminary draft project evaluation criteria, were discussed at the June 13, 2013, July 11, 2013, and September 12, 2013, Regional Planning Technical Working Group (TWG) meetings. The plan performance measures will be used to compare multimodal network scenarios and will aid the Board in the selection of a preferred network of transportation projects for the Regional Plan. The TWG is asked to review and discuss the preliminary draft performance measures. Discussion The performance measures used in the 2050 RTP and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) were used as a starting point for the development of the draft performance measure for the Regional Plan. Performance measures are used to evaluate the multimodal transportation network alternatives against one another, prior to the Board selecting a preferred network alternative to be used for the revenue constrained scenario of the Regional Plan. SANDAG staff has worked with a consultant to conduct research regarding best practices for plan performance measures. In an effort to highlight the performance of the plan in a more clear and easy to understand way, a list of key questions, which support the Regional Plan policy objectives established by the SANDAG Board, has been created. Attachment 1 highlights the policy objectives, key questions, and the performance measure data, which will be used to gauge the plan s performance and respond to the key questions. The preliminary draft performance measures will incorporate capabilities of recent enhancements to SANDAG s regional modeling tools including the Activity-Based Model (ABM) and the Production, Exchange, and Consumption Allocation System (PECAS). Efforts have been made to define a list of key questions and associated performance measures which will provide for an effective analysis of various aspects of the multimodal transportation network alternatives. 11

12 Next Steps SANDAG staff is currently in the process of collecting feedback on the preliminary plan performance measures from SANDAG working groups, partner agencies, other stakeholders, and the general public. A public workshop is anticipated to be scheduled in late October A peer panel also will review the preliminary draft performance measures in November 2013, and a revised draft set of measures will be developed to address comments received. In December 2013, the Transportation Committee and Regional Planning Committee will be asked to recommend the measures to the Board of Directors. Action by the Board is anticipated to be requested in January Once the multimodal transportation network alternatives have been developed, the performance measures will be applied to evaluate each network alternative and help in the comparison across alternatives. Attachments: 1. Preliminary Draft Performance Measures Key Staff Contact: Rachel Kennedy, (619) , rachel.kennedy@sandag.org 12

13 San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan Preliminary Draft Performance Measures Attachment 1 Objective Key Questions Performance Measure Mobility Choices, Is congestion reduced? Average multimodal travel time to work destinations (drive alone, carpool, transit, bike, and walk) Preservation and Safety of the Transportation System Average multimodal travel distance to work destinations (drive alone, carpool, transit, bike, and walk) Daily vehicle delay per capita (minutes) Systemwide VMT in congested conditions (all day) per capita Are travel times more reliable? Is access to jobs and key destinations improving for all communities? Travel time reliability buffer index (additional time required for trip) Access to jobs (Total, LIM/non LIM) Access to goods and services (retail, medical, and schools) (Total, LIM/non LIM) Access to parks and beaches (Total, LIM/non LIM) Are the relative costs of transportation being reduced for all communities? Is the transportation system safer? % of income consumed by transportation costs (including time) (Total, LIM/non LIM) Annual projected number of vehicle injury/fatal collisions per VMT (vehicle miles traveled) Regional Economic Prosperity, Partnerships and Collaboration, Binational Collaboration with Baja California Complete communities Habitat and Open Space Preservation, Environmental Stewardship, Energy and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Is the regional economy improving? Is the region's capacity to move goods improved? Are connections to tribal lands and Mexico improved? Does the transportation network support smart growth? Are residents engaging in more physical activity? Are more people walking, biking, using transit and sharing rides? Are people driving less? Are the region's natural resources being preserved? Is air quality improved? Are GHG emissions reduced? Annual projected number of bicycle/pedestrian injury/fatal collisions per BPMT (bicycle & pedestrian miles traveled) Benefit/Cost Ratio of transportation investments Return on investment / Net Present Value (in millions) of transportation investments Job Generated (average number per year) due to transportation investments Output Growth (gross regional product in millions average per year) Change in regional housing affordability Freight capacity acreage Daily truck hours of delay Average truck/commercial vehicle travel times to and around regional gateways and distribution hubs Average travel times to/from tribal lands and Mexico % of population/employment within 0.5 miles of high frequency (<=15 min peak and midday headway) transit stops (Total, LIM/non LIM) % of population/employment within 0.25 miles of bike facility (class I and II, cycletrack, and bicycle boulevard) (Total, LIM/non LIM) Total time engaged in transportation related physical activity Walk, bike, transit, and carpool mode share Transit passenger miles per capita Systemwide VMT (all day) per capita Gross acres of constrained lands (forest, agricultural, sensitive) consumed (for all purposes) Smog forming pollutants (pounds/day) per capita CO2 emissions (pounds/day) per capita On road fuel consumption (all day) per capita 13

14 San Diego Association of Governments TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE September 6, 2013 This Relates to Agenda Item #7 Active Transportation Working Group October 10, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 8 Action Requested: DISCUSSION SAN DIEGO FORWARD: THE REGIONAL PLAN: File Numbers DEVELOPMENT OF DRAFT UNCONSTRAINED TRANSPORTATION NETWORK Introduction In developing the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, the Unconstrained Transportation Network represents the region s vision for transit, highway, freight, bicycle, pedestrian, arterial improvements, and operations to meet travel demand in Defining the Unconstrained Transportation Network is an important step in developing a Regional Plan because it establishes the broadest multimodal network from which revenue constrained network scenarios will be developed. Ultimately, these transportation scenarios will support and provide connections to the other components of the Regional Plan, such as housing and jobs; retail and commercial destinations; healthcare; habitat, recreation, open space, and outdoor activities; education and job training opportunities as well as our neighboring binational and interregional areas. The revenue constrained transportation network scenarios also will be evaluated in such a way to take into account public health, social equity, the environment and the economy. Transportation Committee members are asked to discuss and provide feedback on the initial draft Unconstrained Transportation Network. Recommendations for a preferred Unconstrained Transportation Network will be presented to the Transportation and Regional Planning Committees in October for further discussion and recommendation to the Board of Directors. Background As part of the preparation of the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), in spring 2010, the Transportation and Regional Planning Committees discussed and provided comments on the development of the unconstrained transit network and complementary highway network. Extensive work went into developing the Urban Area Transit Strategy (UATS) to increase the attractiveness of transit, walking, and biking in the more urbanized areas of the region. Three transit network alternatives were developed and evaluated. Staff sought public input from SANDAG working groups and at public workshops. The networks also were reviewed by an independent peer review panel. Ultimately, the Unconstrained Transportation Network incorporated a hybrid transit scenario from the UATS, highway improvements to provide mobility for people and goods, local streets and roads improvements, bicycle projects within the regional network, rail grade separations, and other management strategies. In addition, all projects, programs, and services from the TransNet Extension Ordinance through 2048 were included in the Unconstrained Transportation Network. The Board accepted the Unconstrained Transportation Network for use in the development of the 2050 RTP/SCS in July

15 Initial Recommendations for San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan Draft 2050 Unconstrained Transportation Network SANDAG is currently working with staff from the Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, and Caltrans to analyze potential modifications to the 2050 unconstrained transit and highway networks included in the 2050 RTP/SCS. The approved unconstrained transit and highway networks, as published in the 2050 RTP/SCS, are shown in Attachments 1 and 2, respectively. Proposed modifications are based on supporting transit investments along key corridors while taking into account changes to highway system planning that have occurred since the approval of the 2050 RTP/SCS in October The draft Unconstrained Transportation Network also includes all projects in the Regional Bicycle Plan (Riding to 2050). An evaluation of regional pedestrian facilities (and which of those could be appropriate for inclusion in the Regional Plan) is currently underway. Including the Active Transportation Network (pedestrian and bicycle projects) along with the transit and highway networks helps to create a comprehensive and balanced transportation system that would be available to all users. As described earlier in this report, the Unconstrained Transportation Network included in the 2050 RTP/SCS was accepted by the Board in mid Further evaluation of projects included in the Unconstrained Transportation Network was conducted up to the release of the draft Regional Transportation Plan in spring In addition, modifications were made to some supporting transit routes (e.g., Interstate 15 Bus Rapid Transit [BRT] and South Bay BRT) based on refined operating plans. As a result, the development of the Unconstrained Transportation Network for San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan presents an opportunity to align a handful of projects that were refined after the development of the 2050 RTP/SCS Unconstrained Transportation Network and also to reflect policy actions that led to changes in planned highway projects. Proposed Transit Network Modifications Potential modifications to the 2050 RTP/SCS Unconstrained Transportation Network are being explored along the following corridors: SPRINTER extension to East Escondido (Route 399): Delete this route due to low modeled ridership potential Light Rail Transit (LRT) between San Diego State University and San Ysidro via East San Diego (Route 550): Delete this route due to redundancy with Route 562, which also serves Mid-City as part of its overall route between University Town Center (UTC) and San Ysidro via Kearny Mesa, Mission Valley, Mid-City, National City, and Chula Vista. LRT between Otay Mesa East Border Crossing and western Chula Vista (Route 564): Delete this route due to low potential ridership and redundancy with South Bay BRT (Route 628). BRT from Downtown to Kearny Mesa (Route 20): Modify this route to connect Sharp Hospital via an inline station on State Route 163 between Mesa College Drive and Genesee. Proposed New Routes: LRT between UTC and Carmel Valley: Develop a new route from UTC (with connections to Mid- Coast LRT) to Carmel Valley via UTC-Campus Point and Sorrento Valley. 15

