THE PARADISE PROJECT IMPLEMENTING “TEMPORARY PARADISE?”

DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES

Preserving Paradise

Alan S. Hoffman Lecturer in City Planning

San Diego State University “Leadership Starts Here”

THE CENTER FORADVANCED URBAN

VISIONING

Preserving Paradise How a Better Connected San Diego Can Serve Residents,

Reduce Traffic, and Save Taxpayers Money

© 2016 by The Center for Advanced Urban Visioning 3802 Rosecrans Street, Suite 108 • San Diego, California 92110

(619) 232-1776 • urbanvisioning@outlook.com

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 iii

Foreword

This Discussion Paper is intended to stimulate a conversation among San Diegans about an opportunity we have to shape regional growth so that we solve problems, not make them worse. San Diegans are less concerned with growth per se than they are with the negative impacts of growth, such as increasing traffic congestion and traffic-related delays, parking shortages at popular destinations, higher housing costs, and an eroding quality of life. They are also concerned about the impacts of climate change and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. This paper argues that the single most important thing we as a region can do to ensure that the future is better than the present, not worse, is to create a truly effective transit system. That is our great opportunity. A truly effective transit system is one that would:

Attract significant numbers of riders from all income groups; Be competitive with—or even faster than—driving; Take people to most of the places they’re likely to go; Make it easy to get to and from places with parking shortages; Do so quickly, conveniently, and with minimal waiting; and Attract a significant amount of new development in appropriate locations.

Worldwide and across the US, many people want to live and work by such effective transit systems, ones that attract not thousands but many hundreds of thousands of trips that would otherwise jam our freeways, roads, and parking lots. Some people might scoff at the notion that public transit could be so transformative of a city and a region. They see transit as something used by others. Most people drive, after all. And nothing beats the convenience of a car, right? And yet, city after city has demonstrated the role that transit can potentially play in boosting economic development, enhancing quality of life, shifting development patterns, and promoting long-term sustainability. Transit systems that are well-located, time-competitive with driving, and that offer customers convenience and protection create tremendous value—many people want to live or work within easy access of such a system, attracting private-sector development around stations and shifting trips off of roadways. The more effective your system, the more your region will grow around it. If this hasn’t happened locally, it’s not because of something unique in the make-up of San Diegans; it’s that we haven’t yet created—nor will we be creating—a truly effective transit system. This paper explains why, and what we can do about it. Cities that recognize what effective transit can do use the opportunity to create public spaces and parks tied into the transit system so that new development has greenery and recreational opportunities that further enhance livability and value. They rebalance streets in urbanized zones to optimize the performance of all modes, be they bicycle, walking, transit, or automobile. And they

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 iv

attract and retain young creative people, the entrepreneurs who create jobs and new economic activity, people who are looking to live in the kinds of places transit helps create and support. This paper argues that it is in the interests of our region to make the creation of a truly effective transit network—significantly faster, better located, more pervasive, more convenient, and more user-friendly—our number one infrastructure priority. The better the transit system, the more it can anchor and shape regional growth, minimizing impacts on freeways, streets, and parking resources. This paper shows how we as a region can accomplish this goal by getting smarter about aligning our plans with the things that San Diegans actually value, all while saving potentially billions of dollars, meeting ambitious climate change goals, and creating some amazing new amenities for residents and visitors alike. This paper is not a criticism of any organization or entity nor of the hard work of many planners and public officials in the region to devise policies, strategies, and projects aimed at preparing for the future and ameliorating the problems of the present. In some cases, officials and advocates may see an opportunity to make piecemeal improvements, but given the nature of competing demands on their time, are unable to consider how to create synergies or take a more systematic approach to ensure that an improvement in one aspect doesn’t preclude other desirable improvements. In other cases, planners have to work within political, institutional, or budgetary constraints that limit their ability to think outside the box. Private citizens are freed of these constraints, and may as a result suggest new or novel ways of solving our problems, and engage their fellow citizens in thoughtful dialogue about these solutions. It is my hope that this paper be viewed in that light. The overarching theme of this paper is that we need to and can significantly improve the return on our investments in transit infrastructure and operations. What if we can get more bang for our invested dollar? What if we can improve the return on our investment—measured in terms of ridership growth, amount of development within ¼ mile of transit stations, reduction in per passenger subsidy, and the value of the amenities transit can help create (public spaces, for example)—by 10%? 20%? What about 50%? At what point should our region’s elected leadership begin to insist that we get more for our dollars? At what point should our region’s elected leadership act? Your suggestions, reactions, questions, and feedback are welcome and taken seriously. Please email them to me at urbanvisioning@outlook.com. I’ll do my best to incorporate your thoughts into future discussion papers. This paper is the first in The Paradise Project discussion series. Future papers will describe how the right transit network creates opportunities for creating amazing urban amenities and places, as well as how we as a region can overcome current barriers to realizing the vision of a better future. Alan Hoffman Lecturer in City Planning School of Public Affairs San Diego State University “Leadership Starts Here”

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 v

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Craig Jones of the Scripps Ranch/Miramar Ranch North Traffic Reduction Project, who spearheaded the search for a better solution to the transportation challenges facing his community, as well as to Carolyn Chase of San Diego Earth Media who worked tirelessly to help move this region toward a path that would lead to greater future prosperity and environmental stewardship. Special thanks as well to my colleagues in the School of Public Affairs at San Diego State University, without whose intelligence, feedback, and moral support this work would not have been possible. This work is dedicated to five individuals, all of whom understood why, given the realities of funding and project development, planning is less for the present and more for the future. Their concern for the region and understanding of the challenges of the future helped make this a better place for us today:

Kevin Lynch and Donald Appleyard, the authors of Temporary Paradise? A Look at the Special Landscape of the San Diego Region, among the most influential studies I know of that looked at a place and showed how to build on its strengths and shore up its weaknesses (as well as to the Marston Family that funded their work);

Former State Senator James Mills, whose vision of bringing rapid transit in San Diego

literally changed American cities in ways that are still evolving;

Leon Williams, former chairman of the MTDB, whose gentleness of manner belied his overwhelming dedication and passion to improving the lives of all San Diegans; and

Michael Stepner, former City Architect for the City of San Diego and former dean of the New

School of Architecture, who showed San Diego that it could create urban environments as compelling and desirable as its highly-prized suburban neighborhoods.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 vi

The Center for Advanced Urban Visioning is dedicated to helping neighborhoods, cities, and regions become more prosperous and inclusive through a better understanding of the long-range implications of transportation and development strategies. It builds on a community’s strengths, character, and diversity to devise plans and projects designed to maximize the return on that community’s investments in infrastructure.

THE CENTER FORADVANCED URBAN

VISIONING

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 vii

Table of Contents

Foreword .............................................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents................................................................................................................... vii Table of Figures ....................................................................................................................... x Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ xv Preface.............................................................................................................................. xxiii A Note on Terminology ........................................................................................................................ xxiii

Chapter 1 Introduction: The Challenges of the Future ................................................................................ 1 Sidebar: What Are Market Forces? ....................................................................................................... 3

Chapter 2 Goals for Transportation and Land Use Planning ........................................................................ 5 Chapter 3 Understanding Our Current Plans for Transportation and Land Use Development .......................... 7 The RTP Scenario: Transportation and Land Use ................................................................................. 7 Accomplishments of Our Current Strategies ........................................................................................ 9 Shortcomings of Our Current Strategies ............................................................................................. 10 Sidebar: Signal Priority ......................................................................................................................... 10 Conclusions: Will Our Current Strategies Accomplish Our Goals?..................................................... 15

Chapter 4 A Better Strategy: Harnessing Market Forces and Matching Urban Form .................................... 17 Evolving a Better Rail System .............................................................................................................. 17 Sidebar: Building on Success… or Just Building?............................................................................... 18 Steps Toward Evolving a More Effective System ................................................................................ 22 Sidebar: What Is a Quickway? ............................................................................................................. 24 Evolving a More Effective Land Use Strategy ..................................................................................... 29

Chapter 5 The Quickway Proposal: A Better Transit Plan .......................................................................... 30 Station Location ................................................................................................................................... 34 Station Design ...................................................................................................................................... 37 MetroXpress Network........................................................................................................................... 42 Rapid Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 44 Integrated by Design ............................................................................................................................ 48 Migration to Right Rail ......................................................................................................................... 50

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 viii

Chapter 6 Comparative Results: RTP vs. the Quickway Proposal ................................................................ 53 The Match to Urban Form .................................................................................................................... 53 Travel Time ........................................................................................................................................... 58 Frequency ............................................................................................................................................. 62 Shelter ................................................................................................................................................... 63 Costs ..................................................................................................................................................... 63 Conclusions: A Better Match to San Diego and San Diegans ............................................................ 63

Chapter 7 Evolving a Quickway Network ................................................................................................. 65 Stage One – The Mid-Coast Supportive Projects................................................................................ 65 The Uptown Quickway ................................................................................................................... 65 The North Park SuperStation ....................................................................................................... 66 The Friars Road Projects ............................................................................................................... 67 The Morena Quickway and Related Projects ............................................................................... 69 The Point Loma Projects ............................................................................................................... 70 Network Benefits ........................................................................................................................... 71 Stage Two – Job Centers, Suburban Access, and Urban “Structural Corridors” .............................. 85 First Step in Detail: Uptown 2025 ....................................................................................................... 85 Chapter 8 Potential Objections to the Quickway Proposal ........................................................................ 92 1. “The Quickway proposal relies too much on buses and not enough on trains.” ....................... 92 2. “We can’t afford all those buses.” ............................................................................................... 94 3. “We can’t afford to build all those tunnels, bridges, and rights-of-way.” ................................... 94 4. “Developers want to build around rail.” ....................................................................................... 96 5. “Southern Californians are too in love with their cars to ride transit.” ...................................... 96 6. “If we use buses we’ll dumb it down too much.” ........................................................................ 96 7. “We’re already committed to and building on an adopted plan; it would be

politically too difficult to change horses mid-course.” ................................................................ 97 8. “What relevance do foreign cities have to San Diego?” ............................................................. 97 9. “Why not just operate express trolleys?” ..................................................................................... 97 10. “Between automated vehicles and Uber, there will be no need for tunnels

and Quickways and transit.” ......................................................................................................... 99 11. “But doesn’t San Diego have the best light rail in the United States?” ................................... 101 12. “Doesn’t it cost less to move someone by Trolley than by bus?” ............................................. 101

Appendix A Is Transit Responsible for Downtown’s Residential Building Boom? .......................................... A-1 Appendix B Comparative Travel Time ....................................................................................................... B-1 Appendix C Mid-Coast Supportive Projects Project Profiles ....................................................................... C-1 Uptown Quickway ................................................................................................................................ C-1 North Park SuperStation ..................................................................................................................... C-3 Friars Road Projects ............................................................................................................................ C-4 Point Loma ........................................................................................................................................ C-5 Linda Vista/Morena Super Station ..................................................................................................... C-6 Old Town ........................................................................................................................................ C-7

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 ix

Morena Quickway ................................................................................................................................ C-8 Pacific Beach Underpass .................................................................................................................... C-8

Appendix D Quickway Design Standards .................................................................................................. D-1 Quickways ............................................................................................................................................ D-2 Stations ............................................................................................................................................... D-2 Routes ............................................................................................................................................... D-3 Appendix E Tourist Transit: The Fun’n’Sun Line ........................................................................................ E-1 Appendix F Integrated Plans: Sails to Trails ............................................................................................. F-1 Appendix G Capital Cost Model .............................................................................................................. G-1 Guideway Costs ................................................................................................................................... G-1 Station Costs ....................................................................................................................................... G-1 Contingency and LEA Costs ................................................................................................................ G-2

Appendix H Quickway Proposal Draft Service Maps .................................................................................. H-1 Appendix I Quickway Proposal Infrastructure Maps .................................................................................. I-1 Central San Diego ................................................................................................................................ I-2 South Bay ............................................................................................................................................. I-4 East County ......................................................................................................................................... I-7 North Central ........................................................................................................................................ I-8 North County ....................................................................................................................................... I-11 The Sprinter and North County ................................................................................................... I-13 I-15 North Corridor ............................................................................................................................. I-16 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................... BIB-1

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 x

Table of Figures, Charts, and Graphs

2.1 Casa Mira View ................................................................................................................................................................. 5

3.1 The 2050 Revenue Constrained Transit Network .......................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Rapid Bus Station, North Park ........................................................................................................................................ 9

3.3 Choice Riders on the Trolley .......................................................................................................................................... 11

3.4 Means of Travel to Work in San Diego for Workers 16 and Over ............................................................................... 11

3.5 Household Income of Transit Riders, by Mode ............................................................................................................. 12

3.6 Transit Travel Time, RTP Compared to Current Transit ................................................................................................ 13

3.7 RTP Transit Travel Time Relative to Uncongested Drive .............................................................................................. 14

4.1 Transit Concept for Curitiba, Brazil ............................................................................................................................... 18

4.2 Seattle’s Downtown Transit Tunnel............................................................................................................................... 20

4.3 San Diego vs. New York City .......................................................................................................................................... 21

4.4 Australian Quickway ....................................................................................................................................................... 23

4.5 Rubber-Tired Metro (Subway) in Montreal, Paris, and Mexico City. ............................................................................ 24

4.6 Phased Development of Regional Rail Using Quickways ............................................................................................. 25

4.7 Staging to Minimize Future Disruption ......................................................................................................................... 26

4.8 First Stage Uptown Quickway ........................................................................................................................................ 27

4.9 North Park Superstation & Quickway Segment ............................................................................................................ 28

5.1 North Park to Mesa College via Transit......................................................................................................................... 30

5.2 I-15 Transit Station by University Avenue ..................................................................................................................... 31

5.3 Planned Station for Executive Drive .............................................................................................................................. 32

5.4 Waiting for Transit in the Rain ....................................................................................................................................... 33

5.5 Light Rail Station Locations in Mission Valley .............................................................................................................. 35

5.6 Light Rail Stations and Major Office Buildings in Mission Valley ................................................................................. 35

5.7 Rapid Bus Station in North Park ................................................................................................................................... 36

5.8 Rea Vaya BRT Station, Johannesburg ........................................................................................................................... 37

5.9 Interior of Rea Vaya BRT Station, Johannesburg .......................................................................................................... 38

5.10 BRT Stations around the World ..................................................................................................................................... 39

5.11 Brisbane Busway Station (Australia) ............................................................................................................................. 40

5.12 Underground Quickway Station in Australia (Brisbane) ............................................................................................... 40

5.13 Modular BRT Station in Curitiba, Brazil ......................................................................................................................... 41

5.14 Enlarged BRT Station in Curitiba, Brazil ........................................................................................................................ 41

5.15 Proposed Station Configuration and Operations .......................................................................................................... 42

5.16 How MetroXpress Routes Work ..................................................................................................................................... 43

5.17 MetroXpress Route Names............................................................................................................................................ 43

5.18 Schematic of MetroXpress Airport Routes (A & Z) ........................................................................................................ 44

5.19 Quickway in Australia (Surface-Running) ...................................................................................................................... 45

5.20 Quickway in Australia (Tunnel Segment) ...................................................................................................................... 46

5.21 Quickway in Australia (Elevated) ................................................................................................................................... 47

5.22 T-Way in Australia (At-Grade Transitway) ...................................................................................................................... 47

5.23 Congestion in HOV Lanes .............................................................................................................................................. 49

5.24 Quickway Proposal Draft Infrastructure Map.......................................................................................................... 50-51

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xi

6.1 SANDAG’s RTP 2050 Transit Network for Central Zone .............................................................................................. 53

6.2 Actual Rapid Transit in the Central Zone in the 2050 RTP .......................................................................................... 54

6.3 Quickway Proposal Proposed Rapid Transit Infrastructure in the Central Zone ......................................................... 55

6.4 Automated Shuttle ......................................................................................................................................................... 55

6.5 RTP Vs Quickway Proposal Rapid Transit Stations in Central Zone ............................................................................ 56

6.6 Quickway Proposal Full Network for Central Zone ....................................................................................................... 57

6.7 Proposed Route Structure for Central Zone in the Quickway Proposal ....................................................................... 58

6.8 Projected Travel Time from Hillcrest Center ................................................................................................................. 59

6.9 Projected Transit Travel Times from the Center of North Park .................................................................................... 59

6.10 Projected Transit Travel Times from the Boulevard Station ........................................................................................ 60

6.11 Projected Transit Travel Times from Fashion Valley..................................................................................................... 60

6.12 Projected Quickway Proposal Travel Times: South Bay ............................................................................................... 61

6.13 Projected Quickway Proposal Travel Times: Central .................................................................................................... 61

6.14 Projected Quickway Proposal Travel Times: North ....................................................................................................... 62

7.1 Transit Passenger Flows, 2005 ..................................................................................................................................... 66

7.2 The North Park Superstation and Associated Rapid Bus Lines ................................................................................... 67

7.3 Friars/163 Flyover with Rapid Bus Routes ................................................................................................................... 68

7.4 Friars Road T-Way .......................................................................................................................................................... 68

7.5 Morena Quickway and Related Projects ....................................................................................................................... 69

7.6 Point Loma Projects and Proposed Rapid Bus Lines ................................................................................................... 70

7.7 Mid-Coast Supportive Projects ...................................................................................................................................... 72

7.8 Transit Infrastructure and Rapid Bus Services in Central Zone .................................................................................. 73

7.9 Mid-Coast Supportive Projects—Schematic View ......................................................................................................... 74

7.10 Mid-Coast Supportive Projects, with Rapid Bus Routes ............................................................................................... 75

7.11 Evolution of the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects ........................................................................................................... 76

7.12 Travel Time Measuring Points ....................................................................................................................................... 77

7.13 Travel Time to UTC with the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects ........................................................................................ 79

7.14 Travel Time from Fashion Valley with the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects .................................................................. 80

7.15 Travel Time to Hillcrest with the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects ................................................................................. 81

7.16 Routes Serving Fashion Valley ...................................................................................................................................... 82

7.17 Routes Connecting to the Mid-Coast Light Rail ............................................................................................................ 83

7.18 Routes Serving Hillcrest Center ..................................................................................................................................... 84

7.19 The Uptown Quickway .................................................................................................................................................... 86

7.20 Routes Using the Uptown Quickway .............................................................................................................................. 87

7.21 Traffic Tunnels in the Uptown 2025 Proposal .............................................................................................................. 87

7.22 Parking Rambla in Lancaster, California ...................................................................................................................... 88

7.23 Parking Rambla Proposed for 6th Ave between University & Robinson Avenues ....................................................... 88

7.24 Proposed Uptown Bikeway ............................................................................................................................................ 89

7.25 Washington Street Bikeway Concept ............................................................................................................................ 89

7.26 Concepts for a Washington Canyon Bikeway ............................................................................................................... 90

7.27 Proposed “Rainbow Bridge” for Hillcrest ...................................................................................................................... 91

8.1 Proposed Transit Underground Segments .................................................................................................................... 95

8.2 First Generation “Trains on Tires” ................................................................................................................................. 98

8.3 Van Hool’s ExquiCity Vehicle ......................................................................................................................................... 98

8.4 Wright Streetcar (Las Vegas) ......................................................................................................................................... 99

8.5 Mercedes CapaCity Vehicle ........................................................................................................................................... 99

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xii

8.6 Automated Shuttles in Action ..................................................................................................................................... 100

A.1 Boardings at Trolley Stations Downtown 2003-2013 ................................................................................................. A-1

B.1 Trip Pairs within the “Competitive Zone” ..................................................................................................................... B-2

B.2 Travel Time from Hillcrest Center ................................................................................................................................. B-3

B.3 Travel Time from North Park ........................................................................................................................................ B-4

B.4 Travel Time from Boulevard Station ............................................................................................................................. B-5

B.5 Travel Time from Fashion Valley .................................................................................................................................. B-6

C.1 Uptown Quickway .......................................................................................................................................................... C-1

C.2 Hillcrest Tunnels............................................................................................................................................................ C-2

C.3 North Park Projects ....................................................................................................................................................... C-3

C.4 Friars Road T-Way and Fashion Valley Link ................................................................................................................. C-4

C.5 Friars/163 Flyover ........................................................................................................................................................ C-5

C.6 Point Loma Projects ...................................................................................................................................................... C-6

C.7 Linda Vista/Morena Superstation ................................................................................................................................ C-7

C.8 Old Town Superstation .................................................................................................................................................. C-7

C.9 Morena Quickway .......................................................................................................................................................... C-8

C.10 Pacific Beach Underpass .............................................................................................................................................. C-9

D.1 Miramar College Transit Station ...................................................................................................................................D-1

D.2 Woolloongabba Busway Station, Brisbane, Australia..................................................................................................D-1

E.1 Tourist Transit Stop in Kissimmee (Orlando) ............................................................................................................... E-1

E.2 Tourist Transit Stop in Anaheim ................................................................................................................................... E-1

E.3 Proposed Route of Fun’n’Sun Line .............................................................................................................................. E-2

E.4 Proposed Stops along Fun’n’Sun Line ......................................................................................................................... E-3

F.1 Pearl District of Portland ............................................................................................................................................... F-1

F.2 Trinary Road System of Curitiba’s “Structural Corridors” ........................................................................................... F-2

F.3 Arlington County, Virginia .............................................................................................................................................. F-3

F.4 Density in Mid-City San Diego ....................................................................................................................................... F-3

F.5 Arlington County, Virginia (Left), and Mid-City San Diego (Right) ................................................................................ F-4

F.6 Linear Park in Berlin ..................................................................................................................................................... F-5

F.7 Linear Park in Copenhagen (Sønder Boulevard), Aerial View ..................................................................................... F-5

F.8 Linear Park in Copenhagen (Sønder Boulevard), Street View .................................................................................... F-5

F.9 Projected Changes in Automotive Travel Time, Mid-City ............................................................................................. F-6

G.1 Guideway Costs per Linear Foot ...................................................................................................................................G-1

G.2 Station Costs .................................................................................................................................................................G-1

G.3 Additional Capital Costs ................................................................................................................................................G-2

G.4 Sample Project Costs ....................................................................................................................................................G-2

G.5 Fully Allocated Capital Costs per Mile ..........................................................................................................................G-2

H.1 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: North County Coastal ......................................................................................H-2

H.2 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: North County Inland ........................................................................................H-3

H.3 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: Mid-Coast .........................................................................................................H-4

H.4 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: Kearny Mesa....................................................................................................H-5

H.5 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: Beach Communities ........................................................................................H-6

H.6 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: Downtown, Uptown, and Mission Valley .........................................................H-7

H.7 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: East County ......................................................................................................H-8

H.8 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: South Bay Coastal ...........................................................................................H-9

H.9 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: South Bay Inland .......................................................................................... H-10

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xiii

H.10 Master Route Map ..................................................................................................................................................... H-11

I.1 Proposed Infrastructure Map—Central San Diego ........................................................................................................ I-2

I.2 Projected Ridership ........................................................................................................................................................ I-2

I.3 “Trackless Trolley” Streetcar in the UK ......................................................................................................................... I-4

I.4 Proposed Infrastructure Map—South Bay ..................................................................................................................... I-5

I.5 Downtown Chula Vista ................................................................................................................................................... I-6

I.6 Proposed Infrastructure Map—East County .................................................................................................................. I-7

I.7 Proposed Infrastructure Map—North Central ............................................................................................................... I-8

I.8 One-Seat-Ride Routes to Convoy SuperStation .......................................................................................................... I-10

I-9 Proposed Infrastructure Map—North County .............................................................................................................. I-12

I.10 Urban Grade Separations and Transit Infrastructure................................................................................................. I-13

I.11 Proposed Infrastructure Map—I-15 North Corridor..................................................................................................... I-15

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xiv

This page intentionally left blank

THE CENTER FORADVANCED URBANVISIONING

Preserving Paradise How a Better Connected San Diego Can Serve Residents, Reduce Traffic, and Save Taxpayers Money

Executive Summary

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xv

The Challenges of the Future When it comes to dealing with the pressures of growth, San Diegans seem torn between those who believe that we need to focus on expanding freeways, and those who argue we need to prioritize transit projects and build multifamily by transit. Our regional plans seem to favor the second group, but what actually gets built looks more like the first. The truth is, both sides make valid points. But if we’re to preserve the quality of life for those who choose an auto-oriented suburban lifestyle, we have to build the right transit in the right place, so as to make the more urbanized parts of our community highly desirable in their own right, alleviate some of the intense pressure on our roadways and open spaces, and deal with the major challenges we face as a region, including: Growth, taking into account the urban-

oriented values of the Millennial generation;

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (including the City of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan);

Infrastructure, including water and sewer mains and park space;

Public Health, particularly the health benefits of walkable communities; and

Transportation, including parking and road congestion.

Goals for Transportation and Land Use Planning If we want to minimize the problems and maximize the opportunities that come with regional growth, then we need to achieve a set of goals: 1. Modal Shift. Making it desirable for people

to walk, bike, or use transit; 2. Environmental Justice. Making it easier

and faster for low-income residents to get to jobs;

3. Housing. Better matching transit with areas of intensive housing demand;

4. Bicycling. Creating effective bicycle infrastructure built to global standards;

5. Infrastructure Renewal. Rebuilding our water and sewage lines; and

6. Parks and open spaces. Dealing with the shortage of parks in our most populous communities.

This discussion paper outlines an approach to meeting these goals by a thoughtful and integrated strategy. Understanding Our Current Plans for Transportation and Land Use Development SANDAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) anticipates a massive expansion of our transit system, with several new light rail lines stretching across the region and many new “Rapid Bus” routes intersecting these lines.

How to Grow Transit Ridership A recent study by the New York-based TransitCenter concluded that cities interested in expanding transit ridership need to focus on three things: 1. Concentrate development around transit corridors,

and make the walk to transit safe, easy, and pleasant. 2. Concentrate transit improvements in walkable places

with large numbers of residents and destinations. 3. Pay special attention to increasing frequency and

reducing transit travel times.

Source: transitcenter.org

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xvi

While this expansion will certainly improve our transit system, the issue is whether the improvement is enough to produce the desired outcomes of modal shift and transit-oriented development (let alone meet climate change goals) on the necessary scale—or if the results are underwhelming. Our current transit strategies have a number of successes, including Efficiency. A high farebox recovery rate

(the share of expenses paid for by riders); Ridership. Relatively high light rail

ridership; Recognition. A good global reputation; and Popularity. Popular support. Our strategies also have real shortcomings: Choice riders. The trolley does not attract

appreciable numbers of middle-income or choice riders—those who otherwise could have driven (see graphic);

Transit-oriented development. The Trolley has attracted far less development than would be expected; and

Travel times. Even with the full RTP program, transit trips take too long.

There is also a mismatch between current and planned transit infrastructure and many of our urbanized centers that remain unserved in the plan, contributing to traffic congestion and parking shortages. Seen in this light, the RTP transit plan faces real challenges: 1. Ineffective locations. Too many rail lines

will be built in areas with limited ability to maximize development around transit;

2. Areas served. Too many existing walkable neighborhoods will not be effectively served by rapid transit; and

3. Travel time. Transit travel times and frequencies on core corridors will still be excessive, with too many transfers for too many people.

A Better Strategy: Harnessing Market Forces and Matching Urban Form Instead of merely expanding our trolley network, it makes sense to stage our way to a more effective regional rail system. This was the approach undertaken by the famous transit-oriented city of Curitiba, Brazil: 1. Vision. They designed their “ideal” metro

system, without concern (at first) for cost or feasibility, in order to define their goal and measure how close they come to it.

2. Commitment. They then located their stations.

3. Action. They rapidly implemented their ideal network, on the surface, using buses.

4. Design. They matched the attributes of a metro system (raised platforms, pay to

Household income of

transit riders (2009)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Below$15k

$15k -<$25k

$25k -<$50k

$50k -<$75k

$75k -<$100k

$100kand Up

Household Income

Below $15k

$15k –<$25k

$25k –<$50k

$50k –<$75k

$75k –<$100k

$100k and Up

MTSBus Trolley Commuter

RailFreeway

Bus

Source: SANDAG

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xvii

enter the station, multiple doors on vehicles, dedicated rights of way, etc.).

5. Innovate. They innovated to solve problems and create new opportunities.

6. Upgrade. Only then did they begin looking at how to upgrade segments to rail.

San Diego faces a unique set of challenges that point in the direction of a staging strategy: • Dispersion. We’re geographically

dispersed; • Topography. We’re hilly; and • Space. We have limited right of way

opportunities.

What would a staging strategy look like for San Diego? Here’s what we need to do: 1. Locate access points (stations) where they

should be. 2. Connect the stations as directly and quickly

as possible. 3. Build “Quickway” infrastructure (grade-

separated transitways, meaning that they avoid cross-traffic) in phases, to be used initially by rapid buses and/or “trackless trolleys.”

4. Upgrade Quickways to rail or some other form of guided, automated transit, once the pieces are connected.

This phased approach has several advantages: • Immediacy. It creates a more effective

network from the beginning; • Relief. It provides immediate relief from

the effects of congestion and parking shortages at key destinations;

• Location. It places stations in optimal locations where they’ll attract the greatest ridership and, in appropriate locations, market-driven new development; and

• Fit. It matches San Diego as it is today, allowing it to better shape future growth.

The Quickway Proposal: A Transit Plan Matched to San Diego Why has our current strategy of transit development not attracted the middle-income market? Market research tells us it’s because: 1. Network structure. Too many transit trips

involve out-of-direction travel to and from stations that often are not well-located.

2. System performance. Trips by transit still take 2-4 times as long as driving, or worse.

3. Customer experience. Stations, even those yet to be built, leave people exposed to the elements as well as moving vehicles.

These factors suggest a simple maxim by which to understand the challenge: On a cold, windy, rainy day, would you tell your mother to use the rapid transit system? The solution to attracting a broader market builds off the Quickway strategy: 1. Station location. Locate stations where

they can do the most good, in the heart of destinations.

“Quickway” in Australia

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xviii

2. Station design. Protect passengers from sun, wind, and the occasional rain, as well as from moving vehicles.

3. MetroXpress network. Implement a regional network of true express routes that leapfrog the region and crisscross at a set of “SuperStations,” so people can get quickly from most places to most places.

4. Rapid infrastructure. Focus infrastructure investments where they reduce transit travel times, making the system as fast as possible.

5. Integrated by design. Jointly plan bicycle, pedestrian, road, and parking improvements along with transit to attract appropriate development and be able to manage its impacts.

6. Migration to right rail. When the Quickways are all connected, migrate to an appropriate guided, automated technology, be it light rail, heavy rail, or other form of automated vehicles.

Comparative Results: RTP vs. the Quickway Proposal The effectiveness of a transit strategy at generating ridership may be measured by looking at several factors. Just within the urban core alone: 1. Match to urban form. The Quickway

Proposal places stations by most urban nodes, and increases the number of rapid transit stations from 10 in the RTP to 24, in addition to innovations such as “satellite entrances” that place many more people within a 5 minute walk of a station.

2. Travel time to key destinations. Transit travel times were calculated between four major nodes (Fashion Valley, Hillcrest, North Park, and the Boulevard station at I-15 and El Cajon Boulevard) and other key points, including Old Town, Mesa College, Children’s Hospital, Horton Plaza, the City

Heights Village, Normal Heights, SDSU, USD, and University Heights. On average, the Quickway Proposal reduced travel time by 2-3 times the savings of the RTP:

Station Quickway RTP

Fashion Valley -57% -23% Hillcrest -54% -16% North Park -50% -18% Boulevard -65% -34%

On a regional level, for 54 likely trip pairs,

the Quickway Proposal was found to reduce transit travel times by an average of 65%, essentially turning what today is a one hour transit trip into a 21 minute trip, attracting many new riders and reducing operating costs significantly.

3. Frequency of service. Given the design of the Quickway network, stations along principal corridors will see higher frequencies than by the RTP, meaning less wait time, and most trips will require fewer transfers, further reducing wait time.

4. Shelter, the degree to which stations meet full customer needs. By adopting a more customer-friendly station design, people will be better protected from the elements as well as from moving vehicles, improving safety, comfort, and convenience.

A robust and tested capital cost model was used to estimate construction costs of the Quickway network. It found that the Quickway Proposal would cost significantly less than the RTP transit plan. In addition, three different operating cost models projected significantly lower operating subsidies. Overall, the Quickway Proposal accomplishes several important regional goals: 1. Speed. It makes transit a lot faster. 2. Experience. It offers users a better

experience.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xix

3. Location. It places stations where they can do the most good and attract the highest ridership.

4. Fit. It better matches to our urban form. 5. Subsidies. It systematically reduces

operating costs. 6. Savings. It would be cheaper to build and

make some road projects unnecessary within our current planning horizon of the year 2050.

7. Health. It supports more walkable neighborhoods and improves emergency response times.

All told, these accomplishments show that the Quickway Proposal scores significantly better on the measures most important to San Diegans, as well as on measures related to Climate Change goals. It better preserves what people love about San Diego. Evolving a Quickway Network A Quickway network begins with disconnected pieces built where they will produce the greatest bang-for-the-buck. These pieces are then connected over time to form a complete system. The first “pieces” are suggested for zones that meet these conditions: 1. Trolley connections. They can feed and

support existing transit (particularly the Trolley and Rapid Bus lines);

2. Desirable locations. They serve areas with intense market demand for new development;

3. Underserved. They are underserved by infrastructure in the current RTP plan; and

4. Latent demand. Market conditions suggest strong latent demand for improved transit.

A three stage evolutionary process shows how a Quickway network may be implemented.

Stage 1: The Mid-Coast Supportive Projects. The first set of projects is designed to support the Mid-Coast Light Rail Trolley line currently under development. It aims to reduce the time and improve the experience of those who might wish to use the new or existing Trolley lines from the central urbanized zone as well as the beach communities. These projects are expected, together, to cost about what the Mid-Coast line itself costs; they are expected to generate significant ridership and redevelopment activity, amplifying the value of the Trolley investment. The components of the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects are: The Uptown Quickway, a 2.4 mile long facility linking Hillcrest with Fashion Valley, featuring underground stations by the Uptown District, Hillcrest Center, and the Hillcrest hospitals; an elevated station over I-8 serving Hotel Circle (with 2,300 hotel rooms within a five-minute walk); a station on Camino del Rio South; and a new Rapid Bus facility at Fashion Valley. The North Park SuperStation, including a 2200’ long tunnel beneath University Avenue (about half the length of the Trolley tunnel by SDSU) and a shorter tunnel segment on 30th Street to support a future streetcar line. The Friars Road Projects, including the Friars/163 Flyover linking the Fashion Valley Station directly with the Friars Mission Center and Highway 163, and the Friars Road T-Way linking Fashion Valley with a new Linda Vista/Morena SuperStation. The Morena Quickway, including the new SuperStation and the Pacific Highway Connector. These projects serve the community-proposed Bay Park Boardwalk and link surrounding areas to the new Mid-Coast Light Rail line under development.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xx

The Pacific Beach Underpass, linking the Morena Quickway with Pacific Beach, avoiding a major traffic knot. The Point Loma Projects, including the Rosecrans Quickway and the Sports Arena T-Way, facilities that avoid the traffic congestion of this zone. These infrastructure projects, in turn, support 18 proposed Rapid Bus routes (which are expected to evolve into the MetroXpress network) that enjoy real travel time savings and improve the experience of transit for many new riders. So in addition to the 9 new rapid transit stations being developed as part of the Mid-Coast Light Rail, we add 18 new Quickway stations and over 100 Rapid Bus stations, along with 12 miles of dedicated right of way. Travel time calculations suggest that these projects can reduce travel time to UTC by an additional 10% over the light rail alone; for trips to or from Fashion Valley or Hillcrest, travel time reductions are about 45%, enough to produce significant new ridership gains on both Rapid Bus and Trolley. Stage 2: Job Centers, Suburban Access, and Urban “Structural Corridors.” Building on

the Stage One projects, Stage Two involves building recommended infrastructure in major employment sites, in suburban feeder facilities, and in “structural corridors,” areas planned for intensive new development. Stage 3: Connecting Pieces. The third stage focuses on connecting the different pieces together to set the stage for migration to some form of automated, guided technology. Though the Quickway Proposal is focused on creating a world-class transit infrastructure, the best transit plans integrate seamlessly

Haz

ard

Ctr

Mis

sion

Vl

yC

tr

Rio

Vi

sta

Fent

on P

kwy

Qua

lcom

m

Stad

ium

Ran

cho

Mis

sion

Mesa College

Boulevard

ADAMS

EL CAJON BLVD

City HtsUNIVERSITY AVE

FAIR

MOU

NT A

VE

30th

ST

Beech

PSA

City Hts Village

Este

ban

Bahe

na

CMNO DEL RIO SOUTH

Howard Ave North

Park

Plaz

a de

Pa

nam

a

Laurel

Childrens

Park &Market

12th &Imperial

GaslampCentral

Gaslamp/ Convention Ctr

Convention Ctr East

Seaport Village

Just

ice

Amer

ica

Plaz

a

Civ

ic C

tr

C St

5th

Ave

Horton Plaza

Hillcrest Center

Mercy

UCSD Hillcrest

Hotel Circle

Fashion Valley

Bay Park Boardwalk

Spor

ts A

rena

East

Dr

Han

cock

Cou

nty

Hea

lth

Midway

Loma

Submarine

Del Mar Ave

ROSE

CRAN

S

Sea World

Belm

ont

Park

Washington St

Middletown

County Ctr/ Little Italy

Santa Fe Depot

YMCA Las Cumbres

Franciscan

Ulri

c

CLAI

REM

ONT D

R

Crystal Pier

GRAND AVE

Morena / Linda Vista

Old Town

Tecolote

Clairemont Drive

PB Gateway

LIN

DA V

ISTA

RD

ULR

IC S

T

LEGENDTrolley (Light Rail)

Future “SuperStation”(Direct Express Stops)

Bus Infrastructure (Quickway, T-Way, Bus Lanes)

Freeway-Running

Arterial Rapid Bus

“Trolley or BusStation/Stop

Transfer Point

RouteTerminus

TURQUOISE

Mis

sion

Bl

vd

City College

Uptown District

“Mid-Coast Supportive

Projects” in blue, along with proposed Rapid

Bus routes, CORRIDORS,

stations (terminus and

main line), and SuperStations.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xxi

with supportive infrastructure (bicycling, roads, parking, and pedestrian) and new development. The Uptown Quickway, in addition to being the central element of the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects, is also the centerpiece of the Uptown 2025 Proposal, an integrated infrastructure plan developed in consultation with residents and stakeholders in the Uptown communities and endorsed as a strategy by the Hillcrest Town Council and the Bankers Hill Community Group. The Uptown 2025 Proposal demonstrates how an innovative approach to developing world-class bikeways, environmental restoration and landscaping of a damaged canyon, road tunnels to deal with traffic, new parking resources to support businesses, and the right set of transit projects can together help an urban community get on top of its problems and mitigate the effects of unsupported growth. It also creates permanent rapid transit in the core of Uptown, forever changing the role and functioning of transit in that community, and is designed to meet the City of San Diego’s Climate Change goals. The improvements suggested in the Uptown 2025 Proposal, including the transit infrastructure, may be expected to cost about ½ -¾% of the RTP, for a community that today houses about 1.3% of the region’s population. The issue is not whether we can afford to devote our resources to improving our communities, but whether we choose to make that a regional priority. Potential Objections to the Quickway Proposal Any proposal that suggests anything new or different is likely to arouse objections. In some cases, these reflect legitimate concerns about feasibility, cost, impacts, and political realities.

