INTERSTATES 805/ 5 SOUTH CORRIDOR STUDY › programs › transportation › ... · 401 B Street,...

401 B Street, Suite 800 • San Diego, CA 92101-4231 • (619) 699-1900

INTERSTATES 805 / 5 SOUTH

CORRIDOR STUDY

June 2005

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. The Association builds consensus, makes

strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life.

CHAIR: Hon. Mickey Cafagna VICE CHAIR: Hon. Mary Sessom

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Gary L. Gallegos

CITY OF CARLSBAD Hon. Matt Hall, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Ann Kulchin, Councilmember CITY OF CHULA VISTA Hon. Steve Padilla, Mayor (A) Hon. Patty Davis, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Councilmember CITY OF CORONADO Hon. Phil Monroe, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Frank Tierney, Councilmember CITY OF DEL MAR Hon. Crystal Crawford, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. David Druker, Councilmember (A) Hon. Henry Abarbanel, Councilmember CITY OF EL CAJON Hon. Mark Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Jillian Hanson-Cox, Councilmember CITY OF ENCINITAS Hon. Christy Guerin, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Jerome Stocks, Councilmember CITY OF ESCONDIDO Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler, Mayor (A) Hon. Ed Gallo, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Ron Newman, Councilmember CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Hon. Patricia McCoy, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Diane Rose, Mayor (A) Hon. Mayda Winter, Councilmember CITY OF LA MESA Hon. Barry Jantz, Vice Mayor (A) Hon. David Allan, Councilmember (A) Hon. Ernie Ewin, Councilmember CITY OF LEMON GROVE Hon. Mary Sessom, Mayor (A) Hon. Jill Greer, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jerry Jones, Mayor Pro Tem CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Hon. Ron Morrison, Vice Mayor (A) Hon. Frank Parra, Councilmember CITY OF OCEANSIDE Hon. Jack Feller, Councilmember (A) Vacant CITY OF POWAY Hon. Mickey Cafagna, Mayor (A) Hon. Don Higginson, Councilmember (A) Hon. Robert Emery, Deputy Mayor CITY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Jim Madaffer, Councilmember Hon. Scott Peters, Councilmember (A) Hon. Dick Murphy, Mayor

CITY OF SAN MARCOS Hon. Corky Smith, Mayor (A) Hon. Pia Harris-Ebert, Councilmember CITY OF SANTEE Hon. Hal Ryan, Vice Mayor (A) Hon. Randy Voepel, Mayor (A) Hon. Jack Dale, Councilmember CITY OF SOLANA BEACH Hon Joe Kellejian, Councilmember (A) Hon. David Powell, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Lesa Heebner, Councilmember CITY OF VISTA Hon. Morris Vance, Mayor (A) Hon. Judy Ritter, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bob Campbell, Mayor Pro Tem COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Dianne Jacob, Chairwoman (A) Hon. Greg Cox, Supervisor CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Advisory Member) Will Kempton, Director (A) Pedro Orso-Delgado, District 11 Director METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM (Advisory Member) Leon Williams, Chairman (A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Vice Chairman (A) Hon. Bob Emery, Board Member NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD (Advisory Member) Hon. Judy Ritter, Chair (A) Vacant (A) Hon. Ed Gallo, Board Member IMPERIAL COUNTY (Advisory Member) Hon. Victor Carrillo, Supervisor (A) Hon. David Ouzan, Mayor U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (Advisory Member) CAPT Daniel King, USN, CEC Commander, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (A) CAPT Richard Gamble, USN, CEC SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT (Advisory Member) Jess Van Deventer, Commissioner (A) Michael Bixler, Commissioner (A) Vacant SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY (Advisory Member) Hon. Bud Lewis, Director (A) Bernie Rhinerson, Director BAJA CALIFORNIA/MEXICO (Advisory Member) Hon. Luis Cabrera Cuaron Consul General of Mexico

As of December 29, 2004

iii

ABSTRACT

TITLE: Interstates 805/5 South Corridor Study

AUTHOR: San Diego Association of Governments

DATE: June 2005

SOURCE OF COPIES:

San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 699-1900

NUMBER OF PAGES:

79

ABSTRACT: This study developed a transportation improvement strategy to enhance the mobility of inter-regional and regional tripsfor the entire Interstate 805 (I-805) corridor and the Interstate 5 (I-5) corridor south of State Route (SR) 54. This report presents the study’s Need and Purpose, the development and evaluation of multimodal transportationalternatives, and the study recommendations. It also serves asCaltrans’ project initiation document to advance the environmental clearance process.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Intestates 805/5 South Corridor Study was prepared with the guidance and assistance of the Transportation Committee and a Technical Working Group.