16 LRT between Downtown San Diego and Airport-Point Loma: Develop a new route from Santa Fe Depot east to Point Loma, directly serving Terminals 1 and 2 and the Commuter Terminal of the San Diego International Airport. BRT between the Iris Trolley Station and Otay Mesa East Port of Entry: Add a new BRT line via State Route 905 (SR 905) with stops at the Otay Mesa East Port of Entry, Otay Mesa Intermodal Transit Center (with connections to South Bay BRT), and the Iris Trolley Station. COASTER: Extend COASTER service south of Santa Fe Depot to National City. Proposed Highway Network Modifications The 2050 RTP/SCS includes an extensive Managed Lane system that provides flexibility in serving transit and High Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs) by maximizing the available rights-of-way in several of the region s major highway corridors. Since the development of the 2050 RTP/SCS Unconstrained Transportation Network, two major actions have taken place which require changes to the highway network. First, Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration selected the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Interstate 5 (I-5) in the North Coast Corridor on July 6, The Express Lanes only option will add four Express or Managed Lanes from La Jolla Village Drive to Vandegrift Boulevard. This determination eliminated the potential for two additional general-purpose lanes in this corridor. Second, SANDAG acquired the lease to operate the State Route 125 (SR 125) toll road from South Bay Expressway on December 21, As part of this transaction, the TransNet Extension Ordinance was amended to swap the funds allocated for construction of two reversible HOV lanes on Interstate 805 (I-805) between SR 905 and State Route 54 (SR 54), for a portion of the acquisition costs for the SR 125 lease. Through reduced tolls, SR 125 was predicted to accommodate, and indeed has accommodated more traffic, relieving congestion on I-805 and reducing the need for some improvements on the I-805 corridor in South County (construction is underway on two carpool lanes one in each direction on I-805 along and eight-mile segment from East Palomar Street to State Route 94). Based on the congestion relief provided by lowering of tolls on SR 125, the Board of Directors has concluded that it is unnecessary to add the two additional reversible HOV lanes on I-805 that were included in the 2050 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed refinements to 2050 RTP/SCS Unconstrained Highway Network include: I-5 North Coast (State Route 56 to Vandegrift Boulevard): Remove two general purpose lanes (from 10 to 8 lanes). I-805 South (SR 905 to SR 54): Remove 2 Managed Lanes (from 4 to 2 Managed Lanes) SANDAG staff also will work with Caltrans to determine any opportunities for additional operational improvements to relieve bottlenecks and to improve overall highway functionality. Active Transportation Network The San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan proposed a vision for a diverse regional bicycle system of interconnected bicycle corridors, support facilities, and programs to make bicycling more practical and desirable to a broader range of people in our region. Implementation of the Plan will help the region meet its goals in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improve mobility. It also provides 16

17 benefits to public health by encouraging more people to adopt a physically active mode of transportation for at least some of their trips. The San Diego Regional Bicycle Network is included as Attachment 3 and should be considered to represent the bicycle component of the draft Unconstrained Transportation Network. It should be noted that the unconstrained bike network may be modified as a result of work underway on the Safe Routes to School and Safe Routes to Transit programs and a comprehensive review of regional pedestrian facilities. Additionally, as part of the Active Transportation Implementation Strategy, bicycle and pedestrian improvements are being identified in 2050 RTP/SCS transit and highway corridor project areas. These projects, in addition to the Regional Bicycle Network, would comprise the active transportation component of the draft Unconstrained Transportation Network. Goods Movement The draft unconstrained goods movement system consists primarily of dual-use road and truckway projects (serving cars and trucks) that comprise the backbone of the freight distribution network. The unconstrained system outlined in the 2050 Goods Movement Strategy (GMS) as part of the 2050 RTP/SCS includes several maritime, rail, border, air cargo, and pipeline related projects. Refinements to the 2050 GMS are underway. Local Streets and Roads The draft Unconstrained Transportation Network also includes improvements to the local streets and roads. Local jurisdictions will provide SANDAG with the planned improvements for these facilities by November Intermodal Transportation Centers The draft Unconstrained Transportation Network also includes improvements to major intermodal centers such as the Intermodal Transportation Center at the San Diego International Airport (Destination Lindbergh), the San Ysidro Intermodal Transit Center, the Otay Mesa Intermodal Transit Center, and the Otay Mesa East Port of Entry Transit Center. Rail Grade Separations Grade-separation projects for the COASTER, SPRINTER, and Trolley corridors in the San Diego region will be incorporated in the Unconstrained Transportation Network. Transportation Demand Management The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program at SANDAG, known as icommute, provides sustainable and flexible transportation programs that reduce traffic congestion and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental pollutants that result from driving alone. These programs include: vanpool, carpool, SchoolPool, Guaranteed Ride Home, telework and bike programs, in addition to employer outreach, public education, and marketing. While transportation infrastructure, land use, and smart growth development patterns can take many years to implement, TDM strategies are cost-effective and can reduce pollutants and relieve congestion more immediately. Consequently, TDM programs are likely to play a larger role in achieving the near-term goals of the Regional Plan. 17

18 Transportation System Management Our existing transportation system already benefits from a major investment of resources over the past several decades. While the Regional Plan identifies additional infrastructure investments needed to meet future transportation needs, it is critical that the region also place an increased focus on Transportation System Management (TSM). TSM is aimed at maximizing the efficiency of the facilities already in place while taking into account any emerging technologies on the horizon for future infrastructure investments to ensure maximum productivity and efficiency. TSM also aims at the development of multi-modal and multi-agency transportation management strategies in an effort to make the transit, arterial, and highway networks work together. Additional TSM strategies, as included in the recently developed Intelligent Transportation Systems Strategic Plan (such as signal- and ramp-metering coordination and optimization; improved performance monitoring and micro simulation; and advanced vehicle/roadside communication platforms), are aimed at providing our transportation partners with the ability to monitor, manage, and operate the transportation system as a unified and multi-modal network, enabling maximum throughput of the transportation systems and thus maximizing system efficiency and system productivity. Next Steps After receiving comments from the Transportation Committee, the initial draft Unconstrained Transportation Network will be presented to SANDAG working groups for discussion and feedback in September. Recommendations for a preferred Unconstrained Transportation Network are anticipated to be presented to the Transportation and Regional Planning Committees in October for recommendation to the Board of Directors. After the Unconstrained Transportation Network is defined and accepted by the Board of Directors, staff will prioritize all of the future projects in this network, using the updated transportation project evaluation criteria (see Agenda Item No. 9). Based on revenue projections, various revenue constrained transportation network scenarios will be developed using this prioritized project list and other factors. The revenue constrained network scenarios will attempt to build and operate as much of the Unconstrained Transportation Network as possible, given revenue availability, flexibility, and project priorities. These scenarios will be evaluated using performance measures leading to the eventual selection of a preferred Revenue Constrained Network by the Board of Directors in CHARLES MUGGS STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Attachments: RTP/SCS Unconstrained Transit Network RTP/SCS Unconstrained Highway Network 3. Regional Bicycle Plan Network Key Staff Contact: Phil Trom, (619) , phil.trom@sandag.org 18

19 Attachment 1 Camp Pendleton To Murrieta & Temecula To Murrieta & Points North 76 MAP AREA To Orange County & Points North 15 San Diego Region Oceanside 78 Vista San Marcos County of San Diego Carlsbad Escondido Encinitas Solana Beach 5 Poway 67 Del Mar Figure A Unconstrained Transit Network October 2011 High Speed Rail * Commuter Rail 5 San Diego La Mesa Santee El Cajon 8 Light Rail Transit (LRT) 15 * High Speed Rail alignment based on the California High Speed Rail Authority's 2005 Statewide Programmatic EIR/EIS preferred route. MILES KILOMETERS Express LRT Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Peak Period BRT Streetcar Rapid Bus Local Bus Lemon Grove Coronado National 125 City 75 Chula Vista San Diego Imperial 905 Beach 1-D Tijuana, B.C D 94 UNITED STATES MEXICO 19

20 Attachment 2 Camp Pendleton 8F+4T 4C+OPS 2C MAP AREA 4C 8F+4T 4C San Diego Region 6C E 76 8F+4T 76 2C Oceanside 10F+4ML 78 6F+2ML/OPS 10F+4ML Vista San Marcos Carlsbad 10F+4ML Escondido 78 2C County of San Diego Encinitas 10F+4ML 2C 78 Figure A Unconstrained Highway Network October 2011 Solana Beach Del Mar 10F+4ML F+2ML 10F+4ML/MB 10F+4ML/MB Poway 4C 67 2C Improvements Managed Lanes 14F+4ML 8F+4ML 15 Transit Lanes General Purpose Lanes Toll Lanes Operational Improvements Freeway Connectors HOV Connectors Freeway & HOV Connectors C = Conventional Highway F = Freeway HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle MB = Movable Barrier ML = Managed Lanes OPS = Operational Improvements T = Toll Lanes 5 8F/10F + 2ML 6F 8F/10F +4ML San Diego 8F+OPS 8F+OPS 282 Coronado 6F+2ML F + 2ML 8F + 2ML 10F+2ML National City 75 8F+2ML 8F/10F+OPS 8F+2TL 15 10F+2ML 54 6F+2ML(R) F+4ML 6F+2ML La Mesa Lemon Grove 54 8F+2ML 8F+4ML Santee 67 6F 6F 125 6F 125 6F+2ML 8F 6F/8F 6F/8F+OPS El Cajon F+2ML 6C 6F 4C 6F 2C F MILES KILOMETERS 8 Imperial Beach 8F+ 2ML 1-D 5 Chula Vista 8F 8F 805 Tijuana, B.C San Diego 8F 8F T 2-D UNITED STATES MEXICO 20