In other cases, objections may be driven by the fear of change. In still other cases, it might be motivated by more base motives. In any case, it is worthwhile to compare the Quickway Proposal, not just to today, but to what the region would look like instead if the RTP program is pursued to its conclusion. 1. “The Quickway proposal relies too much on buses and not enough on trains.” Actually, the Quickway Proposal recommends considerable rail development for the region, and much of its infrastructure is designed to be upgraded to rail or some other form of guided, automated transit technology once the pieces are built out and connected. 2. “We can’t afford all those buses.” Because of the dramatic reductions in travel time, a single vehicle can make 2-3 roundtrips in the time previously needed for a single roundtrip, dramatically improving productivity and reducing the number of vehicles required. 3. “We can’t afford to build all those tunnels, bridges, and rights-of-way.” While the Quickway Proposal does make extensive use of tunnels, especially in the central zone, the total system cost is still projected to be significantly less than the RTP’s transit plan. It will save taxpayers billions of dollars. It is also worth noting that the RTP would require extensive tunneling as well. 4. “Developers want to build around rail.” Research in the US and world-wide found that developers want to build around fixed infrastructure. Higher-end BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) systems were found to be as effective as light rail in driving new development. 5. “Southern Californians are too in love with their cars to ride transit.” Some people will never ride transit, but multiple studies in San Diego show that the majority of residents use transit when it is convenient for them to do so.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xxii

6. “If we use buses we’ll dumb it down too much.” This has been the case for many US cities, where BRT projects become glorified city bus routes. The means of avoiding this is to develop a set of design standards that reflect the possibilities of future conversion to some form of rail/guided technology. A draft set of standards is included in the appendices. 7. “We’re already committed to an adopted plan; it would be politically too difficult to change horses mid-course.” If the adopted plan does not produce the results we as a region need, then pursuing it because of political or institutional convenience would be a disservice to taxpayers and residents. 8. “What relevance do foreign cities have to San Diego?” The San Diego Trolley was itself inspired by European examples. We can always learn from smart innovation elsewhere. 9. “Why not just operate express trolleys?” Express trolleys require additional tracks and would be prohibitively expensive to operate. 10. “Between automated vehicles and Uber, there will be no need for tunnels and Quickways and transit.” There is no question that automated vehicles will profoundly reshape transit and shared ride services. But they don’t eliminate the need for right of way, and when deployed in Quickways, the end user costs will be considerably lower than other operating alternatives. 11. “But doesn’t San Diego have one of the best light rail lines in the country?” San Diego’s Blue Line may have a high farebox recovery ratio, the share of operating costs paid for out of farebox revenues, but there is little

relationship between this measure and other performance measures (such as customer satisfaction, traffic reduction, or ridership). A high ratio implies an efficient system, but we still struggle to attract daily riders from among middle-income and auto-owning residents. Appendices The appendices deal in depth with related themes. These include: A. Trolley-driven development. Whether

downtown development could be said to be driven by the Trolley;

B. Projected travel times. Detailed comparative travel times by transit today, under the RTP, under the Quickway Proposal, and by driving in freeflow and rush hour conditions;

C. Project maps. Project profiles for the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects, with detailed maps;

D. Design standards. Draft Quickway design standards;

E. Tourist transit. An introduction to the “Fun’n’Sun” tourist transit line that the Quickway Proposal makes possible.

F. Integrated plans. An introduction to the Sails to Trails concept for the kinds of land use opportunities that the Quickway Proposal opens up in the Mid-City zone;

G. Capital cost model. Information on the capital cost model used to project the costs of building the Quickway Proposal;

H. Route maps. Draft service (route) maps for the Quickway Proposal; and

I. Infrastructure maps. Draft infrastructure maps, showing where infrastructure is proposed.

Your comments and thoughts are welcome. Please email them to urbanvisioning@outlook.com.

Visit us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/QuickwayProposal

© 2016 BY THE CENTER FOR ADVANCED URBAN VISIONING

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xxiii

Preface

The title of this Discussion Series deliberately harkens to Temporary Paradise?, the seminal 1974 report prepared for the San Diego region by visionary planners Kevin Lynch and Donald Appleyard.1 They characterized a region facing choices as to how it would grow, and whether it would use that growth to enhance and protect the region’s considerable natural and cultural endowments—or whether it would end up looking more like an auto-choked Los Angeles. This discussion paper takes some of the ideas shared by Lynch and Appleyard and asks, if we were to have a truly effective regional rapid transit system, what would it look like? And if we had such a system, how could we use it to drive growth where it can produce beneficial impacts on our communities, not just the usual pattern of increased traffic and parking congestion? Hence this series, The Paradise Project. The Paradise Project is a challenge and invitation to other San Diegans to imagine how we would like our region to look, behave, and function into the future, how we could turn growth from a problem into an opportunity. The ideas, concepts, strategies, and even detailed plans presented here are not carved in stone or poured in concrete; they are a product of a design and discovery process, not a traditional engineering approach which, whatever its merits, seems to fall short at identifying how to truly solve our most pressing issues. In the evolution of these concepts, individual elements have come and gone, as new possibilities suggest themselves and unresolved problems clamor for solution. Virtually everything suggested in this paper may be improved in some way. Likewise, many of the objections that may be raised apply similarly to existing plans and projects; in most cases, these objections call attention to areas where additional work would produce a more robust solution. In other cases, objections may be more an expression of inertia, an unwillingness to consider alternative approaches to better securing our future as a region. Those who raise such objections are invited to compare the way San Diego looks like and functions under current plans and under the alternatives presented here. They may be surprised as to which actually preserves and builds on what it is we most love about our region and which doesn’t. A note on terminology Planning, like any field, relies on the shorthand of abbreviations and technical terms that may not be readily understood by the general public. In some cases, the use of such terms is unavoidable. Here is a list of some of these terms and their relevance to this paper. Alignment. The actual route taken by or proposed for a transit guideway, be it rail line or busway. In traditional transit planning, a set of potential alignments is developed and analyzed for costs and performance.

1 Appleyard and Lynch, “Temporary Paradise? A Look at the Special Landscape of the San Diego Region.”

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xxiv

At-Grade. Roads or rail lines that operate on the surface and that cross or are crossed by other roads and/or pedestrians. Below-Grade. A road or rail line that operates below the surface, either in a trench or tunnel. BRT. Bus Rapid Transit, the use of buses to emulate traditional rail rapid transit lines. Pioneered by the Brazilian city of Curitiba in the 1970s-80s, it has become widespread in the past 15 years, with dozens of projects in cities around the world and a large number of projects in the US (though few US cities yet match global standards). The New York-based Institute for Transportation and Development Policy has created a tiered system for rating BRT systems ( gold, silver, or bronze-level standards). More information on BRT may be found at www.itdp.org/library/standards-and-guides/the-bus-rapid-transit-standard/what-is-brt/. Busway. A transitway, or road, exclusively for use by buses. It may be located in the median of an existing road, parallel to it, or be on its own right-of-way. Busways that cross local roads (such as the Orange Line busway in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles) may be called T-Ways; grade-separated busways (such as Ottawa’s Transitway or Brisbane’s Busway systems) may be referred to as Quickways. Elevated. A road or rail line that runs above ground-level, such as Chicago’s famed “L” metro system. Express. A transit route that either skips intervening stops or that features stops/stations spaced farther apart (typically, ½-2 miles) than is typical for city bus routes (which may feature 4-8 stops/mile). San Diego’s new arterial-running “Rapid Bus” lines are a form of express bus. Grade-Separation. Placing one road, trail, walkway, or rail line above or below a crossing one so that the two no longer intersect, allowing vehicles or people to travel without needing to stop for cross-traffic. Freeways are a common example of grade-separation. Guideway. A technical term for any kind of busway/transitway or rail line. A dedicated path for a transit vehicle. Land Uses. May include housing, retail, commercial, office, recreation, open space, habitat, parks, transportation facilities, or anything that represents a purpose to which land is dedicated. Planners often wrestle with where and how to locate different land uses to minimize negative impacts (such as exposing children to potentially toxic fumes) and maximize desirable outcomes (such as locating multifamily housing near a school so that kids can safely walk). LRT/Trolley. Light Rail Transit, a form of train that typically gets its power from overhead wires. Often confused with Heavy Rail, which typically uses a third rail for power, and Streetcar, which tends to be lighter and slower and less likely to be operated in a train set (that is, two or more vehicles hitched together). The San Diego Trolley is actually a light rail system, not a “trolley.” Mixed-Use. A term used by planners for buildings, projects, or other developments that place different and complementary land uses in extremely close proximity to each other. A downtown residential tower that features ground-level retail is an example of a mixed-use building.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xxv

Modal Shift. A mode is any particular form of transportation: automobile, bus, light rail, streetcar, bicycle, walking, ferry, aerial tramway, etc. Modal shift is when a person chooses to change the mode they otherwise would typically use for a particular trip. So when someone who normally drives to work chooses to ride the Trolley instead, that is an example of modal shift. Most American cities have ambitious goals to reduce the percent of trips made by solo driving, given the immense costs involved in providing the road and parking infrastructure necessary to support current levels of driving. Plaza. Not a shopping center, a plaza is an urban public space. In San Diego, downtown’s newly-rebuilt Horton Plaza Park is an example of a plaza. Quickway. A grade-separated transitway. Quickways are often built to support express bus operations, then may be converted to carry a rail line (or other guided, automated technology) at some future point when warranted. In the U.S., Pittsburgh’s busways are the closest example to Quickways, though Pittsburgh’s busways do not feature complete separation (pedestrian crossings are often at-grade) and stations/stops do not meet Quickway design standards. The most prominent global example is that of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, which has over 13 miles of dedicated Quickways. Rapid Bus. In San Diego, express buses that operate either on arterials (such as El Cajon Boulevard) or on freeways (such as on I-15 from Escondido to Kearny Mesa). Not true BRT, Rapid Bus is generally faster than local bus service. Redevelopment. When urban land is repurposed for new or additional land uses and/or intensities. In California, Redevelopment was also, prior to the Great Recession, a legally-defined process by which cities could lay claim to the increase in property tax triggered by new construction in designated Redevelopment zones. Right-of-Way. A transportation corridor, such as a roadway or rail line. RTP. The Regional Transportation Plan, or RTP, is a long-range planning document produced by SANDAG which lays out the regional infrastructure projects anticipated through the year 2050. One component of the RTP, the transit plan, is the subject of this paper. SANDAG. The San Diego Association of Governments serves as the region’s “MPO” (Metropolitan Planning Organization), responsible under Federal law for planning freeways and other regional assets, as well as assisting the cities and the County develop plans in response to projected growth in population and trip-making. SANDAG is governed by an appointed board made up of representatives (city councilors and mayors) of each of the 18 cities within San Diego as well as the County government; other non-voting members represent military, State, and Native American interests. SANDAG is responsible for developing the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which projects infrastructure spending through the year 2050. Stations/Stops. In transit, the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably; at other times, a “stop” may refer to a bus stop, which may or may not feature a bench and/or shelter; a station usually refers to a stop with a larger shelter structure and additional amenities/facilities. A transfer station is a station where passengers may be expected to switch from one route to another. TOD (Transit-Oriented Development). A term used by planners to refer to land development that surrounds or is adjacent to a transit station or stop and that capitalizes on that location by the

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xxvi

orientation of entrances and pathways to focus on the transit station. A large apartment complex built by a transit center that is designed to ease walking between the two is an example of TOD. T-Way. A T-Way is an at-grade transitway, unlike a Quickway, which is grade-separated. The term derives from Sydney, Australia’s, Liverpool-Parramatta T-Way, an at-grade transitway. T-Ways are chosen when bus flows don’t justify the high cost of creating grade separations. The short busway segment on Park Boulevard between El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue is a local example of a T-Way.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 1

1. INTRODUCTION: The Challenges of the Future

What are the principal challenges facing San Diego as it moves into the future? The question is anything but trivial, and the way we as a region address these challenges—or ignore them—will have an enormous impact on our quality of life, our economy, and our natural environment. San Diegans are often presented with two different schools of thought regarding how we should face the future. For several decades at least, these two poles have shaped much of our thought about how to accommodate future growth. In practice, our current plans reflect a compromise between the two, though some have noted that our public plans and language have tended to reflect more the second school of thought (our current regional plan calls for the vast majority of new growth to be located within the existing urban footprint), while the realities of our development patterns reflect a bit more of the first: 1. Keep doing what we’re doing. One set of opinions sees little that is “wrong” with our current

development patterns, and so continues to favor housing development in what are today rural lands, continued expansion of our freeways (“rack ‘em and stack ‘em”), and moderate investments in transit and multifamily housing. For some, our primarily suburban lifestyle is seen as not just desirable but even morally superior to denser, more urban environments, and certainly of higher value in terms of what people are willing to pay and the financial benefits or costs that flow to the relevant municipalities. For example, the Lilac Hills development proposed for a rural zone north of Escondido has been backed by some local leaders who highlight the region’s need for housing and the location of the project near a freeway, even though it represents a further expansion of the region’s urbanized footprint.

2. Change what we’re doing. A second set of opinions believes that current development patterns

are “unsustainable” and lack “resilience,” terms that refer to the ability of the region to maintain viability into the future (sustainability) and the ability to deal with the impacts of unanticipated events such as natural disasters, energy crises, or major economic upheavals (resilience). People who hold this point of view typically prioritize expansion of our transit system, widespread increases in “density,” and a major commitment toward “transit-oriented development” (TOD)2. Some also see a need to limit and charge more for parking and curtail freeway/roadway expansion so as to “encourage” people to shift from driving to alternative modes, whereas others prefer to focus on improvements to transit, bicycling, and walking to drive this change in travel behavior.

2 TOD, or transit-oriented development, is the name given to buildings and public spaces built around transit stations. Many cities around the world use their investments in transit systems to drive real estate development, and indeed this is how San Diego grew from the late 1800s through the 1930s. TOD is sometimes compared with “TAD,” or transit-adjacent development, used to describe development around transit stations that is auto-oriented or otherwise turns its back on the transit station.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 2

Both points of view express legitimate concerns and interests. Both also have their shortcomings and limitations when taken alone. There is clearly a large group of people who favor a more suburban lifestyle, and many suburban neighborhoods in our region are highly valued and obviously well-tended. But the quality of life for many people in these communities is degraded by crushing traffic and difficulties parking in many desirable destinations. A well-conceived transit network could improve these communities both indirectly (by shifting many trips from cars, reducing parking demand) and directly (a well-located “feeder station” with express connections to key destinations could give many residents easy access to destinations in the otherwise more congested zones that feature many job, retail, and entertainment opportunities).3 We have also seen the emergence of a large group of people, many of them Millennials, which is looking to live in more urban environments. This group is attracted to neighborhoods which are easily walkable (even “fun” to walk around), with street-level retail, active transportation built-in, and options to get around quickly, safely, and reliably without the need to own a car. On the other hand, those who point to issues of sustainability and climate change also have several important contributions to make toward our understanding of future challenges. We know that our region is running out of developable land, and we’ve seen some residents move to Riverside County, the Imperial Valley, or Tijuana, and then commute to jobs in San Diego County. A smarter strategy that makes it easier and more desirable to build more housing locally would pay real dividends. The challenge lies in blending these two perspectives in a way that meets the challenges of the future while preserving the achievements of the past, that seizes the opportunities growth and change will bring to the region without sacrificing the very qualities that have made San Diego such an enviable place to live. As a result, this discussion paper stakes out a balanced approach: preserving and enhancing the livability of our suburban neighborhoods and communities while better focusing and supporting urban infill development so as to minimize the impacts of growth, reduce the pressure to develop more rural land, and enhance the quality of urban life. The difference between the more “balanced” approach and the first school of thought is one of focus: rather than “filling in” whenever and wherever it is politically easiest to do so (yet not enough to counter development pressures to continue sprawling into rural zones, such as with Lilac Hills), and building light rail lines where it is “easiest” to build (and then try to “force” high densities

3Some people cite research that suggests that transit system development does not affect traffic levels in US cities in refuting this argument, though much of the research that established this perspective was conducted over a quarter century ago, and in the years since, there has been a strong uptick in new transit development in US cities. Ultimately, the big issue is growth in ridership; well-conceived transit networks that attract significant new ridership due to network effects (that is, bringing many more destinations within reach of people) measurably reduce congestion. One such study, of a proposed transit network for the greater Atlanta region similar to the network proposed in this paper for San Diego, projected a 12% reduction in driving time among the 11 most congested trip pairs examined (source: Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, et. al., “Atlanta’s Transit Future: Market Research Results,” p. 17). Other evidence comes from Brazil, where the prosperous city of Curitiba, famed for its transit system, has high rates of auto ownership but produces half the VKT (Vehicle Kilometers Traveled) per capita of Brasilia, with its similar sized population but auto-oriented sprawled urban form (source: Santos, Pioneer in BRT and Urban Planning).

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 3

around transit stations, even in inappropriate locations4), this third approach seeks to create the necessary infrastructure to support real urbanization in those areas experiencing significant market demand for urban housing (to use an example, parts of North Park); conversely, it also seeks to undo some of the damage done in existing single-family neighborhoods by inconsiderate and inappropriate infill projects in the 70s and 80s, improve automotive circulation and parking, and make transit time-competitive with driving, particularly for commuters. So, unlike the first school of thought, this approach pays more attention to market forces when it comes to locating both new development and transportation infrastructure; unlike the second school of thought, it seeks to enhance and better serve suburban neighborhoods and improve parking and auto circulation. If anything, the creation of a time-competitive transit system and better-focused urban development could have the paradoxical benefit of improving automobile circulation for those people for whom transit would not be a realistic option, by siphoning off hundreds of thousands of trips that otherwise would clog our roadways.5 It would be all too easy to take the path of least resistance—the first option—but the challenges we face—if nothing else, road congestion and parking shortfalls (let alone climate change issues)—will only grow worse if we do so, with big cost implications for residents and taxpayers. Here’s why: Growth. San Diego is expected to continue increasing in population, with close to one million new residents by the year 2050. After 2050, though, growth may slow but it doesn’t stop. There is wide agreement that much of future growth will need to be accommodated within the existing urban footprint of the region; the question is how to do so. Many areas that are experiencing high market demand, particularly by Millennials, lack the infrastructure to accept much new development without triggering community opposition due to worsening traffic and parking and the deficit of parks and people space. The One Paseo project in Carmel Valley is an example of this dynamic, though it has also been seen at work in neighborhoods such as Hillcrest and Pacific Beach. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In addition to California-mandated reductions in 4 Examples of inappropriate locations are places with little market demand, inadequate road networks, alongside freeways or freight railroads, or established neighborhoods where out-of-scale development could detract from community character. Some Trolley lines, for example, run parallel to railroads and freeways, generally undesirable residential locations that have attracted little private sector development. 5 Ridership modelling of the proposals discussed later in this paper show a shift of that scale.

What Are Market Forces? “Market forces” refer to what people in San Diego choose when it comes to their decisions as to where to live and how to get around. If, for example, a developer builds an apartment building in what the market considers an undesirable location, the developer might have to lower the rent to attract enough people to fill the building, because there is weak market demand to live in that location. If that developer manages to build a new apartment building in an area like downtown San Diego’s East Village, areas with strong market demand, people will want to live in that building and will pay a premium to do so. Smart development strategies understand and work with market forces to direct infrastructure investments into areas where market demand is strong. San Diego has mostly placed light rail stations in areas with generally weak market demand, since many people would prefer not to live by freight railroads or adjacent to freeways with their air quality and noise issues.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 4

greenhouse gas emissions, the mayor of San Diego has proposed an ambitious Climate Action Plan which calls for major shifts in how residents of San Diego are expected to get around. In contrast, it isn’t clear if our adopted regional plans will truly achieve legislated 2030 targets, but even if they do, they fail to maintain those targets in subsequent years (let alone more stringent targets), and they don’t come close to meeting the goals of the Climate Action Plan. Infrastructure. Many highly urbanized areas of the City of San Diego suffer from decades of deferred maintenance and the need to renew major water and sewer infrastructure. In addition, there is an acute shortage of park space in many densely populated neighborhoods in the City—a shortage that will only grow worse with increased population. Might it be possible to direct transportation investments so that they help with water and sewer improvements at the same time? This paper argues that this is not only desirable, it is possible, significantly reducing costs to taxpayers. Public Health. Research has increasingly shown that compact, mixed-use environments lead residents to walk more, reducing obesity levels and contributing to a decrease in chronic diseases such as diabetes which are linked to sedentary lifestyles.6 Transportation. Parking shortages are growing acute in many parts of the region, and roadway congestion continually worsens. The nearly $204 billion Regional Transportation Plan aims to reduce congestion levels by 2030, but congestion worsens afterward. The problem is not just with freeways, but increasingly with arterials. There is also some recognition of the need to provide appropriate infrastructure for bicycling, walking, and transit, but much of the current planning for these alternative modes seeks to shoehorn such infrastructure around existing and planned auto infrastructure, producing plans and projects that are underwhelming and not likely to lead to significant “modal shift” (people choosing to use transit, bicycle, walk, or carpool instead of driving solo). And without significant modal shift, the region will be expected to add 37 square miles of new parking,7 a massive expense (estimated to cost tens of billions of dollars) not accounted for in the Regional Transportation Plan. An additional, related challenge, is that the Millennials—the generation born in the period of 1982-20048—appear to hold different values than previous generations when it comes to living environments (they are more urban-focused) and transportation choices (they are less auto-centric, more open to transit, shared ride, and active transportation modes); planning and modelling frameworks have yet to catch up to the values of this generation or to create the kinds of neighborhoods that would attract this entrepreneurial group.

6 Carlson, “America’s Health Threat: Poor Urban Design.”. See also Litman, “Integrating Public Health Objectives in Transportation Decision-Making.” 7 City of San Diego, Strategic Framework Element. 8 Bump, “Here Is When Each Generation Begins and Ends, According to Facts.”

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 5

2. GOALS FOR TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLANNING

If we are to mitigate the negatives and accentuate the positives that regional growth and changes are bringing to the region, then the following goals must be achieved. 1. Modal shift. It will be necessary to shift large numbers of travelers from single-occupancy

automobiles to other modes. The question is, can this be done primarily through the provision of attractive alternatives, or does it require coercive measures (such as increasing parking costs and limiting parking supply)?

2. Environmental justice. While it will be necessary to attract a much larger number of middle-

income riders to transit, it will also be necessary to provide lower-income residents better connectivity to jobs, shopping, and recreational opportunities, and to do so in less time, so that such residents can spend less time commuting (often to multiple jobs) and more time with their families—a huge benefit not just to the affected families but to society as a whole.9

3. Housing. While some housing has been built as “transit-oriented” or “transit-adjacent”

development, too much multi-family housing is being built too far from rapid transit stations (Figure 2.1). At the same time, too much transit infrastructure has been developed or is planned for locations with relatively weak market demand for housing (or limited ability to build much additional housing). An effective transit network should provide the backbone for significant development of market-rate housing.

FIGURE 2.1 – CASA MIRA VIEW

The Casa Mira View development in Mira Mesa will have well over 2000 residential units upon completion, all of which are beyond a ½ mile (10 minute) walk of the new Miramar College transit center.

4. Bicycling. As our experience to date should make clear, it is not enough to provide bike lanes on

roads, however extensive (such as along the major arterials in eastern Chula Vista), as such

9 For every 5 minutes we can save someone on their one-way commute, we hand back to them a work week’s worth of time every year (5 minutes each way = 10 minutes/day = 50 minutes/week; at 48 work weeks a year, that equals 40 hours a year).

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 6

lanes do not provide adequate safety to riders and must still contend with grades that exceed what many would consider comfortable or even feasible. The San Diego region should commit to developing a core greenway (grade-appropriate separated bicycle facilities integrated with appropriate landscaping) infrastructure designed to move significant numbers of bicyclists at free-flowing speeds over reasonably long distances with minimal conflicts with other vehicles or pedestrians, connecting major residential concentrations with major employment nodes.10

5. Infrastructure renewal. Given that San Diego must renew water and sewer lines, it makes sense

to group these projects with transit projects, especially if digging is involved, as there are both cost-savings involved as well as opportunities to leverage additional state and federal funds. In essence, the transit project can help pay for the water and sewer project, and vice versa, potentially saving the region millions and possibly billions of dollars.

6. Parks and open space. To meet the shortage of park space in many older communities, as well as

increase the market attractiveness of new residential development, new parklands will need to be developed. If at least some of these parks and people spaces can be created and paid for by transportation projects, the region can score another big win. If some of this new parkland is in the form of linear parks, more residents would be within 750 feet of park space, other park and open space assets could be connected, and active recreation facilitated (with notable environmental and public health benefits).

This discussion paper outlines a strategy as to how all of these goals may be met by a thoughtful and integrated approach to developing transit.

10 It is worth noting that the new commuting bikeway facility being built along I-15 between Adams Avenue and Camino del Rio South in Mission Valley maintains an average grade of 4.8%, more than 50% outside of global bikeway standards, which call for sustained slopes not to exceed 3% (The California Highway Design Manual recommends sustained grades not to exceed 2%). While the use of electric and electric-assist bikes may make such facilities easier to use, such bikes are still expensive and are no substitute for bike paths that people can bicycle under their own power.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 7

3. UNDERSTANDING OUR CURRENT PLANS FOR TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE DEVELOPMENT

The RTP Scenario: Transportation and Land Use The Regional Transportation Plan11 (RTP) anticipates a massive expansion to the light rail system along with an extensive network of both arterial and freeway-running Rapid Bus lines (Figure 3.1). The RTP anticipates approximately $20 billion in transit capital projects, a little over 2/3 of which is trolley expansion; SANDAG claims that about half of the latest RTP is devoted to transit in some form or another. The “theory of transit” underlying the RTP can be understood as follows: the region is served by a light rail spine, with stations typically spaced a mile apart (closer in denser areas, possibly farther apart in other zones). These light rail lines are supplemented by a network of “Rapid Buses” along major arterials, which feature stops approximately ½ to 1 mile apart, specially-designed shelters on “pop-outs” (Rapid Buses stop in their travel lane, Figure 3.2), signal priority at intersections, and relatively high frequencies (10 minutes peak, 15 off-peak)12. In addition, freeway-running express buses supplement the system, providing travel times comparable to the light rail. By blanketing the region with these services, it should be possible for a large share of the region’s residents to access many of the region’s key destination entirely on this “premium” network. To deal with the “last mile problem” (typically understood as people traversing the distance between their closest transit station/stop and their home, when it is beyond a comfortable or feasible walking distance), SANDAG is working on developing a set of “mobility hubs” that will support services to facilitate the last mile, such as shared ride services, bike rentals, etc. The strategy sounds reasonable enough. By 2050, a person should be able to travel around the region on a much improved transit system in less time than it takes today. What’s more, transit as a whole anchors the region’s growth strategy, as much development (particularly housing) is located along bus, Rapid Bus, and light rail lines. Many tens, if not hundreds of thousands of residents will live within walking distance of a premium transit service. There can be no question that this is an improvement over the present-day system; the issue is whether the improvement is enough to produce the desired outcomes of modal shift and transit-oriented development (let alone climate change goals) on the necessary scale—or if the results are underwhelming.

11 Adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors on October 8, 2015. www.sdforward.com. 12 Research among transit riders in the US and Europe has found that riders consider maximum wait times of 10 minute or shorter as “frequent,” while most US transit agencies use 15 minutes as a common standard. In this case, transit agencies are responding to the very significant additional costs that go into cutting headways from 15 to 10 minutes, not market perceptions.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 8

FIGURE 3.1 – THE 2050 REVENUE CONSTRAINED TRANSIT NETWORK

The RTP puts the bulk of its transit resources into several new light rail (Trolley) lines, supplemented by arterial “Rapid Bus” and freeway-running rapid bus.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 9

FIGURE 3.2 – RAPID BUS STATION, NORTH PARK

Rapid Bus Stations are built on “pop-outs”; the bus stops in the travel lane when boarding or dropping off passengers. Otherwise, regular traffic uses that lane, passing just feet from waiting passengers.

Accomplishments of Our Current Strategies Our current strategies have several notable accomplishments to their credit. Among these are: 1. Farebox recovery rate. The San Diego Trolley enjoys a very high farebox recovery rate (the share

of operating expenses paid for out of fare revenue). While there are many factors that contribute to this (such as wages and the types of fares riders purchase), it is also a testament to the efficiency of the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and San Diego Trolley, Inc.

2. Ridership. The San Diego Trolley is the fourth busiest light rail system in the nation (and tenth

busiest rail system, if one includes heavy rail such as BART or LA’s subway).13 3. Reputation. The San Diego Trolley enjoys a positive global reputation. It is also credited with

leading the light rail renaissance in the United States. 4. Popular support. The Trolley seems to enjoy broad political support. These are real accomplishments and deserve to be recognized. However, they only tell part of the story; for transit to effectively shape regional growth, it will need to accomplish far more.

13 Source: American Public Transit Association, Transit Ridership Report, Second Quarter of 2015. Other rail systems are typically heavy rail (subway or elevated).

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 10

Shortcomings of Our Current Strategies In addition to the accomplishments listed above, there are shortcomings that must also be considered in any fair analysis of the performance of our transit network. 1. Modal shift. The trolley has not produced a significant shift of people from auto to transit

(Figure 3.3). Data compiled and published by SANDAG shows that the percentage of trolley riders who “had access to an automobile” has remained static at 35% of riders, just 10% higher than the MTS bus system, in surveys taken in 1995, 2003, and 2009, this despite the opening of four trolley extensions (Santee in 1995, Old Town in 1996, Mission Valley West in 1997, and Mission Valley East in 2005). Some peer cities, such as St. Louis, have achieved much higher ridership among those who would otherwise drive. 14

Put another way, of the approximately 120,000 daily trips made on the Trolley, “choice riders”

account for about 42,000 trips, about 12,000 more than would typically ride the bus. But since each transfer is counted as a separate trip, a person riding the Orange Line to the Blue Line would count as two trips each way, or four trips for their round trip. If half of all trolley trips involve a transfer, and the average rider makes a round trip, then we would expect each rider to make an average of 3 trips a day, meaning that those 12,000 trips would be made by about 4,000 people total (and all 42,000 “choice” trips made by 14,000 people)—this, in a region with over 3.3 million residents.15

This analysis is not a criticism of anything or anyone, but an attempt to understand the data.

And the data suggests we haven’t yet learned how to attract appreciable numbers of people to transit who would otherwise drive.

Of even greater concern, transit’s mode share—the percent of trips made by transit—has actually declined, going from 3.4% of commute trips in 2000 to 2.7% of commute trips in 2014 (Figure 3.4); even more alarming, the share of people carpooling has dropped significantly, even with the major investment made by the region in managed and HOV lanes.16

14 Rhendress, et. al., “Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation,” p. 18. 15 If the average choice passenger makes zero transfers but averages one roundtrip a day, then the numbers would increase to 6,000 “new” riders and 21,000 total choice passengers. 16 Source: US Census, cited in Kim, “San Diego Needs Transit More Than Ever — and SANDAG’s Plan Doesn’t Have Enough.”

Signal Priority “Signal Priority” systems are not signal overrides. Rather, they typically extend a green light or shorten a red light by several seconds if the intersection detects an approaching transit vehicle, then shorten (or extend) the light on the “recovery” cycle. As an example, if a bus is about to arrive at an intersection 5 seconds after the light would normally turn red, the signal controller might “hold” the green light an extra 6-7 seconds, then shorten the next green light to provide cross traffic with the same amount of green time. Signal Priority systems tend to work best in corridors with about 12 or fewer buses per hour, so that each “hold” is followed by a “recovery” cycle.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 11

FIGURE 3.3 – CHOICE RIDERS ON THE TROLLEY

Even with major system expansion (Old Town, Mission Valley West, Mission Valley East, and Santee—essentially, most of today’s Green Line), the Trolley has not increased its share of riders who claimed they had access to an automobile, which, at 35%, is marginally more than the 25% found on city buses, but far short of cities such as St. Louis, where choice riders are about 85% of passengers.

FIGURE 3.4 – MEANS OF TRAVEL TO WORK IN SAN DIEGO FOR WORKERS 16 AND OVER

Source: US Census

2. Attracting the middle-income market. An analysis of the income profile of trolley riders (using

SANDAG-published data) shows a nearly identical income profile to that of MTS bus riders, with 80% of riders coming from households with annual earnings under $50,000 and a majority coming from households earning less than $25,000 a year (Figure 3.5). By means of contrast, both the Coaster Commuter Rail and the I-15 Commuter Express Buses saw the majority of their ridership come from households earning over $75,000 annually.

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

City Bus

(25%)

0% 1995 2003

% of Trolley Riders Who “Had an Auto Available” for Their Trip

2009Source: SANDAG

1990 2000 2014

Drove alone 70.9% 73.9% 76.1%

Carpool 13.8% 13.0% 8.7%

Public Transportation 3.2% 3.4% 2.7%

Walk 4.5% 3.4% 2.9%

Bicycle 0.9% 0.6% 0.8%

Taxicab, motorcycle, other 1.8% 1.4% 1.4%

Worked at home 5.0% 4.4% 7.5%

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 12

FIGURE 3.5 – HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF TRANSIT RIDERS, BY MODE

While the Coaster commuter train and the I-15 freeway-running commuter express buses attract an overwhelmingly middle-income market, the Trolley attracts virtually the identical market as the MTS bus, with 80% of riders coming from households earning under $50,000/year and well over half from households earning less than $25,000/year. SANDAG is working on an update to this data, which should be published shortly.

While it is true that both the Coaster and the I-15 Commuter Express Buses serve more affluent

areas than does much (but not all) of the trolley, an effective rapid transit system should expect to see significant penetration into the middle-income market.

3. Transit-oriented development. The San Diego Trolley has attracted some degree of “transit-

oriented development” (TOD) and “transit-adjacent development” (TAD), with major projects located at Santee, Grossmont, downtown La Mesa, Rio Vista, Linda Vista/Morena, and the downtown San Diego core. Still, there has been far less development centered around our light rail stations than we’ve seen in peer cities (such as Dallas, Portland, or Denver, let alone development along the DC Metro); worse, far more multifamily development in the region has taken place beyond a ¼ mile walk, let alone a ½ mile walk, of a trolley or Rapid Bus station/stop.17 The assertion that downtown residential development was driven in some major way by the trolley is addressed in Appendix A, “Is Transit Responsible for Downtown’s

17 If anything, most of the major multifamily projects built outside of downtown over the past several years are not within an accepted walking distance (typically, ¼ mile or a 5-minute walk) of a light rail or BRT station. These include the ≈2300 unit Casa Mira View project in Mira Mesa (Figure 2.1), the 444 unit Verge Apartments out Mission Gorge Road, the 360 unit Broadstone Corsair project on Aero Drive in Serra Mesa, and the nearly 5000 unit Civita project in Mission Valley.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 13

Residential Building Boom?” (The short answer is that data on trolley boardings does not support this claim).