Members of the Transportation Committee

Chair: Joe Kellejian Mayor, City of Solana Beach (representing North County Coastal) Vice Chair: Dick Murphy Mayor, City of San Diego Phil Monroe Mayor Pro Tem, City of Coronado (representing South County) Mickey Cafagna Mayor, City of Poway (representing North County Inland) Jack Dale Councilmember, City of Santee (representing East County) Ron Roberts Supervisor, County of San Diego Bob Emery Metropolitan Transit System Judy Ritter Chair, North County Transit District Terry Johnson San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Advisory: Pedro Orso-Delgado/Bill Figge Caltrans

Alternates: Christy Guerin Councilmember, City of Encinitas (representing North County Coastal) Jim Madaffer Councilmember, City of San Diego Jerry Rindone Councilmember, City of Chula Vista (representing South County) Corky Smith Mayor, City of San Marcos (representing North County Inland) Hal Ryan Councilmember, City of Santee (representing East County) Dianne Jacob / Bill Horn Supervisor, County of San Diego Leon Williams Chair, Metropolitan Transit System Jack Feller/Dave Druker North County Transit District Mary Sessom San Diego County Regional Airport Authority

Agencies and Organizations of the Technical Working Group

Air Pollution Control District Automobile Club of Southern California California Department of Fish and Game California Highway Patrol California Transportation Ventures, Inc. California Trucking Association Caltrans District 11 City of Chula Vista City of Imperial Beach City of National City City of San Diego County of San Diego Community Planning Groups within the study area sponsored by the City or County of San Diego Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration IMPlan (City of Tijuana’s Municipal Planning Institute) Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce Port of San Diego San Diego Economic Development Corporation San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter South County Economic Development Council Southwestern College U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Miramar The following staff from Caltrans and the San Diego Association of Governments contributed to the preparation of this study: Allan Kosup, Deputy District Director, Caltrans Program/Project Management Charles “Muggs” Stoll, Deputy District Director, Caltrans Environmental Division Bill Figge, Deputy District Director, Caltrans Planning Division John Rieger, Caltrans Project Manager, Caltrans Program/Project Management Armando Garcia, Branch Chief, Caltrans Advanced Planning Branch Roy Flores, Transportation Engineer, Caltrans Advanced Planning Branch Rick Curry, Research Analyst II, Caltrans GIS/Travel Forecasting Branch Matt Fowler, Environmental Planner, Caltrans Environmental Analysis Branch Ali Shahmiri, Associate Transportation Planner, Caltrans Community Planning Ellison Alegre, Associate Transportation Planner, Caltrans Systems/Regional Planning Branch Olga Estrada, Public Information Officer, Caltrans Public/Legislative Information Branch Gary L. Gallegos, Executive Director Eric Pahlke, Chief Deputy Executive Director Bob Leiter, Department Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Jack Boda, Department Director Mobility Management and Project Implementation Toni Bates, Division Director, Transit Planning Mike Hix, Principal Transportation Planner Elisa Arias, SANDAG Project Manager Jose Nuncio, Senior Transportation Engineer Heather Werdick, Senior Transportation Planer Jennifer Williamson, Senior Transportation Planer

v

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................... 2

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 2 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 2

Regional Transit Services and Highway Improvements for the I-805/I-5 South Corridors ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Long-Term Improvement Strategy...................................................................................... 2 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................... 6

Background and Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 6 Transportation Alternatives Evaluated ...................................................................................... 6 Development of Alternative 9 .................................................................................................... 6

Interim Improvement Strategy............................................................................................ 7 Evaluation Summary ............................................................................................................ 8

NEED AND PURPOSE.......................................................................................................................... 10

Overview............................................................................................................................................. 10 Existing Corridor Characteristics ............................................................................................... 10 Corridor Study Scope ................................................................................................................. 10

The Need ............................................................................................................................................ 10 The Purpose........................................................................................................................................ 13 Current Travel Conditions ................................................................................................................. 14

Highway Operational Conditions ............................................................................................. 14 Accident Data............................................................................................................................. 15 Transit Services ........................................................................................................................... 18 Goods Movement....................................................................................................................... 19 Cross-Border Travel .................................................................................................................... 19

Projected Travel Conditions .............................................................................................................. 20 Projected Growth: Population and Employment .................................................................... 20 Traffic Forecasts ......................................................................................................................... 21 Goods Movement and Future Rail Shipping............................................................................ 23

Transportation Alternatives Evaluated ............................................................................................ 26

vii

Description of Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 26 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 26 Alternatives Evaluated............................................................................................................... 27 Long-Range Traffic Forecasts for the Alternatives Evaluated ................................................ 41