21 Attachment 3 Oceanside Vista 78 San Marcos Carlsbad 15 Escondido 5 Encinitas Unincorporated County Pacific Ocean Solana Beach Del Mar 56 Poway 805 San Diego Santee El Cajon La Mesa FIGURE 3-5 REGIONAL BICYCLE NETWORK CORRIDOR ALIGNMENTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN Proposed Regional Bicycle Network CLASS I - BIKE PATH CYCLE TRACK BICYCLE BOULEVARD ENHANCED CLASS II - BIKE LANE ENHANCED CLASS III - BIKE ROUTE FREEWAY SHOULDER Coronado Miles Imperial Beach 805 National City 5 94 Lemon Grove 54 Chula Vista 905 San Diego 125 Alta Planning + Design, March 1, 2010; Source: SANDAG 21

22 San Diego Association of Governments ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP October 10, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 8 Action Requested: DISCUSSION DRAFT UNCONSTRAINED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK File Number Introduction The draft unconstrained active transportation network represents the bicycle and pedestrian components of the Unconstrained Transportation Network in San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. The 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (2050 RTP/SCS) included the Regional Bicycle Network identified in Riding to 2050: The San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan, but San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan will include an active transportation network for the first time in a SANDAG regional transportation plan. The projects included within the unconstrained active transportation network form the basis for inclusion of active transportation in the revenue constrained network scenarios in San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. Staff will describe how the proposed draft unconstrained active transportation network was developed. Active Transportation Working Group members are asked to discuss and provide feedback on the initial draft unconstrained active transportation network. Recommendations for a preferred Unconstrained Transportation Network that includes all modes will be presented to the Transportation and Regional Planning Committees in October for further discussion and recommendation to the Board of Directors. Discussion Background On October 28, 2011, the Board of Directors made an unprecedented commitment to Active Transportation with the adoption of the 2050 RTP/SCS. The final action by the Board of Directors calls for planning for a broad Active Transportation program, including Safe Routes to School and Safe Routes to Transit, within two years of the 2050 RTP/SCS adoption. On April 19, 2013, the Transportation Committee accepted the proposed goals and framework for the Active Transportation Implementation Strategy, one of which included identification of active transportation projects and programs associated with the 2050 RTP/SCS planned transit and highway corridor project areas, for consideration in San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. Accordingly, three types of projects have been identified to comprise the proposed draft unconstrained active transportation network, shown as Attachment 1: Regional Bicycle Plan projects, Safe Routes to Transit Projects, and bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects at freeway interchanges. These project types are discussed below. 22

23 Regional Bicycle Network Projects Riding to 2050: The Regional Bicycle Plan proposed a diverse, interconnected, region-wide system of bicycle facilities for the first time in the San Diego region. The Regional Bicycle Network that was identified in The Regional Bicycle Plan forms the basis for the draft unconstrained active transportation network. Attachment 2 shows the Regional Bicycle Network component of the draft unconstrained active transportation network. Safe Routes to Transit Projects Development of a Safe Routes to Transit Regional Strategy is important for both active transportation and transit modes of travel in the region, because many transit passengers walk or ride a bicycle to transit. Staff has been developing a Safe Routes to Transit Regional Strategy, and have identified locations for bicycle and pedestrian access improvement projects at 2050 RTP/SCS future transit corridor station areas. Project areas would provide safer walking and bicycling access between transit stops and stations and destinations surrounding the transit station. To identify locations for bicycle and pedestrian access improvements at station areas, future station areas were identified from the 2050 RTP/SCS unconstrained transit project list, shown as Attachment 3. On Attachment 2, Safe Routes to Transit projects are designated as orange polygons coinciding with transit stations included in the 2050 RTP/SCS unconstrained transit project list. (See Agenda Item No. 8) Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Projects at Freeway Interchanges Freeway interchange areas on local streets are often recognized as dangerous places for bicyclists and pedestrians, due to high traffic volumes and the high vehicular speeds of drivers getting on and off the freeway. These areas can be made safer through access improvements that provide protection and greater visibility to pedestrians and bicyclists, and reduce the potential for conflicts with vehicles. Staff has identified a number of potential locations for bicycle and pedestrian access improvements at freeway interchanges where highway projects were identified in the 2050 RTP/SCS unconstrained highway network. The list of highway projects is shown in Attachment 4. To identify potential locations, an analysis was conducted to identify freeway interchanges that coincided with Smart Growth Opportunity Areas, and high bicycle and pedestrian demand as determined by the Regional Travel Demand Model. Approximately 78 freeway interchanges were identified through this process, and are designated as purple dots on Attachment 2, and are listed on Attachment 5. Safe Routes to School Safe Routes to School projects will be embedded within all three project types described above. Specifically, any project area shown on Attachment 2 that includes a school will include access improvements between the school(s) in the project area and the Regional Bicycle Network facilities, the transit stations, or the freeway interchange, depending on the project type. Next Steps The Active Transportation Working Group is asked to review the proposed draft active transportation unconstrained network and provide feedback. This network will be included as part of the draft Unconstrained Transportation Network that will be presented to the Transportation and Regional Planning Committees in October, for recommendation to the Board of Directors. 23

24 After the Unconstrained Transportation Network is defined and accepted by the Board of Directors, staff will prioritize all of the future projects in this network, using the updated transportation project evaluation criteria. Based on revenue projections, various revenue constrained transportation network scenarios will be developed using this prioritized project list and other factors. The revenue constrained network scenarios will attempt to build and operate as much of the Unconstrained Transportation Network as possible, given revenue availability, flexibility, and project priorities. These scenarios will be evaluated using performance measures leading to the eventual selection of a preferred Revenue Constrained Network by the Board of Directors in Attachments: 1. Proposed Draft Unconstrained Active Transportation Network 2. Regional Bicycle Plan Network RTP/SCS Unconstrained Transit Network RTP/SCS Unconstrained Highway Network 5. Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements at Freeway Interchanges Project Locations Key Staff Contact: Christine Eary, (619) , christine.eary@sandag.org 24

25 Attachment 1 Camp Pendleton MAP AREA San Diego Region Oceanside Vista 78 San Marcos County of San Diego Carlsbad Escondido Encinitas 67 Solana Beach 5 Poway 56 Del Mar 15 San Diego 52 Santee Draft Unconstrained Active Transportation Network La Mesa 8 September 2013 El Cajon Lemon Grove Regional Bike Network Safe Routes to Transit Projects Unconstrained Transit Network Bike/Ped Improvements at Freeway Interchannges 282 Coronado 54 National City MILES 0 3 Chula Vista KILOMETERS Imperial Beach 905 San Diego UN ITED STAT M EX ICO 11 2-D 2 1-D 25 Tijuana, B.C. 1 ES

26 Attachment 2 Oceanside Vista 78 San Marcos Carlsbad 15 Escondido 5 Encinitas Unincorporated County Pacific Ocean Solana Beach Del Mar 56 Poway 805 San Diego Santee El Cajon La Mesa FIGURE 3-5 REGIONAL BICYCLE NETWORK CORRIDOR ALIGNMENTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS SAN DIEGO REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN Proposed Regional Bicycle Network CLASS I - BIKE PATH CYCLE TRACK BICYCLE BOULEVARD ENHANCED CLASS II - BIKE LANE ENHANCED CLASS III - BIKE ROUTE FREEWAY SHOULDER Coronado Miles Imperial Beach 805 National City 5 94 Lemon Grove 54 Chula Vista 905 San Diego 125 Alta Planning + Design, March 1, 2010; Source: SANDAG 26

27 Attachment 3 Table A.9 Major Capital Improvements Unconstrained Network Transit Facilities ($ Millions 2010 Dollars) Service Route Description Cost High 598 Commuter Rail Overlay (Temecula to Airport ITC) $330 Speed Rail High Speed Rail - Extension from Airport ITC to International border $3,557 COASTER 398 Double Tracking (includes all COASTER improvements, positive train control, and UTC tunnel) SPRINTER 399 Double Tracking (includes all SPRINTER improvements and extension to South Escondido) $5,606 $1,029 SPRINTER 588 SPRINTER Express $284 Trolley 510 Mid-Coast LRT Extension $1,642 Trolley 510 and 520 Trolley System Rehabilitation (Blue and Orange Lines) $510 Trolley 510 Blue Line Rail Grade Separations $550 Trolley 520 Orange Line Rail Grade Separations $312 Trolley 522 Orange Line Express - El Cajon to downtown San Diego $230 Trolley 540 Blue Line Express - UTC to San Ysidro via downtown $455 Trolley 550 SDSU to San Ysidro via East San Diego, SE San Diego, National City $1,665 Trolley 560 SDSU to downtown via El Cajon Blvd/Mid-City (transition of Mid-City Rapid to LRT) $1,921 Trolley 561 UTC to Mira Mesa via Sorrento Mesa/Carroll Cyn (extension of route 510) $1,140 Trolley 562 UTC to San Ysidro via Kearny Mesa, Mission Valley, Mid-City, National City/Chula Vista via Highland Ave/4th Ave $2,548 Trolley 563 Pacific Beach to El Cajon via Kearny Mesa, Mission Valley, SDSU $1,262 Trolley 564 Otay Mesa East Border Crossing to Western Chula Vista via Otay Ranch/Millenia $854 Trolley 566 Palomar Street Trolley Station to UTC via Mid-City, Kearny Mesa $327 Trolley 510, 520, 540, 522 and 560 Downtown Trolley Tunnel $2,592 Trolley Various Downtown Bus Tunnel and Hubs $2,917 BRT 90 Santee/El Cajon Transit Centers to downtown via SR 94 (peak only) (interim service for Route 522 Orange Line Express) BRT 430 Oceanside to Escondido (peak only) $234 BRT 470 Escondido to UTC via Mira Mesa Blvd $20 BRT 610 Temecula (peak only)/escondido to downtown (Sabre Springs/Mira Mesa PNRs, Mid-City Stations) BRT 628 South Bay BRT (Otay Mesa-downtown) $200 $0 $89 A-50 Appendix A: 2050 RTP Projects, Costs, and Phasing 27