4. Travel time. While the RTP promises a reduction in travel time for many regional transit trips,

the question is whether this reduction is sufficient to attract enough choice riders to make the entire transit/land use strategy successful.

FIGURE 3.6 – TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME, RTP COMPARED TO CURRENT TRANSIT

The graph above shows travel time under the RTP relative to current transit travel time. For example, under the RTP plan, transit travel time from Hillcrest to Normal Heights will be about 10% faster (about 90% of current transit travel time). While the RTP is projected to reduce transit travel times, for the four centrally-located points given, travel time reductions average just 19%.18 In the case of Fashion Valley to Old Town, the increase in travel time is due to an expected new intervening stop in the Riverwalk golf course, which is projected to be developed by 2050. Travel time from Boulevard Station to Fashion Valley and Old Town assumes a new transfer station by the San Diego Mission Station; should that transfer station not be developed, travel times will be significantly greater.

How fast will the RTP’s transit system be? We can look to the performance of the existing system to gain some insight.19 Improvements to our light rail system (the more widespread use

18 Travel times for the RTP were projected using the following assumptions: 8 am weekday departure; arterial travel time reduction of 16% for Rapid Bus routes (based on performance of existing Rapid Bus route #215); and light rail along Park Blvd and El Cajon Blvd traveling at the maximum speed limit for those roadways (35 mph) but complete signal override (zero signal delay, which may or may not be possible). 19 It is entirely possible that future implementation of advanced signal priority systems (traffic control systems that give buses green lights more often) might boost transit speeds further, but experience nationwide with these systems has been mixed, with travel time improvements varying widely; furthermore, such systems lose effectiveness when bus headways—the space between buses—decrease below five minutes.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

HortonPlaza

HillcrestCentral

City HtsVillage

NormalHts

NorthPark

BoulevardStation

FashionValley

USD SDSU Old Town UniversityHeights

Transit Travel Time:RTP vs. Current (100%)

From Hillcrest From North Park From Boulevard Station From Fashion Valley

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 14

of low-floor vehicles, which speed boarding, particularly for those in wheelchairs) have improved the average through-speed of the trolley from 23-24 mph to 25-27 mph outside of downtown.20 The first Rapid Bus line averages 12 mph for the segment College & El Cajon to Park & University during the AM commute, a savings of 4 minutes from the local bus (from 30 to 26 minutes, a 13% improvement; experience in Los Angeles with their Metro Rapid network points to speed improvements in the range of 15-25% over the conventional bus network, with the lower figure being closer to the norm). Freeway-running Rapid Buses are highly variable in the peak period, where congestion can affect managed and HOV lanes (see Figure 5.23), and off-corridor stations impose a travel-time burden as vehicles must access these from the freeway, a non-trivial increase in travel time.

FIGURE 3.7 – RTP TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME RELATIVE TO UNCONGESTED DRIVE21

On average, the RTP reduces the relative time of a transit trip among these 40 likely trip pairs from 2.6 times longer than an uncongested drive to 2.1 times longer—a definite improvement, but still a long way off from being truly competitive. For the scale of resources we are expecting to devote to transit, can we achieve better?

Overall, it may be estimated that the RTP will produce a 15-25% decrease in transit travel times (likely origins to likely destinations) (see Figures 3.6 and 3.7), a significant improvement over the current network, but still about 1.5-3 times longer than driving door-to-door; as a result, while system ridership is expected to at least double, it will fall short of the kind of market penetration seen in cities with faster, more competitive systems.

20 Three representative segments (the San Ysidro Border to 24th Street, El Cajon to Encanto, and Grossmont to Fashion Valley), along with scheduled travel time from Google Maps (accessed 29 February 2016) were used for these calculations. 21 Congested drive times vary widely. Also, the author has noted that people tend to compare transit travel times to their best auto travel time, not their expected auto travel time.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

HortonPlaza

HillcrestCentral

City HtsVillage

NormalHts

NorthPark

BoulevardStation

FashionValley

USD SDSU Old Town UniversityHeights

Transit Travel Time Relative to Uncongested Drive:2050 RTP

From Hillcrest From North Park From Boulevard Station From Fashion Valley

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 15

5. Areas served. While the RTP, to its credit, expands transit services in many communities, its overreliance on arterial “Rapid Bus” (which, as we have seen, offers only relatively modest improvements in travel time, not the kind of significant improvement required to make transit services competitive with driving) means that many of the region’s densest, most walkable neighborhoods will see only a few locations that will be served by transit infrastructure (rail or busway). West of I-5, the beach communities will see just one light rail line (in Pacific Beach, likely along Grand Avenue, though SANDAG is exploring the possibilities of using an aerial tramway to provide that link). Uptown gets no rapid transit infrastructure. All of Mid-City San Diego, including the neighborhoods of University Heights, Normal Heights, North Park, City Heights, Kensington, and eastern communities, will only see current Rapid Bus stops along El Cajon and Park Boulevards upgraded to light rail, meaning only a small percentage of residents will live within ¼ mile access of a station. Research in American cities has clearly demonstrated that “some of the richest growth opportunities for transit are in improving frequency and transit speeds in places that are already pedestrian-friendly [emphasis added] and where there are multiple destinations within walking distance.”22

How important are these issues to the success of future transit in San Diego? Research published in 2016 on transit passengers in 17 US cities confirms the importance of these factors.23 The authors of that study make these policy recommendations to expand transit ridership on the basis of the research:

1. Concentrate development around transit corridors, and make the walk to transit safe, easy, and pleasant.

2. Concentrate transit improvements in walkable places with large numbers of residents and destinations.

3. Pay special attention to increasing frequency and reducing transit travel times.

Conclusion: Will Our Current Strategies Accomplish Our Goals? The San Diego Trolley has had some very real success in moving passengers; data from the American Public Transit Association (APTA)24 show that, for Q4 of FY2013, the San Diego Trolley was the 4th busiest light rail system in the nation (though only the 12th most highly utilized light rail on a passengers-per-mile basis), with average daily boardings of 119,800 unlinked trips.25 22 Steven Higashide, et. al., “Who’s On Board 2016: What Today’s Riders Teach Us About Transit That Works.” 23 An article reporting on this research offered this summary: “getting places quicker once on board is the service improvement riders want most. ‘The fundamentals of travel time and frequency are priorities across the income spectrum,’ said [lead author] Steven Higashide.” [emphasis added] Angie Schmitt, “The “Choice” vs. “Captive” Transit Rider Dichotomy Is All Wrong.” 24 American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Transit Ridership Report Fourth Quarter and End-of-Year 2014. 25 As discussed earlier, a passenger making a transfer from the Orange line to the Blue line, for example, would count as two trips by this reporting method, and their roundtrip count as four trips.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 16

On the other hand, the trolley has not achieved major penetration of either the choice market (people with access to automobiles) or the middle-income market, nor has the level and intensity of development driven by the trolley matched the potential.26 In terms of the three central factors identified by TransitCenter for building ridership (they also suggest improved shelters, reduced transfers, live information, and easier payments as important factors), the RTP transit plan, even with its extensive investments in transit, still falls short:

1. Too many light rail lines will be built in areas with limited ability to maximize development around transit;

2. Too many existing walkable neighborhoods will not be effectively served by rapid transit.

3. Transit travel times and frequencies on core corridors will still be excessive, with too many transfers for too many people.

San Diego’s long-range growth and transportation strategies, built on the notion of modal shift, depend on transit (including local buses) exerting a much stronger force on market demand. In the absence of consistent and clear evidence of this occurring—and given that the massive planned increase in transit still does not produce a system time competitive with driving—it is doubtful that current strategies will achieve the ambitious goals set out by the region, at a cost that will include increasing auto congestion, increasing parking shortages, increased housing costs (as communities continue to battle new development, given the inability of transit investments to make meaningful contributions to reducing the traffic and parking demands of such projects), and the need for far more expensive new road and freeway projects.

26 The UC Berkeley Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment recently ranked San Diego tied with Santa Clara for worst transit/land use integration in the state of California. As Ethan Elkind, associate director of the Center’s Climate Change and Business program, said: “So the challenge, as the data shows in San Diego, is you don't have a lot people within the half mile area who are using transit… You don't have a lot of walkable neighborhoods in that half mile radius. And you don't have a lot of jobs and homes that are really clustered around the rail transit network." In Anderson, “San Diego Transit Stations Get Poor Grades.”

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 17

4. A BETTER STRATEGY: Harnessing Market Forces and Matching Urban Form

Evolving a Better Rail System We have seen how the current RTP, which attempts to significantly expand the light rail network, still fails to create a transit system that is well matched to San Diego’s existing urban form and that provides competitive travel times—a necessary condition to significantly raising the share of middle-income riders using transit, let alone improving the lives of lower-income riders. The paradox is that the region is so dispersed, any attempt to create an effective regional transit network directly by rail expansion will necessarily fall short. The reason is simple: trains can only travel where there are tracks. You can’t have track in one neighborhood and then track a mile away in another neighborhood; they have to be connected. There is an intriguing alternative to the task of creating a more effective regional rail system than expanding our existing trolley network: staging our way there. The staging approach was behind the transit strategy developed under former mayor Jaime Lerner in Curitiba, Brazil, among the leading transit-oriented cities in the world: 1. Design your ideal network. The idea is to ask, if funding becomes available, what would the city’s

ideal metro system look like? One that would truly meet the needs of the greatest number of people and anchor new development and investment? In the case of Curitiba, the result was a five-spoke system radiating out of the downtown core with several “rings” providing cross- town connectivity (Figure 4.1).

The reason for “relaxing the funding constraint” (that is, not worrying too much initially about costs) is simple: costs are real, but when imposed too strongly at the beginning of the process, they prevent people from envisioning what a solution really looks like (see sidebar, “Building on Success… or Just Building?”).27 The advantage of knowing what your ideal network looks like is simple: you can use it as a means of testing how close different steps can get you there.

LESSON FOR SAN DIEGO: We need a vision of what a truly effective transit system

would look like so that we can properly stage our way there efficiently.

27 To put this in perspective, imagine what would have happened on the roadway side if traffic engineers back in the mid-20th Century had begun every discussion of improving auto system capacity by limiting themselves to minor street improvements, or even to creating new, wide arterials, and had not explored creating freeways because of their inherent cost compared to local roads?

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 18

FIGURE 4.1 – TRANSIT CONCEPT FOR CURITIBA, BRAZIL

The above illustration shows Curitiba’s “ideal” transit network as it was conceived over thirty years ago. Five major spokes radiating out of the downtown provide the spines for the “structural axes” where high-density growth would be focused. Every 3-5 km (approximately 2-3 miles), an “Integration Terminal” (the red dots) would link these lines to orbital routes.

2. Locate your stations. Because transit was/is expected to drive land-use planning, the next step

was to locate the stations of this ideal metro system so that land uses could begin to develop around them, knowing that they will always be nodes in the network.28

LESSON FOR SAN DIEGO: The sooner we develop true stations in our most-popular

locations, the more we can drive true TOD.

28 Obviously, not every station is a candidate for increased development densities, but it makes sense in a growing region to use transit stations to help organize growth so as to manage and reduce the traffic and parking impacts of new development and create new public amenity.

Building on Success… or Just Building? David C. Korten, formerly of the Asian Institute of Management, famously identified a pattern behind successful long-term projects:

1. Organizations first learned how to solve a problem, 2. They then learned how to do so efficiently, 3. and only then they learned how to replicate the solution elsewhere.

If the goal of transit development in San Diego was to attract large numbers of people who previously drove, then one may argue that we’ve jumped to the second and third stages in San Diego—massive expansion of Trolley lines—without ever learning how to solve the primary problem of attracting a large share of choice riders. Source: Korten, Public Administration Review.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 19

3. Rapidly implement the network. Use buses on the surface to operationalize the network and make the implied connectivity real.

LESSON FOR SAN DIEGO: It should be possible to create our desired set of transit

connections at relatively competitive travel times if we’re willing to begin with rubber-tired vehicles with the right set of supporting infrastructure projects, then upgrade technologies/modes once the pieces are connected.

4. Match the attributes of a metro system. Curitiba directed infrastructure investments so that the

bus-based network behaved more and more like a rail system, including dedicated transitways, specialized stations and transfer centers, offboard fare collection, and other related improvements. By optimizing the performance of the system, ridership was enhanced and station locations became more attractive to developers of housing and people-centric land uses.

LESSON FOR SAN DIEGO: The combination of significantly faster transit and rail-like

customer experience can result in bigger increases in ridership than our current models would project, since our current models don’t measure systemic improvements or customer experience improvements.29

5. Innovate. In order to deal with some fundamental limitations of a bus-based surface-running

transit network, Curitiba developed an overlay express network that tied major transfer centers (what they called “Integration Terminals”) along the five corridors with each other and with key off-corridor destinations. This one innovation shaved a full 30 minutes off of the average transit trip and led to the largest increase in transit ridership in that city of all the measures undertaken to create their rapid transit system.

LESSON FOR SAN DIEGO: Express overlay networks, if properly designed, can have a

profound impact on ridership and on the lives of riders, by saving them significant time off their daily commute and other travel.

6. Upgrade to rail. Curitiba has been pursuing a strategy to upgrade key corridors to rail, now that

a region-encompassing network had been created and capacity constraints encountered. Ottawa, which developed a grade-separated Transitway network decades ago (permitting it to maintain a per capita transit ridership roughly 50% higher than the next-busiest mid-sized US or Canadian city), is now building a light rail subway through the downtown, which will be fed by Transitway services. Brisbane is also looking into creating a heavy-rail subway out of the downtown elements of its Busway system, now that it has dramatically pushed ridership up.

29 Except for the assumption that light rail has significantly more “attractive power” than any form of Bus Rapid Transit, regardless of customer experience, an assumption that is not supported by global evidence.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 20

LESSON FOR SAN DIEGO: Developing a dense web of truly fast services is a smart way to evolve a “right” rail network for a region.

Curitiba’s strategy is not far off from that of other cities. Seattle, for example, developed a downtown bus tunnel (though not to the standards suggested in this paper) which serves a large variety of routes that connect downtown to many other destinations. They have since upgraded that tunnel to support light rail in addition to buses (Figure 4.2). Seattle (King County) has also launched a network of rapid buses (RapidRide), some of which serve future rail corridors. Interestingly, in the first of these corridors, International Boulevard, the future light rail line is not intended to replace the RapidRide Line, but to supplement it: the light rail will benefit from farther station spacing (approximately two miles apart, more than double the typical spacing in San Diego and most other US cities, making the line that much faster), and the RapidRide will fill in with much closer station spacing (closer to the 1/3 mile spacing typical of Latin American BRT systems).30 The end result will be closer access to premium transit and a notably faster rail network.31

FIGURE 4.2 – SEATTLE’S DOWNTOWN TRANSIT TUNNEL

Seattle’s downtown transit tunnel supports both light rail and bus services.

30 The approximately 1/3 mile spacing typical of Latin American BRT system, or 500 meters, means that no point along a corridor is more than a three minute walk (1/6 mile) of a station, which research by Robert Cervero at UC Berkeley suggests is the optimal limit for the distance between a station and a workplace). 31 Though it should be noted that the physical design of the RapidRide system, featuring minimal attention to creating a more “rapid transit” experience, falls far short of the passenger facilities and amenities of the light rail system, let alone that of Bus Rapid Transit systems following the standards established by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy in New York, let alone the standards adopted for neighboring Snohomish County’s Swift BRT system.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 21

In the case of San Diego, the challenge we face is several-fold: 1. Dispersion. We are geographically spread out to an unusual degree (the area covered by the San

Diego metro area is approximately twice the area covered by the entire New York City subway system plus the PATH trains that extend into New Jersey (Figure 4.3)

FIGURE 4.3 – SAN DIEGO VS. NEW YORK CITY

San Diego (on left) at the same scale as New York City (on right), showing the New York Subway and New Jersey PATH train lines; these are rotated and placed on San Diego. New York City relies on a dense web of commuter trains and buses (not depicted here), some operating at high frequencies, to connect its outer areas—which include relatively dense cities in their own right—with the heart of Manhattan

2. Hills. Our topography is not friendly to rail service. Light rail in San Diego is limited to climbing

a maximum sustained 4.6% grade; commuter rail is limited even further, to about 2%. There are limited opportunities to reach many key locations, and some of these opportunities would involve construction in environmentally sensitive canyons.

3. Available right-of-way. Many of our denser areas—places that should be priorities for true rapid

transit—have no readily apparent free rights-of-way that could be used to access them. For example, the heart of North Park—rapidly becoming the center of San Diego’s Millennial generation—is not served by true rapid transit in the RTP plan; rather, it is served by a proposed Rapid Bus route, and a north/south streetcar line on 30th Street, but neither is a substitute for rapid transit. Many other key destinations—all of Point Loma, Mission Beach, La Jolla, Hillcrest, Mission Hills, etc.—are not served by light rail in the RTP. Even for places that are served by existing light rail, such as Mission Valley, too many trip destinations—such as most office jobs—are not within a five-minute walk, let alone a three-minute walk, of Trolley stations, and will continue to remain difficult to access by rapid transit (see Figures 5.5 and 5.6 in Chapter 5, “The Quickway Proposal: A Transit Plan Matched to San Diego”).

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 22

Steps Toward Evolving a More Effective System The staging method recommended here takes a different approach to developing a truly effective rail network for San Diego: 1. Locate the stations. Where should rapid transit stations be located to serve San Diego

effectively? Rather than leave the choice of station location to the choice of a particular alignment (as an example, whether a new light rail line should run on one side of a freeway or the other), it is more useful to begin by asking where stations should ideally be located if they can be connected effectively. The resultant map of station locations includes many places not served by light rail in our current RTP plans. At the same time, many areas do not have the urban form to suggest a specific station location; these areas offer greater flexibility.

The importance of locating stations based on today’s urban form is derived from UC Berkeley Professor Robert Cervero’s groundbreaking study of the relationship of transit and urban form, The Transit Metropolis.32 He suggests that for American cities, the onus is on the transit system to adapt to existing urban form if it hopes to successfully shape future urban form. That is, the more useful a transit system becomes today, the more it is able to attract market-focused development tomorrow. That this hasn’t happened in San Diego was documented by the UC Berkeley study cited in Chapter 3 of this discussion paper. While the RTP transit plan makes great strides to improve this fit, too many of our denser, more desirable communities still don’t get the kinds of infrastructure and services that would build on Cervero’s findings.

2. Connect the stations. Traditional transit planning is based on the notion of linear “corridors” for

which a particular “alignment” is selected for a rapid transit route (be it light rail, heavy rail, busway, etc.). The challenge for San Diego, though, is that little of our urban form resembles a traditional urban corridor; rather, our urban form can best be understood in terms of a series of urban and suburban pods, often separated by deep canyons, mesas, slopes, or mountains. In the urban core, there are corridors which the RTP is planning to serve by a combination of light rail (El Cajon Boulevard), Rapid Bus (University Avenue, etc.), and Streetcar (the 4th/5th couplet, 30th Street), but much of the rest of the region is more spread out.

For San Diego to be served by a truly effective transit network, it will need to innovate in terms of network topology. Routes will need to connect disparate and otherwise poorly-connected zones. The challenge calls for a branching network that takes people from dispersed origins to multiple destinations. In some cases, “direct express” links would attract more riders and better serve key locations than traditional transit lines.

32 Cervero, The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 23

FIGURE 4.4 – AUSTRALIAN QUICKWAY

In this view, a Quickway in Brisbane features a station built into a hospital and a short tunnel segment. The combination of true “rapid transit” stations, tight integration with destinations, and travel time savings has driven extraordinary transit ridership growth in that city (60% from 2003-2009).

3. Build Quickway infrastructure in phases. Quickways (Figure 4.4) are grade-separated

transitways that serve true rapid transit stations featuring passing lanes for express routes (see sidebar, “What Is a Quickway?”). They are designed to support Rapid Bus operations at first and be convertible to some rail or other guided/automated mode over time as the pieces are connected.33 Quickway infrastructure is recommended precisely because it makes true rapid transit services economically viable and allows for these services to be implemented sooner rather than later.

33 Not all “trains” are actually rail systems; the metros of Montreal, Paris, and Mexico City, as well as lines in three dozen other global cities, actually run on rubber tires (Figure 4.5), much like a guided bus. There are practical reasons that determine whether or not steel wheels or rubber tires are preferable (the principal one being the need to climb steeper slopes), but the resulting customer experience is identical regardless of mode.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 24

FIGURE 4.5 – RUBBER-TIRED METRO (SUBWAY) IN MONTREAL (LEFT),

PARIS (CENTER), AND MEXICO CITY (RIGHT)

Rubber-tired trains are typically used where local conditions require that metros climb steeper grades than is viable with steel wheels. Otherwise, they offer an identical customer experience.

4. Upgrade Quickways to Rail. Once the system is built-out—the Quickway network connects all

principal points—then it will be possible to upconvert Quickways to an appropriate guided, automated technology (that may or may not currently exist). By that point, much will have been learned about the nature of passenger demand on a time competitive system (the Quickway

What Is a Quickway? Quickways are a form of what planners call “transitways” or “guideways.” They have three required features:

1. A grade-separated roadway, typically one travel lane in each direction. “Grade separation” means that no roads cross a Quickway, much like streets don’t cross freeways. Instead, the Quickway may go over cross streets or under them. Pedestrian crossings are treated equally; people do not walk across Quickways, much like they don’t walk across freeways.

2. Full-on Rapid Transit stations, offering passengers more complete protection from the elements.

3. Passing lanes at stations, so that express services can skip intervening stations on their way from one major “SuperStation” to another.

Grade separation is the key to producing the features most valued by most potential riders: fast travel times and high frequencies. Getting rid of street crossings means that transit vehicles can travel non-stop between stations, cutting travel times about in half. Faster trips reduce operating costs (fewer vehicles are needed), attract new passengers (as transit gets faster, more people decide to use it more often), increase fare revenue (since we now have more passengers), and can now afford to increase frequencies (to accommodate all the new riders), reducing wait time (another attribute highly valued by the market) and attracting even more new transit trips.

Quickways are a kind of scaffolding for the construction of a true Rapid Transit system. They start out by supporting buses, though new generation buses resemble rail cars more and more, both on the outside and on the inside. As a Quickway system is built out and the pieces connected, it can then be converted to some form of train—or other automated, guided vehicle technologies.

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT QUICKWAYS, SEE Advanced Network Planning for Bus Rapid Transit, at: nbrti.org/docs/pdf/BRT%20Network%20Planning%20Study%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 25

network is expected to make transit time-competitive with driving for a large share of trips), including the profile of demand as well as patterns in land use and real estate development.

One way to think of Quickways is as a kind of scaffolding for the construction of an optimized rail network. Quickways may be built on the surface, elevated, or underground, based on corridor conditions. For example (see Figure 4.6), two congested urban cores may be situated two miles apart, connected by a less-congested arterial. In traditional rail design, all two miles must be built if both urban cores are to be connected; the expense of doing so might require that the rail be built entirely on the surface, which can be problematic in the actual cores due to traffic and parking congestion (taking away traffic lanes and parking). A staged Quickway strategy could have the region build relatively short underground sections in both urban cores, and let transit vehicles use the existing, less-congested arterial to make the connection between the nodes. In a future stage, the connecting pieces may be built. Once the completed Quickway network is built out, it will then be possible to go through and strategically retrofit the system to support some form of automated, guided transit (rail or hybrid). Thoughtful planning can reduce the expense and inconvenience of such conversion (Figure 4.7).

FIGURE 4.6 – PHASED DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL RAIL USING QUICKWAYS

By focusing transit investments on core segments that serve denser or more congested zones, immediate benefits are created. As the system is built-out, the opportunity arises to upconvert to some form of automated, guided system.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 26

Quickways are also useful for emergency service vehicles, providing a “fail-safe” means of accessing hospitals and other emergency facilities. This is a non-trivial benefit of Quickways. The advantages of the phased approach are essentially this:

It creates a more effective network from the beginning; It provides immediate and increasing relief from the effects of congestion and parking

shortages in key urban nodes; It places stations in optimal locations; and It matches San Diego as it is today, allowing it to better shape future growth.

Figure 4.6 illustrates the three primary phases of this approach. The discussion on implementing a Quickway strategy, later in this paper, shows this strategy in action, and the benefits it would provide.

FIGURE 4.7 – STAGING TO MINIMIZE FUTURE DISRUPTION

The above illustrations (plan view, top; section view, bottom) demonstrate one means of staging construction of Quickway tunnel segments so as to minimize service disruptions as the tunnels are linked. In this case, the initial tunnel segment is built slightly beyond the portion that will actually be used, with a temporary ramp linking to the surface. When the next tunnel section is built, all that would be required is for the ramp sections to be lifted out overnight, and the new tunnel would be ready to use almost immediately. This kind of planning will pay big dividends for the region.

An example, drawn from the proposed implementation, illustrates this strategy in action. The first piece of Quickway infrastructure recommended for development is the Uptown Quickway, a facility linking the Fashion Valley Trolley Station with Hillcrest, as depicted in Figure 4.8.

Unfinished Tunnel Segment

Finished Tunnel Segment

Temporary Ramp (Can be quickly lifted off and

repositioned as new surface deck).

Shade StructureAids drivers transitioning to/from tunnel

from/to daylightFutureTunnel Extension

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 27

FIGURE 4.8 – FIRST STAGE UPTOWN QUICKWAY

The Uptown Quickway is proposed as a two-stage project; phase 1 is the section depicted here; phase 2 involves a joint auto/transit tunnel under Washington Street with an underground station by Albatross Street. This project is detailed in the Uptown 2025 Proposal (www.facebook.com/Uptown2025).

Following the completion of the Uptown Quickway, transit travel time from the center of Hillcrest (5th & University) to Fashion Valley drops from the current 10-12 minutes to 3-5 minutes (the shorter time is for express routes). A second project, the North Park SuperStation, featuring a 7-9 block long Quickway tunnel under University Avenue (and a secondary tunnel, about 1/3 mile long, under 30th Street, to support a future streetcar line), could then be built (Figure 4.9). Though a mile away from the end of the Uptown Quickway, buses traveling through North Park would gain a permanent ~4 minute (more at the most congested times) time savings and greater reliability by using the new facility, and passengers would have a real “metro” station.34 A future program to connect the two could cut travel time on that segment by another several minutes at least. So we end up with:

• Real, full rapid transit stations in the heart of two major urban centers (Hillcrest and North Park);

• Significantly faster transit, which both reduces operating costs and attracts new ridership; • The freedom to repurpose some surface space in North Park for people uses (since the bus

stops at 30th & University will no longer be needed, sidewalks may be widened); and • The stage is set for the next project, which will further reduce travel times, improve

reliability, and anchor redevelopment.

34 The Rapid Bus on El Cajon Boulevard saves riders 4 minutes along the 5 mile segment from College Avenue & El Cajon Boulevard to Park Boulevard by University Avenue; the North Park SuperStation saves 4 minutes in just 0.4 miles.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 28

FIGURE 4.9 – NORTH PARK SUPERSTATION & QUICKWAY SEGMENT

Some may question whether the potential disruption and costs of these two projects are justified. Tunneling certainly creates major disruption and can potentially harm local businesses, let alone inconvenience residents and visitors. And the costs—estimated for the two projects between $1-1.2 billion—are very significant. Could ridership and redevelopment potential match this? While these questions are dealt with in greater detail later in this Paper, the importance of these issues warrants a brief treatment here. 1. The proposed infrastructure serves the highest-ridership bus corridors in the region;

immediately, many thousands of existing riders would use these new facilities and enjoy significant time-savings as a result. For example, an employee of the UCSD Hillcrest Hospital traveling via transit to their job making a transfer at the Boulevard Transit Plaza (El Cajon Boulevard and I-15) would see their journey from that station to the hospital reduced from 36 minutes (today) to 19 minutes—a reduction of nearly half. So even though this first-stage infrastructure doesn’t extend all the way, it produces a benefit which is felt far down the route.

2. The time savings are greatest at rush hour, where the tunnels buy both time savings and

reliability, driving new ridership. American cities with BRT projects that generated time savings greater than 25% saw corridor ridership increase from 39-100% within four years of opening.35

3. Stations and stops serve areas of high market demand, likely stimulating additional private

sector investments.

35 Rosenberg and Blynn, Best Practices in Rapid Transit System Design.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 29

4. While tunneling can have major impacts, the Australian experience with creating Quickways has been to develop techniques that minimize surface disruption. To the extent they could be applied here, they could significantly reduce any surface impacts during construction.

5. As a matter of policy, businesses that are impacted by construction should be indemnified from

losses attributable to the project. 6. Finally, the alternative—just rely on existing surface roadways—is likely to lead to further

traffic congestion, parking shortages, and rising costs (since new investment will be shot down by the community over the traffic and parking impacts of such development).

Evolving a More Effective Land Use Strategy A more effective transit network can support more intensive land use development, since it is able to attract many more cars off the roads, reducing traffic and parking impacts, as well as create the conditions by which households may freely choose to own fewer vehicles in order to meet their daily trip-making needs.36 This would be entirely consistent with the recommendations of TransitCenter based on their study of effective transit strategies (cited in Chapter 3). Appendix F, “Integrated Plans,” discusses how the Quickway Proposal—the formal plan introduced in the next chapter—can shape land use planning in new and unforeseen ways, support great urban spaces, and focus development so as to minimize the negative impacts of such development and maximize the benefits.

36 The key here is “freely choose,” not “force.” Many households, especially those experiencing economic strains, are further stressed by the need to provide cars for every able driver in order to access work and educational opportunities; these households, especially, would welcome an effective transit alternative.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 30

5. THE QUICKWAY PROPOSAL: A Transit Plan Matched to San Diego

The Quickway Proposal, while having a defined set of projects, is as much a strategy as it is a plan. As a strategy, the Quickway Proposal aims to place effective transportation infrastructure in places with severe transportation-related issues (such as road congestion and parking) in order to mitigate the impact of these issues and allow for new, community-appropriate development. Why has the current strategy of transit development (light rail spines, rapid bus lines along arterials and some freeways, and an extensive local bus network) failed to make significant inroads in the middle-income market? Market research has consistently identified several key factors: 1. Network Structure. For too many trips, stations are inconveniently located, routes are out-of-

direction, and too many transfers are required. For example, someone wishing to travel from the center of North Park (30th & University) to Mesa College in time for their 8 am weekday class, would have extensive out-of-direction travel, a 15 minute transfer, and a 13 minute walk at the end, for a total trip of greater than one hour (Figure 5.1). In contrast, the drive at that hour would be 6.6 miles and take 14-22 minutes.37

FIGURE 5.1 – NORTH PARK TO MESA COLLEGE VIA TRANSIT

Google Maps’ Transit Planner was used to calculate transit travel times. For arrival by 8 am, the trip from the heart of North Park would take over an hour and require a 6:47 am departure.

37 Source: Google maps trip planner for Wednesday, August 10, 2016, arrive by 8 am.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 31

2. System Performance. While the trolley offers notable improvements in travel time and reliability compared to arterial buses, travel times are still excessive, leading most people who operate autos to choose driving over the trolley most of the time. As the above example makes clear, actual door-to-door trips made by transit in the region typically take 2-4 times as long as driving.

3. Customer Experience. The current approach to transit station design leaves riders exposed to

the elements, with inadequate shelter against the sun, wind, and the occasional rain.38 To use the example of the new I-15 rapid bus station by University Avenue (Figure 5.2), a person transferring from a bus on University Avenue on a rainy day would need to step out into the rain, pass beneath a small shelter, then walk over 100 yards with no overhead protection to the waiting area, which itself is inadequately covered (if it’s raining with any wind, those waiting will get wet).

FIGURE 5.2 – I-15 TRANSIT STATION BY UNIVERSITY AVENUE

The Trolley is little different. Plans for new trolley stations on the Mid-Coast line show a similar disregard for passenger protection (Figure 5.3) The Quickway Proposal attempts to redress these issues following a simple maxim:

On a cold, windy, rainy day, would you tell your mother to take transit?

38 San Diego experiences rain an average of 43 days a year—less than many other cities, but often enough to be a valid issue for transit riders. Source: usclimatedata.com.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 32

FIGURE 5.3 – PLANNED STATION FOR EXECUTIVE DRIVE

The Mid-Coast Light Rail Project represents an investment of over $2 billion. And if it rains, you will absolutely get wet. This is an unconscionable slight against those who choose to ride transit.

This maxim might not sound very convincing to some, especially those who do not routinely depend on transit. After all, doesn’t a person have to walk to and from transit if it’s raining? And won’t they likely be using an umbrella? The experience of waiting for transit is not like the experience of walking, especially in the rain (Figure 5.4). For example, someone who walks five minutes to transit may then have to wait up to 10-15 minutes (doubling or tripling time spent exposed to the elements), even for the “premium” transit in the RTP. Research conducted by Cambridge Systematics for the MTDB, forerunner of the MTS, found that for some market segments (including the one producing most of today’s transit riders), every minute of time spent waiting for transit “felt like” four minutes of walk time.39 So a wait of 10 minutes can feel like 40 minutes of walking time. This is why effective transit systems protect their customers while they are using the system. Non-transit riders might think, “they’re going to get wet anyway,” but anyone using transit knows the value of real shelter. The simple maxim, “On a cold, rainy day, would you tell your mother to take transit?” opens a whole can of worms. To begin with, on rainy days, freeway and road congestion tends to worsen, so people would be open to seeking a better solution for their commute or other travel needs.40 But if the experience of transit doesn’t meet basic needs, people with a choice will choose not to use the transit, just like they so choose now.

39 Hoffman, “Improving Public Transportation: Part I—Transit as a Competitive Service,” pp. 53-54. 40 While San Diego receives far less rain than many cities in the US, it does rain enough to be an issue for commuters. One only needs to get soaked once or twice before deciding to avoid transit if at all possible.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 33

FIGURE 5.4 – WAITING FOR TRANSIT IN THE RAIN

The experience of waiting for transit in the rain is an object lesson in powerlessness. After even two or three such experiences, one’s desire to use transit is likely to decrease significantly.

More to the point, there are a few conditions imposed by this maxim:

1. Not if she’s going to get wet while using the system, especially while waiting or transferring. 2. Not if it’s going to take her so much longer than driving. 3. Not if she’s not safe. 4. Not if she’s made to feel powerless, or a second class citizen. 5. Not if she has to make too many transfers.

The Quickway Proposal suggests a robust strategy to solve this set of crucial problems:

1. Station Location. Locate stations where they can do the most good, as well-integrated into the existing urban fabric as possible.41 Place true rapid transit stations in the heart of all

41 “Urban fabric” is a term used to describe the cityscape, the mixture, location, and configuration of buildings, roads, and space. The urban fabric of a community like North Park, with its rows of 2-story apartment

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 34

denser, urbanized areas. The goal will be to link these stations together rapidly and seamlessly, with a single, customer-friendly interface, regardless of mode, and ensure easy and convenient access to this core network for the overwhelming majority of residents in this region.

2. Station Design. Design stations to a global standard, with continuous overhead protection

from sun and rain. While using the system, passengers should always be protected from the elements.

3. MetroXpress Network. Implement a regional network of true express routes (average

through speeds greater than 30 mph) that “leapfrog” the region and deliver people directly to major destinations, and that crisscross at a limited set of “SuperStations.”

4. Rapid Infrastructure. Create the right of way infrastructure that will allow these routes to

operate as quickly (and cost-effectively) and reliably as possible. The more that time is engineered out of the system, the cheaper the system will be to operate and the more riders it will attract.

5. Integrated by Design. Plan transit infrastructure so that it is integrated with optimal

bicycling, parking, pedestrian, open-space, and road improvements. Plan for development surrounding nodes in the transit system so that the right infrastructure is in place to support development without overwhelming communities.

6. Migration to Right Rail. Design transit infrastructure so that it may be upgraded from bus-

based to some form of automated, guided technology upon system buildout. The rest of this section explains in detail the six elements of the Quickway Proposal. Station Location Transit services are traditionally planned at a corridor level. A generally linear area of land (a “corridor”) is identified for improvement, several alternative routings are considered, and a preferred alignment selected for development. The problem with this approach is that it produces winners and losers. Mission Valley should serve as an example of this phenomenon. When the light rail was first planned for Mission Valley, a central alignment was chosen (Figure 5.5).

buildings lining wide streets filled with parked cars, is categorically different than the urban fabric of more suburban residential neighborhoods.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 35

FIGURE 5.5 – LIGHT RAIL STATION LOCATIONS IN MISSION VALLEY

The above image shows ¼ mile radius circles drawn around light rail station locations in Mission Valley. Though coverage seems superficially good, the reality is that the vast bulk of office space and most residential is beyond a reasonable walking distance from a station.