28 Table A.9 Major Capital Improvements Unconstrained Network (Continued) Transit Facilities (Continued) ($ Millions 2010 Dollars) Service Route Description Cost BRT 640 I-5 - San Ysidro to downtown & Kearny Mesa via I-5 shoulder lanes/hov lanes, downtown, Hillcrest/Mission Valley Guideway (interim service for Route 540 Blue Line Express $90 BRT 650 Chula Vista to Palomar Airport Road Business Park via I-805/I-5 (peak only) $80 BRT 652 Downtown to UTC via Kearny Mesa Guideway/I-805 $2 BRT 653 Mid-City to Palomar Airport Road via Kearny Mesa/I-805/I-5 $10 BRT 870 El Cajon to UTC via Santee, SR 52, I-805 $7 BRT 890 El Cajon to Sorrento Mesa via SR 52, Kearny Mesa $12 BRT BRT 680 and 688/ , 610, and 640 Otay Mesa/San Ysidro to Sorrento Mesa via I-805 Corridor, Otay Ranch/Millenia, National City, Southeastern San Diego, Mid-City, Kearny Mesa Hillcrest to Mission Valley Transit Priority Measures, Full Guideway downtown to Kearny Mesa, and I-15 Green Line transfer station $425 $3,302 BRT 692 El Cajon to Otay Mesa via Spring Valley, SR 125, Millenia $6 BRT 940 Oceanside to UTC via I-5, Carlsbad, Encinitas (peak only) $38 BRT - South Bay Maintenance Facility $51 BRT - Downtown BRT stations/layovers $110 Rapid 2 North Park to downtown San Diego via 30th St $38 Rapid 10 La Mesa to Ocean Beach via Mid-City, Hillcrest, Old Town $85 Rapid 11 Spring Valley to SDSU via SE San Diego, downtown, Hillcrest, Mid-City $110 Rapid 15 Mid-City Rapid SDSU to downtown (interim service for Route 560 Trolley) $68 Rapid 28 Point Loma to Kearny Mesa via Old Town, Linda Vista $48 Rapid 30 Old Town to Sorrento Mesa via Pacific Beach, La Jolla, UTC $102 Rapid 41 Fashion Valley to UTC/UCSD via Linda Vista and Clairemont $54 Rapid 103 Solana Beach to Sabre Springs BRT station via Carmel Valley $70 Rapid 120 Kearny Mesa to downtown $100 Rapid 440 Carlsbad to San Marcos via Palomar Airport Road $50 Rapid 471 Downtown Escondido to East Escondido $31 Rapid 473 Oceanside to UTC via Hwy 101 Coastal Communities, Carmel Valley $127 Rapid 474 Oceanside to Vista via Mission Ave/Santa Fe Road Corridor $49 Rapid 477 Camp Pendleton to Carlsbad Village via College Blvd, Plaza Camino Real $78 SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan A-51 28

29 Table A.9 Major Capital Improvements Unconstrained Network (Continued) Transit Facilities (Continued) ($ Millions 2010 Dollars) Service Route Description Cost Rapid 635 Eastlake/EUC to Palomar Trolley via Main Street Corridor $54 Rapid 636 SDSU to Spring Valley via East San Diego, Lemon Grove, Skyline $39 Rapid 637 North Park to 32nd Street Trolley via Golden Hill $32 Rapid 638 San Ysidro to Otay Mesa via Otay, SR 905 Corridor $53 Rapid 639 Otay to North Island via Imperial Beach and Silver Strand, Coronado $53 Rapid 709 H Street Trolley to Millenia via H Street Corridor, Southwestern College $36 Rapid 910 Coronado to downtown via Coronado Bridge $25 Streetcar 551 Chula Vista downtown $1,340 Streetcar 552 National City downtown $400 Streetcar 553 Downtown San Diego: Little Italy to East Village $277 Streetcar 554 Hillcrest/Balboa Park/downtown San Diego Loop $249 Streetcar th St to downtown San Diego via North Park/Golden Hill $139 Streetcar 557 El Cajon downtown $1,600 Streetcar 558 Escondido downtown $500 Streetcar 559 Oceanside downtown $450 Streetcar 565 Mission Beach to la Jolla via Pacific Beach $2,390 Shuttle - San Marcos Shuttle 1 $0 Airport Express Airport Express Routes 2 $51 Intermodal - Airport Intermodal Transit Center $165 Intermodal - San Ysidro Intermodal Transit Center $50 Intermodal - Otay Mesa East Intermodal Transit Center $0 Other - Other Improvements (Vehicles/vehicle replacement, maintenance facilities, transit system rehab, regulatory compliance, park and ride, ITS) 1 Capital cost to be funded by the City of San Marcos 2 Capital cost to be funded by aviation funds $8,084 Subtotal $51,404 A-52 Appendix A: 2050 RTP Projects, Costs, and Phasing 29

30 Attachment 4 Table A.9 Major Capital Improvements Unconstrained Network (Continued) Managed Lanes/Highway Projects ($ Millions 2010 Dollars) Freeway From To Existing Improvements Cost I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F+2ML $295 I-5 SR 54 I-15 8F+2ML 10F+2ML $165 I-5 I-15 I-8 8F 8F+Operational $1,130 I-5 I-8 La Jolla Village Dr 8F/10F 8F/10F+2ML $530 I-5 La Jolla Village Drive I-5/I-805 Merge 8F/14F 8F/14F+2ML $300 I-5 I-5/I-805 Merge SR 56 8F/14F+2HOV 8F/14F+4ML $40 I-5 SR 56 Manchester Ave 8F+2HOV 10F+4ML $655 I-5 Manchester Ave Palomar Airport Road I-5 Palomar Airport Road 8F 10F+4ML $1,710 Vandegrift 8F 10F+4ML $1,585 I-5 Vandegrift Blvd Orange County 8F 8F+4T $754 I-8 I-5 I-15 8F 8F+Operational $440 I-8 I-15 SR 125 8F/10F 8F/10F+Operational $125 I-8 SR 125 2nd Street 6F/8F 6F/8F+Operational $125 I-8 2nd Street Los Coches 4F/6F 6F $54 I-8 Los Coches Dunbar Rd 4F/6F 6F $335 SR 11/Otay Mesa East Port of Entry (POE) SR 905 Mexico -- 4T + POE $755 SR 15 I-5 SR 94 6F 8F+2ML $90 SR 15 SR 94 I-805 8F 8F+2ML $20 SR 15 I-805 I-8 8F 8F+2TL $45 I-15 Viaduct 8F 8F+2ML $720 I-15 I-8 SR 163 8F 8F+2ML $130 I-15 SR 163 SR 56 8F+2ML(R) 10F+4ML/MB $419 I-15 Centre City Parkway SR 78 8F+4ML 10F+4ML $210 I-15 SR 78 Riverside County 8F 8F+4T $1,005 SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan A-53 30

31 Table A.9 Major Capital Improvements Unconstrained Network (Continued) Managed Lanes/Highway Projects (Continued) ($ Millions 2010 Dollars) Freeway From To Existing Improvements Cost SR 52 I-5 I-805 4F 6F $110 SR 52 I-805 I-15 6F 6F+2ML $223 SR 52 I-15 SR 125 4F 6F+3ML(R) $440 SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 4F 6F $120 SR 54 I-5 SR 125 6F 6F/8F+2ML $140 SR 56 I-5 I-15 4F 6F+2ML $220 SR 67 I-8 Mapleview St 4F/6F 6F/8F $360 SR 67 Mapleview St Dye Rd 2C/4C 4C $570 SR 76 I-5 Melrose Drive 4E 6E $225 SR 76 Melrose Drive I-15 2C 4C $404 SR 76 I-15 Couser Canyon 2C 4C/6C+Operational $130 SR 78 I-5 I-15 6F 6F+2ML/Operational $570 SR 94 I-5 I-805 8F 8F+2ML $480 SR 94 I-805 College Ave 8F 10F+2ML $290 SR 94 College Ave SR 125 8F 8F+2ML $230 SR 94 SR 125 Avocado Blvd 4F 6F $90 SR 94 Avocado Blvd Jamacha Rd 4C 6C $30 SR 94 Jamacha Rd Steele Canyon Rd 4C 6C $20 SR 125 SR 905 San Miguel Rd 4T 8F $110 SR 125 San Miguel Rd SR 54 4F 8F $60 SR 125 SR 54 SR 94 6F 8F+2ML $140 SR 125 SR 94 I-8 8F 10F+2ML $285 SR 163 I-805 I-15 8F 8F+2ML $320 SR 241 Orange County I T/6T $501 I-805 SR 905 Carroll Canyon Rd 8F/10F 8F/10F+4ML $3,781 I-805 Carroll Canyon Rd I-5 (north) 8F/10F 8F/10F+2ML $87 SR 905 I-5 I-805 4F 8F $150 SR 905 I-805 Mexico -- 8F $1,021 Subtotal $22,744 A-54 Appendix A: 2050 RTP Projects, Costs, and Phasing 31