FIGURE 5.6 – LIGHT RAIL STATIONS AND MAJOR OFFICE BUILDINGS IN MISSION VALLEY

Like Figure 5.4, the above figure shows quarter mile radii around light rail stations. However, areas that are not directly accessible have been removed; overall, only about half of the land area within ¼ mile of a station is actually accessible—in this case, less than one square mile in all of Mission Valley. Red areas indicate the location of major office buildings, most of which are beyond generally accepted walking distance of a station.

The issue with this alignment is that, while it seems to hit many of the major point within Mission Valley—Fashion Valley Mall, the Hazard Center, Mission Valley Center, and the Stadium—it misses all but a few office buildings in what is one of the top five office markets in the County (Figure 5.6),42 as well as the major residential developments on the north side of the valley and most of Hotel Circle.

42 Source: Kidder Mathers, “Office Market Research – San Diego, Second Quarter 2016.”

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 36

An alignment-focused approach to transit development means that these unserved areas will not receive any additional transit infrastructure, and the usefulness of the Trolley for travel within or to/from Mission Valley will necessarily be limited. Evidence of this may be found in boarding data, which for 2013 (the most recent year for which data was made public), was just 8506 passengers daily in both directions (some share of which was transfers to or from bus routes, particularly at Fashion Valley)—a tiny fraction of trips in that zone.43

FIGURE 5.7 – RAPID BUS STATION IN NORTH PARK

While Rapid Bus stations provide some degree of protection, riders are still exposed to sun and are within scant feet of moving vehicles, a safety issue for those traveling with toddlers. During rainstorms, waiting passengers were observed getting wet. On sunny days, passengers were observed seeking shade where they could.

The Quickway Proposal begins from a different premise: locate the stations first. Rather than attempt to squiggle a line one way or another, we need to be asking a more strategic question: where, exactly, should transit stations be located to maximize the reach of a system, assuming they may be connected with effective service? The strategic approach to station location produces very different results than the RTP, and will be reviewed in more detail later in this discussion paper. But a cursory view shows that the Quickway Proposal places true rapid transit stations in locations such as City Heights Village, North Park (30th

43 Source: SANDAG. Mission Valley stations counted include Fashion Valley, Hazard Center, Mission Valley Center, Rio Vista, Fenton Marketplace, Qualcomm Stadium, Mission San Diego, and Grantville; of these, the Fashion Valley Transit Center accounted for over 1/3 of all boardings in Mission Valley. By contrast, Camino de la Reina, by Mission Center Road, alone carried nearly 14,000 cars daily the prior year (source: City of San Diego automated vehicle counts).

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 37

& University), Hillcrest, Mission Hills, La Jolla, Point Loma, Ocean Beach, El Cajon, Clairemont, many South Bay communities, the Palomar Airport Road corridor, and most other “denser” communities and destinations—places mostly not served by true rapid transit in the current RTP plan.

FIGURE 5.8 – REA VAYA BRT STATION, JOHANNESBURG

The Rea Vaya BRT system is designed as a full-on, level-boarding rapid transit system with enclosed stations that provide full protection from the elements.

Station Design Stations in the RTP Plan, whether light rail or Rapid Bus, fail to provide meaningful protection from the elements for potential riders. We have already seen how both light rail and freeway bus stations currently being developed provide inadequate shelter; arterial Rapid Bus stations, too, fail to sufficiently protect riders (Figure 5.7) In contrast, global Bus Rapid Transit systems do a far better job of protecting their passengers and removing them from “waiting by the side of the road.” For example, the Rea Vaya BRT system in Johannesburg, South Africa, is designed to meet passenger needs in a climate not unlike San Diego’s (Figures 5.8 and 5.9) This same design for arterial-based services may be found worldwide, in cities as diverse as Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Bogota, Colombia; and Xiamen, China (Figure 5.10).

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 38

FIGURE 5.9 – INTERIOR OF REA VAYA BRT STATION, JOHANNESBURG

This station is typical of BRT stations around the world. Passengers are protected from rain, sun, and moving vehicles. This station also makes use of fare gates to cut down on fare evasion, a major issue among “honor” systems. Image used by permission.

For stations located along dedicated transitways, global systems often feature enhanced stations. The Mater Hill Station in Brisbane, Australia, for example, affords passengers continuous overhead protection and side-screening (protection from wind), in addition to its tight integration with the adjacent coffeehouse and hospital (Figure 5.11); the King George Square Station in downtown, which is underground, separates passengers from moving vehicles, with climate controlled platforms (Figure 5.12) For San Diego, the Quickway Proposal suggests the development of a station prototype built using a simple kit of parts that would permit stations to be located economically. The use of a raised platform would have an additional benefit: stations could be placed on the ground without necessarily needing to rebuild drainage/curbs. This model was successfully used by Curitiba, Brazil; their stations are built using a 5’ X 10’ diameter modular section that sits on top of I-beams which are sunk into the ground (Figure 5.13). The use of modular components also allows stations to grow, based on passenger demand (Figure 5.14). An illustration of what a San Diego station might look and act like is depicted in Figure 5.15

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 39

FIGURE 5.10 – BRT STATIONS AROUND THE WORLD

A common feature of global standard BRT stations is the extent to which they provide protection from the elements as well as from moving vehicles. An upgraded approach to station design should help increase the attractiveness of San Diego’s rapid transit system to potential users.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 40

FIGURE 5.11 – BRISBANE BUSWAY STATION (AUSTRALIA)

Brisbane developed its Quickway system with the explicit design goal of “rapid transit.” High quality materials were used, as well as recessed lighting. The system was designed to attract choice passengers, not just transit-dependents.

FIGURE 5.12 – UNDERGROUND QUICKWAY STATION IN AUSTRALIA (BRISBANE)

In the station example above, transit vehicles running through a tunnel (on the right) are separated from passengers by sliding glass doors.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 41

FIGURE 5.13 – MODULAR BRT STATION IN CURITIBA, BRAZIL

The use of modular components allows stations to be “right-sized” for their location at minimal cost and without the costly need to rebuild the curb/drainage systems. Curitiba uses a 5’ by 10’ (1.5 X 3 m) tubular module.

FIGURE 5.14 – ENLARGED BRT STATION IN CURITIBA, BRAZIL

The use of modular systems allows for a wide range of station configurations. In the above example, the station is three segments wide; each segment is joined by a “bridge” unit. Such a modular approach significantly cuts the costs of locating rapid transit stations in a region.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 42

FIGURE 5.15 – PROPOSED STATION CONFIGURATION AND OPERATIONS

Unlike San Diego’s current strategy for station development—in which passengers are exposed to the elements and must be careful of moving vehicles—the Quickway Proposal recommends a station design that provides better protection and greater passenger safety and comfort.

MetroXpress Network The third element of the Quickway Proposal is the creation of a regional MetroXpress overlay network. This network is inspired by similar networks in other global cities that have resulted in massive increases in transit ridership due to the significant time savings involved. What is a MetroXpress network? Unlike the RTP’s planned “Rapid Bus” system—a mix of arterial limited-stop buses and freeway-running buses—MetroXpress routes typically connect some major origin zone with a major destination zone by first behaving as a local or even express arterial route before entering dedicated right-of-way. Once on this right-of-way, they typically stop only at SuperStations (spaced, on average, 3-5 miles apart) and the first/last stations they pass on that infrastructure (to allow for transfer opportunities to the “all-stops” routes) (Figure 5.16).

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 43

FIGURE 5.16 – HOW METROXPRESS ROUTES WORK

The proposed MetroXpress network is not set in stone, but should evolve out of today’s Rapid Bus network and be responsive to passenger demand. Just the same, the MetroXpress network as proposed connects large numbers of the region’s residents directly with major employment, retail, recreational, and residential destinations. MetroXpress routes follow a naming convention that is hopefully easier for passengers than the “number only” system in use today (Routes 201, 202, 204, 215, 235, 237, 280, and 290—numbers that have little meaning by themselves for riders). Each MetroXpress route begins with a letter that stands for the principal destination served, and then a number. So just knowing the mnemonic system can help customers quickly identify which route might serve their needs (Figure 5.17).

A Airport (northbound) L Linda Vista T Tech Center (Sorrento) B Plaza Bonita M Mira Mesa U UTC C Chula Vista N Navy bases V Fashion Valley E Santa Fe Depot going south O Oceanside W Flower Fields Carlsbad F Santa Fe Depot going north P Poinsettia Station X Xtra Routes J La Jolla/Coronado R Rancho Bernardo Y San Ysidro K Kearny Mesa S SDSU Z Airport (southbound)

FIGURE 5.17 – METROXPRESS ROUTE NAMES

As an illustration, A routes (heading north) and Z routes (heading south) serve Lindbergh Field since, from the airport, you can get anywhere on Earth from A to Z. Figure 5.18 depicts schematic

MetroXpress vehicle operates as local or express bus within

community.

MetroXpress vehicle enters Quickway,

stopping at first station for those transferring.

MetroXpress vehicles skip most stations,

operating in express mode.

STAT

ION

STAT

ION

STAT

ION

STAT

ION

STAT

ION

SUPE

RST

ATIO

NST

ATIO

N

MetroXpress routes all cross-cross at Super-

Stations, making it easy to leapfrog the region.

MetroXpress routes may leave the

Quickway to reach major destinations.

How MetroXpress

Works

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 44

route maps of the five proposed Airport routes, which stop primarily at SuperStations but also a few other key points likely to generate significant airport-bound traffic. The RTP also proposes “Airport Express” routes; the difference lies in stations served, reliability of the freeway network vs. dedicated Quickway infrastructure, and the passenger interface.

FIGURE 5.18– SCHEMATIC OF METROXPRESS AIRPORT ROUTES (A & Z)

Five MetroXpress routes (A10, A20, A30, Z10, and Z20) are proposed for connecting SuperStations across the region with the proposed new Airport Intermodal Center. In addition to linking the airport regionally, two of these routes connect Lindbergh Field with the two other commercial airports (the US terminal for Tijuana’s Abelardo Rodríguez Airport and Carlsbad’s Palomar Airport), facilitating transfers.

Maps depicting the conceptual route network are given in Appendix H, “Quickway Proposal Draft Service Maps.” Rapid Infrastructure The MetroXpress network is the key to creating a transit system that is time-competitive with driving. The faster and more reliable the network, the more riders it would attract and the cheaper it would be to operate. The MetroXpress network is central to the ability of the Quickway Proposal to meet the City of San Diego’s ambitious Climate Action Plan goals. How can MetroXpress services be made faster and more reliable? The RTP currently relies on freeway HOV and managed lanes for its rough equivalent, freeway-running Rapid Buses. While there are advantages to using these facilities, there are also some notable disadvantages:

FLOWER FIELDSPalomar AirportEncinitas BlvdFairgroundsDel Mar HtsHigh BluffCarmel Gateway

UTC

ConvoySharp HospitalsFashion Valley

Miramar Rd

Mira Mesa

Kearny East

Scripps Business Park

Rancho BernardoNorth County FairESCONDIDO TRANSIT CTR

Hillcrest CenterLaurel/Balboa PkHorton Plaza

Hotel Circle

Santa Fe

AIRPORT EASTCruise Ship Terminal

Gaslamp/Convention CtrBarrio Logan

Plaza Blvd

Plaza BonitaSouthwesternOtay MesaAEROPUERTO RODRÍGUEZ

8th St

Gaslamp Central

Rindone/Civic CtrDowntown Chula VistaCOUNTY SOUTH

Santa FeCruise Ship TerminalAirport EastOld TownMORENA/LINDA VISTA

A30 A20

Z10 Z20Superstation

TERMINUS

Local Station

LEGEND

A10GENETIC CTRPacific CtrMorehouseLuskTech Center

Kearny West

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 45

1. Travel time. Freeway managed lanes feature off-corridor stations that chew up many valuable minutes as buses exit and then need to reenter the freeway. For example, the uncongested drive from the Escondido Transit Center to the Kearny Mesa Transit Center takes 24 minutes by car—but 42 minutes via Rapid Bus, nearly twice as long (and, with only a 30 minute frequency, wait time at either origin or destination ends can add up, too).44

2. Directness of Travel. San Diego’s freeway network isn’t always well located relative to the

actual destinations that would be useful to serve with transit. As a result, many trips might require out of direction travel.

3. Reliability. Freeway managed and HOV lanes are not immune to slow-downs and

congestion, particularly when the adjacent freeway lanes are impacted by even minor accidents or police action. During such times, when the automotive system breaks down, we should be looking to the transit system to pick up the slack… except when it can’t, because its right of way is equally affected. The result is costly for the region and its residents.

4. Stations. Freeway-based stations tend to be divorced from nearby land uses, reducing their

effectiveness.

FIGURE 5.19 – QUICKWAY IN AUSTRALIA (SURFACE-RUNNING)

In this image, bus access to the Quickway may be seen at several places, as well as a grade-separation.

44 Travel times from Google Maps travel planner, accessed on August 22, 2016.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 46

What a number of other global cities have done is to create a network of transit-only roads, both Quickway (Figures 5.19-21) 45 and at-grade T-ways (using the nomenclature adopted by the Sydney-Parramatta T-way in Australia) (Figure 5.22).

FIGURE 5.20 – QUICKWAY IN AUSTRALIA (TUNNEL SEGMENT)

Brisbane’s Southeast Busway is a 10-mile long facility, 10% of which is underground. Later Quickways in Brisbane tend to have a greater percentage of their rights of way either underground or elevated.

The advantages of creating transit-only rights-of-way are notable:

1. Reliability. They significantly reduce the possibility of delays and congestion, maintaining fast speeds and system reliability.

2. Location. They permit stations to be located in optimal or near-optimal locations. 3. Flexibility. They may also be used by “all-stops” service (much like existing Trolley or Rapid

Bus routes), in addition to MetroXpress. 4. Politics. Unlike freeway HOV or managed lanes, they are less likely to be subject to political

pressure to open up to automobiles (which could create safety and reliability issues).46

45 See Hoffman, Advanced Network Planning for Bus Rapid Transit. 46 Some years ago, political pressure called for opening the El Monte Busway in Los Angeles to 2-person carpools (3-person carpools had been permitted). The resulting congestion on that roadway forced a rapid abandonment of that change.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 47

FIGURE 5.21 – QUICKWAY IN AUSTRALIA (ELEVATED)

This station serves a residential neighborhood.

FIGURE 5.22 – T-WAY IN AUSTRALIA (AT-GRADE TRANSITWAY)

T-Ways are surface transitways that cross roads and pedestrian paths at-grade. They work best for moderate vehicle flows, as they can take advantage of signal priority systems when bus flows are at or under about 12 vehicles an hour. As frequencies increase, grade separations become warranted.

5. Additional income. Any excess capacity may be leased to delivery services for fleet

operations by drivers who receive Quickway certification. 6. Emergency services. They may also be used by emergency service vehicles (fire, police,

ambulance) as a “fail-safe” alternative to congested roadways and freeways.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 48

This latter point is not insignificant. The infrastructure proposed in this report specifically targets and serves most of the region’s major hospitals and other emergency service centers. In the event of an emergency, the Quickway system will prove a boon for the region. Integrated by Design While some projects in the RTP show a degree of integration (such as the commuter bicycle trail included as part of the I-15 Centerline Project), the Quickway Proposal attempts a tighter integration by seeking first to optimize system components and then designing them to work with and accommodate each other. An illustration would be Hillcrest Center, one of the region’s most significant urban centers (the area surrounding 5th Avenue and University Avenue). Under the current RTP plan, this important, dynamic center will receive no rapid transit, but will receive new curbside bike lanes that remove a significant amount of on-street parking (Hillcrest being a regional draw, the lack of parking may be expected to negatively impact businesses). The Quickway Proposal served as an input to a community-driven plan, the Uptown 2025 Proposal, which sought to deal squarely with the major transportation issues facing the Uptown community:

1. Provide world-class rapid transit facilities and connections through dedicated, grade-separated infrastructure;

2. Provide world-class bicycle facilities that meet global standards for elevation gains, reduce conflict points, and make it easier for people to bicycle for longer distances;

3. Increase the amount of surface parking, so as to support retail businesses that still depend on parking, combined with new landscaping opportunities to significantly increase the number and quality of street trees; and

4. Improve auto traffic through two strategic road grade separations (tunnels), significantly reducing road congestion.

Two key factors distinguish this approach from the RTP:

1. The role of the automobile. Lessons learned from global cities that have created effective transit systems make one lesson clear: if you’re going to use transit to allow for more intensive land use development, you still need to provide appropriate automotive infrastructure. The reasons are simple: even if you’re able to shift enough trips to transit, bicycling, and walking to offset 50% of the trip needs of new development, you still have that remaining 50% that needs to be accommodated (these number are merely for illustration, and don’t take into account modal shift among existing persons). Indeed, there are many voices among planners that call for limiting parking and automotive access so as to “encourage” people to use transit,47 but such moves could potentially punish existing

47 A more nuanced approach, advocated by some professional and academic planners, is to use market pricing and a “level playing field” when it comes to subsidies, to remove hidden financial incentives that often favor driving and parking at the expense of all other modes.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 49

businesses and residents and push people into shifting their chosen destinations (such as choosing retail opportunities where access is perceived as more convenient). This paper argues that it is smarter to focus on making transit, walking, and bicycling far more desirable through design than to “force” people onto systems that will cost them more in terms of time and convenience.

2. Modal optimization. Much of the RTP seems built on the notion of “one size fits all,” which in

practice means that “one size fits nobody well.” The Trolley is a good example; it was conceived as operating like a streetcar in downtown and as a commuter system farther out, but in practice few people seem to use the trolley as a streetcar downtown (the circle it makes doesn’t always provide people with a fast, frequent, or direct trip) and relatively few use it to travel from, say, Santee to downtown (the trip takes about 10 minutes longer than a comparable-length trip on St. Louis’s Metrolink light rail, which was designed to optimize travel time from distant stations). The use of HOV and Managed Lanes on the freeways is another example; they supposedly meet a wide range of needs (high occupancy vehicles, toll-paying vehicles, and transit), but in practice still often enough suffer from congestion and unreliability, much as general purpose travel lanes (Figure 5.23).

FIGURE 5.23 – CONGESTION IN HOV LANES

The HOV Lane on the left is backed up in this image, typical of the AM commute northbound on I-805. Similar stop-and-go congestion has been observed repeatedly on the I-15 Managed Lanes and the HOV lanes on I-5 North.

In contrast, the Quickway Proposal is designed with the intent of optimizing the performance of each mode so that each can perform at its most effective and efficient, then look for opportunities to improve synergies among them. This results in a far better system, and as better performance may be expected, the perceived high cost of individual projects may be more than offset by the need for fewer or cheaper projects elsewhere. The Uptown 2025 Proposal is described in Chapter 7 and will be explored in greater detail in a follow-up discussion paper describing how the right transit strategy can unlock opportunities to improve auto circulation, parking, bicycling, and people space all while attracting appropriate new development.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 50

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 51

FIGURE 5.24 – QUICKWAY PROPOSAL DRAFT INFRASTRUCTURE MAP

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 52

Migration to Right Rail While the Quickway Proposal makes full use of buses—albeit, more along the lines of “trains on tires” than the typical city bus—it is not a BRT proposal. As infrastructure components get built out and connected, it will be possible to migrate the system to some form of automated, guided transit technology. Given the rapid technological innovation happening in the “vehicle space,” that technology may be an existing rail mode (light or heavy rail) or some other guided system. The choice as to the form of migration will need to take into account:

Operating costs; Vehicle (and system) capacity; (For MetroXpress routes), ability to function off-corridor; Propulsion technology; and Customer perceptions.

Otherwise, the Quickway Proposal still calls for many miles of new streetcar and light rail lines, but only where these modes are well-matched to the transportation and development problems they are intended to solve. A map depicting the draft infrastructure plan for the Quickway Proposal is given in Figure 5.24.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 53

6. COMPARATIVE RESULTS: RTP vs. The Quickway Proposal

Earlier in this discussion paper we suggested, on the basis of published research, that the effectiveness of a transit strategy at generating ridership can be measured by looking at:

1. Match to urban form. The degree to which walkable, mixed-use, denser areas have ready access to a an effective transit network;

2. Travel time. Travel time by transit to key destinations via that network; 3. Frequency. Frequency of service; and 4. Shelter. Degree to which stations provide true shelter and meet customer needs.

In addition, both capital (construction) and operating costs (subsidies) are important measures. The Match to Urban Form The RTP’s transit plan for the central zone is depicted in Figure 6.1. At first glance, it appears to offer a rich mix of rapid transit services in this, the most highly urbanized zone in the region (outside of downtown and the Golden Triangle).

FIGURE 6.1 – SANDAG’s RTP 2050 TRANSIT NETWORK FOR CENTRAL ZONE

The map, which was based on the RTP, show the proposed 2050 transit network for the central urbanized area. Red lines are light rail, blue are freeway-running Rapid Bus, green are streetcar, and dark gray lines are arterial rapid bus routes. The map does not depict potential new light rail stations in the existing Stardust golf course in Mission Valley or potential additional stations along the proposed “Purple Line” light rail running alongside I-15 and I-805.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 54

In truth, though, neither streetcar nor our current arterial “Rapid Bus” routes may be considered “Rapid Transit,” which for purposes of this paper may be viewed as any transit service that maintains a minimum through-speed of 18 mph along a substantial length of the route during peak commuting hours. Given that the existing Mid-City Rapid Bus route averages only 12 mph (College & El Cajon Blvd to Park & University, depart at 8 am) by this criterion, it would be difficult to consider arterial Rapid Buses as rapid transit, despite the name.48 So Figure 6.2 depicts the actual rapid transit planned for the central zone.

FIGURE 6.2 – ACTUAL RAPID TRANSIT IN THE CENTRAL ZONE IN THE 2050 RTP

Once arterial “Rapid Bus” routes are removed from the map, as well as Streetcar, the actual rapid transit system for the central zone emerges.

To frame the issue, in the densely populated portions of Bankers Hill, Hillcrest, Mission Hills, North Park, University Heights, Normal Heights, Kensington, and City Heights, a total of 10 rapid transit access points are planned (all of which are currently Rapid Bus stops). Given that rapid transit is most effective at serving the area within a five-minute walk (1/4 mile radius), these 10 stations give effective access to just 2 square miles of land (ideally; in practice, the land area actually within a 5-minute walk of a station could be substantially less). In contrast, the Quickway Proposal recommends the creation of far more extensive rapid transit infrastructure in the urbanized core—consistent with the findings of the TransitCenter research cited earlier—as depicted in Figure 6.3.

48 Abraham Lincoln was fond of asking people, “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?” When people would answer, “Five,” Lincoln would correct them: “A dog has four legs. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 55

FIGURE 6.3 – QUICKWAY PROPOSAL PROPOSED RAPID TRANSIT

INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE CENTRAL ZONE

In the image above, grade-separated Quickway infrastructure is depicted in brown and light rail in red. A unique feature of the Quickway Proposal is its use of “satellite entrances” to underground stations that use relatively inexpensive automated shuttles to extend the “entrance” to some stations by as much as ¼ mile, significantly increasing the land area within a convenient walk of a station; they function essentially as “horizontal elevators.” MetroXpress routes also branch off this infrastructure to serve other corridors; though the first set of stations would still qualify as “Rapid Transit” by our definition, they are left off of this map.

FIGURE 6.4 – AUTOMATED SHUTTLE

Self-guided low-speed automated shuttles are now in use in several places in the world; this example is used within a large parking lot in the Netherlands. These are incorporated into the Quickway Proposal to connect stations with “satellite” entrances located up to about ¼ mile away. Even traveling at 12 mph, these shuttles could complete a round trip in about 3 minutes; with two vehicles, wait times would never exceed about 90 seconds.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 56

In the Quickway Proposal, 24 true rapid transit stations are shown in the central zone (excluding Mission Valley and downtown). In addition, at least 10 “satellite entrances” (Figure 6.4) extend the coverage of those stations to over 6 square miles—three times the coverage of the RTP (Figure 6.5).

FIGURE 6.5 – RTP VS QUICKWAY PROPOSAL

RAPID TRANSIT COVERAGE IN CENTRAL ZONE

Under the RTP (top map), access to Rapid Transit (indicated by the ¼ mile radius circles) still leaves many people (each dot represents 100 people in the 2010 Census) out of range. For the Quickway Proposal (bottom map), access to Rapid Transit is extended by three factors: more stations, the use of innovative “satellite entrances” to stations, and the use of MetroXpress routes that use Quickways then “jump the tracks” to travel down arterials, eliminating the need for a local transfer. In the maps above, arterial MetroXpress routes are included if travel between them and the actual Quickway is five minutes or under—the minimum expected wait time at a station for transfer to a Rapid Bus under the RTP scenario.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 57

When combined with proposed Streetcar and MetroXpress arterial services, the access map becomes even more substantial (Figure 6.6).

FIGURE 6.6 – QUICKWAY PROPOSAL FULL NETWORK FOR CENTRAL ZONE

In the above map, Quickways are depicted in brown, Streetcar in green, light rail in red, and the arterial component of MetroXpress routes in dark gray. Even though many MetroXpress routes may behave similarly to current arterial Rapid bus routes, two key differences are notable: first, most MetroXpress routes enter Quickway infrastructure and travel, limited-stop, to key destinations (no transfer required); and second, stations are designed to a higher standard than current Rapid Bus stations, offering greater protection from sun, wind, rain, and moving vehicles. One way to conceive of MetroXpress services is like express Trolleys that ‘jump the tracks” to travel down arterials to get closer to where people are or where they’re going.

In addition to pure access, the route structure of the Quickway Proposal is such that many parts of the central zone have direct, one-seat-ride access to many regional destinations, including the Morena District, Friars Road, the Hillcrest/Mission Hills hospitals, Pacific Beach, UTC, Kearny Mesa, the Sharp hospital complex, La Mesa, El Cajon, Plaza Bonita, and the San Ysidro border, as well as the I-15 north corridor and I-5 north corridors (including Sorrento Mesa and Carmel Valley). The proposed route network for the central areas may be viewed in Figure 6.7. When it comes to coverage and access for neighborhoods currently characterized by walkability and higher densities, the Quickway Proposal provides a significantly more robust web of connections and access points than the RTP plan.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 58

FIGURE 6.7 – PROPOSED ROUTE STRUCTURE FOR CENTRAL ZONE

IN THE QUICKWAY PROPOSAL

Residents of many central zone neighborhoods will enjoy one-seat-ride access to a large number of regionally important destinations. Full service maps may be found in Appendix H, “Quickway Proposal Draft Service Maps.”

Travel Time The Quickway Proposal offers significant time savings relative to the RTP transit plan, largely due to the MetroXpress network of services operating primarily within Quickway infrastructure. Travel time at peak hours was calculated from four major nodes: the center of Hillcrest (5th & University), the center of North Park (30th & University), the new Boulevard Transit Station at El Cajon Blvd. & I-15, and the Fashion Valley Transit Center.49 Figure 6.8 shows the impact of the Quickway Proposal on travel from the center of Hillcrest. Whereas the RTP promises a reduction of 16% in transit travel times for the destinations listed, the Quickway Proposal produces over three times the time savings—54% on average—for the same trips. Similar results are seen for North Park, where the Quickway Proposal produces a 50% reduction in travel times compared to 18% for the RTP (Figure 6.9).

49 These nodes were chosen for obvious reasons. The centers of Hillcrest and North Park are the two most important urban crossroads in the zone, Fashion Valley the principal transit center, and the Boulevard Station the major crossing point for future light rail in the RTP.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 59

FIGURE 6.8 – PROJECTED TRAVEL TIME FROM HILLCREST CENTER

At full build-out, the Quickway Proposal would significantly cut travel time to virtually all destinations in the central zone. In many cases, travel times are less than half what they would be in the RTP transit plan.

FIGURE 6.9 – PROJECTED TRANSIT TRAVEL TIMES FROM THE CENTER OF NORTH PARK

Travel time savings from the Boulevard transit station (I-15 & El Cajon Blvd, Figure 6.10)—the proposed crossing of two light rail lines in the RTP—while closer than the previous two examples, are still substantially different, with the RTP producing an average 34% reduction versus the 61% reduction produced by the Quickway Proposal. Likewise, for the Fashion Valley Transit Center—a

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

HortonPlaza

North Park City HtsVillage

Normal Hts BoulevardStation

FashionValley

USD SDSU Old Town UniversityHeights

Travel Time (in minutes) from

HILLCREST CENTER

Transit Today 2050 RTP Quickway

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

HortonPlaza

HillcrestCenter

City HtsVillage

Normal Hts BoulevardStation

FashionValley

USD SDSU Old Town UniversityHeights

Travel Time (in minutes) from

NORTH PARK

Transit Today 2050 RTP Quickway

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 60

major node in in the RTP—time savings run 23% for the RTP but 57% for the Quickway Proposal (Figure 6.11)

FIGURE 6.10 – PROJECTED TRANSIT TRAVEL TIMES FROM THE BOULEVARD STATION

FIGURE 6.11 - PROJECTED TRANSIT TRAVEL TIMES FROM FASHION VALLEY

More detailed information on travel times among these pairs is given in Appendix B, “Comparative Travel Time.”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

HortonPlaza

HillcrestCenter

City HtsVillage

Normal Hts North Park FashionValley

USD SDSU Old Town UniversityHeights

Travel Time (in minutes) from

BOULEVARD STATION (I-15 & EL CAJON BLVD)

Transit Today 2050 RTP Quickway

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

HortonPlaza

HillcrestCenter

City HtsVillage

Normal Hts North Park BoulevardStation

USD SDSU Old Town UniversityHeights

Travel Time (in minutes) fromFASHION VALLEY TROLLEY STATION

Transit Today 2050 RTP Quickway

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 61

FIGURE 6.12 – PROJECTED QUICKWAY PROPOSAL TRAVEL TIMES – SOUTH BAY

FIGURE 6.13 - PROJECTED QUICKWAY PROPOSAL TRAVEL TIMES – CENTRAL

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 62

Though the above travel time analyses only looked at locations within the central zone, similar or greater time savings for the Quickway Proposal were measured throughout the region. Figures 6.12-6.14 depict projected transit travel times among 54 likely trip pairs in the region; on average, travel time reductions are about 65%, so what is today an hour trip becomes, in the Quickway Proposal, a 21 minute trip, fully competitive with driving for many trips.

FIGURE 6.14 - PROJECTED QUICKWAY PROPOSAL TRAVEL TIMES – NORTH

All told, the Quickway Proposal may be expected to significantly reduce transit travel time relative to the RTP, better meeting a dominant market need and attracting significant new ridership. Frequency It is difficult to project route frequencies given that frequencies are often determined by ridership demand; very busy/overcrowded routes are candidates for frequency improvements, while routes that fail to attract many riders may see their frequencies reduced. Just the same, given the travel time savings produced by Quickway infrastructure, it is entirely reasonable to expect a proportional or larger increase in ridership. What’s more, the service pattern that is part of the Quickway Proposal—all-stops and MetroXpress routes sharing core infrastructure—means that many areas will see extremely high frequencies. For example, projected ridership along the El Cajon Boulevard Quickway is such that, for core (all-stops) routes, frequencies of 3-5 minutes or better may be expected throughout much of the day. In contrast, under the RTP, it is more likely that frequencies will range from 7.5-15 minutes. At SuperStations, given the number of MetroXpress routes that will be plying the different corridors, service frequencies may exceed a transit vehicle every minute at peak hours.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 63

In all cases, the costs of operating such frequencies are significantly less for the Quickway Proposal, given the time savings that the combination of a MetroXpress network and Quickway infrastructure may be reasonably expected to produce. A vehicle that performs two or three roundtrips in the time it previously took to make a single roundtrip is a far more productive vehicle, with lower trip costs and a higher ridership base due to the travel time savings. It is safe to say that the Quickway Proposal, in addition to being faster than the RTP, will be more frequent. Shelter We have already seen (in Chapter 5) how the Quickway Proposal suggests a means to provide passenger facilities (stations) that provide better protection from the elements. While such a change in strategy may be made at any time to the RTP plan, the fact that projects currently planned and under construction fail to protect customers does not bode well for a change in strategy. Costs The costs of the Quickway Proposal have been published in the project report to the region.50 Our cost model—which appears to be relatively robust—projects capital costs below that of the RTP plan, as well as significantly lower operating subsidies. These cost savings are further amplified by the likelihood that at least some road projects will not need to be built within the timeframe of the 2050 RTP, producing additional savings to the region. Appendix G, “Capital Cost Model,” goes into further detail on how we calculated the costs of building the Quickway Proposal. Conclusions: A Better Match to San Diego and San Diegans The Quickway Proposal accomplishes several important regional goals:

1. Faster transit. Make transit time-competitive with driving for a very large set of trips (work, higher education, regional recreation and commercial, etc.).

2. A better experience. Significantly improve the customer experience associated with using

rapid transit, particularly waiting environment (stations) and station location, making it significantly more convenient and desirable to use than the transit proposed in the RTP.

3. Better located. Place transit infrastructure where it can best support the development of

new housing, employment, commercial, and recreational facilities by aligning with market demand and attracting a significant share of trips, mitigating the parking and road congestion effects of new development.

4. Match our urban form. Serve the region’s existing urban form by targeting existing urban centers with appropriate transit facilities and services.

50 Available for download at www.quickwayproposal.wix.com/proposal.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 64

5. Systematically reduce operating costs and per-passenger subsidies. Reduce the ongoing operating costs/subsidies required for rapid transit services by minimizing travel times, maximizing potential ridership, increasing the perceived value of transit services, and opening up new possibilities for value capture and value leveraging.

6. Save on capital costs. Be built at a cost comparable in scale to existing plans or less, and put off the need to develop even more expensive road infrastructure.

In conclusion, the Quickway Proposal measures significantly higher on the measures that matter to potential riders and to this region. It is far more likely to achieve regional goals for modal shift and market-driven, appropriately-located transit-oriented development than the RTP’s plan for transit. It better meets Climate Action Plan goals. It better preserves what we love about our paradise.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 65

7. EVOLVING A QUICKWAY NETWORK

How do we get to a Quickway system? Again, the strength of a Quickway strategy is that we can begin with building disconnected pieces where they will produce the greatest bang-for-the-buck, then connect these pieces over time. The first pieces of Quickway infrastructure should be built where the following conditions hold:

• They can feed off of, and support, existing transit (particularly, the Trolley and Rapid Bus lines);

• They serve areas with intense market demand for new development; • They are underserved by infrastructure in the current RTP transit plan; and • Market conditions suggest strong latent demand for improved transit.

Following this framework, an evolutionary path may be identified. The selection of first projects in this case does not follow the standard processes for project prioritization and funding (these processes depend on the measures chosen, which themselves may depend on fuzzy and inherently speculative long-range data), nor a “political approach” in which projects are selected not on their merits but on whether or not funding may be more easily acquired (even if those projects will not accomplish regional goals). Instead, it follows a strategic path, targeting the two densest urban nodes in the central zone, following the recommendations of TransitCenter (cited earlier in this paper) to concentrate new transit infrastructure in dense, walkable, mixed-use zones, such as Hillcrest and North Park. Both areas are notorious for parking shortages as well as for being regional draws. Stage One – The Mid-Coast Supportive Projects The Mid-Coast Light Rail is the next programmed extension to the light rail network. The first set of Quickway Projects is designed to build off of and support the new link (as well as the existing rail network). The synergies between and among these projects should produce large-scale ridership increases, not just on the Trolley but on the entire transit network. The Uptown Quickway The Uptown Quickway was one of the central elements in the Uptown 2025 Proposal51 which was endorsed in concept by the Hillcrest Town Council and the Bankers Hill Community Group. It is a 2.4 mile long facility that connects a proposed new Rapid Bus station at the Fashion Valley Transit Center—a precursor to a future SuperStation—with the Uptown community, featuring stations at Hotel Circle, UCSD Hillcrest Medical Center, Mercy Hospital, the Uptown District, and Hillcrest Center, the latter of which is a future “SuperStation.”