32 Attachment 5 PROPOSED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AT FREEWAY INTERCHANGES PROJECT LOCATIONS NUMBER HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE LOCATION JURISDICTION 6 I 15 MIRA MESA BOULEVARD San Diego 47 I 15 POMERADO ROAD San Diego 10 I 15 UNIVERSITY AVENUE San Diego 44 I 15 FRIARS ROAD San Diego 45 I 15 AERO DRIVE San Diego 56 I 15 OLD HIGHWAY 395 County of San Diego 57 I 15 MISSION ROAD Escondido 58 I 15 W 09TH AVENUE Escondido 59 I 15 EL CAJON BOULEVARD San Diego 61 I 15 MARKET STREET San Diego 48 I 15 HOV CARROLL CANYON ROAD San Diego 49 I 15 HOV MERCY ROAD San Diego 50 I 15 HOV POWAY ROAD Poway 51 I 15 HOV INTERSTATE 15 San Diego 0 I 5 MISSION AVENUE Oceanside 1 I 5 TAMARACK AVENUE Carlsbad 2 I 5 GENESEE AVENUE San Diego 3 I 5 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DRIVE San Diego 11 I 5 DIVISION STREET National City 12 I 5 W 08TH STREET National City 13 I 5 E STREET Chula Vista 14 I 5 PALOMAR STREET Chula Vista 21 I 5 CORONADO AVENUE Coronado 22 I 5 H STREET Chula Vista 24 I 5 HARBOR DRIVE National City 25 I 5 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE Carlsbad 26 I 5 CANNON ROAD Carlsbad 27 I 5 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD Carlsbad 28 I 5 POINSETTIA LANE Carlsbad 29 I 5 LA COSTA AVENUE Carlsbad 30 I 5 ENCINITAS BOULEVARD Encinitas 31 I 5 LOMAS SANTA FE DRIVE Solana Beach 32 I 5 VIA DE LA VALLE Solana Beach 33 I 5 DEL MAR HEIGHTS ROAD Del Mar 34 I 5 CARMEL VALLEY ROAD Del Mar 35 I 5 CARMEL MTN ROAD Del Mar 37 I 5 ROSELLE STREET San Diego 38 I 5 GILMAN DRIVE San Diego 41 I 5 GARNET AVENUE San Diego 42 I 5 CLAIREMONT DRIVE San Diego 64 I 5 J STREET Chula Vista 65 I 5 MAIN STREET Chula Vista 66 I 5 PALM AVENUE Imperial Beach 32

33 43 I 5 SEA WORLD DRIVE San Diego 78 I 8 SUNSET CLIFFS BOULEVARD/NIMITZ BOULEVARD San Diego 79 I 8 TEXAS STREET San Diego 80 I 8 FAIRMOUNT AVENUE San Diego 4 I 805 KEARNY VILLA ROAD/MESA COLLEGE DRIVE San Diego 5 I 805 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DRIVE/MIRAMAR ROAD San Diego 46 I 805 CLAIREMONT MESA BOULEVARD San Diego 62 I 805 MARKET STREET San Diego 68 I 805 OLYMPIC PARKWAY/E ORANGE AVENUE Chula Vista 71 I 805 BONITA ROAD Chula Vista 36 I 805 MIRA MESA BOULEVARD San Diego 60 I 805 MEADE AVENUE San Diego 63 I 805 IMPERIAL AVENUE San Diego 67 I 805 PALM AVENUE National City 69 I 805 TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD Chula Vista 70 I 805 E H STREET Chula Vista 72 I 805 PLAZA BOULEVARD National City 17 SR 125 INTERSTATE 8 La Mesa 18 SR 125 BIRCH ROAD Chula Vista 39 SR 52 GENESEE AVENUE San Diego 40 SR 52 REGENTS ROAD San Diego 73 SR 54 SWEETWATER ROAD National City 23 SR 54 HIGHLAND AVENUE National City 52 SR 56 RANCHO PENASQUITOS BOULEVARD San Diego 53 SR 56 BLACK MTN ROAD San Diego 54 SR 56 CAMINO DEL SUR San Diego 55 SR 56 CARMEL COUNTRY ROAD San Diego 7 SR 78 EL CAMINO REAL Oceanside 8 SR 78 W SAN MARCOS BOULEVARD San Marcos 9 SR 78 N TWIN OAKS VALLEY ROAD San Marcos 19 SR 905 BRITANNIA BOULEVARD San Diego 20 SR 905 CALIENTE AVENUE San Diego 75 SR 94 BANCROFT DRIVE La Mesa 15 SR 94 EUCLID AVENUE San Diego 16 SR 94 COLLEGE AVENUE San Diego 74 SR 94 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE Lemon Grove 76 SR 94 KENWOOD DRIVE County of San Diego 77 SR 94 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD County of San Diego 33

34 San Diego Association of Governments ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP October 10, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 9 Action Requested: DISCUSSION SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT REGIONAL PLAN: File Number INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSED STOP AND STATION AREA TYPOLOGIES Introduction With the adoption of the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (2050 RTP/SCS), the Board of Directors committed to development of an Active Transportation Implementation Strategy that includes a Safe Routes to Transit Regional Plan. Safe Routes to Transit projects that enhance bicycle and pedestrian access in transit stop and station areas are being identified in the development of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. Staff presented initial draft typologies to the Active Transportation Working Group (ATWG) in July. This draft reflects ATWG feedback received in July. Staff will present proposed transit stop/station area typologies for the purpose of classifying potential project areas and identifying appropriate levels of bicycle and pedestrian improvements for each station area type. The proposed typologies describe bus stop and transit station areas within the context of the land uses that surround them, as well as the intersection densities within. Discussion Transit Station Area Typology Factors: Land Use and Street Network Density The Smart Growth Concept Map provides a framework for understanding smart growth in the region, that utilizes place type typologies to describe various smart growth settings in the region. Similarly, a typology framework is useful for understanding transit station and stop areas in terms of bicycle and pedestrian access needs, relative to smart growth opportunity areas. The need for pedestrian and bicycle access facilities varies from transit station to transit station, depending on a variety of factors. Typologies help to categorize the region s 6,000 stop and station areas into a meaningful framework. The purpose of identifying station typologies in the context of the Safe Routes to Transit Regional Plan is to develop and target a set of access enhancements appropriate to the location, land use, and transit service context of a station. Typologies can be considered within the context of variables that will inform the development of Safe Routes to Transit enhancements: variables that differentiate transit station areas based on land use and urban context, and variables related to density of the street network. 34

35 Land Use/Urban Context Land Use Intensity Land use intensity is an important variable that affects the propensity for transit usage and pedestrian and bicycle activity. Centers The presence of destinations (employment centers, special use centers like University areas) in a particular area will affect transit, pedestrian, and bicycle usage. The place types described in the Smart Growth Concept Map provide a potential basis for Safe Routes to Transit typologies, as they capture both land use intensity and the concept of centers. As a framework for understanding bicycle and pedestrian access needs in transit stop and station areas, it is proposed that the Smart Growth Place Types be grouped into three categories as follows: 1. Metropolitan Center 2. Centers & Corridors a. Urban Center b. Town Center c. Community Center d. Special Use Center e. Mixed-Use Transit Corridor 3. Outside Centers a. Rural Village b. All stop and station areas outside Smart Growth Opportunity Areas (No designated Smart Growth place type) This grouping would mean that levels of bicycle and pedestrian access improvements would be consistent within the Centers and Corridors category, i.e. that Urban Centers and Mixed-Use Transit Corridors would have the same level of access improvements at transit stop and station areas. Density of the Street Network The density of the street network has a pronounced effect on the walkability and bikeability of a station area. Stations located in areas with a dense street network with short blocks and frequent intersections, such as Downtown San Diego, are typically much easier to get around on foot or by bicycle. In these areas, pedestrians and cyclists have choice in the direction they want to travel in, there are frequent signalized crossings, and there are few impediments in their route to and from a transit stop. In suburban areas, the street network is less dense. Block lengths are much longer, there are far fewer signalized crossings, and the street network is often designed in a hierarchical fashion such that local streets within the residential subdivision are often windy, they feed into a collector road that all of the local streets load onto, and the collector connects with the arterial at one or two locations. Transit stops are typically located on the arterials, which may be close to a person s home 35

36 geographically, but walking to the transit stop may require a much longer walk to navigate the hierarchical suburban street network. This concentrated versus dispersed nature of the street networks in urban and suburban areas affects the types of Safe Routes to Transit access improvements needed. For example, in a Downtown area with frequent signalized crossings, there are few locations that need additional signals. In contrast, in suburban areas where there are few signalized crossings, mid-block pedestrian crossings with signals or flashing beacons are one of the most important access improvements. The Land Use/Urban Context categories are therefore further classified by the concentrated versus dispersed nature of the street network. The distinction in street network densities, between concentrated versus dispersed is only relevant for the Centers and Corridors typologies, which would be split into: Centers and Corridors Concentrated Centers and Corridors Dispersed The Metropolitan Center typology is solely classified as concentrated, because the street network in this Smart Growth Opportunity Area is at the highest intensity in the region. The Outside Centers typology is solely classified as dispersed, because the street network densities in these areas are much lower than those found in the Centers and Corridors typology. Proposed Safe Routes to Transit Stop and Station Area Typologies It is proposed that the typologies correspond to the existing Smart Growth Concept Map place types. This framework for considering levels of bicycle and pedestrian access improvements in transit stop and station areas could potentially inform future iterations of the Smart Growth Concept Map. The proposed typologies below apply the land use and street network density variables above, within the context of the Smart Growth Concept Map place types. Examples of transit stop and station areas by proposed typology are included as Attachment 1. Attachment 1 also provides examples of the level of analysis and case study format that will be completed for each Safe Routes to Transit project area. The four proposed typologies are listed in the table below. 36

37 TABLE 1 PROPOSED SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT STOP/STATION TYPOLOGIES TYPOLOGY URBAN CONTEXT MINIMUM LAND USE INTENSITY STREET NETWORK DENSITY EXAMPLES Metropolitan Downtown San Diego Residential: Concentrated City College Center 75 d.u./acre access Trolley Station Employment: Shorter blocks Santa Fe Depot 80 empl./acre More frequent intersections Grid system County Center / Little Italy 5th Avenue and Broadway Centers & Medium to high Residential: Shorter blocks El Cajon Corridors (Concentrated) density Subregional destinations d.u./acre Employment: empl./acre More frequent intersections Often a grid Boulevard Transit Plaza area Urban Center system Encinitas Town Center Community Center COASTER Station area Special Use Center Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Centers & Medium to high Residential: Longer blocks Genesee / Corridors (Dispersed) density Subregional destinations d.u./acre Employment: empl./acre Often a hierarchical system Executive Future Mid-Coast LRT station Urban Center Town Center Community Center Special Use Center Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Outside Lower density <20 d.u./acre Dispersed access Lusk Boulevard Centers Rural Village, or Otherwise not categorized as Smart Growth Limited or no employment Longer blocks Often a hierarchical system at Barnes Canyon Road Future I-805 BRT station Opportunity Area 37

38 Table 2 summarizes the distribution of stations and stops in the region by proposed typology. TABLE 2 TRANSIT STATION/STOP AREA TYPOLOGY DISTRIBUTION Combined Smart Growth Place Type Metropolitan Center Centers & Corridors Outside Centers Transit Service Type Stops/ Stations % Stops/ Stations % Stops/ % Stations Concentrated % 55 10% Dispersed % % Sources: SANDAG shapefiles; analysis by Chen Ryan Associates and Fehr & Peers Special Cases Within each typology, there may be multiple station or stop areas that warrant further categorization; specifically, transit centers and end of line stations. Levels of access improvements will be identified for these special cases as well. Local Bus Stop Areas Additionally, guidelines for amenities and stop area access are being prepared for those areas where only local bus stops are present. The guidelines outline basic bicycle and pedestrian access needs in bus stop areas for the benefit of local jurisdictions, developers, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, and SANDAG, whenever bus stop areas are developed or improved. These guidelines are included as Attachment 2. Associated Levels of Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements by Typology The typologies provide a framework for understanding potential bicycle and pedestrian access needs in transit station areas. They form the basis for developing cost estimates for projects included in the Draft Unconstrained Active Transportation Network for San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. Each typology is assigned a proposed level of improvements, described as follows. The actual recommended levels of improvements by typology are listed in Attachment 3. Metropolitan Center Metropolitan Center station areas typically warrant the highest level of improvements, due to the density of that typology, the high level of transit service and ridership, and the dense street network. Access improvement strategies include enhancing the visibility and quality of pedestrian crossings, improving wayfinding for pedestrians and cyclists, and implementing high quality connecting bicycle facilities. The scope of pedestrian improvements could be focused primarily within ¼ mile walking distance of the station. Bicycle improvements could be focused primarily within 1 mile of the station. This would result in a great degree of overlap between downtown 38

39 station areas, so the Metropolitan Center area could be analyzed in its entirety as a sum of multiple station areas and destinations. Centers & Corridors A focused set of improvements is typically warranted at Centers & Corridors (concentrated and dispersed) station area typologies, due to lower densities and activity levels in these areas. The intensity of pedestrian improvements could be clustered closer to the stations, with a greater emphasis on signalized or protected crossings (such as using Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons) to break up longer block sizes. Access routes would still focus on connecting to key destinations within a half-mile of the station. Bicycle facilities could have a larger focus area (2 miles) around stations reflecting the larger catchment area for stations outside of Downtown, and could include facilities such as cycle tracks, Class II bicycle lanes, and bicycle boulevards. Outside Centers In Outside Centers, pedestrian improvements could focus on the block immediately adjacent to the station, or be focused toward a lesser number of destinations. Protected crossings would be recommended to break up long block sizes with additional crossings. Bicycle network enhancements in the form of Class II bicycle lanes could be recommended within one mile of the station. Given the level of usage, Class II bicycle lanes would be recommended, rather than protected or other enhanced bicycle facilities. Next Steps Staff will incorporate feedback received from the ATWG and the Regional Planning Technical Working Group. Project cost estimates will then be identified in 2050 RTP/SCS transit station areas using the typologies and levels of improvements. The projects will be ranked as part of the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan evaluation criteria process; it is envisioned that the Safe Routes to Transit projects would follow the rankings of the parent transit projects with which they are associated. Attachments: 1. Safe Routes to Transit Proposed Draft Typology Examples 2. Bus Stop Amenity Guidelines 3. Safe Routes to Transit Recommended Levels of Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements by Station Area Typology Key Staff Contact: Christine Eary, (619) , christine.eary@sandag.org 39

40 Attachment 1 SAFE ROUTES TO TRANSIT PROPOSED DRAFT TYPOLOGY EXAMPLES OCTOBER 10, METROPOLITAN CENTER 2. CENTERS AND CORRIDORS CONCENTRATED ACCESS 3. CENTERS AND CORRIDORS DISPERSED ACCESS 4. OUTSIDE CENTERS 1. METROPOLITAN CENTER CITY COLLEGE TROLLEY STATION Park Boulevard and Broadway Safe Routes to Transit Typology: Metropolitan Center Concentrated Access Jurisdiction: City of San Diego (Civic San Diego) 2050 RTP/SCS Transit Project: San Diego State University (SDSU) to Downtown Trolley via El Cajon Boulevard / Park Boulevard, Downtown Tunnel Smart Growth Opportunity Area: San Diego Downtown (Centre City); SD-CC-1; Metropolitan Center Safe Routes to School (SRTS): San Diego High School, San Diego Early Middle College Description: As a regional center, downtown San Diego contains the administrative, legal, government, business, entertainment, and cultural center, with the largest centralized, high-density housing in the region. The Downtown Community Plan contains designated land uses that will allow people to live and work near transit in pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods and will support up to 165,000 jobs and a residential population of 90,000 people. Many destinations are located within downtown San Diego, including San Diego City College, adjacent to the City College Trolley Station. The predominant land use around the station, aside from City College, is mid- to high-density residential, as well as retail and office. Street network densities are high, with frequent intersections, short blocks, and a grid street network. Transit service at the station is provided by the Orange and Blue Trolley lines, which connect the station as far as El Cajon and San Ysidro, as well as Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego. Peak period service frequency on the Orange Line is generally 15 minutes, and it is eight minutes on the Blue Line. City College Station is also an important bus transfer station, with local and express bus service that connects the station to close destinations like North Park, and farther destinations like Mira Mesa. Because of the proximity of most destinations to the stations, the short, walkable nature of the City College Station vicinity, most station access is likely to be on foot, so most of the proposed access improvements focus on enhancing pedestrian safety, amenity, and wayfinding. However, many of downtown s key destinations, such as Petco Park or the Gaslamp Quarter, are a long walk but convenient bike ride, so select bicycle access enhancements are also proposed. 40

41 Schools in the station vicinity include San Diego High School and San Diego Early Middle College. The recommendations that follow could serve as SRTS improvements for these schools. Around the Station: The area immediately surrounding the City College Trolley Station contains a variety of pedestrian and bicycle amenities that connect the urban fabric of the neighborhood with San Diego Blue and Orange Line Trolley. The majority of intersections within a quarter-mile distance of the station platform are signalized (85%), providing pedestrians with protected crossing opportunities. Some stop-controlled intersections exist, and no uncontrolled intersections are within the station area. Many intersections both signalized and stop-controlled do not provide marked pedestrian crosswalks. Sidewalks are generally accommodating of pedestrians, although occasionally pinch points exist where the usable pedestrian throughway becomes cluttered with street furniture, street trees, utility poles, and other items. A few notable areas lack street trees and the shaded canopy they provide walkers. Some bicycle infrastructure exists in the form of a bike route along B Street, and other bikeways are planned as part of the City of San Diego s July 2013 Final Draft Bicycle Master Plan, which includes future bike lanes on 8th Avenue, B Street, C Street, and Park Street north of B Street, as well as bike routes on parts of 14th Street and Park Street. Nearby destinations (the Gaslamp Quarter, Petco Park, Westfield Horton Plaza, and the San Diego Convention Center) are accessible to the south and west. Interstate 5, which abuts the north and eastern sides of the station area, inhibits through pedestrian and bicycle travel in these directions, although Balboa Park to the north is accessible via Park Boulevard, where a bike lane is planned, and sidewalks exist. Transit Service and Demographics: Existing Trolley Riders Existing Bus Riders (1/4 mi) Population (1/4 mi) Employment (1/4 mi) 14,790 6,946 34,233 15,489 Places to Walk To: San Diego City College San Diego High School San Diego Early Middle College Existing Pedestrian Facilities: 46 Total Intersections 39 Signalized Intersections (85%) 7 Stop-Controlled Intersections (15%) 0 Uncontrolled Intersections (0%) Marked Crosswalks (_%) 41