51 www.facebook.com/uptown2025

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 66

FIGURE 7.1 – TRANSIT PASSENGER FLOWS, 2005

This passenger flow map, from 2005, shows passenger flows on the Trolley (red) and bus routes (light blue). The Uptown community is where many bus routes converge and is the ideal place to begin building infrastructure designed to reduce bus travel times and improve the customer experience. Source: SANDAG

The Uptown Quickway would serve most bus routes traversing the Uptown community, which, along with North Park and Mid-City, is the highest-ridership bus zone in the region (Figure 7.1). Travel time savings vary by route, but some routes could see as much as a 10-minute reduction in one-way travel times. For example, the trip from Hillcrest Center (Fifth & University) to Fashion Valley currently takes 10-12 minutes by bus (the return trip is faster, at 7-8 minutes), depending on time of day. With the Uptown Quickway, that trip becomes a 5-minute trip regardless of time of day. Once a MetroXpress Network is developed (an express overlay network that stops only at key “SuperStations” like Fashion Valley and Hillcrest Center), that trip could become a 3-minute trip (since intervening stations are bypassed) with super-high frequencies, given all of the MetroXpress routes passing between these two point. The North Park SuperStation The North Park SuperStation is a perfect example of how Quickway Infrastructure might be built at first in disconnected pieces and then linked together over time. North Park has been undergoing a remarkable renaissance as Millennials have moved in. The North Park SuperStation is a combination Quickway station and future streetcar station, along with an approximately 2200’ tunnel section on University Avenue (from 28th Street to 32nd Street, avoiding four signals) and an approximately 1800’ tunnel on 30th Street). All buses traveling east/west on University Avenue would use this facility, bypassing the congestion knot of North Park and shaving up to 4 minutes off each direction. The north/south tunnel along 30th Street would be used at first by buses and eventually by a streetcar line, which would actually run through the mezzanine level of the SuperStation. The idea is to remove all transit from the surface so that sidewalks can be expanded and more public space created, and create an effective transit infrastructure and highly improved customer experience. In addition to existing transit routes, at least two new evolutionary Rapid Bus routes are proposed (Figure 7.2). The first would connect City Heights to the Fashion Valley Transit Center via the North Park SuperStation and the Uptown Quickway. The second would set the stage for a future 30th Street Streetcar, connecting South Park with North Park and Normal Heights.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 67

FIGURE 7.2 – THE NORTH PARK SUPERSTATION AND ASSOCIATED RAPID BUS LINES

The existing Rapid Bus route #215 is shown in black.

The Friars Road Projects Two projects are proposed for the Friars Road corridor. The Friars/163 Flyover links the Fashion Valley Transit Center with the Friars Mission Center development and 163 north. It features a station by the Friars Mission Center and ramps linking to 163. Given the traffic congestion on Friars Road by 163, this flyover is expected to reduce transit travel times to the Fashion Valley station by 6-8 minutes each way. Four new Rapid Bus routes are made feasible with this link: one linking the new Civita development; one traveling nonstop to the Sharp Medical Complex, making a circle of the complex; one traveling direct to Mesa College (with perhaps two stops on Mesa College Drive), and one taking Ulric Street up to Linda Vista, circling the center of that neighborhood. The relative speed of these links should increase transit use between these areas and Trolley, Rapid Bus, and regular bus services at Fashion Valley (Figure 7.3). The Friars Road T-Way is a bus facility connecting Fashion Valley with the Morena/Linda Vista neighborhood.52 If built on the south side of Friars Road, it would be cut by several driveways, but otherwise would have no road crossings. This segment of busway, together with the proposed Morena Quickway, would allow some routes coming from Uptown and/or North Park to connect directly to the Mid-Coast light rail line, as opposed to forcing one transfer at Fashion Valley and then another at Old Town, reducing connection time to the new Trolley line by up to 10-15 minutes (Figure 7.4).

52 A T-Way is an at-grade transitway, unlike a Quickway, which is grade separated (much like a freeway).

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 68

FIGURE 7.3 – FRIARS/163 FLYOVER WITH RAPID BUS ROUTES

FIGURE 7.4 – FRIARS ROAD T-WAY

In addition to a proposed Rapid Bus line linking the Morena SuperStation to USD and Linda Vista, three new rapid transit stations are proposed for Friars Road itself.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 69

The Morena Quickway and Related Projects The Morena Quickway involves the conversion of the western side of Morena Boulevard to a Quickway, parallel to the new light rail line. Though this might seem redundant, the parallel Quickway features at least one new station, serving the Bay Park community, and significantly reduces travel time for a range of bus routes that will connect to both the Mid-Coast light rail and the Mission Valley light rail lines. This project is designed to be built concurrently with the Bay Park Boardwalk project, a set of pedestrian and landscaping enhancements along Morena Boulevard (Figure 7.5). The Morena/Linda Vista SuperStation is an underground Quickway Station sitting near and tied into the existing light rail station, mostly built beneath the Morena Boulevard/Linda Vista Road intersection. It is built on a “Y” design, with three boarding platforms that cover all potential directions of movement. This station is designed to allow transit vehicles to move through this congested neighborhood rapidly, as well as support the redevelopment of the zone. Other configurations of this station would accomplish the goal of an efficiently located and operated SuperStation; these will require close collaboration with the community. The Pacific Highway Connector links the new SuperStation with Pacific Highway, permitting transit vehicles to travel between the new station and the Old Town Transit Center while bypassing the traffic signals and train tracks on Taylor Street. Other options for connecting the Morena/Linda Vista SuperStation with the Old Town SuperStation should be explored as well.

FIGURE 7.5 – MORENA QUICKWAY AND RELATED PROJECTS

At the north end of the Morena Quickway, the Pacific Beach Underpass is a short tunnel segment that connects the Morena Quickway with Grand Avenue, helping buses avoid a major bottleneck that can rob 5 minutes or more of travel time. Coupled with a network of rapid bus stops and routes, Pacific Beach could now have direct, one-seat access to the Trolley, the Bay Park neighborhood, the Mission Valley Y, Fashion Valley, Hillcrest, Uptown, North Park, and City Heights, in addition to the connections to downtown, UCSD, UTC, the Border, Mission Valley, SDSU, and

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 70

many Eastern communities via the Trolley network. This underpass makes these connections feasible on a cost basis (by cutting travel time and improving schedule reliability) and has high potential to attract many new riders to transit, easing pressure on roadways and parking. The Point Loma Projects There are two projects proposed for the Loma Portal/Midway neighborhood: The eastern portion of the Rosecrans Quickway and a T-Way (surface busway) on Sports Arena Boulevard (Figure 7.6).

FIGURE 7.6 – POINT LOMA PROJECTS AND PROPOSED RAPID BUS LINES

The Rosecrans Quickway should eventually extend to Liberty Station, providing excellent Trolley connectivity, let alone the value for travel within the Peninsula community, in addition to the new set of Rapid Transit connections made viable by the link to the new Morena Superstation. The portion that is proposed here is the eastern segment, stretching from approximately Madrid Street (by the old Loma theater) to the Old Town SuperStation, running as an elevated and landscaped structure along Rosecrans, touching down by the County Health Services Complex, then dropping into a short underground link to Old Town. A surface station would be located by Madrid Street at the beginning of the facility; an elevated station would bridge Midway Drive, and a final surface station would be located in front of the County Health Services Complex.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 71

The Sports Arena T-Way is an at-grade transitway in the median of Sports Arena Blvd, with its eastern end elevated to meet with the Rosecrans Quickway. Buses would be freed from traffic queuing on Sports Arena Blvd and would sail over the delay-inducing intersections with Rosecrans Street and Kurtz Street. Once complete, several new Rapid Bus routes become potentially feasible. They may also permit changes to local bus routes, improving the efficiency of operations. Among these new routes are the following.

• Rosecrans Avenue connecting through to Old Town and the Morena SuperStation, possibly continuing to Clairemont via the Morena Quickway and Clairemont Drive.

• Ocean Beach, flowing into the Sports Arena T-Way to Old Town and Morena, continuing to

USD and Linda Vista.

• Belmont Park, connecting through to Old Town and Morena via the Sports Arena T-Way.

• SeaWorld, connecting through the Sports Arena T-Way to Old Town and Morena, continuing on Hotel Circle South, turning up Bachman and entering the Uptown Quickway, stopping at Hillcrest Center and the Laurel/Balboa Station, terminating in the Plaza de Panama in Balboa Park (for special events, it can be terminated at the Laurel/Balboa Station). This route is the beginning of a tourism-focused route (see Appendix E, “Tourist Transit: The Fun’n’Sun Line”) that can also serve the needs of many residents, providing rapid connectivity to the heart of Balboa Park from the Trolley and from any Rapid Bus or local bus route that connects at any of the stations served, meaning every Rapid Bus route in this proposal except one.

Network Benefits The Mid-Coast Supportive Projects together are expected to cost approximately $2 billion,53 about the cost of the Mid-Coast Light Rail project itself. However, in contrast to the 9 new stations to be built for the Trolley, the Supportive Projects add 18 new rapid transit (Quickway) stations and over 100 arterial Rapid Bus/MetroXpress stations, vastly increasing easy access to the rapid transit network, along with 12 new miles of dedicated right of way, and at least 18 new Rapid Bus routes, several of which could take over from existing local bus routes (Figure 7.7).

Another way to discuss the network benefits of the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects is to look at the schematic network diagrams. Figure 7.8 depicts the central zone’s transit infrastructure (existing light rail and Rapid Bus routes, along with the planned Mid-Coast Light Rail extension).

53 Details on our capital cost model are presented in Appendix G, “Capital Cost Model.”

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 72

FIGURE 7.7 – MID-COAST SUPPORTIVE PROJECTS

Taken together, the pieces that make up the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects transform the role of transit in some of San Diego’s densest, most walkable, and most popular urban communities. They tie many off-corridor destinations into the Trolley network and to each other, significantly reducing transit travel time and setting the stage for the next set of Quickway improvements.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 73

FIGURE 7.8 – TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE AND RAPID BUS SERVICES IN CENTRAL ZONE

This diagram shows both existing light rail and the Mid-Coast light rail project under development, as well as the I-15 Centerline project and the median T-way on Park Boulevard between El Cajon Blvd and University Avenue.

Figure 7.9 shows the same system with the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects overlaid, but without the proposed Rapid Bus routes and arterial stations. Still, the projects add considerable transit infrastructure to serve major destinations and residential zones.

Haz

ard

Ctr

Mis

sion

Vl

yC

tr

Rio

Vis

ta

Fent

on P

kwy

Qua

lcom

m

Stad

ium

Ran

cho

Mis

sion

Texa

s

30th 35th

BoulevardEL CAJON BLVD

City Hts

Howard Ave

Park & University

SD Zoo/Balboa Park

NavalMedical Ctr

City College

Park &Market

12th &Imperial

Gaslamp/ Convention Ctr

Convention Ctr East

Seaport Village

Just

ice

Amer

ica

Plaz

a

Civ

ic C

tr

C St

5th Ave

Horton Plaza

Fashion Valley

Midway

Washington St

Middletown

County Ctr / Little Italy

Santa Fe Depot

YMCA

Morena / Linda Vista

Old Town

Tecolote

ClairemontDrive

PB Gateway

LEGENDTrolley (Light Rail)

Future “SuperStation”(Direct Express Stops)

Bus Infrastructure (Quickway, T-Way, Bus Lanes)

Freeway-Running

Arterial Rapid Bus

“Trolley or BusStation/Stop

Transfer Point

RouteTerminus

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 74

FIGURE 7.9 – MID-COAST SUPPORTIVE PROJECTS—SCHEMATIC VIEW

The above map shows the proposed infrastructure (right of way) projects that together make up the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects, along with existing Trolley and Rapid Bus infrastructure.

Figure 7.10 shows these same projects, but with new Rapid Bus routes and stations.

City College

Haz

ard

Ctr

Mis

sion

Vl

yC

tr

Rio

Vis

ta

Fent

on P

kwy

Qua

lcom

m

Stad

ium

Ran

cho

Mis

sion

Texa

s

30th 35

th

Boulevard

City HtsArizona

Este

ban

Bahe

na

Howard Ave

Park & University

SD Zoo/Balboa Park

NavalMedical Ctr

Park &Market

12th &Imperial

GaslampCentral

Gaslamp/ Convention Ctr

Convention Ctr East

Seaport Village

Just

ice

Amer

ica

Plaz

a

Civ

ic C

tr

C St

5th Ave

Horton Plaza

Hillcrest Center

Mercy

UCSD Hillcrest

Hotel Circle

Fashion Valley

Bay Park Boardwalk

Spor

ts A

rena

East

Dr

Han

cock

Cou

nty

Hea

lth

Midway

Loma

Washington St

Middletown

County Ctr / Little Italy

Santa Fe Depot

YMCA

Las Cumbres Franciscan

Morena / Linda Vista

Old Town

Tecolote

ClairemontDrive

PB Gateway

LEGENDTrolley (Light Rail)

Future “SuperStation”(Direct Express Stops)

Bus Infrastructure (Quickway, T-Way, Bus Lanes)

Freeway-Running

Arterial Rapid Bus

“Trolley or BusStation/Stop

Transfer Point

RouteTerminus

PSA

North Park

Fria

rs M

issi

on

Upt

own

Dis

trict

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 75

FIGURE 7.10 – MID-COAST SUPPORTIVE PROJECTS, WITH RAPID BUS ROUTES

Once new Rapid Bus routes—intended over time to evolve into a more coherent “MetroXpress” Network—are added to the system, the power of the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects to take people from many of the region’s densest residential communities to the Trolley, as well as to non-Trolley destinations, becomes apparent. This is the basis of a truly effective rapid transit system.

As discussed in the beginning of this section, the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects are proposed as the first stage in the implementation of a Quickway strategy for the region. Figure 7.11 shows the next evolutionary path beyond these core projects—the introduction of streetcar systems in the urban

805

Haz

ard

Ctr

Mis

sion

Vl

yC

tr

Rio

Vi

sta

Fent

on P

kwy

Qua

lcom

m

Stad

ium

Ran

cho

Mis

sion

Mesa College

Allied Health

Kearny HS

Trol

ley

Barn

Par

k

Ore

gon

Antiq

ue

Row

33rd

Haw

ley

Blvd

Che

roke

e

Kens

ingt

on

Texa

s

30th 35th

Boulevard

ADAMS

EL CAJON BLVD

City HtsUNIVERSITY AVE

FAIR

MO

UNT

AVE

30th

ST

PolkArizona

Dwight

Upas

Redwood

Juniper

Beech

Grape

PSA

Wab

ash

Che

roke

e

43rd

City HtsVillage

Este

ban

Bahe

na

Hilt

on

Sher

aton

Scot

tish

Rite

Texa

s St

Mis

sion

C

ity

Sche

idle

r

CMNO DEL RIO SOUTH

University Hts

Howard Ave North

Park

Park & University

SD Zoo/Balboa Park

NavalMedical Ctr

Pla

za d

e P

anam

a

Cal

iforn

ia

Tow

erUpas

Quince

Laurel

Hawthorne

Beech

Genesee JuvenileCourt

Mary Birch Childrens

Sharp Memorial

Mis

sion

Vl

yR

d

Via

Alta

Civ

ita

Rio

Bon

ito

Riv

er R

un

Park &Market

12th &Imperial

GaslampCentral

Gaslamp/ Convention Ctr

Convention Ctr East

Seaport Village

Just

ice

Am

eric

aP

laza

Civ

ic C

tr

C St

5th Ave

Horton Plaza

Hillcrest Center

Mercy

UCSD Hillcrest

Hotel Circle

Fashion Valley

Bay Park Boardwalk

Spor

ts A

rena

East

Dr

Han

cock

Cou

nty

Hea

lth

Midway

Loma

Dewey

Womble

Laning

Nimitz

Harbor Dr

Shelter Island Dr

Talbot

Submarine

Gro

ton

Fam

osa

Slou

gh

Men

tone

Cape May

Newport

Del Monte

Del Mar Ave

Voltaire

ROSE

CRAN

S

Sea WorldQuivira

Bahi

a

Belm

ont P

ark

Washington St

Middletown

County Ctr / Little Italy

Santa Fe Depot

Col

usa

USD

County Ed Ctr

YMCA

Las Cumbres Franciscan

Glidden

Tait W

Comstock

Ulri

c

Tait

E

CLAI

REM

ONT

DR

Oln

ey

Lam

ont

Ingr

aham

Cas

s S

Bond

Fanuel & Garnet

Cas

s N

CrystalPier

GRAND AVE

Morena / Linda Vista

Old Town

Tecolote

ClairemontDrive

PB Gateway

LIN

DA V

ISTA

RD

ULR

IC S

T

LEGENDTrolley (Light Rail)

Future “SuperStation”(Direct Express Stops)

Bus Infrastructure (Quickway, T-Way, Bus Lanes)

Freeway-Running

Arterial Rapid Bus

“Trolley or BusStation/Stop

Transfer Point

RouteTerminus

Fria

rs M

issi

on

Chalcedony

TURQUOISE

Mis

sion

Blv

d

Cas

s

Fanu

el

Ingraham& Garnet

City College

Upt

own

Dis

trict

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 76

FIGURE 7.11 – EVOLUTION OF THE MID-COAST SUPPORTIVE PROJECTS

Future stages of Quickway development should see additional Quickway infrastructure reaching into and through downtown, up to Kearny Mesa, through North Park and Mid-City, deeper into Point Loma, and into the heart of Pacific Beach. Streetcar lines also provide urban service in both the central zone and Pacific Beach. People living by any node in this network will have a rapid and convenient transit trip to many of the destinations they are likely to visit.

Randolph

PB Dr & Ingraham

PB Central

Grand Ave

805

Haz

ard

Ctr

Mis

sion

Vl

yCt

r

Rio

Vi

sta

Fent

on P

kwy

Qua

lcom

m

Stad

ium

Ran

cho

Mis

sion

Mesa College

Allied Health

Kearny HS

Trol

ley

Barn

Par

k

Ore

gon

Antiq

ue

Row

33rd

Haw

ley

Blvd

Che

roke

e

Kens

ingt

on

Texa

s

30th 35

th

Boulevard

ADAMS

EL CAJON BLVD

City HtsUNIVERSITY AVE

FAIR

MO

UN

T AV

E

PolkArizona

Dwight

Upas

Redwood

South Park

Beech

Grape

PSA

Wab

ash

Che

roke

e

43rd

City HtsVillage

Este

ban

Bahe

na

Hilt

on

Sher

aton

Scot

tish

Rite

Texa

s St

Mis

sion

C

ity

Sche

idle

r

CMNO DEL RIO SOUTH

University Hts

Howard Ave North

Park

Park & University

SD Zoo/Balboa Park

NavalMedical Ctr

Plaz

a de

Pa

nam

a

Cal

iforn

ia

Tow

er

Upas

Quince

Laurel

Hawthorne

Beech

Mis

sion

Vl

yR

d

Via

Alta

Civ

ita

Rio

Bon

ito

Riv

er R

un

Park &Market

12th &Imperial

GaslampCentral

Gaslamp/ Convention Ctr

Convention Ctr East

Justice

Amer

ica

Plaz

a

Civic Ctr C St

5th Ave

Horton Plaza

Hillcrest Center

Mercy

UCSD Hillcrest

Hotel Circle

Fashion Valley

Bay Park Boardwalk

Spor

ts A

rena

East

Dr

Han

cock

Cou

nty

Heal

th

Midway

Loma

Dewey

Womble

Laning

Nimitz

Harbor Dr

Shelter Island Dr

Talbot

Submarine

Gro

ton

Fam

osa

Slou

gh

Men

tone

Cape May

Newport

Del Monte

Del Mar Ave

Voltaire

ROSE

CRAN

S

Sea WorldQuivira

Bahi

a

Belmont Park

Washington St

Middletown

County Ctr / Little Italy

Santa Fe

Depot

Col

usa

USD

County Ed Ctr

YMCA

Las Cumbres Franciscan

Glidden

Tait W

Comstock

Ulri

c

Tait

E

CLAI

REM

ONT

DR

Oln

ey

Lam

ont

Cas

s S

Bond

Fanuel & Garnet

Cas

s N

CrystalPier

Morena / Linda Vista

Old Town

Tecolote

ClairemontDrive

PB Gateway

LIN

DA V

ISTA

RD

ULR

IC S

T

LEGENDTrolley (Light Rail)

Future “SuperStation”(Direct Express Stops)

Bus Infrastructure (Quickway, T-Way, Bus Lanes)

Freeway-Running

Arterial Rapid Bus

“Trolley or BusStation/Stop

Transfer Point

RouteTerminus

Fria

rs M

issi

on

Chalcedony

Cas

s

Fanu

el

City College

Sharp Hospitals

Birdland

Missouri

PB Drive

Santa Clara

Grand Ave

El Carmel

San Grabriel

Mission Point

Tourquoise

Crown Point

La Playa Ave

28th St

15th

22nd

Golden Hill

8th

Seaport Village

Children’sMuseum

Maritime Museum

Cruise Ship Terminal

MidwayMuseum

TunaHarbor

OldPolice

HQ 25th & Market

Upt

own

Dis

trict

Monroe TerraceW Ken

AlbatrossMis

sion

Hill

s

India St

Heritage Park

Arden

Streetcar

15th

22nd

25th

28th

30th

32ndLibrary

On the Bay

Morrell

Oliver

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 77

FIGURE 7.12 – TRAVEL TIME MEASURING POINTS

The stations/stops listed in the map above were used to estimate transit travel times for purposes of comparative analysis. They represent many of the key destinations in the central region outside of downtown.

core as well as in Pacific Beach, the further extension of transit infrastructure to more destinations, the completion of Quickways in the University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard corridors, and the extension of Quickway infrastructure to serve the Sharp Hospital complex and into Kearny Mesa, especially supporting the renaissance of the Convoy pan-Asian district. Just how much of a benefit will this first stage of Quickway Proposal development produce? A set of key points in this network was subjected to a travel time analysis in order to determine what, if any,

Mesa College

Boulevard

North Park

Plaz

a de

Pa

nam

a

Childrens

Hillcrest Center

Fashion Valley

Bay Park Boardwalk

Spor

ts

Aren

a

Newport

Sea World

Belm

ont

Park

Ulri

cFanuel & Garnet

Old Town

LEGENDTrolley (Light Rail)

Future “SuperStation”(Direct Express Stops)

Bus Infrastructure (Quickway, T-Way, Bus Lanes)

Freeway-Running

Arterial Rapid Bus

“Trolley or BusStation/Stop

Transfer Point

RouteTerminus

UTC

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 78

time savings would be produced by this nascent network.54 These points are depicted in Figure 7.12. Three major points were analyzed as principal origins or destinations. Two were destinations: UTC (arrival by 9 am) and Hillcrest Center (depart from origin between 5 and 5:30 pm for earliest arrival at Hillcrest); one was an origin point: Fashion Valley (depart so as to arrive at final destination by 9 am).55 Data on travel times is given in Figures 7.13, 7.14, and 7.15 (data for Figures 7.14 and 7.15 do not separate out the Mid-Coast light rail as most trips to/from the central station will not involve the use of that line). For each point, travel time data is given for today’s transit network (best time from Google Map’s trip planning function), transit upon build-out of the RTP (assuming that road congestion remains constant, which may or may not hold), and transit time with the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects and associated new Rapid Bus routes. For comparative purposes, auto travel time (also derived from the range given by Google Maps) is given for the range reported by Google. Just for this first set of Quickway projects, the results are impressive. Travel to time between UTC and the 14 chosen nodes is reduced by an additional 10% over just the light rail alone; for travel between Fashion Valley and the surrounding nodes, travel time reductions averaged 42%, and for Hillcrest, 46%. The near-halving of travel time among these nodes is likely to very significantly increase transit ridership in the central zone, much as the additional reduction in travel time to UTC is likely to drive additional ridership on the light rail extension.

54 For the travel time analysis, travel times were modeled for the existing network based on projected improvements; for the Quickway Proposal and new light rail routes, travel times were modeled using industry standard calculations for acceleration and deceleration with projected dwell times of 20 seconds per stop. 55 These choices of time and direction were practical; Hillcrest is densely populated, so might be a place that attracts a lot of people commuting back home; UTC is a major employment site and hence would have many people arriving to work by 9 am; and Fashion Valley is a major transit hub and so would have many people transferring from a local bus route to Trolley or Rapid Bus on their way to work.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 79

FIGURE 7.13 – AM PEAK TRAVEL TIME TO UTC WITH THE MID-COAST SUPPORTIVE PROJECTS

The chart above compares transit travel time to UTC today, once the Mid-Coast Light Rail is built, and then with the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects in place.

Travel Time To UTCArrive Genesee & La Jolla Village Drive weekday between 8:40 - 9:00 am

COMING FROM: TODAY LRT ONLY TODAY W/PROJECTS

Today: 60 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/LRT: 55 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/Support Projects: 38 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Turquoise & Mission Blvd Worst Case: 35 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 50 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/LRT: 29 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| (Can be longer)

w/Support Projects 28 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Worst Case: 35 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 69 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/LRT: 42 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects: 38 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 35 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 20 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 73 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/LRT: 47 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/Support Projects 41 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 45 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 22 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 64 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/LRT: 32 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects: 29 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 40 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 18 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 62 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/LRT: 35 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 32 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 40 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 20 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 69 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/LRT: 58 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects: 44 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 45 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 24 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 65 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/LRT: 40 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 36 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 40 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 22 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 73 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/LRT: 51 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects: 46 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Worst Case: 55 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 26 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 73 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/LRT: 69 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 60 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 50 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 22 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 48 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/LRT: 63 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/Support Projects: 48 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 45 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 22 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 51 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/LRT: 55 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 48 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Worst Case: 35 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 46 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/LRT: 55 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects: 45 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 40 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 18 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 36 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/LRT: 31 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/Support Projects 22 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 26 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Pacific Beach TRANSIT

-44% 3.1 X 1.8 XGarnet & Fanuel

DRIVING

Compared to Best Drive:TRAVEL TIME (TODAY ACCORDING TO GOOGLE):

North PB TRANSIT

-37% 3.8 X 2.4 XDRIVING

Change Compared to:

-31%

-3%

Ocean Beach TRANSIT

-44% 3.3 X 1.9 XNewport & Cable

DRIVING

Mission Beach TRANSIT

-45% 3.5 X 1.9 XBelmont Park

DRIVING

-10%

-13%

Liberty Station TRANSIT

-48% 3.1 X 1.6 XRosecrans & Dewey

DRIVING

Sports Arena TRANSIT

-55% 3.6 X 1.6 XSports Arena Blvd

DRIVING

-9%

-9%

Hillcrest TRANSIT

-45% 3.0 X 1.6 XFifth & University

DRIVING

-10%

Balboa Park TRANSIT

-36% 2.9 X 1.8 XPlaza de Panama

DRIVING

-24%

Mid-City TRANSIT

-18% 3.3 X 2.7 XEl Cajon Blvd at I-15

DRIVING

-13%

North Park TRANSIT

-37% 2.8 X 1.8 X30th & University

DRIVING

-10%

3.6 X 3.4 XCenter of Campus

DRIVING

-13%

Sharp Medical TRANSIT

0% 2.2 X 2.2 XRady Childrens Hospital

DRIVING

-24%

Bay View TRANSIT

-40% 2.6 X 1.5 XMorena Blvd & Napier

DRIVING

-30%

Linda Vista TRANSIT

-2% 2.6 X 2.5 XLinda Vista Rd & Ulric

DRIVING

-18%

Mesa College TRANSIT

-6%

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 80

FIGURE 7.14 – AM PEAK TRAVEL TIME FROM FASHION VALLEY

WITH THE MID-COAST SUPPORTIVE PROJECTS

Travel time savings from Fashion Valley, a major transfer node on the transit system, range from 22% to as much as 61%, with five trips seeing travel times cut in half or more, and another five by one third to one half. These are much greater reductions that that of the RTP, and are far more likely to attract new transit trips.

Travel Time from Fashion ValleyArrive weekday between 8:40 - 9:00 am

DESTINATION: CHANGE: TODAY: W/PROJECTS:

Today: 41 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/Support Projects 32 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Genesee & La Jolla Village Dr Worst Case: 35 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 18 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 36 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 24 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Worst Case: 20 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 28 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/Support Projects 21 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 9 ||||||||||||||||||

Today: 39 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/Support Projects 26 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 8 ||||||||||||||||

Today: 19 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 11 ||||||||||||||||||||||Worst Case: 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 7 ||||||||||||||

Today: 26 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/Support Projects 18 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 7 ||||||||||||||

Today: 30 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/Support Projects 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 9 ||||||||||||||||||

Today: 7 ||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 4 ||||||||

Worst Case: 9 ||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 5 ||||||||||

Today: 20 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/Support Projects 13 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 9 ||||||||||||||||||

Today: 34 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/Support Projects 23 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 8 ||||||||||||||||

Today: 26 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 11 ||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 7 ||||||||||||||

Today: 28 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/Support Projects 11 ||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 18 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 10 ||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 18 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 8 ||||||||||||||||Worst Case: 10 ||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 6 ||||||||||||

Today: 22 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/Support Projects 10 ||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 10 ||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 6 ||||||||||||

UTC TRANSIT

DRIVING

DRIVING

TRAVEL TIME (TODAY ACCORDING TO GOOGLE):

Garnet & Fanuel

Mission Beach TRANSIT

-22% 2.3 X 1.8 X

Pacific Beach TRANSIT

-33% 3.0 X 2.0 X

Newport & CableDRIVING

-25% 3.1 X 2.3 XBelmont ParkDRIVING

Ocean Beach TRANSIT

-33% 4.9 X 3.3 X

Balboa Park TRANSIT

-60% 3.3 X 1.3 XPlaza de PanamaDRIVING

1.6 XSports Arena BlvdDRIVING

Liberty Station TRANSIT

-31% 3.7 X 2.6 XRosecrans & DeweyDRIVING

Sports Arena TRANSIT

-42% 2.7 X

North Park TRANSIT

-35% 2.2 X 1.4 X30th & UniversityDRIVING

Hillcrest TRANSIT

-43% 1.4 X 0.8 XFifth & UniversityDRIVING

-58% 3.7 X 1.6 XRady Childrens HospitalDRIVING

Mid-City TRANSIT

-32% 4.3 X 2.9 XEl Cajon Blvd at I-15DRIVING

Compared to Best Drive

Bay View TRANSIT

-55% 3.7 X 1.7 XMorena Blvd & NapierDRIVING

Linda Vista TRANSIT

-56% 3.0 X 1.3 XLinda Vista Rd & UlricDRIVING

Mesa College TRANSIT

-61% 2.8 X 1.1 XCenter of CampusDRIVING

Sharp Medical TRANSIT

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 81

FIGURE 7.15 – AM PEAK TRAVEL TIME TO HILLCREST

WITH THE MID-COAST SUPPORTIVE PROJECTS

For travel within the central zone, the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects produce notable and substantial travel time savings, far surpassing the savings expected at build-out from the RTP transit plan. In all but two cases, the Quickway projects bring transit travel time to less than the congested drive, making transit finally competitive in the urban core—and in one of those, time for parking would push drive time beyond transit travel time.

Travel Time to HillcrestLeave for Hillcrest between 5:00 - 5:30 pm

LEAVING FROM: CHANGE: TODAY: W/PROJECTS:

Today: 57 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 34 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Genesee & La Jolla Village Dr Worst Case: 55 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 28 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 56 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/Support Projects 25 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 35 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 18 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 40 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 27 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 35 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 51 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 31 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 35 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 35 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 18 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Worst Case: 26 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 37 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 23 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 24 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 25 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 8 ||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 7 ||||||||||||||

Best Case: 4 ||||||||

Today: 13 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 9 ||||||||||||||||||Worst Case: 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 7 ||||||||||||||

Today: 26 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 20 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 8 ||||||||||||||||

Today: 45 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||w/Support Projects 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 24 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 48 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 26 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Best Case: 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today: 26 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 15 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Worst Case: 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 8 ||||||||||||||||

Today: 33 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

w/Support Projects 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Worst Case: 20 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Best Case: 10 ||||||||||||||||||||

Compared to Best DriveTRAVEL TIME (IN MINUTES) ACCORDING TO GOOGLE:

UTC TRANSIT

-40% 2.0 X 1.2 XDRIVING

Pacific Beach TRANSIT

-55% 3.1 X 1.4 XGarnet & Fanuel DRIVING

Mission Beach TRANSIT

-33% 2.5 X 1.7 XBelmont ParkDRIVING

Ocean Beach TRANSIT

-39% 3.2 X 1.9 XNewport & CableDRIVING

Sports Arena TRANSIT

-49% 2.9 X 1.5 XSports Arena BlvdDRIVING

Liberty Station TRANSIT

-38% 3.1 X 1.9 XRosecrans & DeweyDRIVING

Balboa Park TRANSIT

-68% 6.3 X 2.0 XPlaza de PanamaDRIVING

North Park TRANSIT

-31% 1.9 X 1.3 X30th & UniversityDRIVING

Mid-City TRANSIT

-23% 3.3 X 2.5 XEl Cajon Blvd at I-15DRIVING

3.4 X 1.1 XCenter of CampusDRIVING

Sharp Medical TRANSIT

-64% 3.8 X 1.3 XRady Childrens HospitalDRIVING

Linda Vista Rd & UlricDRIVING

Mesa College TRANSIT

-67%

Bay View TRANSIT

-52% 3.3 X 1.6 XMorena Blvd & NapierDRIVING

Linda Vista TRANSIT

-42% 3.3 X 1.9 X

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 82

Finally, three additional schematics demonstrate the ability of the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects to vastly improve the connectivity of rapid transit in the central zone. Figure 7.16 depicts those corridors which feature routes all serving Fashion Valley with direct (no transfer) service.

FIGURE 7.16 – ROUTES SERVING FASHION VALLEY

Figure 7.17 shows the same for routes connecting directly to the Mid-Coast Light Rail line. Clearly, these projects extend the benefits of rapid transit way beyond the light rail alignment.

805

Haz

ard

Ctr

Mis

sion

Vl

y C

tr

Rio

Vi

sta

Fent

on P

kwy

Qua

lcom

m

Stad

ium

Ran

cho

Mis

sion

Mesa College

Allied Health

Kearny HS

Trol

ley

Barn

Par

k

Ore

gon

Antiq

ue

Row

33rd

Haw

ley

Blvd

Che

roke

e

Kens

ingt

on

Texa

s

30th 35

th

Boulevard

ADAMS

EL CAJON BLVD

City HtsUNIVERSITY AVE

FAIR

MO

UNT

AVE

30th

ST

PolkArizona

Dwight

Upas

Redwood

Juniper

Beech

Grape

PSA

Wab

ash

Che

roke

e

43rd

City Hts Village

Est

eban

B

ahen

a

Hilt

on

She

rato

n

Sco

ttish

R

ite

Texa

s St

Mis

sion

C

ity

Sch

eidl

er

CMNO DEL RIO SOUTH

University Hts

Howard Ave North

Park

Park & University

SD Zoo/Balboa Park

NavalMedical Ctr

Plaz

a de

Pa

nam

a

Cal

iforn

ia

Tow

er

Upas

Quince

Laurel

Hawthorne

Beech

Genesee JuvenileCourt

Mary Birch Childrens

Sharp Memorial

Mis

sion

Vl

y R

d

Via

Alta

Civ

ita

Rio

Bon

ito

Riv

er R

un

Park &Market

12th &Imperial

GaslampCentral

Gaslamp/ Convention Ctr

Convention Ctr East

Seaport Village

Just

ice

Amer

ica

Plaz

a

Civ

ic C

tr

C St

5th Ave

Horton Plaza

Hillcrest Center

Mercy

UCSD Hillcrest

Hotel Circle

Fashion Valley

Upt

own

Dis

trict

Bay Park Boardwalk

Spor

ts A

rena

East

Dr

Han

cock

Cou

nty

Hea

lth

Midway

Loma

Dewey

Womble

Laning

Nimitz

Harbor Dr

Shelter Island Dr

Talbot

Submarine

Gro

ton

Fam

osa

Slou

gh

Men

tone

Cape May

Newport

Del Monte

Del Mar Ave

Voltaire

ROSE

CRAN

S

Sea WorldQuivira

Bahi

a

Belm

ont P

ark

Washington St

Middletown

County Ctr / Little Italy

Santa Fe Depot

Col

usa

USD

County Ed Ctr

YMCA

Las Cumbres Franciscan

Glidden

Tait W

Comstock

Ulri

c

Tait

E

CLA

IREM

ON

T DR

Oln

ey

Lam

ont

Ingr

aham

Cas

s S

Bond

Fanuel & Garnet

Cas

s N

CrystalPier

GRAND AVE

Morena / Linda Vista

Old Town

Tecolote

Clairemont Drive

PB Gateway

LIND

A VI

STA

RD

ULR

IC S

TFr

iars

Mis

sion

Chalcedony

TURQUOISE

Mis

sion

Blv

d

Cas

s

Fanu

el

Ingraham& Garnet

City College

Routes Serving Fashion Valley

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 83

FIGURE 7.17 – ROUTES CONNECTING TO THE MID-COAST LIGHT RAIL

Finally, Figure 7.18 shows routes connecting to Hillcrest Center (5th & University).

805

Haz

ard

Ctr

Mis

sion

Vl

y C

tr

Rio

Vi

sta

Fent

on P

kwy

Qua

lcom

m

Stad

ium

Ran

cho

Mis

sion

Mesa College

Allied Health

Kearny HS

Trol

ley

Barn

Par

k

Ore

gon

Antiq

ue

Row

33rd

Haw

ley

Blvd

Che

roke

e

Kens

ingt

on

Texa

s

30th 35

th

Boulevard

ADAMS

EL CAJON BLVD

City HtsUNIVERSITY AVE

FAIR

MO

UNT

AVE

30th

ST

PolkArizona

Dwight

Upas

Redwood

Juniper

Beech

Grape

PSA

Wab

ash

Che

roke

e

43rd

City Hts Village

Este

ban

Bahe

na

Hilt

on

Sher

aton

Scot

tish

Rite

Texa

s St

Mis

sion

C

ity

Sche

idle

r

CMNO DEL RIO SOUTH

University Hts

Howard Ave North

Park

Park & University

SD Zoo/Balboa Park

NavalMedical Ctr

Plaz

a de

Pa

nam

a

Cal

iforn

ia

Tow

er

Upas

Quince

Laurel

Hawthorne

Beech

Genesee JuvenileCourt

Mary Birch Childrens

Sharp Memorial

Mis

sion

Vl

y R

d

Via

Alta

Civ

ita

Rio

Bon

ito

Riv

er R

un

Park &Market

12th &Imperial

GaslampCentral

Gaslamp/ Convention Ctr

Convention Ctr East

Seaport Village

Just

ice

Amer

ica

Plaz

a

Civ

ic C

tr

C St

5th Ave

Horton Plaza

Hillcrest Center

Mercy

UCSD Hillcrest

Hotel Circle

Fashion Valley

Bay Park Boardwalk

Spor

ts A

rena

East

Dr

Han

cock

Cou

nty

Hea

lth

Midway

Loma

Dewey

Womble

Laning

Nimitz

Harbor Dr

Shelter Island Dr

Talbot

Submarine

Gro

ton

Fam

osa

Slou

gh

Men

tone

Cape May

Newport

Del Monte

Del Mar Ave

Voltaire

ROSE

CRAN

S

Sea WorldQuivira

Bahi

a

Belm

ont P

ark

Washington St

Middletown

County Ctr / Little Italy

Santa Fe Depot

Col

usa

USD

County Ed Ctr

YMCA

Las Cumbres Franciscan

Glidden

Tait W

Comstock

Ulri

c

Tait

E

CLAI

REM

ONT

DR

Oln

ey

Lam

ont

Ingr

aham

Cas

s S

Bond

Fanuel & Garnet

Cas

s N

CrystalPier

GRAND AVE

Morena / Linda Vista

Old Town

Tecolote

Clairemont Drive

PB Gateway

LIND

A VI

STA

RD

ULR

IC S

TFr

iars

Mis

sion

Chalcedony

TURQUOISE

Mis

sion

Blv

d

Cas

s

Fanu

el

Ingraham& Garnet

City College

Routes Connecting to Mid-Coast Light Rail

Upt

own

Dis

trict

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 84

FIGURE 7.18 – ROUTES SERVING HILLCREST CENTER

It may be concluded that even the first stage of Quickway Projects, as proposed here, would produce measurable and significant improvements to the functioning of transit in the central zone, better connect the Trolley to off-corridor destinations, and set the stage for future improvements.

805

Haz

ard

Ctr

Mis

sion

Vl

y C

tr

Rio

Vi

sta

Fent

on P

kwy

Qua

lcom

m

Stad

ium

Ran

cho

Mis

sion

Mesa College

Allied Health

Kearny HS

Trol

ley

Barn

Par

k

Ore

gon

Antiq

ue

Row

33rd

Haw

ley

Blvd

Che

roke

e

Kens

ingt

on

Texa

s

30th 35

th

Boulevard

ADAMS

EL CAJON BLVD

City HtsUNIVERSITY AVE

FAIR

MOU

NT A

VE

30th

ST

PolkArizona

Dwight

Upas

Redwood

Juniper

Beech

Grape

PSA

Wab

ash

Che

roke

e

43rd

City Hts Village

Este

ban

Bahe

na

Hilt

on

Sher

aton

Scot

tish

Rite

Texa

s St

Mis

sion

C

ity

Sche

idle

r

CMNO DEL RIO SOUTH

University Hts

Howard Ave North

Park

Park & University

SD Zoo/Balboa Park

NavalMedical Ctr

Plaz

a de

Pa

nam

a

Cal

iforn

ia

Tow

er

Upas

Quince

Laurel

Hawthorne

Beech

Genesee JuvenileCourt

Mary Birch Childrens

Sharp Memorial

Mis

sion

Vl

y R

d

Via

Alta

Civ

ita

Rio

Bon

ito

Riv

er R

un

Park &Market

12th &Imperial

GaslampCentral

Gaslamp/ Convention Ctr

Convention Ctr East

Seaport Village

Just

ice

Amer

ica

Plaz

a

Civ

ic C

tr

C St

5th Ave

Horton Plaza

Hillcrest Center

Mercy

UCSD Hillcrest

Hotel Circle

Fashion Valley

Bay Park Boardwalk

Spor

ts A

rena

East

Dr

Han

cock

Cou

nty

Hea

lth

Midway

Loma

Dewey

Womble

Laning

Nimitz

Harbor Dr

Shelter Island Dr

Talbot

Submarine

Gro

ton

Fam

osa

Slou

gh

Men

tone

Cape May

Newport

Del Monte

Del Mar Ave

Voltaire

ROSE

CRAN

S

Sea WorldQuivira

Bahi

a

Belm

ont P

ark

Washington St

Middletown

County Ctr / Little Italy

Santa Fe Depot

Col

usa

USD

County Ed Ctr

YMCA

Las Cumbres Franciscan

Glidden

Tait W

Comstock

Ulri

c

Tait

E

CLAI

REM

ONT

DR

Oln

ey

Lam

ont

Ingr

aham

Cas

s S

Bond

Fanuel & Garnet

Cas

s N

CrystalPier

GRAND AVE

Morena / Linda Vista

Old Town

Tecolote

Clairemont Drive

PB Gateway

LIN

DA V

ISTA

RD

ULR

IC S

TFr

iars

Mis

sion

Chalcedony

TURQUOISE

Mis

sion

Blv

d

Cas

s

Fanu

el

Ingraham& Garnet

City College

Routes Serving Hillcrest

Upt

own

Dis

trict

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 85

Stage Two—Job Centers, Suburban Access, and Urban “Structural Corridors” Given the nature of any significant innovation in infrastructure, it would be premature to spell out in great detail future stages in transit system development. However, should the Stage I projects meet expectations, it may be understood that future projects would continue to follow a staged approach to development. Stage II would focus on three kinds of projects: those serving job centers (such as the Greater Golden Triangle, Kearny Mesa, Carmel Valley, and locations along the I-15 corridor), those providing suburban access (typically, stand-alone stations with direct services to key job centers), and urban “structural corridors,” places where intensive land use development is to be supported. Stage III would aim at filling in the connecting pieces as well as the first steps toward selecting the appropriate guided, automated technology to take over from traditional buses expected to provide the bulk of service in the first decade or so of project implementation. First Step in Detail: Uptown 2025 The Uptown communities of Hillcrest, Mission Hills, and Bankers Hill/Park West (along with Middletown/5 Points) together represent about 1.3% of the region’s population. They are home to major hospitals (Scripps Mercy and UCSD Hillcrest), urban centers that are regional draws (Hillcrest, Mission Hills, and Five Points especially), high rise housing, dense multifamily neighborhoods, and single-family neighborhoods that are highly valued. In response to community requests for a better plan, Uptown 2025 was developed. It attempted to avoid the problem of pitting one infrastructure “improvement” against other needed infrastructure (in this case, bicycling vs. parking) and avoiding “solutions” that generated as many problems as they purportedly solved. For example, protected bike lanes have been planned for University Avenue… but these lanes would have removed significant parking in a commercial district that depends on that parking.56 Plans also originally called for the University Avenue off-ramps to/from Washington Street to be closed to autos and turned into exclusive bike paths, connecting with bike lanes down the Washington Street hill (including removal of on-street parking in Five Points, another heavily parking-impacted neighborhood), even though the hill and off-ramps fall far outside global standards for bikeway design (which normally mandate a maximum sustainable grade of 3%). So the proposed bikeway would come at the cost of significant parking loss and still provide a bicycle connection of limited utility between Mission Hills and Five Points. Uptown 2025 instead seeks to optimize solutions to transit, bicycling, driving, and parking by integrating these solutions so that they fully reinforce each other. The Uptown Quickway, for example (Figure 7.19), is the first piece of Quickway infrastructure proposed; it alone could cut

56 The community had been shown studies conducted in cities such as New York, Toronto, and Seattle—far denser and more “urban” than San Diego—to suggest that the replacement of parking by bicycle infrastructure would not harm businesses. This may be true for neighborhood-serving retail surrounded by dense residential development, but is likely less true for a regional draw like Hillcrest.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 86

transit travel times for some trips by nearly ¾ (for example, the 10-12 minute trip from Hillcrest Center to Fashion Valley becomes, for express routes, a 3-minute trip). The Uptown Quickway would support existing transit routes as well as several new Rapid Bus routes, some of which would be paid for, in part, by time savings on existing routes (Figure 7.20).

FIGURE 7.19 – THE UPTOWN QUICKWAY

The Uptown Quickway is a major piece of transit infrastructure designed to connect key destinations in Uptown with each other and with the Trolley at Fashion Valley. The map above shows the sections proposed in the Uptown 2025 Proposal for first stage implementation; future extensions are shown in dashed lines.

Integrated with the Uptown Quickway are a set of two traffic tunnels (Figure 7.21). The first runs beneath 6th Avenue, from the “dip” north of Upas to just north of University Avenue. This permits cars heading to/from Bankers Hill and Downtown to avoid the traffic knots of Hillcrest. The second runs beneath Washington Street, from just west of the bridge over 6th Avenue to just east of Brant Street, allowing cars to avoid the traffic knots of 4th and 5th Avenue and reducing the queuing that at rush hours can extend all the way to Goldfinch heading east. Figure C.2 in Appendix C also depicts the relationship among the proposed tunnels.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 87

FIGURE 7.20 – ROUTES USING THE UPTOWN QUICKWAY

Many existing routes would be rerouted to take advantage of the Uptown Quickway, reducing trip times and operating costs, all while building new transit ridership. Several new Rapid Bus Routes could take advantage of this facility, creating the beginnings of a true rapid transit system for the Uptown community.

FIGURE 7.21 – TRAFFIC TUNNELS IN THE UPTOWN 2025 PROPOSAL

Traffic tunnels under portions of Washington Street and Sixth Avenue help decongest the most difficult intersections in the Uptown community and free up surface space for other purposes.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 88

A consequence of moving through-traffic beneath Sixth Avenue is that it frees the surface to be reconfigured to support improved on-street parking. A “Parking Rambla” (Figure 7.22) is proposed for the two blocks of Sixth Avenue between University Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue (Figure 7.23).

FIGURE 7.22 – PARKING RAMBLA IN LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA

A Parking Rambla is a median parking area, planted with trees. “Parking Ramblas” were so named by Stefanos Polyzoides, who developed them for downtown Lancaster, California. They mix median angled parking with landscaping, providing significant new on-street parking along with greenery.

FIGURE 7.23 – PARKING RAMBLA PROPOSED FOR SIXTH AVENUE

BETWEEN UNIVERSITY AND ROBINSON AVENUES

A similar treatment is proposed for the full block to the south. For the block above, the Parking Rambla is expected to add up to 27 additional parking spaces to the 12 already on this block. If Hillcrest is to absorb planned new development and deal with the loss of parking from bike lanes, it will need these parking spaces.

In addition to road and transit infrastructure, the Uptown 2025 Proposal suggested a bikeway solution that deals with the problems identified by SANDAG and by the community (Figure 7.24). In contrast to current plans, Uptown 2025 recommends that the bikeway be built on Washington Street through its commercial zone and then turn south on 5th Avenue.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 89

FIGURE 7.24 – PROPOSED UPTOWN BIKEWAY

SANDAG had previously issued a technical memorandum that concluded that Washington Street would not work for protected bike lanes because of space concerns and also because Washington Street was intended to be an auto-oriented street. A cursory review of businesses located along the corridor does indeed show some auto-oriented uses, but a large number of businesses that also depend on walk-in traffic. As to the issue of fit, a solution was identified: moving the bikeway into the middle of the street, not curbside (Figure 7.25). This solution produces a wider bicycle facility

FIGURE 7.25 – WASHINGTON STREET BIKEWAY CONCEPT

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 90

with greater protection from turning vehicles, enhanced landscaping (including two rows of street trees), and a safer experience for cyclists. 57 A second distinction is that the Uptown 2025 Proposal recommends that the Washington Street hill not be used for side-running bike lanes, as the hill is too steep to serve as an effective bikeway.58 Instead, it proposes that a bikeway be carved into the canyon itself, which should be the subject of an international design competition to:

Landscape the canyon; Restore damaged native ecosystems; and Design the bicycle facility so as to maximize ease and desirability for bicyclists, including

families with small children (Figure 7.26). Taken together, this project should result in a canyon with restored natural systems, landscaping, and a facility that solves the transportation challenge while immersing riders in a very San Diego canyon experience, all without requiring that people use powered bicycles to make it up the hill.

FIGURE 7.26 – CONCEPTS FOR A WASHINGTON CANYON BIKEWAY

57 Detailed drawings for this concept may be found in the Uptown 2025 report, available online at www.facebook.com/Uptown2025. 58 Global standards generally call for a maximum sustained grade on bikeways of 3%; the Washington Street Hill ranges from 3.9 to 7.9% (and the off-ramp to University Avenue runs at 11.4%).

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 91

A further distinction of the approach taken by Uptown 2025 is the choke-point of the University Avenue bridge over SR163. This bridge is too narrow to support current uses, let alone the additional space that safe bike lanes would require. The proposed solution is to raise the bikeway east of 5th Avenue and carry it over both University Avenue and the freeway via a bridge structure; since an arch makes sense as a structure, a “Rainbow Bridge” becomes possible (Figure 7.27). The Uptown 2025 Proposal, which contains the first proposed Quickway project, demonstrates that it is possible to create world class bicycling, transit, roadway, and parking systems, even in established urban areas, at a cost not out of scale with the problem. Uptown has 1.3% of the region's population; the Uptown 2025 Proposal can be expected to cost between ½%-¾% of the Regional Transportation Plan. Even with the understanding that different funds come from different silos, the issue is not whether the project is feasible; it is, rather, a question of priorities. Should the region squander its resources on useful but underperforming transit projects, continued freeway expansion that supports unsustainable patterns of development… or on the infrastructure that can help communities flourish? A central argument of this discussion paper is that, since citizens have the ultimate say on priorities through their votes, then citizens need to be engaged in a discussion of those priorities.

FIGURE 7.27 – PROPOSED “RAINBOW BRIDGE” FOR HILLCREST

The point of the preceding discussion was to illustrate how it is possible to optimize the performance of individual modes and still have them tightly integrated. The combination of effective transit improvements tied to traffic improvements, new parking, and world-class bicycle infrastructure would give the Uptown communities the infrastructure it needs to deal with the challenges of growth and popularity.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 92

8. POTENTIAL OBJECTIONS TO THE QUICKWAY PROPOSAL

The Quickway proposal implies a marked transition away from currently adopted plans and strategies. Change should not be made for the sake of change, but because the potential benefits of such change are greater than the expected costs and risks. It would not make sense for the region to pursue a fundamentally different strategy if the difference in expected outcomes was 5%, to give a number, but as projected outcomes begin to differ significantly from adopted strategies, they should be explored fairly and openly to determine the best use of public funds. The following are some of the objections people have raised when first learning about the Quickway Proposal, along with some considerations that should help address the concerns. 1. “The Quickway proposal relies too much on buses and not enough on trains.”

As this document makes clear, the Quickway Proposal is not a BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) proposal, at least as BRT is conceived in the U.S., though it makes full use of BRT as a start-up strategy (and recommends considerable investment in the right rail). Its reliance on buses is practical: while we’re building the transitways that could support a truly optimized transit system, we can take advantage of them during the development phase by using buses. As the network of Quickways is built-out, and most relevant segments linked, then we can begin to convert key corridors to some form of guided, automated technology. But beyond the long-range aim of the Quickway Proposal, there are two other important considerations:

a. “People prefer trains to buses.” While there is some degree of truth to this viewpoint, the preference—meaning choice—is hardly absolute. Experience worldwide—and in the US—is that this preference evaporates quickly when the bus is faster, more reliable, and more frequent than the train, especially if it operates in its own right of way. Research in Los Angeles has found no market preference for trains over similarly configured buses:

Given that the Orange Line [a BRT line] achieved similar ratings to the Gold Line [an LRT line] in terms of both tangible and intangible attributes, it can be concluded that “Full Service” BRT is capable of replicating both the functionality standards (tangible attributes) and image qualities (intangible attributes) normally associated with light-rail transit, at least in the perception of the general public. In the words of one focus group participant: “It’s not a bus, it’s a train-bus!”59

59 Cain, Flynn, McCourt, and Reyes, Quantifying the Importance of Image and Perception to Bus Rapid Transit, p. 76.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 93

Worldwide experience with higher-end BRT systems (ITDP Gold Standard) suggests that demand for faster transit, even by bus, generates huge ridership. The experience of Brisbane, Australia, is especially instructive: from 2003-2009, Brisbane experienced a 60% increase in transit ridership, virtually all of which was on services using their then-13 miles of Quickways. Moreover, this ridership demand was seen even in areas that offered train service into their CBD (Central Business District), where Busway service cut travel times by more than half compared to the train.

b. It’s not trains vs. buses; it’s train-like transit vs. bus-like. Research in two American cities (in particular, a study conducted by Cambridge Systematics for the MTDB in 2000, as well as a study conducted by Harris Interactive for the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce) found that people responded less to the actual mode and more to how that mode was deployed. So, bus-based systems that behaved like train systems (passengers pre-pay, wait in “rapid transit” stations, board the vehicle through multiple doors, and travel along exclusive rights-of-way, free of traffic) attracted a comparable consumer response to train systems, whereas even a train that operated in mixed traffic and was slow was regarded by people similarly to city buses. In the case of the Quickway Proposal, one big advantage of using buses, especially in the early years of system development, is that it makes direct, express service economically feasible. As an illustration, if there are 20 people that wish to travel between two major points, and the current transit makes that an hour-long trip, then the cost of providing an express trip would be the cost of operating the vehicle, less fare revenue.60 So if the cost is $80 an hour, the net subsidy might be $60/hour ($80 less $20 net fare revenue). In contrast, that same trip on Quickway infrastructure might become a 20 minute trip (travel time reduction on a Quickway network running express services averages about a 65% decrease in travel time, based on a study of 54 likely trip pairs in San Diego), at a cost of just one-third of the prior trip, plus some marginal amount to cover additional fuel and mileage). So, let’s say the cost of providing that trip drops by half ($40/trip); at the same time, the vastly shorter travel time can be expected to attract significant new ridership (again, for arguments’ sake, let’s say doubling demand). So now you can expect at least $40 in fare revenue to cover a $40 operating cost (plus a portion of deadheading and return costs), meaning the service can now mostly pay its own way instead of requiring a $3/passenger subsidy. The point: the economics changes significantly, and the travel time reductions make new express services economically feasible. This last point cannot be over-emphasized. The Quickway strategy is specifically designed to make faster express services economically viable. These are the services that people want.

60 While the costs of providing bus service vary along a number of dimensions, for illustration’s sake we can use $80/hour operating costs and $1/passenger net fare revenue (since many passengers use discounted fares or passes). Actual operating costs depend on a number of factors, and should also take into account non-service hours and the costs vs. revenue of the return trip, which might generate less ridership.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 94

2. “We can’t afford all those buses.”

Again, the Quickway Proposal ultimately improves the efficiency of many routes by an average of 65% (obviously, not all routes will benefit to this degree, but many routes do), meaning that the same number of vehicles can now make 2-3 times the number of trips compared to today. So even at its peak, the Quickway Proposal will require only a fraction of the number of vehicles otherwise required to produce so robust a service network and coverage.

3. “We can’t afford to build all those tunnels, bridges, and rights-of-way.”

This is the argument made by SANDAG.61 As an argument, though, it doesn’t stand up to the numbers. While the Quickway Proposal does indeed make use of tunnels, underground sections only represented about 15% of proposed infrastructure in the Quickway Proposal.62 Figure 8.1 shows the proposed tunnel segments. The bulk of tunnels are proposed for the urban core, the part of the region that is densest and most in need of effective rapid transit: Downtown, Uptown, Mid-City, North Park, and central National City and Chula Vista. Tunnels are also used to reach into the beach communities of La Jolla, Pacific Beach, and the Point Loma Peninsula. There is no question that tunnels of any sort are expensive. Most of the underground segments proposed appear to be candidates for “cut and cover,” which is less expensive than bored tunnels. Still, our capital cost model projects typical costs for constructing a two-lane Quickway below grade ranging from about $175 million/mile to over $250 million/mile; if stations are factored in, costs rise to about $275-325 million/mile. With approximately 27 miles of tunnels, that would add up to $5-7 billion worth of tunneling (it should also be noted that many of the RTP projects will necessarily involve extensive tunneling), plus stations. While this is a considerable cost, it is worth noting that the RTP anticipates approximately $20 billion in new transit capital projects; once these tunnel segments are built, much of the rest of the proposed infrastructure may be built far more cheaply—and the tunnels give transit a “sustainable competitive advantage,” freeing transit from the constraints of traffic and out-of-direction travel and making it fast enough to attract new markets. A capital cost model developed by a respected transit engineering firm in New York was used to estimate construction costs on the entire proposal, and this model projected total construction costs nearly a third lower than the transit component of SANDAG’s 2050 RTP. This cost model was

61 “…the Quickway proposal uses an extensive level of dedicated guideways, tunnels, and grade separations. Given the extensive level of these capital infrastructure elements, our experience with major capital projects suggests that the capital costs would exceed the revenue available.” (San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, Appendix F, “Public Involvement Program,” p.1737.). No other documentation or numbers are provided, leaving the informed reader to conclude that no analysis was actually performed. Capital cost modeling performed on the Quickway Proposal by a New York-based engineering firm estimated total system costs less than the cost of the RTP’s transit infrastructure program, by a significant amount. 62 In response to more detailed planning work and with the input of a number of community members and stakeholders, the Proposal’s mix of infrastructure continues to evolve, though current numbers do not appear to increase substantially from the earlier version.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 95

used to estimate the costs of several transit projects under construction in the US, Canada, and Australia, three countries with roughly comparable cost structures, and was found to have been accurate within a few percentage points of actual budgets (it overestimated by about 20% the costs of building the Mission Valley East trolley project, and it slightly overestimates the cost of the I-15 Centerline project currently under construction). More information on this model may be found in Appendix G, “Capital Cost Model.”

FIGURE 8.1 – PROPOSED TRANSIT UNDERGROUND SEGMENTS

So while costs continue to change and evolve, there is little to suggest that the costs of building the right transit infrastructure are out of scale with existing planned expenditures. The Quickway Proposal may rely on some relatively pricey pieces, but the system as a whole is cheaper to build and operate, and it’s designed to pull many more cars off the road, better support areas with traffic and parking concerns, create more opportunities for market-driven Transit-Oriented Development, and be significantly faster.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 96

4. “Developers want to build around rail.”

Developers want to build around fixed transit that attracts the right demographic (the relative paucity of "transit-oriented development” around trolley stations in San Diego for many years may be attributed to the trolley not attracting the right demographic). Several studies have been done to test out the attractive power of BRT and LRT systems. One of these found that the amount of developer investment was related to the scale of transit investment, regardless of mode; the second study, by the New York-based Institute for Transportation & Development Policy and funded by the Ford Foundation, concluded that:

…under the right conditions, high-quality BRT can leverage as much or more economic development as LRT or streetcar systems can. But, because the BRT corridors are cheaper to build and operate, they leverage far more TOD investment per dollar of transit investment.63

5. “Southern Californians are too in love with their cars to ride transit.”

Market research in San Diego, along with real-world data, does not support this. While only 2% of regional trips (and 4% of work trips) are made on transit in the San Diego region, that doesn’t mean that only 2 or 4% of San Diegans ride transit. Rather, one in eight people locally (about 13%) will ride transit at least once a week; nearly a quarter (23-24%) will ride some form of transit at least once a month; and about three fifths (59%) of residents will ride transit at least once in any given year. While it is true that one out of every six people will likely never use transit, there is tremendous latent demand for transit in San Diego.

6. “If we use buses we’ll dumb it down too much.”

There is real merit to this argument, as for some people, the real reason to support BRT (non-rail) approaches to rapid transit has nothing to do with solving transportation problems, promoting real estate development, or meeting the needs of people, but to spend as little as possible to create a “just barely good enough” transit system to meet basic needs. Put another way, a noted advantage of rail systems over bus-based systems is that they impose design considerations (such as wider turn geometries, greater use of dedicated right of way, etc.) that planners or other public officials must work with, while bus-based systems may be cut back more easily so that they resemble standard bus routes more and rapid transit less. The only way “dumbing down” can be avoided is if certain design standards are adopted and implemented for Quickway infrastructure (rights of way, stations, and both vehicle exteriors and interiors). An initial draft outline of some of these may be found in Appendix D, Quickway Design Standards. Since Quickways may be asked to support some form of automated, guided technology in the future, they will need to be designed to facilitate that conversion—a further argument against dumbing down the system.

63 Hook, Lotshaw, and Weinstock, More Development for Your Transit Dollar: An Analysis of 21 North American Transit Corridors, p. 152.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 97

7. “We’re already committed to and building on an adopted plan; it would be politically too difficult to change horses mid-course.”

Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument states, “we should spend over $100 billion on a plan that will not solve our problems, because it’s too much bother adopting a new plan that actually does solve our problems.” A more important argument: it’s not worth throwing good money after bad. Given the very large difference in performance between the two plans, taxpayers would not be served by ignoring the option that produces significantly better results. There are very real institutional, political, and bureaucratic reasons to not change course. Unfortunately, the consequences of inertia will be a San Diego where quality of life continues to deteriorate, the cost of living continues to climb because of the housing shortage (since communities continue to oppose new development given concerns about traffic congestion and parking shortages because transit is not absorbing enough trips from new development), and the region fails to meet greenhouse gas/climate change goals. The very real benefits of a better system for San Diegans should hopefully address the question of inertia or entrenchment. 8. “What relevance do foreign cities have to San Diego?” Put another way, this question asks why so many of the examples in this paper were from other countries, including the Third World. What relevance could they possibly have to San Diego, where everything—the political environment, the land use patterns, existing movement systems, legal and funding frameworks, institutional processes, cultural patterns, income distribution—is different? Problem-solving is not limited by national or cultural borders. While there are clear differences that shape the universe of possibilities, the costs of different elements, the legality or viability of practices and items, and the expected response of people, there is plenty that may be learned. San Diego was a pioneer in bringing modern light rail to the US, after former State Senator James Mills saw it in operation in Europe and—despite many differences—correctly concluded that it could be adapted to serve the needs of American cities. The same circumstances apply to the Quickway Proposal. The question as to the relevance of ideas and examples from other parts of the world has been raised for many decades and even centuries in countries all over the world. As best we can tell, those who learn lessons with an open mind come out ahead.

Cities around the world constantly innovate to generate solutions to problems common to other cities. Even when circumstances differ, lessons may still be learned. If anything, experience worldwide with Quickway-based systems is that every city deploying Quickways has had to adapt the model to their unique context, much as has been done in this proposal. 9. Why not just operate express trolleys? The proposed MetroXpress network of services is a bus-based system, though it may quickly evolve into some other technology (such as automated vehicle). But it’s not the city bus, which carries a stigma for some segments of the population. Given the global surge of Bus Rapid Transit systems,

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 98

manufacturers have been creating new transit vehicles that attempt to make buses more rail-like. Early examples include the Civis and Phileas vehicles (Figure 8.2); more recent examples come from manufacturers such as Van Hool (Figure 8.3), Wright (in operation in the US in Las Vegas, Figure 8.4) and Mercedes (Figure 8.5). These vehicles vary in their resemblance to light rail vehicles (the Van Hool does an especially good job, whereas the Mercedes CapaCity vehicles still look like buses, though with improved interior spaces), but all feature wide doors along the side to facilitate easy, level boarding like with many rail systems.

FIGURE 8.2 – FIRST GENERATION “TRAINS ON TIRES”

The Civis vehicle (left) and Philias (right) were early attempts at making buses more “train-like,” with multiple wide doors for easy boarding, level- or near-level boarding, and a less-cluttered interior. Both also offered early forms of vehicle guidance technology.

FIGURE 8.3 – VAN HOOL’S EXQUICITY VEHICLE

The ExquiCity vehicle is a very rail-like vehicle, and is even available in a trolley (overhead electric) version.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 99

FIGURE 8.4 – WRIGHT STREETCAR (LAS VEGAS)

The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) deploys the Wright Streetcar on its express routes. This vehicle has proven popular with passengers.

FIGURE 8.5 – MERCEDES CAPACITY VEHICLE

The CapaCity vehicle from Mercedes features multiple wide doors and a comfortable interior.

During the build-out phase of Quickway development, these kinds of transit vehicles will be integral to the operation of MetroXpress services. Besides the practical reasons of infrastructure availability, there are also cost considerations; buses are significantly cheaper to operate than trains, and express trains require separate tracks. So if we were to attempt to create a MetroXpress network using light rail, we would have to create new tracks to support the express vehicles and pay a lot more money to operate them—and they could only serve routes that had rails and overheard power lines installed. Given the costs and disruption, express trolleys make little sense. 10. Between automated vehicles and Uber, there will be no need for tunnels and Quickways and transit. Automated vehicles are a great example of a “disruptive technology” that can, in conjunction with other technological developments (including improvements in battery-powered vehicles), change many aspects of our transportation systems, much as the widespread diffusion of computer technology changed how many offices worked—but rather than the “paper-free” office that was

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 100

often predicted, paper continued to play a major role in the functioning of many offices over the three plus decades that computers have become commonplace. Uber and similar shared-ride services have contributed significantly to mobility, but they are pricey relative to transit services. And driverless vehicles may reduce some costs (namely, that of the driver), but they still rack up costs in terms of energy, maintenance, depreciation, and general wear-and-tear, in addition to the road space they occupy. Transit services may take advantage of such technologies, using them to further lower the cost of providing service; when matched to the right infrastructure, the cost per trip may be reduced to a level way below that of road-based, individualized trips. So rather than make transit obsolete, such new advances in technology are more likely to build market demand for transit, particularly when it is time-competitive with solo driving. Figure 8.6 depicts automated shuttles connecting stations with “satellite entrances” located between a sixth of a mile and half a mile from the station itself. The direct, back-and-forth service allows for very short wait times and efficiency of operations, lowering per-passenger costs.

FIGURE 8.6 – AUTOMATED SHUTTLES IN ACTION

1.Passengers board shuttles.

2.Shuttles travel to other end.

3.Shuttles pass at the middle of the route.

4.Shuttles arrive at end stations.

5.Passengers deboard shuttles.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 101

11. But doesn’t San Diego have the best light rail in the United States? It has been claimed that “The existing blue line today is probably one of the best light rail lines in the entire country.”64 At the same time, a 2015 report by the UC Berkeley School of Law‘s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment, rated San Diego’s light rail system tied with Santa Clara as the worst in the state of California, with especially poor grades for station environments.65 When some call the blue line among the best in the country, they are speaking specifically of one measure: farebox recovery ratio. The blue line recovers a larger share of its operating costs from the fares paid by passengers than other light rail lines in the US. This is certainly an achievement and one about which the MTS, and San Diego Trolley, Inc., especially, should be proud. But farebox recovery ratio is less a measure of how “good” a line is and rather a function of several variables: wages for those working on the Trolley system, form of fare payment,66 and operating frequency. In fact, the easiest way for any city to improve the farebox recovery ratio of its train system is to cut back on frequencies, especially if, like San Diego, the vast majority of its riders lack other alternatives. So while cutting back on frequencies can result in the loss of some ridership, it reduces the number of trains that need to be in circulation, cutting operating costs dramatically. Cutting back on frequencies, though, does not make a line better; virtually all passengers would agree, the increase in wait times makes the line worse. If San Diego were to improve frequencies on the trolley system from 15 minute headways (the time between trains) to 10 minutes during the day and 5 minutes (from 7.5 currently) at peak hours, passengers would see the line as better, though the farebox recovery ratio would decrease (ridership increases would be real, but probably not enough to offset the substantial additional increase in operating costs). So San Diego has one of the more efficient rail lines in the country, but whether it is “good” or “bad” is a function of what the general public and actual riders believe, not the farebox recovery ratio. 12. “Doesn’t it cost less to move someone by Trolley than by bus?” In any trunk-and-feeder system, riders are fed from feeder lines (buses and “Rapid Buses”) to mainline routes (in the RTP, mostly Trolley). In such systems, because riders are aggregated onto the mainlines, they will appear to move passengers at a lower cost. Trains typically offer the advantage of potentially moving more riders per driver, saving on driver costs. But driver costs are only a small part of the costs of operating light rail (an analysis of the budget of San Diego Trolley, Inc., performed around the year 2000, found that drivers represented

64 Quoting Gary Gallengos, Executive Director of SANDAG, in Keatts, “Fact Check: ‘One of the Best Light Rail Lines’ In the Country.” 65 ABC San Diego, “Study: San Diego trolley system doesn't pass muster.” 66 In a study conducted by the MTDB, forerunner of MTS, in the late 1990s, it was found that riders from Tijuana tended to purchase the more expensive single-trip fares than the far cheaper passes, boosting revenue per rider to the agency and pushing up the Trolley’s farebox recover ratio.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 102

just 13% of the costs of operating the Trolley). There are two other salient facts which work against the notion that the Trolley is inherently cheaper to operate:

• Most people in this region are not traveling between or among points directly on Trolley lines, so they if they chose to travel by transit, many would be transferring to bus or Rapid Bus lines; what matters is the cost of transporting them from their origin to their destination, not just the segment that’s on one mode or another; and

• People respond to significantly faster services by riding them more often. A route that is

more direct and faster will attract more people than another which is slower and more out-of-direction, and more passengers means more fare revenue.

More to the point, an analysis of the costs of operating the Quickway Proposal, taking into account the number of vehicles that would be needed to meet projected demand at peak and off-peak hours, found that the projected subsidies for operating the Quickway Proposal were many billions of dollars less than that of the RTP plan through the year 2050, even when using several different operating cost models (including SANDAG’s). These cost reductions may be attributed to the faster trip times, boosting the productivity of routes, and significantly higher ridership, boosting revenue.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 A-1

APPENDIX A Is Transit Responsible for

Downtown’s Residential Building Boom?

Are downtown’s 25,000 dwelling units developed over the past two decades the result of the Trolley? The claim is hinted at by SANDAG in the RTP:

Developers have shown an interest in building near transit over the last 30 years. Much of the development near the Green Line in Mission Valley was completed in the last 20 years. Most of the 25,000 housing units downtown were built in the last 15 years.58

If the trolley were central to the development of the 25,000 housing units, it would be expected that ridership on the system would reflect that massive growth. Since recent data on trolley ridership is no longer published online by SANDAG, data for FY2003 and FY2013 (the time during which many of those new dwelling units were built), which were available, were used. During that period, weekday boardings in downtown increased 24%, from 33,707 boardings in FY2003 to 41,943 in FY2003, a healthy increase if small in relation to the increase in the number of new housing units. However, a closer inspection of the data reveals that all of that growth was centered in the two key

FIGURE A.1 – BOARDINGS AT TROLLEY STATIONS DOWNTOWN 2003-2013

58 San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, Appendix F: Public Involvement Program. San Diego: SANDAG, October 2015, p. 1737.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

12th

/Im

peria

l

Park

/Mar

ket

City

Col

lege

Fift

h Av

enue

Civi

c Ce

nter

Amer

ica

Plaz

a

Seap

ort V

illag

e

Conv

entio

n Ct

r W

Gas

lam

p - C

onv

Ctr

Sant

a Fe

Dep

ot

Coun

ty C

tr/L

ittle

Ital

y

Trolley Boardings by Station - Downtown San Diego 2003-2013

2003 2013

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 A-2

transfer stations of Santa Fe Depot and 12th & Imperial; boardings at all other Trolley stations downtown actually decreased by 12% during this period. Why did boardings increase so dramatically at the two key transfer stations? In September, 2012, the MTS realigned the trolley lines so that the Green Line now traveled into downtown and terminated at the 12th & Imperial Station instead of Old Town, the Blue Line terminated at Santa Fe Depot, and the Orange Line terminated at America Plaza. These realignments shifted transfers from America Plaza (the previous transfer point between the Blue Line and the Bayside-running Orange Line) and Old Town to 12th & Imperial (anyone arriving from the South or East travelling north beyond Santa Fe Depot) and Santa Fe Depot (anyone arriving from the North and heading out C St).