42 Places to Bike To: Petco Park Gaslamp Quarter Balboa Park Westfield Horton Plaza Bicycle Facilities: Existing Bicycle Lanes: None Planned Bicycle Lanes: 8th Avenue, B Street, C Street, and Park Boulevard north of B Street Existing Bike Paths: None Planned Bike Paths: None Existing Bicycle Parking: Two circular racks on the east side of Park Boulevard across from the station; two triangular racks on Broadway along the southern end of the station Regional Transit Connections: Orange & Blue Line Trolley Routes 2, 5, 7, 15, 20, 210, 510, 520, 929, and CENTERS AND CORRIDORS CONCENTRATED BOULEVARD TRANSIT PLAZA El Cajon Boulevard and I-15 Safe Routes to Transit Typology: Centers and Corridors Concentrated Access Jurisdiction: City of San Diego 2050 RTP/SCS Transit Project: SDSU to Downtown Trolley via El Cajon Boulevard / Park Boulevard Smart Growth Opportunity Area: San Diego City Heights; (SD-CH-1); Town Center Safe Routes to School: Wilson Middle School, Arroyo Paseo Charter High School, Central Elementary, Our Lady of Sacred Heart School, America s Finest Charter School Description: This town center area, which also spans the southern portions of Normal Heights and Kensington, includes El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue, which are existing commercial and mixed-use corridors that provide east-west transit access across Mid-City. The predominant land use is one and two story single and multi-family residential, and one and two story commercial uses on El Cajon Boulevard. This transit corridor area spans from greater North Park, the Mid-City communities of City Heights, Normal Heights, Kensington-Tallmadge, and the eastern area to the City s boundary line in College area. It is designated for commercial and mixed-use from 55 (and up to 110) dwelling units per acre in the greater North Park Plan and commercial and mixed-use at 29 (and up to 73) dwelling units per acre at major nodes in the Mid-City Communities Plan. Several infill, mixed-use developments 42

43 along the corridor are in the development pipeline. El Cajon Boulevard serves as a major east-west transit corridor for all of the communities along the corridor. Existing transit service in the area includes routes 210 and 960, which operate commuter services on the 15 freeway and provide express service to/from Downtown, Kearney Mesa, Scripps Ranch, and other points north (Route 210), and University Town Center (UTC), Kearney Mesa, and the Euclid Avenue Orange Line Trolley Station (Route 960). Routes that operate on arterial streets include Route 1, which runs on El Cajon Boulevard between Hillcrest and La Mesa; Route 7, which operates on University Avenue through City Heights, North Park, Balboa Park and Downtown; Route 10 which operates on University Avenue, with service to the Old Town Transit Center; Route 11, which runs on Adams Avenue in the vicinity of the station, connects to the SDSU Transit Center, Hillcrest, Downtown, and out to the east to Logan Heights and Paradise Hills. Station area schools include Wilson Middle School, Arroyo Paseo Charter High School, Central Elementary School, Our Lady of Sacred Heart School, and America s Finest Charter School. The recommendations that follow could serve as SRTS improvements for these schools. Around the Station: The area immediately around the Boulevard Transit Plaza provides relatively short block lengths, but only 20 percent of the intersections are signalized, so protected pedestrian crossing opportunities are spaced out relatively far given the number of intersections in this station area. All signalized crossings have striped crosswalks, most of which are striped yellow, because of their proximity to several schools in the station area. There are a few additional crosswalks at uncontrolled locations striped with high-visibility yellow ladder striping adjacent to station area schools. Sidewalks are generally accommodating of pedestrians, although pinch points exist where the usable pedestrian space is hindered by street furnishings, bus stop benches, street trees, utility poles, and other items. A few notable areas lack street trees and the shaded canopy they provide walkers. Orange Avenue through the station area is a designated bicycle route. It is planned to be upgraded to a bicycle boulevard per the City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan Update and was identified as a high-priority regional bike corridor by SANDAG. A bicycle lane is planned on El Cajon Boulevard per the City s bike plan, and it was identified as a candidate location for cycle track in SANDAG s North Park/Mid-City Regional Bike Corridors Study. A bicycle boulevard is planned on Meade Avenue, and a bicycle route is planned on 39th Street. The proposed Safe Routes to Transit improvements that follow would connect directly with the Regional Bike Network projects that will be built in the area. Transit Service and Demographics: Existing Trolley Riders Existing Bus Riders (1/4 mi) Population (1/4 mi) Employment (1/4 mi) N/A 1,079 42,071 6,087 Places to Walk To: Boulevard Transit Plaza Wilson Middle School 43

44 Arroyo Paseo Charter High School Central Elementary School Our Lady of Sacred Heart School America s Finest Charter School Existing Pedestrian Facilities: 25 Total Intersections 5 Signalized Intersections (20%) 20 Stop-Controlled Intersections (80%) 0 Uncontrolled Intersections (0%) Marked Crosswalks (_%) Places to Bike To: Ward Canyon Neighborhood Park Balboa Park SDSU City Heights Community Recreation Center Bicycle Facilities: Existing Bicycle Lanes: None Planned Bicycle Lanes: El Cajon Boulevard Existing Bike Paths: None Existing Bicycle Parking: Inverted U-Racks at Boulevard Transit Plaza Regional Transit Connections: Routes 1, 15, 210, and CENTERS AND CORRIDORS DISPERSED GENESEE/EXECUTIVE STATION Executive Drive & Genesee Avenue Safe Routes to Transit Typology: Centers and Corridors Dispersed Access Jurisdiction: City of San Diego 2050 RTP/SCS Transit Project: Mid-Coast Light Rail Transit (LRT) Extension Smart Growth Opportunity Area: San Diego University City; (SD-UN-2); Urban Center Safe Routes to School: La Jolla Country Day School, Nierman Preschool Description: Adjacent to the University of California at San Diego and its related facilities and associated institutions, San Diego University City is home to the highest density and intensity of office, commercial, and residential uses and medium-high and mid- to high-rise office towers. As of 2012, numerous development projects have been approved for the area, including 750,000 square feet of 44

45 neighborhood and community-serving commercial and 800 residential units in high- and mid-rise towers. Street network densities are lower than in some other urban areas, with long blocks, somewhat infrequent intersections, and a meandering street network. Nearby destinations include University of California-affiliated centers and institutions, the university itself, and the popular Westfield University Towne Center shopping mall. Current transit operations in the area include bus routes 31, 960, and 979, as well as a number of local shuttles operated by UCSD and nearby private businesses. Some of these shuttles connect to the Sorrento Valley Coaster Station to the north of the station area. Commuter rail trains leaving this station reach as far north as Oceanside, where a connection to Metrolink trains is available, and as far south as Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego. The Mid-Coast LRT Extension, an extension of Metropolitan Transit System s San Diego Trolley, is planned to serve the area in the future, with service slated to start in The SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the route in July 2010, which calls for a median-running section on Genesee Avenue terminating at the Westfield University Towne Center transit center. Schools in the station vicinity include La Jolla Country Day School and Nierman Preschool. The recommendations that follow could serve as SRTS improvements for these schools. Around the Station: Currently, the area immediately around the intersection of Genesee Avenue and Executive Drive displays some pedestrian and bicycle amenities. Genesee Drive contains both northbound and southbound bike lanes that connect to other nearby bicycle facilities, including existing lanes on Eastgate Mall and Regents Road. Other connecting bikeways are planned, including a bike path originating on the north side of Eastgate Mall. The majority of intersections within a quarter-mile distance of the station are signalized (73%), providing pedestrians with protected crossing opportunities at the limited number of intersections in the station area. Some intersections lack crosswalks, however. The intersection of Genesee Avenue and Executive Drive itself has a single crossing on the eastern leg. However, east-west pedestrian travel is made possible by an overhead pedestrian bridge connecting the two sides of the street. Such bridges exist in two other locations within the quarter-mile station area. While these bridges provide separation of pedestrian and auto travel, they require more time and effort to use than traditional crosswalks. Sidewalks are generally accommodating of pedestrians, although they are in places narrow, and bus stops generally occupy sidewalk space. Wider, higher traffic streets largely lack a defined street canopy that provides shade to the sidewalk and pedestrians passing by. In places, trees on private parcels abut the sidewalk, but many of these trees do not provide direct shade to pedestrians on the public right-of-way. 45

46 Transit Service and Demographics: Existing Trolley Riders Existing Bus Riders (1/4 mi) Population (1/4 mi) Employment (1/4 mi) N/A ,505 9,767 Places to Walk To: Westfield University Town Center Mandell-Weiss Eastgate City Park Friedenberg Olympic Pool La Jolla Country Day School Nierman Preschool Existing Pedestrian Facilities: 11 Total Intersections 7 Signalized Intersections (64%) 4 Stop-Controlled Intersections (36%) 0 Uncontrolled Intersections (0%) Marked Crosswalks (_%) Places to Bike To: University of California, San Diego Westfield University Town Center Sorrento Valley COASTER Station Bicycle Facilities: Existing Bicycle Lanes: Genesee Avenue; Regents Road south of Eastgate Mall; Eastgate Mall Planned Bicycle Lanes: La Jolla Village Drive Planned Bike Paths: Extending north of Eastgate Mall Existing Bicycle Parking: None Regional Transit Connections: Routes 31, 201, 202, 960, 979 UTC Transit Center Sorrento Valley COASTER Station 2.5 miles northwest. Accessible via UCSD COASTER East Shuttle Planned Mid-Coast LRT Extension 46