The data support these changes, with inbound boardings at 12th & Imperial increasing by over 6,700 trips59, inbound boardings at Santa Fe Depot increasing by over 4,400 trips, and total boardings at America Plaza decreasing by 1,340 trips (though boardings at Fifth Avenue decreased by a much larger 3,058 trips, possibly because some may have previously transferred between the Blue and Orange lines at that station). Inbound boardings at Old Town, which were about 6,400 in FY2007, had decreased by nearly 2,500 trips by FY2013.60 Some stations downtown saw a modest increase in ridership during the decade FY2003-FY2013, but overall it appears that ridership increases in downtown have been driven at least as much or more by transfer activity at the two key transfer hubs than by new internally-generated trips. In other words, the data does not lend support to the claim that residential development downtown was driven primarily or even partially by the presence of transit. Given that the RTP is built on a strategy of light rail investments helping drive investment in residential and employment uses, the relative lack of response to light rail is worrisome but understandable: unless and until rapid transit becomes time competitive with driving for access to key destinations, transit will continue to underperform expectations.

59 An analysis of boarding data suggests that the realignment of the Green Line has increased ridership on that line by cutting 7-8 minutes of travel time, plus transfer time at Old Town, for passengers traveling from the 12th & Imperial Station. Through traffic on the line north of Santa Fe Depot increased by 1930 trips northbound between FY2007 and FY2013. 60 Since the Green Line was not operating in 2003, 2007 was chosen for the comparison year.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 B-1

APPENDIX B Comparative Travel Time

The following charts compare travel time in the AM peak from four key locations in central San Diego to other major destinations. The four key locations are:

• Hillcrest Central (5th & University, the heart of Hillcrest, by the Hillcrest community sign) • North Park (30th & University, by the North Park community sign) • The Boulevard Station (El Cajon Boulevard by I-15) • Fashion Valley (Transit Center)

The other key destinations used for travel time analysis are:

• Horton Plaza (Broadway and 4th Avenue, in the heart of Downtown) • City Heights Village (University Avenue by Fairmount Avenue) • Normal Heights (Fenton and Adams, by the Normal Heights community sign) • USD (by the main entrance on Alcala Park Way) • SDSU (by the transit center) • University Heights (Park Blvd. by Madison, by the University Heights community sign)

Five trip types were analyzed for travel time:

1. Transit today. Current transit times were pulled from Google Maps’ transit trip planner for Thursday, 30 June 2016 leaving between 8:00-8:20 am.

2. RTP transit. The adopted 2050 RTP Revenue Constrained Transit Network was used to model transit travel times for the RTP. Arterial Rapid Bus routes were projected to save 16% from current transit travel times (based on the time savings of the El Cajon Boulevard Rapid Bus compared to the parallel local bus for weekday 8 am travel). Light rail on Park Boulevard and El Cajon Boulevard was modeled assuming a top speed of 35 mph (the highest speed limit on El Cajon Blvd) and zero delays due to traffic signals, turning traffic, or pedestrians, 20 seconds for dwell time, and industry standard acceleration and deceleration parameters. In practice, some degree of delay would be expected, reducing projected travel times. If grade separations/tunnels/elevated sections are deployed, then some reduction in travel time might be expected, but only if sustained travel above 35 mph is made possible.

3. Quickway Proposal. Travel times for the Quickway Proposal were based on industry standards for bus acceleration and deceleration. Top speeds of 50 mph within tunnel segments were based on the Brisbane, Australia, model. MetroXpress routes, with their skip-stop service pattern, were used where planned.

4. Congested Driving. Congested travel times were drawn from Google Maps’ projections for the high end of automotive travel.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 B-2

5. Normal Driving. Normal travel times were drawn from Google Maps’ projections for the low end of automotive travel.

In general, trip times under the Quickway Proposal are significantly shorter than under the RTP; moreover, the number of trips that fall into the “competitive zone” (which may be defined by one of two ways: trip times within 1.3X an uncongested or “normal” drive, or trip times less than a congested drive) increases sharply (Figure B.1)

Number of Trip Pairs

Within 1.3X Normal Drive Within Congested Drive

From: RTP Quickway RTP Quickway

HILLCREST CENTER 0 9 3 10

NORTH PARK 0 5 4 8

BOULEVARD STATION 2 5 5 8

FASHION VALLEY 2 7 2 7

TOTALS: 4 26 14 33

FIGURE B.1 – TRIP PAIRS WITHIN THE “COMPETITIVE ZONE”

This table shows the number of trip pairs (among the 40 selected for analysis) for which the RTP and the Quickway Proposal meet standards for competitiveness with driving.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 B-3

FIGURE B.2 – TRAVEL TIME FROM HILLCREST CENTER

Trip

Tim

e (M

ins.

)

Time Savings

Compared to Normal Drive

Today 13 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 11 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 15% 1.6 XQuickway 5 |||||||||||||||||||| 62% 0.7 X

Congested 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 7 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 10 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 9 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 10% 1.5 XQuickway 3 |||||||||||| 70% 0.5 X

Congested 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 20 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 17 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 15% 1.4 XQuickway 9 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 55% 0.8 X

Congested 22 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 18 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 16 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 11% 1.8 XQuickway 12 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 33% 1.3 X

Congested 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 22 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 17 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 23% 2.4 XQuickway 5 |||||||||||||||||||| 77% 0.7 X

Congested 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 7 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 10 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 9 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 10% 1.8 XQuickway 3 |||||||||||| 70% 0.6 X

Transit Center Congested 7 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 5 ||||||||||||||||||||

Today 26 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 21 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 19% 2.1 XQuickway 13 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 50% 1.3 X

Congested 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 10 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 32 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 26 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 19% 2.2 XQuickway 12 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 63% 1.0 X

Congested 18 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 15 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 13 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 13% 1.6 XQuickway 11 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 27% 1.4 X

Congested 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 8 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 10 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 17% 2.0 XQuickway 5 |||||||||||||||||||| 58% 1.0 X

Congested 8 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 5 ||||||||||||||||||||

North Park

Horton Plaza

City Hts Village

North Park Community Sign

Fairmount & University

Normal Heights Sign

TRANSIT

DRIVING

TRANSIT

DRIVING

TRANSIT

DRIVING

USD

SDSU

Old Town

University Heights Community Sign

Hillcrest Center to:

University Heights

DRIVING

TRANSIT

DRIVING

Boulevard Station

Fashion Valley

Normal Hts

TRANSIT

DRIVING

TRANSIT

DRIVING

TRANSIT

DRIVING

TRANSIT

DRIVING

TRANSIT

DRIVING

TRANSIT

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 B-4

FIGURE B.3 – TRAVEL TIME FROM NORTH PARK

Trip

Tim

e (M

ins.

)

Time Savings

Compared to Normal Drive

Today 27 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 18 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 33% 1.8 XQuickway 9 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 67% 0.9 X

Congested 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 10 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 11 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 10 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 9% 1.7 XQuickway 3 |||||||||||| 73% 0.5 X

Congested 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 10 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 10 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0% 1.7 XQuickway 7 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 30% 1.2 X

Congested 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 21 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 11 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 48% 1.8 XQuickway 9 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 57% 1.5 X

Congested 9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 15 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 11 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 27% 1.8 XQuickway 10 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 33% 1.7 X

Congested 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 22 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 22 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0% 2.4 XQuickway 7 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 68% 0.8 X

Transit Center Congested 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 36 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 36 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0% 3.0 XQuickway 17 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 53% 1.4 X

Congested 22 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 30 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 20 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 33% 1.7 XQuickway 19 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 37% 1.6 X

Congested 22 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 26 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 22 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 15% 1.8 XQuickway 20 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 23% 1.7 X

Congested 20 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 16 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0% 2.7 XQuickway 7 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 56% 1.2 X

Congested 10 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 6 ||||||||||||||||||||||||

North Park (30th & University) to:

Horton Plaza

City Hts Village TRANSIT

DRIVING

Old Town TRANSIT

DRIVING

University Heights

TRANSIT

Normal Hts TRANSIT

TRANSIT

DRIVING

Hillcrest Center

TRANSIT

DRIVING

Fairmount & University DRIVING

DRIVING

USD TRANSIT

DRIVING

SDSU TRANSIT

Normal Heights Sign DRIVING

Boulevard Station

TRANSIT

DRIVING

Fashion Valley TRANSIT

University Heights Community Sign DRIVING

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 B-5

FIGURE B.4 – TRAVEL TIME FROM BOULEVARD STATION

Trip

Tim

e (M

ins.

)

Time Savings

Compared to Normal Drive

Today 20 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 15 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 25% 1.1 XQuickway 10 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 50% 0.7 X

Congested 28 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 22 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 18 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 18% 2.0 XQuickway 5 ||||||||||||||| 77% 0.6 X

Congested 22 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 9 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 11 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 11 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0% 2.2 XQuickway 5 ||||||||||||||| 55% 1.0 X

Congested 10 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 5 |||||||||||||||

Today 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 15 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 6% 3.8 XQuickway 12 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 25% 3.0 X

Congested 7 |||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 4 ||||||||||||

Today 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 11 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 31% 1.8 XQuickway 10 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 38% 1.7 X

Congested 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 6 ||||||||||||||||||

Today 35 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 18 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 49% 1.8 XQuickway 9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 74% 0.9 X

Transit Center Congested 20 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 10 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 55 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 34 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 38% 2.4 XQuickway 19 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 65% 1.4 X

Congested 24 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 17 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 47% 1.0 XQuickway 6 |||||||||||||||||| 65% 0.7 X

Congested 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 9 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 42 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 26 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 38% 2.2 XQuickway 20 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 52% 1.7 X

Congested 22 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 23 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 13 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 43% 1.6 XQuickway 13 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 43% 1.6 X

Congested 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 8 ||||||||||||||||||||||||

Boulevard Station (El Cajon Blvd & I-15) to:

DRIVING

Hillcrest Center

TRANSIT

DRIVING

City Hts Village TRANSIT

Horton Plaza TRANSIT

North Park TRANSIT

DRIVING

Fashion Valley TRANSIT

DRIVING

North Park Community Sign

Fairmount & University DRIVING

Normal Hts TRANSIT

Normal Heights Sign DRIVING

Old Town TRANSIT

DRIVING

University Heights

TRANSIT

University Heights Community Sign DRIVING

USD TRANSIT

DRIVING

SDSU TRANSIT

DRIVING

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 B-6

FIGURE B.5 – TRAVEL TIME FROM FASHION VALLEY

Trip

Tim

e (M

ins.

)

Time Savings

Compared to Normal Drive

Today 20 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 16 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 20% 1.8 XQuickway 9 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 55% 1.0 X

Congested 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 7 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 6 |||||||||||||||||||||||| 14% 1.2 XQuickway 3 |||||||||||| 57% 0.6 X

Congested 9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 5 ||||||||||||||||||||

Today 40 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 29 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 28% 2.9 XQuickway 14 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 65% 1.4 X

Congested 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 10 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 38 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 26 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 32% 3.7 XQuickway 20 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 47% 2.9 X

Congested 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 7 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 20 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 20 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0% 2.2 XQuickway 7 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 65% 0.8 X

Congested 14 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 9 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 31 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 18 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 42% 1.5 XQuickway 8 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 74% 0.7 X

Congested 18 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 21 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 21 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0% 4.2 XQuickway 5 |||||||||||||||||||| 76% 1.0 X

Congested 7 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 5 ||||||||||||||||||||

Today 16 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 16 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0% 1.3 XQuickway 16 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 0% 1.3 X

Congested 18 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Today 7 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 9 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| -29% 1.8 XQuickway 9 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| -29% 1.8 X

Congested 8 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 5 ||||||||||||||||||||

Today 36 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

2050 RTP 21 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 42% 3.0 XQuickway 13 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 64% 1.9 X

Congested 12 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Normal 7 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Fashion Valley to:

DRIVING

City Hts Village TRANSIT

Fairmount & University DRIVING

Horton Plaza TRANSIT

DRIVING

Hillcrest Center

TRANSIT

North Park Community Sign DRIVING

Boulevard Station

TRANSIT

DRIVING

USD TRANSIT

Normal Hts TRANSIT

Normal Heights Sign DRIVING

North Park TRANSIT

DRIVING

University Heights

TRANSIT

University Heights Community Sign DRIVING

DRIVING

SDSU TRANSIT

DRIVING

Old Town TRANSIT

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 C-1

APPENDIX C Mid-Coast Supportive Projects

Project Profiles

The Mid-Coast Supportive Projects are discussed in Chapter 7 of this Discussion Paper. These projects are detailed below. Uptown Quickway

FIGURE C.1 – UPTOWN QUICKWAY

The Uptown Quickway is a facility designed to speed transit services in that community and serve as a principle junction in the entire proposed Quickway network. Initial modeling work suggests that the Hillcrest Center station would become one of the busiest stations in the region. Additional Quickway facilities are anticipated branching off the Uptown Quickway to the north, west, south, and east. The Uptown Quickway operates primarily through bored tunnels fed by short cut-and-cover sections. To the east, the tunnel entrance is proposed for University Avenue immediately to the

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 C-2

west of Normal Street, serving the Uptown District station by Vermont Street. The Quickway continues tunneling beneath SR163, until its junction with the north/south leg by Fifth Avenue. Why a bored tunnel? In this case, the reasons are practical:

1. It allows us to tunnel beneath SR163; any other option would involve major surface rebuilding.

2. It allows for a proposed traffic tunnel crossing over the Quickway at Sixth Avenue (Figure

C.2). 3. It keeps the Quickway from destroying the mature ficus trees that line Fifth Avenue. 4. It allows for a proposed traffic tunnel crossing over the Quickway on Washington Street

(Figure C.2). The Hillcrest Center SuperStation is a two-level station, given its status as a SuperStation (many MetroXpress routes are proposed to serve this station, implying the need for larger waiting areas and more platform space): an upper Mezzanine level, and three platforms serving northbound (east side of Fifth Avenue north of University), southbound (west side of Fifth Avenue south of University), and eastbound (south side of University east of Fifth Avenue) vehicles.

FIGURE C.2 – HILLCREST TUNNELS

Two traffic tunnels are anticipated in this project. One carries traffic on Sixth Avenue from a point north of University Avenue to the “dip” on Sixth Avenue north of Upas Street (further study may determine whether or not this tunnel should be extended a block south so that the entrance is south of Upas Street); the second is on Washington Street, from the small hill west of Albatross Street to the bridge over 6th Avenue. This second tunnel is anticipated to feature transit lanes that then drop down to meet the Uptown Quickway, permitting an Albatross station and facilitating connections to Mission Hills and Middletown.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 C-3

By building the road tunnel crossings into the Quickway project, future construction on the road tunnels can benefit significantly with minimal disruptions to transit service and significant cost savings. North Park SuperStation

FIGURE C.3 – NORTH PARK PROJECTS

The Quickway Proposal anticipates full underground Quickways built in North Park along both the El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue corridors. The North Park SuperStation is the first piece proposed as one of the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects. North Park has emerged recently as a high-demand urban area popular with Millennials. The Quickway segment is proposed for a combination of bored and cut-and-cover tunnel segments. As a SuperStation, North Park is proposed as a two-level station, with an upper Mezzanine and lower platforms. A temporary tunnel entrance on University Avenue by 28th Street leads to the SuperStation, emerging just to the west of 32nd Street and a surface “T-Way” station on 32nd Street itself (alternative configurations for the eastern end are possible). A streetcar has long been planned for the 30th Street corridor; a tunnel for that streetcar is suggested with entrances located approximately two blocks north and south of University Avenue. It is possible that these entrance tunnels might be only a single track wide, with access controlled

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 C-4

by signal, given the available surface right-of-way. Further study will be necessary. Just the same, there are compelling reasons to locate the streetcar in this short tunnel segment:

It frees room at the surface (existing bus stops and bus parking) for people space; It avoids a major traffic knot; It provides more waiting/passenger space; and Since existing bus routes would use the new tunnel, it ties them into the Rapid Transit

system by putting boarding/alighting into a station facility. Friars Road Projects The three principal Friars Road projects are the Friars Road T-Way (Figure C.4), the Fashion Valley Link (also Figure C.4) and the Friars Road/163 Flyover (Figure C.5)

FIGURE C.4 – FRIARS ROAD T-WAY AND FASHION VALLEY LINK

A T-Way is an at-grade transitway. The Friars Road T-Way proposes the reconfiguration of Friars Road west of the Fashion Valley Mall to include a T-Way running along the south side (a center-running alternative may be considered instead; the north side presents too many street entrances). It drops into a tunnel section just before reaching Napa Road, avoiding the entanglements of that section of roadway. On the eastern side, it meets up with the Fashion Valley Link, a T-Way facility on the west side of Fashion Valley Road, along with a new Rapid Bus station built into the Fashion Valley Transit Center. Once the full Fashion Valley SuperStation is built (a Stage II project), a short tunnel segment will link it to the Friars Road T-Way, surfacing before the Franciscan station. As the Quickway system is developed further, the Fashion Valley Link will connect to a new, much larger SuperStation which is proposed for the top of the garages on the south side of the shopping mall. The goal is for vehicles to move into and out of Fashion Valley as quickly as possible.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 C-5

The Friars Road/163 Flyover connects the Fashion Valley Transit Center with the SR163 corridor to the north. It features a new elevated station at the Friars Mission Center, serving the office and retail complex. A feeder road connects to Mission Valley Road, allowing transit vehicles to access the large Civita complex to the east. An additional spur connects to Ulric Road, speeding connections to/from Linda Vista.

FIGURE C.5 – FRIARS/163 FLYOVER

Point Loma Two projects tie Point Loma into the new Mid-Coast Light Rail, as well as with other local destinations (Figure C.6). The Rosecrans Quickway leaves a new below-grade Rapid Bus station at the Old Town Transit Center, then rises to an elevated structure built along Rosecrans Street from Hancock Street through to Madrid Street, with surface stations by Hancock Street (County Health) and Madrid Street (Loma) and an elevated station by Midway Drive. An elevated spur follows Sports Area Boulevard, dropping down to a surface center-running T-Way with stations at East Drive, Sports Arena, and Hancock Street. As a result, transit vehicles coming to or from Old Town can now completely bypass the congestion and traffic signals that add substantial delay to transit trips.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 C-6

FIGURE C.6 – POINT LOMA PROJECTS

Linda Vista/Morena Super Station The existing trolley station at Linda Vista/Morena gets an adjacent underground Quickway SuperStation (Figure C.7), given the future importance of this station as a crossroads of MetroXpress and Core routes. The station as proposed here is built primarily within the public right of way, but consideration should be given to locating the station so that it can specifically anchor major new development. It features three platforms which support movement in all directions, in addition to spurs linking to Linda Vista Road and Pacific Highway (in addition to the connections to the Friars Road T-Way and the Morena Quickway).

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 C-7

FIGURE C.7 – LINDA VISTA/MORENA SUPERSTATION

Old Town A below-grade station at Old Town (Figure C.8) is designed so that buses may enter and leave the facility without being constrained by traffic or rail-induced signal delays. The design and configuration of this station is tentative and will likely change as the Quickway Proposal is further developed.

FIGURE C.8 – OLD TOWN SUPERSTATION

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 C-8

Morena Quickway The Morena Quickway solves a key issue with the Mid-Coast Light Rail project: connecting zones not on the rail corridor into the Rapid Transit system. It takes advantage of the fact that Morena Boulevard, though a four lane facility, does not require four lanes to carry its traffic load (south of Balboa Avenue and north of Buenos, flows on West Morena/Morena Boulevard range from about 11,000-15,500 cars/day4, within the carrying capacity of a two-lane road). The Quickway (Figure C.9) occupies the western half of Morena Boulevard/West Morena Boulevard, serving three stations: Clairemont Drive (transfer to/from the trolley), Tecolote (transfer to/from the trolley), and a new station serving the proposed Bay Park Boardwalk.

FIGURE C.9 – MORENA QUICKWAY

Pacific Beach Underpass The Pacific Beach Underpass (Figure C.10) links the Morena Quickway with Pacific Beach. It provides the means whereby transit vehicles can swiftly enter and depart Pacific Beach, a zone that is otherwise subject to extreme congestion given the limited options for egress. The Quickway Proposal anticipates the construction of an underground Quickway in Pacific Beach at some future point.

4 Source: City of San Diego, Traffic Engineering Machine Count Traffic Volumes.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 C-9

FIGURE C.10 – PACIFIC BEACH UNDERPASS

The Pacific Beach Underpass branches off of the Morena Quickway, which drops into an open trench so that the Underpass can clear the adjacent railroad tracks and freeway. Transit vehicles using the facility can save a considerable amount of travel time during those times traffic backs up well into Pacific Beach. The configuration of the facility by the PB Gateway station (a light rail station) will need to be worked out.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 D-1

APPENDIX D Quickway Design Standards

For Quickways to contribute the most they can to moving people, attracting development, and mitigating parking impacts, they need to be planned, designed, and built in a way that emphasizes that they are rapid transit, not traditional bus systems (especially as they will one day be converted to some form of guided, automated technology) (see Figures D.1-2).

FIGURE D.1 – MIRAMAR COLLEGE TRANSIT STATION

This station is typical of “city bus” transfer centers, with minimal passenger protection from the elements and boarding platforms arranged around and in the middle of a huge expanse of concrete. This type of station is designed nearly entirely for the sake of operations, but not for the sake of potential riders. Nothing about the physical design of this station suggests “Rapid Transit.”

FIGURE D.2 – WOOLLOONGABBA BUSWAY STATION, BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA

The “Gabba” station separates passenger facilities from bus staging and turnaround zones. Station platforms feature continuous overhead structures to protect passengers from sun and occasional rain.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 D-2

QUICKWAYS

1. Cross-traffic. Quickways are fully grade-separated. Nothing crosses their path.

2. Pedestrians. Pedestrian facilities include elevators, ramps, and stairways. Pedestrians do not cross Quickways anymore than they cross freeways.

3. Geometries. Quickways are designed to support high-speed operations.

4. Design speeds. Design speeds for Quickways should allow for vehicle speeds in-between stations of up to 50-70 mph. In the vicinity of stations, geometries may reflect slower speeds, as all vehicles not stopping will be expected to slow down to 30 mph through the station itself.

5. Grades. Since Quickways are designed for potential conversion to some form of automated, guided train technology, grades should generally fall within those considered viable for at least streetcar systems (4.6% desirable; 6% possible, and up to 9% for relatively short segments).

STATIONS

6. Passing lanes. Quickway stations are configured with passing lanes to support

MetroXpress services as well as to permit transit vehicles leaving a station to bypass any vehicles stopped in front of them.

7. Types of stations. Quickway stations are of two types: SuperStations, serving all routes that pass through the station, and regular Stations, which serve Trolley/BRT (Core) routes and a limited set of MetroXpress routes. In addition, modular stations are proposed for T-way (non-separated transitways) and arterial locations.

8. Pedestrian crossing. All pedestrian crossings at Quickway stations take place either above or below the actual transitway. No pedestrians are permitted ever to cross travel lanes. Where feasible, passenger crossings within stations shall be covered and protected from harsh weather.

9. Platform length. Following the Brisbane model, stations are typically designed with 50

meter (164 foot) long platforms. Based on their experience, stations serving relatively few routes can have shorter platforms (≈120 foot length), while some SuperStation platforms may extend as much as 220-310 feet. Platform length should be determined based on a study of the experience of leading global BRT cities; where feasible, stations should also be designed with future expansion in mind, should the system be converted to longer trains.

10. Platform width. Platforms should ideally be 5 meters (about 16 feet) wide, with no barriers impeding the free movement of people. For T-Way and arterial MetroXpress stations, narrower widths are possible. In either case, no obstructions should be located along platforms.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 D-3

11. Signage. The area between approximately 8-10 and 12-14 feet in elevation above the station floor is designated as the Information Band. Live continuous displays in this zone ensure that passengers have quick access to all relevant information.

12. Information. Ideally, real-time arrival and departure information should be provided on the system. A smartphone app can be used to both plan and pay for trips.

13. Barriers. Given the challenges and expense involved in onboard fare inspection, a barrier-based system is proposed. Passengers “touch on” and “touch off” of stations using smart cards or smartphones.

14. Prefabrication. Ideally, stations should be built from a modular kit that would allow for a variety of station sizes and configurations. For arterial stations, this kit should be designed so that it may be installed over existing curbs and drainage, minimizing the need for expensive recurbing.

15. Protection from the elements. Quickway stations are designed to provide full protection from the elements. A passenger waiting at a station and boarding a vehicle should not be subject to the sun nor any possible rain. Some degree of protection from wind should also be provided, as well as barriers (sliding doors) separating passengers from moving vehicles.

16. SuperStations. SuperStations are special stations where all passing MetroXpress routes stop. They are located either at major junctions in the system or at key trip generators, such as many shopping malls.

a. Mezzanines. Where feasible, SuperStations have a mezzanine level.

b. Platform length. SuperStations should be designed with adequate platform length for the number and size of vehicles reasonably projected to stop at one time.

c. Staging areas. Vehicle staging areas may be appropriate in some corridors so that vehicles can travel in platoons in a set order, allowing vehicles to dock at designated bays without blocking or being blocked by vehicles in other bays. The experience of Porto Alegre, Brazil, should be closely studied for applicable lessons.

17. T-Way Stations. T-Ways are surface transitways that are not grade-separated. They generally do not feature full passing lanes at stations, though if right of way permits, may feature a single wide central lane that either direction may use to pass stopped vehicles. T-Way Stations should be built from a modular kit that maximizes customer value and minimizes construction/installation costs.

ROUTES

16. Trolley routes. Trolley or “Core” routes travel up and down dedicated rights-of-way stopping at all stations. They may be light rail or BRT-based.

17. MetroXpress routes. MetroXpress routes crisscross the region; ridership projections show that they will carry significantly higher ridership than Trolley routes.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 D-4

a. Naming convention. In the Quickway Proposal, MetroXpress routes are designated by an initial letter, tied somehow to the major endpoint destination, followed by two digits. Major routes are numbered in multiples of “10” (e.g., S10, S20, S30). The following is a list of the proposed MetroXpress route groupings:

Route Letter

Destination

A and Z Airport (from there you can get anywhere on earth from A to Z) B Plaza Bonita C Chula Vista F and E Santa Fe Depot (F routes generally head north; E routes south) J La Jolla/Coronado K Kearny Mesa L Linda Vista/Morena M Mira Mesa N Naval bases O Oceanside P Poinsettia Coaster Station (Carlsbad) R Rancho Bernardo S SDSU T Tech Center (Sorrento Mesa) U UTC V Fashion Valley W Flower Fields (Carlsbad) X Xtra routes (miscellaneous routes) Y San Ysidro

b. Route structure. MetroXpress routes typically travel along an arterial as a local bus

or Rapid Bus. Upon entering a Quickway, they stop at the first station (to permit transfers to/from Trolley routes), then proceed in express mode to their destination, stopping only at SuperStations. In their destination zone, they might stop at just one SuperStation, at several stations, or might circulate as a local or Rapid Bus.

18. Satellite entrances. A unique feature of the Quickway Proposal is the use of “satellite entrances” at some underground (and elevated) Quickway stations, essentially “horizontal elevators” that connect stations with “satellite” stations up to a quarter mile or so distant in any direction. These are automated, guided vehicles on dedicated rights of way, designed to operate on one-to-three minute headways.

19. Direct shuttles. Some off-corridor destinations are served by Direct Shuttles, which are essentially nonstop routes linking those destinations with a SuperStation. In rare cases, a Direct Shuttle might make one or two intervening stops.

20. Rapid bus routes. The MetroXpress system is an evolution of the current Rapid Bus system. As more infrastructure is developed, more Rapid Bus routes may be converted to MetroXpress.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 E-1

APPENDIX E Tourist Transit: The Fun’n’Sun Line

A unique aspect of the Quickway Proposal is that it creates the infrastructure that can help support a transit route focused on the region’s tourism industry, taking visitors from the bulk of the region’s hotel rooms to the destinations most likely to be on tourist itineraries. The Fun’n’Sun Line operates partially in Quickway and T-Way infrastructure; elsewhere, it features specialty stations/stops that are designed to be recognizable to tourists (Figures E.1 and E.2) and that feature enhanced information services.

FIGURE E.1 – TOURIST TRANSIT STOP IN KISSIMMEE (ORLANDO)

Though the design of this stop may not be appropriate for San Diego, it is an example of how other cities with large tourist economies have developed transit services that target the needs of visitors.

FIGURE E.2 – TOURIST TRANSIT STOP IN ANAHEIM

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 E-2

A map of the proposed route is given in Figure E.3.

FIGURE E.3 – PROPOSED ROUTE OF FUN’N’SUN LINE

Quickway and T-Way infrastructure used by Fun’n’Sun is indicated by an orange line beneath the blue line.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 E-3

The Fun’n’Sun line serves many of the region’s top tourism destinations. A listing of proposed stops appears in Figure E.4.

UTC UTC West UCSD Central Library Walk Mandell Weiss Birch Aquarium Oceanography La Jolla Shores Avenida de la Playa Ardath Prospect La Jolla Cove Children’s Pool Contemporary Marine St

Windansea Bird Rock Colima Turquoise Crystal Pier Grand Ave PB Drive Santa Clara El Carmel Belmont Park Bahia Quivira Sea World Groton Sports Arena

East Dr Old Town Presidio Hanalei Handlery Town & Country Fashion Valley Hotel Circle Hillcrest Center Laurel/Balboa Pk Cortez Horton Plaza Gaslamp Central Convention Ctr Convention West Seaport Village

Old Police HQ Embarcadero S Midway Cruise Ships Embarcadero N Harbor Island Airport West Inlet Nimitz Scott America’s Cup Shelter Island Portugal The Wooded Area Fort Rosecrans Cabrillo Monument

FIGURE E.4 – PROPOSED STOPS ALONG FUN’N’SUN LINE

The Fun’n’Sun line serves many thousands of hotel rooms, as well as major destinations (bold face).

The Fun’n’Sun line is complemented by other routes designed to connect to other destinations of interest to tourists. These include:

The La Jolla/Coronado Express, which makes a loop in downtown La Jolla, travels along Quickway infrastructure to Downtown San Diego (making just five intervening stops), then continues to Coronado, serving the Ferry Landing, the Orange Avenue corridor, and the area by the Hotel del Coronado.

The Safari Park Shuttle, which connects the North County Fair SuperStation directly with the

San Diego Zoo’s Safari Park in the San Pasqual Valley, travelling nonstop to the Park.

The Legoland/GIA Shuttle, which connects the Flower Field SuperStation with the main entrance to Legoland.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 F-1

APPENDIX F Integrated Plans

Much of the RTP is built on the expectation that transit investments (mostly in light rail, but with a significant component served by Rapid Bus) will drive land uses (that is, attract significant amounts of new development). If we apply the same criteria to the Quickway Proposal, we would expect the development of a pervasive, rapid, and convenient transit system to attract significant developer interest, given the benefits of living or working with nearby access to such a network. To be sure, new development may be expected in zones with the infrastructure to support new development (so as to minimize community concerns) and that have excellent access to regional employment destinations, attractive green spaces, vibrant neighborhood centers, and—especially for Millennials—excellent walking and bicycle systems that are convenient, safe, and direct. If these amenities can be created or enhanced, much new regional growth can be directed in a way that maximizes the benefits of development yet minimizes the costs and negative impacts. So if a way may be found to leverage transit infrastructure projects to create significant improvements to the other elements, we’d get way more bang for our public dollars.

FIGURE F.1 – PEARL DISTRICT OF PORTLAND

Often, major efforts to implement a new development strategy are focused around a theme. For Portland, it was the Pearl District (Figure F.1), which was remade into an intensely urban yet very desirable neighborhood with streetcars running through it and much greenery. For Curitiba, Brazil,

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 F-2

it was the “Structural Corridor,” built on the “Trinary Network” (a three-road system)5 (Figure F.2) For Arlington County, Virginia, it was the DC Metro (Figure F.3).

FIGURE F.2 – TRINARY ROAD SYSTEM OF CURITIBA’S “STRUCTURAL CORRIDORS”

One intriguing theme emerged from studies done on the North Park and Mid-City communities, particularly those centered along El Cajon Boulevard. The Boulevard, what at one time had been San Diego’s de facto main street, was dealt a major blow when Mission Valley became a shopping destination beginning in the 1960s, and spent decades attracting little in the way of new investment. Both North Park and Mid-City are dense communities, by San Diego standards. In the 1970s-1980s, many thousands of “six-pack” apartment buildings replaced the single family homes that had defined the first half century of this zone. The problem with this pattern of development was that, by spreading density over so wide a zone (Figures F.4 and F.5), it would not be possible to serve that density with reasonably useful transit. As a result, residents would all practically be required to own and operate motor vehicles, leading to a landscaped packed with automobiles and consistent frustration as residents and visitors travel the streets searching for parking.

5 In a three-road system, a central road is the widest, has transit running down the middle, one or two lanes for local traffic, parking, and many street trees. One block on either side are one-way “express” streets, which are actually moderate-speed roads (60 kph, about 37 mph) but which utilize signal timing so that traffic, once moving, rarely has to stop. One of these roads is inbound, the other outbound. They move an impressive amount of traffic, yet are only as wide as a typical street and may be crossed in reasonable safety. In the Structural Corridor concept, the bulk of the city’s density was to be built along five structural corridors, each of which would be retrofitted with the Trinary, or three-road system.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 F-3

FIGURE F.3 – ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

The DC suburb of Arlington County concentrated new development within walking distance of Metro stations (yellow stars). Density is now served by an effective transit link, and most neighborhoods have been preserved for desirable single-family housing. Arlington County is often cited as among the most successful examples of planning around transit in the U.S.

FIGURE F.4 – DENSITY IN MID-CITY SAN DIEGO

Mid-City is shown at the same scale as the previous image of Arlington County, Virginia (Figure F.3). By spreading density out, Mid-City cannot effectively serve it with transit, unlike Arlington County, which tightly linked density to infrastructure.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 F-4

At the same time, many older neighborhoods, including Mid-City and North Park suffer from a notorious deficit of park facilities. They have managed to acquire some new parks over the past couple of decades, but still remain well below city standards. The options for creating new parkland involve either decking over freeways (extremely expensive and probably limited in terms of the types of trees that may be grown), clearing out blocks occupied by homes today, or converting parking lots into parks. Or at least, that’s what it would seem, but a number of cities around the world have come up with a fourth source of new parkland: road space. It turns out that many cities suffer from congestion, but a major contributor can be an ineffective transit system and poorly configured road network. Curitiba, Brazil (described in a previous footnote), devised a road strategy that allows three parallel roads to move a very large number of people (between cars and transit) quite smoothly and surprisingly tranquil along the major central boulevard. What if improvements to the transit system, coupled with improvements to the road system, together could allow the creation of a significant amount of new parkland?

FIGURE F.5 – ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA (LEFT),

AND MID-CITY SAN DIEGO (RIGHT)

This closer view of the two areas, shown at approximately the same scale, makes clear the difference in development strategies. Arlington’s preserves single-family neighborhoods on the one hand and locates density immediately surrounding rapid transit stations, while San Diego’s spreads density out evenly.

So was born the concept of “Sails to Trails.” It came with the realization that El Cajon Boulevard, at least west of Fairmount Avenue, was the most significant “open space” in Mid-City. Could some of it be repurposed to support a linear park? Boulevard-running linear parks are not uncommon in the world. Berlin (Figure F.6) sports one in the desirable Charlottenburg neighborhood. Copenhagen recently converted the formerly six-lane Sønder Boulevard into a two-lane road with a wide central linear park (Figures F.7 and F.8).

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 F-5

FIGURE F.6 – LINEAR PARK IN BERLIN

FIGURE F.7 – LINEAR PARK IN COPENHAGEN (SØNDER BOULEVARD), AERIAL VIEW

FIGURE F.8 – LINEAR PARK IN COPENHAGEN (SØNDER BOULEVARD), STREET VIEW

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 F-6

The problem with converting a major traffic arterial to support a linear park is simple: what happens to the traffic? The problem is compounded by earlier SANDAG projections, mapped in Figure F.9, showing expected increases in automotive travel time for residents of San Diego, from 2003 through 2030. According to the data, residents along El Cajon Boulevard will see their average drive increase by over three minutes (as well as those living along parts of 30th Street and University Avenue in North Park, as well as residents of Hillcrest center)—the worst increase among existing urbanized neighborhoods in the county, perhaps due to expected increases in residential projects and the planned conversion of auto travel lanes to light rail in the future.

FIGURE F.9 – PROJECTED CHANGES IN AUTOMOTIVE TRAVEL TIME, MID-CITY

Data provided by SANDAG was mapped in GIS, showing changes in the expected average automotive trip for residents of San Diego. Along much of El Cajon Boulevard in North Park (as well as other arterials), average automotive trip times were expected to worsen significantly (darker colors).

Cities such as Curitiba dealt with traffic displacement by reworking parallel streets so that they could carry that traffic safely and efficiently. Could that work in San Diego? A major issue would be impacts to adjacent residents; however, given that capacity on El Cajon Boulevard is already expected to be restricted, it is likely that parallel streets will see large increases in traffic even under the existing RTP scenario. The difference is that, since those streets remain two way (with a range of changes, including reverse back-in angled parking, mini roundabouts, and new bicycle lanes), they will generate more start/stop driver behavior, left-turn conflicts, and delays due to parking cars. As reworked one-way “managed flow” streets, flows will be made more regular with fewer potential conflicts, aiding traffic movement, noise control, and pedestrian safety. One final point that bears mentioning: San Diego has a longstanding problem with aging infrastructure, particularly water, sewer, and storm drains, with questions as to where the financing will come from to rebuild this infrastructure. If these are combined with the proposed Quickway project, funds may be leveraged so as to make it easier to accomplish all of the goals. The basic notion of Sails to Trails is to create a linear park that ultimately links the lowest point in the City—sea level (via the Downtown waterfront) to Mission Trails Regional Park, where the highest point in the City is located. This linear park would include bicycle facilities and be built

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 F-7

jointly with the proposed Quickway tunnels. Water, sewer, and storm drain renewal would be integrated with the project, so that we only need to dig once (saving a very substantial amount of money) and so that the pipes may be more easily accessed for maintenance work from within the tunnel. At the surface, station locations would be topped by public plazas featuring shady trees, seating, fountains, attractive landscaping, and surrounded by appropriate retail and related amenities, such as restaurants, brewpubs/tasting rooms, and boutiques, pharmacies, etc. Parking could be built into the plazas, especially favoring micro vehicles (such as Smart cars), due to the ability to substantially increase parking density, keeping unit costs down, and giving residents beyond a comfortable walk easy access to both the transit and the retail opportunities. These plazas would be linked by a linear park occupying the central lanes of El Cajon Boulevard; the park could be up to 70’ wide west of I-805 and up to 57’ wide between I-805 and the Fairmount/43rd Street couplet. Parallel roads would be reconfigured to allow for the smooth flow of one-way traffic (with signals timed to support such flows). Local traffic and existing on-street parking would be preserved, supporting existing local businesses (many of which would generate new revenues from new development). For Millennials, who have recently turned North Park into San Diego’s “it” neighborhood, the result is precisely the kind of city they wish to live in: excellent transit and bicycle facilities (active recreation), homes overlooking greenery (instead of noisy traffic), and walkable, social nodes of activity. Land within 600’ of El Cajon Boulevard would constitute the redevelopment component of the structural corridor, with building heights to be determined through further study and community consultation. A form-based code could be developed, in consultation with the community, facilitating new investment in the zone. What about adjacent residential neighborhoods? Sails to Trails creates a significant positive amenity value that can be used to help direct new investment away from the corridor itself. For example, developers that rehabilitate “six-pack” apartment buildings, or replace them with more neighborhood-appropriate housing forms, could earn the right to increase densities/heights in the immediate vicinity of Quickway stations (these locations generate the least amount of road traffic per residential unit, given the presence of excellent regional transit connectivity); this shifting of density from single-family-dominant neighborhoods to locations adjacent to rapid transit should prove a major benefit to community members concerned about traffic, parking, and neighborhood character. It might also prove feasible to ensure that existing residents have first access, at affordable rents, to new development in the zone (like with Downtown, the value of the location allows for the creation of affordable housing). Sails to Trails will be described in an upcoming Discussion Paper that goes into greater detail on the concept and how it might be staged into existence. In short, Sails to Trails may actually be the most cost-effective means of achieving regional goals, despite the obvious expense of a transit tunnel, since it is able to combine a mix of needed infrastructure components to create high-value redevelopment potential. Just the development of Sails to Trails along El Cajon Boulevard from Park Boulevard to just east of Fairmount Avenue immediately produces a wide range of significant benefits at a reduced cost:

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 F-8

True and effective rapid transit. The Quickway tunnel, supporting both Core and MetroXpress services, connects residents of Mid-City with major employment, commercial, and recreational amenities in less time than driving;

Renewed infrastructure. Water, sewer, and storm drainage systems are renewed and

improved;

New parkland. As much as 40 new acres of parkland is created just in North Park alone, mostly out of reconfiguration of existing publicly-owned land;

New development. Redevelopment along the transit corridor is stimulated with very high

amenity value;

Bicycle infrastructure. New bicycle facilities connect Mid-City with points east and west;

Extended reach of transit. “Satellite” station entrances extend the easy reach of rapid transit stations;

Economic development. Economic development is supported by creating the kind of

environment that attracts the entrepreneurial Millennial generation; and

Quality of life. New residential development takes place within walking distance of parks, rapid transit, shop-lined public plazas, and bicycle facilities.

A more detailed exploration of the potential of Sails to Trails, along with other Quickway Proposal-inspired community opportunities, will be the subject of another discussion paper in the Paradise Project series.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 G-1

APPENDIX G Capital Cost Model

The capital costs for Quickway Proposal projects were calculated using a cost model developed for that purpose by a New York-based engineering firm with extensive experience designing transit facilities. Since costs change over time, the model cannot be expected to produce accurate projections over the several decades covered by the RTP, but it has proven relatively robust when used to estimate costs on recent and future transit projects. Guideway Costs Costs for guideways (Quickways, T-Ways, and Light Rail) are calculated based on linear feet for a two lane facility (Figure G-1):

Right of Way Type Cost per Linear Foot Surface, repurpose existing $300 Surface, new $1,800 Cut and open $15,000 Cut and cover tunnel $20,000 Bored tunnel $25,000 Elevated $8,000 Bridge $13,000 Light Rail Base cost + 20%

FIGURE G.1 – GUIDEWAY COSTS PER LINEAR FOOT

Station Costs Stations were priced at different levels, depending on the station type (Figure G.2):

Station Type Cost per Station Quickway, surface $3,750,000 Quickway, elevated $15,000,000 Quickway, underground $20,000,000 SuperStation, surface $5,000,000 SuperStation, elevated $20,000,000 SuperStation, underground $60,000,000 T-Way & Arterial station (2-way) $1,000,000

FIGURE G.2 – STATION COSTS

In practice, station costs can vary widely based on a variety of conditions and circumstances.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 G-2

Contingency and LEA Costs Once base costs were calculated, contingency costs were added to the total. The new total was then subject to an additional cost for legal, engineering, and administrative costs (Figure G.3).

Cost Component Amount Contingency 35-50% LEA 25% of new total

FIGURE G.3 – ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COSTS

To illustrate, a project that would involve 4000’ of bored tunnel and an underground SuperStation would be priced as follows (Figure G.4):

Cost Component Calculation Total Bored tunnel, 4000’ 4000 X $25,000/ft $100,000,000 Underground SuperStation $60,000,000/ea $60,000,000

Subtotal $160,000,000 Contingency 50% of Subtotal $80,000,000

New Subtotal $240,000,000 LEA 25% of New Subtotal $60,000,000

Projected Cost $300,000,000

FIGURE G.4 – SAMPLE PROJECT COSTS

Another way to understand costs would be to look at the projected costs per mile, fully allocated (including contingency and LEA), of the different ROW types (Figure G.5):

Right of Way Type Fully Allocated Cost/Mile Surface, repurpose existing $2,970,000 Surface, new $17,820,000 Cut and open $148,500,000 Cut and cover tunnel $198,000,000 Bored tunnel $247,500,000 Elevated $79,200,000 Bridge $128,700,000

FIGURE G.5 – FULLY ALLOCATED CAPITAL COSTS PER MILE It must be noted that the costs in Figure G.5 do not include station costs; a 5- mile underground Quickway with 4 regular and 2 SuperStations would be priced between $273-322.5 million/mile.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 H-1

APPENDIX H Quickway Proposal Draft Service Maps

The following pages portray area maps of the draft route structure of the Quickway Proposal. These maps are constantly evolving as community representatives, stakeholders, and public officials suggest possibilities as well as changes in land uses; in a way, these adaptations are an expression of the strength of the strategy: its ability to evolve services within the base of fixed infrastructure. The maps here may differ in minor degrees from other maps in this discussion paper. Should the Quickway Proposal result in projects selected for inclusion in a future Regional Transportation Plan, then more detailed work can determine the optimal routing of proposed services. These maps were drawn before the Mid-Coast Light Rail line was approved for development and hence do not show this link. It may be surprising to some, but while the new line will lead to some shifting of proposed infrastructure and routes in the Golden Triangle, most of what is proposed remains, given the very limited reach of the new light rail line (six stations in the zone) and the limited connectivity it offers to the bulk of people accessing the zone (who comes from surrounding communities, none of which will have an easy connection to the new Trolley line). A master map, indicating the approximate centers of each area map, appears at the end of this appendix.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 H-2

FIGURE H.1 – NORTH COUNTY COASTAL

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 H-3

FIGURE H.2 – NORTH COUNTY INLAND (I-15 CORRIDOR)

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 H-4

FIGURE H.3 –MID-COAST

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 H-5

FIGURE H.4 – KEARNY MESA/NORTH CENTRAL

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 H-6

FIGURE H.5 – BEACH COMMUNITIES

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 H-7

FIGURE H.6 – DOWNTOWN, UPTOWN, AND MISSION VALLEY

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 H-8

FIGURE H.7 – EAST COUNTY

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 H-9

FIGURE H.8 – SOUTH BAY COASTAL

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 H-10

FIGURE H.9 – SOUTH BAY INLAND

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 H-11

FIGURE H.10 – MASTER ROUTE MAP

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 I-1

APPENDIX I Quickway Proposal Infrastructure Maps

The Quickway Proposal aims to significantly increase transit ridership (compared to the official RTP plan) among all income levels, with especially notable gains in the broad middle-income market, so as to achieve the goals of the City of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan, as well as regional greenhouse gas reduction goals. The essence of the strategy is to:

Locate stations so as to effectively cover the region’s denser, developed zones; Build these stations to a global standard so as to provide better protection from sun, rain,

wind, and moving vehicles; Designate a subset of stations as SuperStations, designed to support both express and all-

stops services; Provide rapid and convenient access to the system from many suburban zones; Overlay a MetroXpress network to radically reduce travel times (and operating costs) and

make transit fully competitive with driving; Operate various feeder and express shuttle services to further tie off-corridor origins and

destinations into the network; Build an appropriate Quickway grade-separated infrastructure to optimize the functioning

of the MetroXpress network; and Plan for upgrading the technology once the Quickway system is built-out.

To demonstrate the strategy in action, a draft set of infrastructure projects was developed for purposes of analysis. Like any proposal, these are not intended to be final, but rather, a starting point for more detailed and community-focused planning work. As planning evolves, projects will be expected to evolve, as new opportunities are identified, constraints and challenges emerge, and the region as a whole continues to develop and change. The following subsections focus on Central San Diego, South Bay, East County, North Central, North County, and the I-15 North Corridor. For each, a map depicts existing and proposed transit infrastructure as well as corridors which are initial candidates for MetroXpress services. Following each map is a discussion of the key elements proposed for each zone and a brief discussion of the differences and similarities between what is proposed here and what is proposed in the RTP. In the maps that follow, only SuperStations are named. For a complete list of proposed station names, please see Appendix H, “Quickway Proposal Draft Service Maps.”

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 I-2

Central San Diego

FIGURE I.1 – PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE MAP – CENTRAL SAN DIEGO

The Central zone is home to most of San Diego densest and most urban communities; it is where the bulk of Quickway infrastructure is proposed, a significant portion of which (just over 13 miles of the Quickways depicted in Figure I.1) are proposed for undergrounding. While tunnel sections are expensive, they are warranted given the expected flows of passengers and transit vehicles (Figure I.2), which are expected to greatly exceed ridership on existing trolley lines.

It is likely, given new development in the core region, that ridership will greatly exceed the flows depicted in Figure I.2. Even so, ridership on the proposed underground Quickway along the Normal St/El Cajon Boulevard corridor is projected to exceed the ridership of the parallel trolley route in Mission Valley by at least 3-4 times, and the ridership of the proposed underground Quickway through Bankers Hill and Hillcrest expected to exceed, by at least three times, the busiest point on the existing Trolley network.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 I-3

FIGURE I.2 – PROJECTED RIDERSHIP

Ridership projections were calculated for the Quickway Proposal using data from 2006; by 2050, an estimated million new residents, many living along the proposed network, would be expected to increase ridership significantly.

Other salient aspects of the proposal are as follows.

1. Liberty Station/Point Loma. Liberty Station is connected via Quickway to the rest of the network, as is the entire Rosecrans corridor and Shelter Island. The Loma Portal area benefits from several stations and Quickway/T-Way infrastructure. The development of effective rapid transit in this zone should have a measurable impact on traffic.

2. North Park and City Heights. The University Avenue corridor enjoys both underground

Quickway infrastructure and some surface lanes. Given the resurgence of North Park, these investments make strong sense. The resulting set of transit connections would significantly reduce transit travel time to virtually all regional and neighboring destinations (see, in particular, the travel time figures in Appendix B, “Comparative Travel Time.”

3. Hillcrest and the Hospitals. Hillcrest is well served by Quickways, along with both major

hospitals, each of which has its own Quickway station.

4. Park Boulevard. The existing Rapid Bus busway on Park Boulevard is converted to support a new streetcar line.

5. Mission Valley. The development of Quickway infrastructure in the Friars Road corridor

(from the Friars Mission Center west to the Linda Vista/Morena SuperStation), as well as a flyover from the main north/south trunk line to Camino del Rio South, means that most of Mission Valley’s residents and workers will now have walking access to rapid transit services, with direct linkages to Mid-City and points north.

6. Streetcars. Consistent with the RTP, the Quickway Proposal recommends a streetcar

network for the urban core. Unlike the RTP, though, the Quickway Proposal recommends some changes to streetcar routes based on their role within the broader network:

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 I-4

o From downtown, the streetcar line running up Bankers Hill turns into Balboa Park. o Hillcrest Center no longer requires a streetcar line as it is served by direct, rapid,

and far more frequent service6 connecting with downtown and Bankers Hill, as well as Quickway-based service to North Park and points in-between.

o The 30th Street streetcar line now also serves Normal Heights (Adams Avenue), Kensington, and the Boulevard SuperStation. Persons arriving at either the North Park SuperStation or the Boulevard SuperStation can then board this streetcar line to access Adams Avenue conveniently.

o Two additional streetcar lines serve Southwestern neighborhoods (Logan Heights and Southcrest).

7. Airport. Both the existing terminals and the planned Intermodal Transportation Center planned for the east side of Lindbergh Field are directly tied into the Quickway Proposal.

With regard to the proposed streetcar lines in both the RTP and Quickway Proposal plans, there are a number of issues shaping the costs and feasibility of such service (in particular, the ability of existing bridges to support the weight of a streetcar, and projections of operating and construction costs that may or may not reflect actual costs). One alternative, to get such service up and running

FIGURE I.3 – “TRACKLESS TROLLEY” STREETCAR IN THE UK

New generation trackless streetcars allow cities to implement streetcar routes, particularly in challenging environments where vehicle weight is a concern.

6 Maximum trip time between Hillcrest and Downtown, including wait and travel time, throughout much of the day, will decrease from as much as 26 minutes in the RTP to just 6 minutes in the Quickway Proposal.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 I-5

sooner rather than later, is to begin with a new generation of “trackless trolleys” that essentially place a streetcar-like body on rubber tires. Such systems are cheaper to install and feature vehicles that should be supported by existing bridges (Figure I.3) South Bay Among the key elements of the Quickway Proposal’s concepts for the South Bay are the following.

1. Quickways. Quickway infrastructure through the heart of National City and Chula Vista, operating mostly underground along 8th Street and Highland Avenue in National City and 4th Avenue, F Street, and 3rd Avenue in Chula Vista. This routing allows for stations serving the Chula Vista Civic Center, downtown Chula Vista (Figure I.5) , downtown National City, and the County Administrative Complex. An additional branch serves the proposed Plaza Bonita SuperStation, a major hub for services in the South Bay.

2. Imperial Beach. Imperial Beach is served by several MetroXpress routes that link it rapidly

to destinations north and east. In addition, Palm Avenue, between I-5 and Imperial Beach, is

FIGURE I.4 – PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE MAP – SOUTH BAY

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 I-6

a candidate for consideration as a structural corridor and roadway enhancements to improve traffic flows, enhance the pedestrian experience, and anchor appropriately-scaled development.

3. Airport. The new US terminal for Tijuana’s Abelardo Rodriguez International Airport is

connected, via a MetroXpress route, with San Diego’s Lindbergh Field, facilitating international transfers.

One point of similarity yet difference with the RTP transit plan is the RTP’s proposed “Purple Line” light rail. This line would connect Kearny Mesa with the Blue Line Trolley by Palomar station, following along I-15 then I-805, cutting inland and following a similar alignment to the proposed Quickway. The Quickway Proposal has several major advantages over the Purple Line:

• The Quickway features closer-spaced stations, making it easier for more residents to access rapid transit. The overlay MetroXpress routes provide a far faster trip to many regional destinations.

FIGURE I.5 – DOWNTOWN CHULA VISTA

Downtown Chula Vista is served by an underground Quickway that transitions from 4th Avenue to 3rd Avenue along F Street, allowing for stations to serve the Civic Center, Library, and Police Headquarters, and downtown’s Third Avenue corridor. Routes serving these stations connect directly to downtown San Diego and the airport, the Scripps Hospital and Chula Vista Center, the Trolley at both E Street and Palomar, the San Ysidro border, southern Chula Vista, and Plaza Bonita.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 I-7

• The Purple Line does not serve many destinations until it reaches Kearny Mesa—a long ride from the South Bay. Residents of the South Bay trying to access the key employment zones—Eastlake, the Bayfront, Downtown, the hospitals—will need to transfer, possibly twice, to get there. In contrast, the proposed Quickway supports services going directly to major employment sites, as well as the downtowns of both Chula Vista and National City (in addition, of course, to downtown San Diego).

East County East County communities receive both new infrastructure and a large set of MetroXpress routes linking these communities together with the rest of the region.

1. Lemon Grove is served by new Quickway and T-Way infrastructure, linking it directly to the SDSU SuperStation and cutting travel time between the two from 21 to just 8 minutes.

FIGURE I.6 – PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE MAP – EAST COUNTY

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 I-8

2. La Mesa gets dedicated elevated infrastructure linking from I-8 to the current Grossmont Trolley Station with a new station serving the Sharp Hospital complex and Grossmont Center. While the installation of an elevator has improved the connection between the Grossmont Trolley Station and these two key destinations, the distances are still too far to capture significant ridership; the new facility will far better serve this location.

3. El Cajon gets T-Way infrastructure and new services targeting its core. 4. Santee becomes a regional SuperStation with services linking it to points west, south, and

east, making transit a viable or even preferable alternative for many more residents. 5. Shuttles. A shuttle connects Grossmont College with the Grossmont SuperStation, while

another shuttle links Cuyamaca College with the Lemon Grove SuperStation significantly, improving regional access to these colleges.

North Central

FIGURE I.7 – PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE MAP – NORTH CENTRAL

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 I-9

The North Central area is home to many of the region’s jobs, as well as centers of higher education, hospitals, high-density residential, and major shopping centers (Figure I.7). The challenge of serving this dispersed area is to connect from all over the metro area to key points, and delivering people to a wide range of locations. Traditional Trolley or Rapid Bus routes by themselves can’t do as thorough a job as will be needed to ensure that Climate Action Plan targets are met. The Quickway Proposal relies on a mixture of infrastructure and services to better match this zone.

1. Clairemont. Clairemont sees MetroXpress service on Balboa Avenue. Short underground Quickway segments speed vehicles into and out of the Clairemont Town Square SuperStation, saving valuable minutes of time and improving reliability. Another short underground Quickway segment on Balboa Avenue serves two stations and speeds transit considerably. Clairemont Mesa Boulevard is another candidate structural corridor, with a dedicated surface T-Way linking three SuperStations with relatively closely-space T-Way stations.

2. Kearny Mesa. Kearny Mesa is served by dedicated Quickway Infrastructure connecting

Kearny Mesa with corridors to the Northeast, Northwest, and South. This is supplementing by a proposed surface T-way in the median of Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, extending through to Clairemont Town Square, which anchors a potential Structural Corridor. A set of MetroXpress routes link stations in Kearny Mesa with most off-corridor destinations. Several automated, low-speed shuttles, operating in their own right-of-way or on low-traffic roads, extend the reach of several stations to better serve off-corridor origins and destinations. An underground station in the heart of the emerging Convoy pan-Asian district anchors that district and provides a one-seat rider from much of the region (Figure I-8).

3. Pacific Beach. Quickway infrastructure is proposed, running mostly underground along the

Grand Avenue corridor and then turning up the Ingraham corridor to serve a SuperStation located in the vicinity of Garnet Avenue (the major pedestrian destination) and Ingraham Street. Two streetcar lines pass through this station, linking to northern PB, Mission Beach, and Crown Point. At least one MetroXpress route continues through to serve the beach and other points on Garnet and Grand Avenues.

4. La Jolla. La Jolla is served by a proposed ½-mile long tunnel linking a Quickway parallel to I-

5 through past La Jolla Shores Drive, avoiding a major traffic knot that can easily add 10 minutes or longer to a trip into or out of La Jolla. A MetroXpress route, the La Jolla/Coronado Express, links La Jolla with downtown San Diego and Coronado. Downtown La Jolla is served by four interconnected services: the MetroXpress route, which makes a one-way loop; the Fun’n’Sun Line, the tourism-oriented route that travels along the coast; a streetcar line arriving from Pacific Beach, linking with Bird Rock; and the Tan Line, a Core (BRT) route linking through UCSD and the Golden Triangle to Sorrento Valley, Carmel Valley, and points north.

5. Greater Golden Triangle. The Greater Golden Triangle, which includes Sorrento Mesa and

Valley as well as Torrey Pines and the UCSD campus, is served by a combination of Quickway infrastructure, streetcar lines, and various MetroXpress routes. Together, they

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 I-10

extend rapid transit access widely throughout the region’s largest employment zone and connect more people to more places than the planned light rail, typically in far less time.

FIGURE I.8 – ONE-SEAT-RIDE ROUTES TO CONVOY SUPERSTATION

The Convoy SuperStation anchors the emerging pan-Asian Convoy district. The map above depicts those rapid transit routes (MetroXpress and Core Routes—Trolley or BRT) offering direct service (one-seat ride) to/from this station. They connect with most other routes in the network, facilitating travel to and from this emerging new center south of SR56. Other routes connect farther north.

6. Scripps Ranch. Scripps Ranch is served by a major Quickway connecting south to Kearny

Mesa and north to the I-15 managed lanes. SuperStations at the Scripps Ranch Business Park and Mira Mesa serve as the hub of a set of MetroXpress routes that serve the surrounding communities. A short T-way section links the commercial heart of Scripps Ranch with the Quickway.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 I-11

7. Miramar Road Corridor. The Miramar Road Corridor is not transit friendly at first glance: commercial buildings cover nearly 2.5 square miles of at-times hilly terrain. Our solution to the challenge is to create infrastructure at either end which permits MetroXpress routes to quickly enter and leave the corridor, then rely on several “Auto-Transit” stations, where station cars or automated vehicles are available for people to access their final destination.

The Quickway Proposal differs from the RTP in a number of significant respects.

1. The RTP anticipates a light rail line linking Grand Avenue in Pacific Beach with Kearny Mesa via the Balboa Avenue corridor. When we attempted to model ridership along that corridor, we found relatively light ridership for a light rail line, and suspect that much of the projected ridership was that of people heading to other destinations that, once better served by the MetroXpress network, no longer would take the slower light rail route. There are also very significant environmental and traffic challenges that would make this light rail line extremely expensive to build. Our approach—building Quickway infrastructure where needed, but otherwise improving connectivity through better, faster routing, is far more cost-effective and likely to attract many more riders.

2. The RTP does feature an interesting approach to Kearny Mesa, with three Trolley spokes

coming together at approximately the intersection of Convoy Street and Engineer Road. The Quickway Proposal builds on this idea, modifying it to better locate stations and improve connectivity within Kearny Mesa.

3. The Mid-Coast Light Rail line is not yet incorporated into the Quickway Proposal. When

built, it would result in minor changes from the current plans, as Quickway infrastructure would still be need to facilitate movements into Pacific Beach, La Jolla, and throughout the greater Golden Triangle.

North County North County benefits from infrastructure and services targeting the major employment centers and population centers (Figure I.9).

1. Grade separations. A unique feature of the Quickway Proposal is its approach to the two major arterial “expressways” in North County: El Camino Real (south of Palomar Airport Road) and Palomar Airport Road. These are both candidates for full grade separation (Figure I.10). Doing so would not only significantly reduce travel time along these arterials; it would significantly increase their automotive carrying capacity, even with the conversion of the inner lanes to transit-only lanes. The rebuilt roadway will take some pressure off I-5, speed access to jobs, and support viable rapid transit.

2. CSUSM. While the CSU San Marcos is served by a station on the Sprinter light rail line, that

station is located at an uncomfortable walking distance from the bulk of campus. A new MetroXpress route serves stations located closer to campus.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 I-12

FIGURE I.9 – PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE MAP – NORTH COUNTY

3. Sprinter extensions. It’s no secret that the Sprinter has underperformed relative to ridership

expectations. The challenge seems twofold: first, the Sprinter avoids the major employment zone of Palomar Airport Road; second, it also misses the large residential population of Escondido. While the RTP envisions a Sprinter extension to the Westfield North County shopping mall, the Quickway Proposal also suggests an extension east so that residents of Escondido’s east side have access to the train. This is discussed in greater detail below along with an additional proposed extension along Palomar Airport Road itself.

4. Carmel Valley is served by a Quickway parallel to I-5, with MetroXpress routes that peel off

to serve arterials on the east and west side of the freeway. A new Fairgrounds SuperStation improves access to the Fairgrounds, with potentially major improvements to freeway and road traffic during Fair and racing seasons.

5. Flower Fields. Dedicated infrastructure is proposed linking the Poinsettia Coaster Station

with the Palomar Airport Road corridor, along with its major destinations. Shuttles link a

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 I-13

dedicated Flower Fields SuperStation with Legoland, the Flower Fields, the outlet mall, and Car Country Carlsbad.

FIGURE I.10 – URBAN GRADE SEPARATIONS AND TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE

Urban grade separations, such as exist on Nimitz Boulevard in Point Loma (left), are common in global cities, and would have been far more common in California had Federal funding not instead prioritized the building of interstate highways, which in California were generally built to a single rural standard (as opposed to an urban and rural standard). By grade-separating the intersections on portions of El Camino Real and on Palomar Airport Road, inner lanes may be converted to transitways (such as in the example, on the right, from Bogota, Colombia), stations located in what otherwise would be a landscaped median, and increases in auto carrying capacity.

The Sprinter and North County In North County, the nature of land uses—their dispersion, low levels of density, separation of uses, road patterns and types, and the way in which retail and other serves were developed—suggests a transit network that less resembles the Quickway approach in Central/South County, but more resembles a rail backbone with rapid bus feeders and some direct/express service. The trick is to provide some infrastructure for those portions of the network that may be anticipated to be important segments, emphasize station design and siting, and working out the right route pattern and appropriate level of transit priority and infrastructure for the MetroXpress/Rapid Bus component. The RTP anticipates an extension of the Sprinter south to Westfield North County. We suggest two additional extensions of the Sprinter:

1. Eastern Escondido. An extension east going through Escondido so as to pass within reasonable access of this large resource of working people. This will help us take more of them to their jobs.

2. Palomar Airport Road. An extension branching west from the Palomar College Station,

going south in the general South Las Posas Road corridor, then west on San Marcos Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road, terminating at the Poinsettia Coaster Station. All of Palomar Airport Road and parts of South San Marcos Boulevard are further proposed for having all intersections grade separated, with the main road passing either over or beneath

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 I-14

existing cross roads. The grade separations allow for the replacement of the two most internal lanes (the ones running along the center median) with the Sprinter, while still increasing automotive carrying capacity; as a rough rule, a four-lane grade-separated road carries as much as twice the number of cars as a six-lane at-grade arterial. In places where the main road passes over or beneath the surface, the Sprinter, itself, can remain at grade, be fully integrated with cross-platform boarding for MetroXpress/Rapid Bus service connecting to nearby destinations, and perhaps help shape land uses in the immediate vicinity.

In terms of routing, “Sprinter1” would be today’s Sprinter plus its RTP-included extension to Westfield North County. Sprinter2 would run on the new extensions, sharing tracks and stations with Sprinter1 in its “middle” piece. Sprinter3 would connect the east side of Escondido with the center and south side; it alone will run entirely on new extensions. If the Sprinter could run south along the coastline, it might generate significantly higher ridership. For it to do so, though, it would need to run on its own tracks, as Federal regulations do not permit the operation of light rail vehicles on a mixed freight/passenger main line railway. The issue is one of safety. However, the implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC)—a set of technologies and practices that, together, significantly reduce the possibility of a train striking another train—creates an opportunity to, working closely with our congressional delegation, our contacts within the Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration, explore the possibility of developing a pilot program to test out whether these technologies may permit the safe operation of a relatively frequent light rail service sharing track with Amtrak and occasional freight trains. If such a pilot program were to be imagined, it might even allow for upgrading the Coaster commuter rail to a Sprinter-style light rail train that operated at relatively high frequencies. There are several advantages to this approach; a Sprinter train is much cheaper to operate than a Coaster train, meaning that lower passenger numbers would be needed to justify operations. An all-day, relatively frequent train running straight up and down the Coast could prove very useful to many San Diegans. At the very least, two Coaster routes may be imagined. One begins at the 12th & Imperial Transit Station in downtown San Diego and runs through to Oceanside, serving all existing Coaster stations but also the Bayside stations in downtown San Diego. A new rail tunnel is proposed under the Golden Triangle; a location beneath the Towne Center Road corridor would allow for the best degree of integration with MetroXpress services and would cut 10 minutes or more from the current Coaster schedule. The second Coaster is the extension of Sprinter2 south, terminating perhaps at the UTC SuperStation. This would allow residents of the North County coastal communities to access the large job cluster of Palomar Airport Road, as well as connect to many other employment destinations via a single transfer to a MetroXpress vehicle. For the Palomar Airport Road reconstruction, funding could include a major component from road sources. As such, Sprinter2 should become the major priority project. In terms of staging, the segment from the Poinsettia Coaster Station to Aviara Parkway would be the first priority, as it

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 I-15

would establish an immediate connection to several regional destinations from the Coaster and improve access to/from the I-5. It would likely be built to support both buses and the future train, so that full use may be made of the facility without needing to wait for the entire connection to Palomar College to be built. I-15 North Corridor

FIGURE I.11 – PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE MAP – I-15 NORTH CORRIDOR

The I-15 corridor is a candidate for several infrastructure investments in the Quickway Proposal designed to give suburban residents near access to the regional rapid transit system, as well as directly serve key destinations and job centers (Figure I.11).

1. Carmel Mountain Ranch/Innovation SuperStation. Between the Sabre Springs/Rancho Peñasquitos Transit Center and Camino del Norte, a parallel transit infrastructure (at least half of which is grade-separated) is proposed in order to serve the major employment and retail center of the Carmel Mountain area, including a SuperStation on Innovation Drive.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 I-16

Further engineering work will be needed to determine if and how to improve the linkage from there to the Rancho Bernardo SuperStation.

2. Mira Mesa. The Mira Mesa SuperStation is proposed for the southwest quadrant of Mira

Mesa Boulevard and I-15, where it can directly serve the shopping center. Relatively short elevated shuttle lines link this station with the other quadrants (including the 2000+ residential unit Casa Mira View development), as well as with the new Miramar College transit center (depicted in Figure D.1). These shuttle don’t merely serve the rapid transit station; they also make it easy for people by one to access the other destinations; for example, a resident of Casa Mira View who needs to drop a book off at the Miramar College library and then pick up some items from Trader Joe’s can accomplish their trip entirely on the shuttles.

3. Poway. Poway is served by several MetroXpress routes as well as real stations and park-

and-ride lots. The Poway Business Park is linked via MetroXpress routes to nearby SuperStations, facilitating easy regional access to this major employment center.

Compared with the RTP, the Quickway Proposal makes a range of recommendations in this corridor. In contrast, the RTP only anticipates a single “Rapid Bus” route serving Carmel Valley Road and Black Mountain Road/Carmel Mountain Road, along with additional services remaining on the I-15. The Quickway Proposal offers residents of Poway, Miramar Ranch North, Rancho Bernardo, Rancho Peñasquitos, Carmel Mountain Ranch, and Sabre Springs a range of viable options for travel within this corridor and to major destinations elsewhere in the region.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 BIB-1

Bibliography

ABC San Diego. “Study: San Diego trolley system doesn't pass muster.” abc10news, October 6, 2015. www.10news.com/news/study-san-diego-trolley-doesnt-pass-muster. Accessed on 30 September 2016. American Public Transit Association, “Transit Ridership Report, Second Quarter of 2015.” www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2015-q2-ridership-APTA.pdf. Accessed on 29 Feb 2016. American Public Transportation Association (APTA). "Transit Ridership Report Fourth Quarter and End-of-Year 2014." March 3, 2015. www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/RidershipArchives.aspx. Accessed on 14 March 2015. An Analysis of 21 North American Transit Corridors. New York: Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, 2013. Anderson, Erik. “San Diego Transit Stations Get Poor Grades.” KPBS News, October 6, 2015. www.kpbs.org/news/2015/oct/06/san-diego-transit-stations-get-poor-grades/. Accessed on 30 September 2016. Appleyard, Donald and Lynch, Kevin. “Temporary Paradise? A Look at the Special Landscape of the San Diego Region.” Cambridge, Mass.: Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1974. Bump, Philip. “Here Is When Each Generation Begins and Ends, According to Facts.” TheAtlantic.com, March 25, 2014. www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/03/here-is-when-each-generation-begins-and-ends-according-to-facts/359589/. Accessed on 3 Feb 2016. Cain, Alasdair, Flynn, Jennifer, McCourt, Mark, and Reyes, Taylor. Quantifying the Importance of Image and Perception to Bus Rapid Transit. Washington, D.C.: US Federal Transit Administration, March, 2009. Carlson, Scott. “America’s Health Threat: Poor Urban Design.” Chronicle of Higher Education, January 22, 2012.

Cervero, Robert. The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Washington, D.C., Island Press, 1998. City of San Diego. Strategic Framework Element, September 2002. www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/sfe.pdf. Accessed on 3 Feb 2016. City Of San Diego - Traffic Engineering. Machine Count Traffic Volumes from 01/03/2002 - 04/02/2015. Higashide, Steven, et. al. “Who’s On Board 2016: What Today’s Riders Teach Us About Transit That Works.” New York: TransitCenter, 2016. http://transitcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Whos-On-Board-2016-7_12_2016.pdf. Accessed on 16 August 2016. Hoffman, Alan. “Improving Public Transportation: Part I—Transit as a Competitive Service.” San Diego: The Mission Group, 2014. Hoffman, Alan. Advanced Network Planning for Bus Rapid Transit: The Quickway Model as a Modal Alternative to ‘Light Rail Lite.’ Washington, DC: US Federal Transit Administration, 2008. Hook, Walter, Lotshaw, Stephanie, and Weinstock, Annie. More Development for Your Transit Dollar: An Analysis of 21 North American Transit Corridors. New York: Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, 2013. Keatts, Andrew. “Fact Check: ‘One of the Best Light Rail Lines’ In the Country.” Voice of San Diego, August 1, 2013. www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-one-of-the-best-light-rail-lines-in-the-country/. Accessed on 30 September 2016. Kidder Mathews. Office Market Research – San Diego 2016, Second Quarter. www.kiddermathews.com/downloads/research/office-market-research-san-diego-2016-2q.pdf. Accessed 11 August 2016. Kim, Carol. “San Diego Needs Transit More Than Ever — and SANDAG’s Plan Doesn’t Have Enough.” Voice of San Diego, April 28, 2016,

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 BIB-2

www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/opinion/san-diego-needs-transit-ever-sandags-plan-doesnt-enough/. Accessed 30 September 2016. Korten, David C. “Community Organization and Rural Development: A Learning Process Approach.” Public Administration Review 40(5) (September/October 1980): 480-511. Litman, Todd. “Integrating Public Health Objectives in Transportation Decision-Making.” American Journal of Health Promotion (18)1, September/October 2003. Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, et. al. “Atlanta’s Transit Future: Market Research Results.” February 2004. Rhendress, Mindy, et. al. “Understanding How to Motivate Communities to Support and Ride Public Transportation.” Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report No. 122. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2008.

Rosenberg, Geri, and Blynn, Kelly. Best Practices in Rapid Transit System Design. Montgomery County, Maryland: Communities for Transit and Coalition for Smarter Growth, 2015. San Diego Association of Governments. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, Appendix F, “Public Involvement Program.” San Diego: SANDAG, 2015. Santos, Evandro. Pioneer in BRT and Urban Planning. Saarbrücken, Germany: Lambert Academic Press, 2011. Schmitt, Angie. “The ‘Choice’ vs. ‘Captive’ Transit Rider Dichotomy Is All Wrong” Streetsblog, July 12, 2016. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/07/12/the-choice-vs-captive-transit-rider-dichotomy-is-all-wrong/. Accessed on 16 August 2016. U.S. Climate Data. Climate San Diego – California. www.usclimatedata.com/climate/san-diego/california/united-states/usca0982, Accessed 10 August 2016.