47 4. OUTSIDE CENTERS LUSK BOULEVARD AT BARNES CANYON ROAD Lusk Boulevard & Barnes Canyon Road Safe Routes to Transit Typology: Outside Centers Dispersed Access Jurisdiction: City of San Diego 2050 RTP/SCS Transit Project: Otay Mesa to Sorrento Mesa via Interstate 805 Bus Rapid Transit Smart Growth Opportunity Area: N/A Safe Routes to School: None Description: The Sorrento Mesa Area is a primary suburban employment center characterized by low to moderate density office parks surrounded by surface parking, limited strip commercial retail and restaurant, and a low density street network with long intersection spacing, few signalized pedestrian crossings, and relatively wide arterial streets. Existing transit service is primarily commuter-serving, with infrequent service, and limited service hours that are focused on peak weekday commute periods. Route 880 provides connections to the UTC Transit Center, Mira Mesa, and the 4S Ranch. Route 921 connects to University City, Miramar, and Mira Mesa. Route 972 is a Sorrento Mesa circulator, which provides connections from the Sorrento Valley Coaster Station through the employment areas. The Qualcomm campus represents the major employment destination in this area. Qualcomm provides a shuttle, but many employees walk between Qualcomm buildings. Around the Stop: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities surrounding Lusk Boulevard at Barnes Canyon Road are limited. The only existing bicycle facilities are bike lanes on Mira Mesa Boulevard a short distance away (outside the quarter-mile station area). Other connecting bikeways are planned for the area, including a bike route on Pacific Heights Boulevard between Barnes Canyon Road and Mira Mesa Boulevard and on Barnes Canyon Road between Pacific Heights Boulevard and Lusk Boulevard. Another as-yet-undetermined Class II or Class III bikeway is planned for this stretch of Lusk Boulevard. All intersections within a quarter-mile distance of the stop are signalized, providing pedestrians with designated crossing opportunities at the limited city intersections in the station area. Some intersections lack crosswalks: the convergences of Pacific Center Boulevard and Lusk Boulevard, Barnes Canyon Road and Pacific Heights Boulevard, and Pacific Mesa Boulevard and Pacific Heights Boulevard are all missing one leg. Sidewalks are generally accommodating of pedestrians, although they are in places narrow, and bus stops generally lack pedestrian amenities such as shade and benches. In places, trees on private parcels abut the sidewalk, but many of these trees do not provide direct shade to pedestrians on the public right-of-way. This is particularly evident on Lusk Boulevard just north and south of Barnes Canyon Road. 47

48 Transit Service and Demographics: Existing Trolley Riders Existing Bus Riders (1/4 mi) Population (1/4 mi) Employment (1/4 mi) N/A ,246 Places to Walk To: Qualcomm Offices Commercial strip retail Existing Pedestrian Facilities: 5 Total Intersections 5 Signalized Intersections (100%) 0 Stop-Controlled Intersections (0%) 0 Uncontrolled Intersections (0%) Marked Crosswalks (_%) Places to Bike To: Qualcomm Offices Commercial strip retail Bicycle Facilities: Existing Bicycle Lanes: Mira Mesa Boulevard Planned Bikeways: Lusk Boulevard, Pacific Heights Boulevard between Barnes Canyon Road and Mira Mesa Boulevard, Barnes Canyon Road between Pacific Heights Boulevard and Lusk Boulevard Regional Transit Connections: Routes 880, 921, 972 Sorrento Valley COASTER Station 2.5 miles west. Accessible via Route 972 UTC Transit Center 3.5 miles to the south. Accessible via Route

49 Station Area Typologies BUS STOP AMENITY GUIDELINES In addition to access enhancements, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) has developed a recommended practice that provides stop amenity guidelines for local bus stops, The following is an excerpt from APTA Recommended Practice: a EXAMPLES Attachment 2 1 Prohibit parking along any curb or platform where the transit vehicle will stop so that passengers have a clear path to the vehicle. The area where parking needs to be prohibited needs to be clearly designated to avoid any confusion as to where parking is legal or not. Never assume that a driver knows where not to park. Designating the no-parking zone should be by a means separate from the transit stop sign. The preferred method is painting the curb in the appropriate no-parking color. An alternate is separate no parking signs clearly delineating the length of the zone. 1 2 Construct a landing pad for passengers to board or alight the vehicle, based on the vehicle design and location of doors. A typical bus stop pad to allow the operation of a wheelchair lift or ramp requires: a firm, stable surface (concrete, asphalt or pavers, depending on surrounding materials); a minimum clear length of 96 in. (measured from the curb or vehicle roadway edge); a minimum clear width of 60 in. (measured parallel to the vehicle roadway) to the maximum extent allowed by legal or site constraints; and a cross slope not to exceed 2 percent. These guidelines should be verified with local and national accessibility requirements and with vehicle specifications. Good: Parking clearly prohibited at bus stop. (Las Vegas, NV). Photo: Christof Spieler 2 3 Connect pad to streets, sidewalks or pedestrian paths by an accessible route. The slope of the pad must meet accessibility requirements but should be the same as the parallel roadway to the extent practicable. For water drainage, a maximum slope of 1:50 (2 percent) perpendicular to the roadway is allowed. Good: Wheelchair user being let off on landing pad. (Dallas, TX). Photo: DART 4 Provide benches for passenger to wait. Locate the benches so that passengers seated on them can see approaching vehicles. Ensure that benches do not intrude into the landing pad or the pedestrian clear zone. 3 5 Provide shelters to protect waiting passengers from the elements. Do not place shelters in the pedestrian clear zone. Locate shelters so that they do not impair operation of wheelchair lifts. A minimum distance of 2 ft should be maintained between the back-face of the curb and the roof or panels of the shelter. Greater distances are preferred to separate waiting passengers from nearby vehicular traffic. Shelters should be located at the end of the transit stop zone so they are highly visible to approaching buses and passing traffic and to reduce walking distance from the shelter to the bus. Locate shelters so that passengers in the shelter can see approaching vehicles. Shelters should not be located directly in front of store windows. When shelters are directly adjacent to a building, a 12 in. clear space should be preserved to permit trash removal or cleaning of the shelter. A minimum clear entrance (doorway) of 32 in. is recommended. The entrance may be constructed as part of the path of travel, but then it must be 36 in. wide minimum A minimum clear floor area measuring 30 in. wide by 48 in. long, completely within the perimeter of the shelter, must be provided. A rider using a wheelchair or other mobility aid must be able to enter the shelter from the public way and reach the 30 in. by 48 in. clear floor area. Bad: No landing pad, no ramp, no connecting sidewalk. (Houston, TX). Photo: Christof Spieler 4 Good: Passenger using bench. (Houston, TX). Photo: Christof Spieler a Design of On-street Transit Stops and Access from Surrounding Areas, APTA, March

50 SANDAG Safe Routes to Transit Plan A minimum 7.5 ft clearance between underside of roof and sidewalk surface is desired. 5 Light shelters when existing streetlights do not provide adequate lighting. Proper lighting is important for the safety and security of transit patrons. Shelters should be designed to protect from wind, rain, wind-driven rain and harsh sun. Local climactic conditions will influence shelter design. Most shelters require both a roof and side panels to be effective. A good shelter is both practical and attractive. Bus stops and their surroundings should be designed according to the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, paying particular attention to sight lines and visibility. For example, the materials used to construct shelters should be as transparent as possible so that a rider waiting at the stop can see his/her surround-ings. Reference: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design says that bus shelters should be well lit with vandal resistant lighting and located with unobstructed sightlines to the foot-path, street and any nearby buildings. Bus shelters should be designed to permit peo-ple to observe inside the shelter as they approach e.g. by constructing shelters with one or 2 transparent or semi-transparent walls. Good: Shelter protects passengers from rain. (Portland, OR). Photo: Christof Spieler. 6 6 Use pedestrian-scale landscaping, pavement color and texture, street furniture components, plazas and kiosks to increase the visual variety and attractiveness of the station facilities. 7 Provide trash receptacles at boarding areas. These may be required even when boardings are low because of surrounding uses (e.g., a transit stop near a fast food restaurant). Guidelines for placement of a trash receptacle are as follows: Good: Light fixtures, banners, shelter, paving, and plantings establish pedestrian scale at transit center waiting areas. (Tempe, AZ). Photo: Christof Spieler Anchor the receptacle securely to the ground to reduce unauthorized movement. Locate the receptacle away from wheelchair landing pad areas, and allow for at least a 3 ft separation from other street furniture. 7 8 Locate the receptacle at least 2 ft from the back of the curb. Ensure that the receptacle, when adjacent to the roadway, does not visually obstruct nearby driveways or land uses. Avoid installing receptacles that have ledges or other design features that permit liquids to pool or remain near the receptacle (this may attract insects). If possible, attempt to locate the receptacle away from direct sunlight; heat may cause foul odors to develop). 8 At stops with high bicycle use, such as stops near universities or adjacent to bike paths, provide bicycle storage. Bicycle storage is useful even where bikes are permitted on transit vehicles, since the number of bikes than can fit on one vehicle is generally limited. Good: Trash can at stop. (Austin, TX). Photo: Capital Metro Good: Local bus stop adjacent to off-street bike path with bike racks. (Seattle, WA). Photo: Christof Spieler. Locate bicycle storage outside of the landing pad and pedestrian clear zone and such that it does not intrude on waiting passengers. Use defensible spaces that are physically and visually accessible, while avoiding areas with low visibility. 9 All bike racks must be positioned to provide 2 ft by 6 ft of space per bicycle. Racks should provide 48 in. aisles measured from tip to tip of bike tires across the space between racks to accommodate one person being able to walk one bike through the aisle. 72 in. of depth should be allowed for each row of parked bikes. The rack should be located no less than 24 in. from walls. Inverted U racks should be at a minimum of 36 in. apart. Rental lockers for regular users may be provided in addition to racks where the demand exists and space permits. 9 At sites where high levels of cyclists are currently using, or will use, the station, provide or support other entities to provide amenities such as changing rooms, lockers and shower facilities in office buildings for employees to encourage cycling and transit use. Good: Bike lockers for regular bike commuters. (Seattle, WA). Photo: Christof Spieler 50 37