Comparison of Build Alternatives ..................................................................................... 41

INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................ 48

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 48 Performance Measures .............................................................................................................. 48 Analysis of Alternatives and Screening Results........................................................................ 49

Alternatives Retained for Further Study .......................................................................................... 53 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study ........................................................ 53

SECOND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................... 56

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 56 Travel Demand Projections ....................................................................................................... 56 Performance Measures .............................................................................................................. 57 Study Area Performance Measures........................................................................................... 57 Regional Performance Measures: ............................................................................................. 58 Analysis of Alternatives and Screening Results........................................................................ 58 Development of Alternative 9 .................................................................................................. 60 Second Screening of Build Alternatives ................................................................................... 65 Long-Range Traffic Forecasts for the Alternatives Evaluated ................................................ 69 Comparison of Build Alternatives............................................................................................. 70 Interim Improvement Strategy for I-805 between SR 54 and SR 905..................................... 73 Alternative 9: Evaluation Summary .......................................................................................... 73

PUBLIC OUTREACH ............................................................................................................................ 76

Community outreach strategies ....................................................................................................... 76 Community Involvement Strategies ......................................................................................... 76

Open Houses ...................................................................................................................................... 76 Presentations at Community Meetings ............................................................................................ 77

Summary of Comments ............................................................................................................. 78

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: I-805/I-5 South Corridor Study Recommendations ............................................................. 4

Table 2: Current Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................. 14

Table 3: I-805 Peak Period Congested Segments............................................................................ 15

Table 4: Accident Rate Comparisons ............................................................................................... 17

Table 5: Existing Transit Services within Study Area (Selected Routes) ........................................ 18

Table 6: Heavy-Duty Trucks and Total Vehicle Traffic.................................................................... 19

Table 7: Projected Population Growth form 2000 to 2030 within the Study Area...................... 21

Table 8: Projected Employment Growth from 2000 to 2030 within the Study Area................... 21

Table 9: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and Level of Service (LOS)................................................... 22

Table 10: SD&AE Railroad – Desert Line.......................................................................................... 23

Table 11: Preliminary 2030 Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT)............................................... 45

Table 12: Screening of Alternatives................................................................................................. 50

Table 13: Study Area Performance Measures ................................................................................. 51

Table 14: Regional Performance Measures..................................................................................... 52

Table 15: Alternative 9: Mobility 2030 Plus .................................................................................... 63

Table 16: I-805 Corridor – Potential DAR Locations ....................................................................... 61

Table 17: Analysis of Alternatives.................................................................................................... 65

Table 18: Study Area Performance Measure Results...................................................................... 67

Table 19: Average Travel Times for Selected Corridors ................................................................. 68

Table 20: Preliminary Cost Estimates............................................................................................... 69

Table 21: 2030 Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ................................................................... 72

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: I-805/I-5 South Corridor Study Recommendations (Alternative 9) ..........................................5

Figure 2: Study Area Map.........................................................................................................................11

Figure 3: San Ysidro and Otay Mesa Ports of Entry Northbound Annual Vehicle Crossings...............20

Figure 4: Alternative 2..............................................................................................................................28






Figure 10: Alternative 8............................................................................................................................40

Figure 11: Alternative 9............................................................................................................................64

1

RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

ais

Text Box

2

RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

INTRODUCTION

In March 2003, the MOBILITY 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) identified the entire Interstate 805 and Interstate 5 south of State Route 54 for future study. In May 2003, SANDAG in partnership with Caltrans District 11, began a study to develop a transportation improvement strategy to enhance the mobility of inter-regional and regional trips for the entire Interstate 805 (I-805) corridor and the Interstate 5 (I-5) corridor south of State Route (SR) 54. Guidance and input for the study came from SANDAG’s Transportation Committee and the newly-formed I-805/I-5 South Corridor Study Technical Working Group.

In March 2005, the Transportation Committee approved an interim and an ultimate transportation improvement strategy for the I-805 and I-5 South corridors and directed staff to consider them in the next update of the 2030 RTP. The interim strategy was developed to phase capacity improvements on I-805 between SR 54 and SR 905 in accordance with the Development Franchise Agreement for the SR 125 toll road. According to the agreement, during the 35-year term of the franchise, Caltrans is able to expand the capacity of I-805 between SR 54 and SR 905 as identified in the 2020 RTP. The 2020 Plan includes two HOV lanes for the I-805 corridor.

This report presents the study’s Need and Purpose, the development and evaluation of multimodal transportation alternatives, and the approved study recommendations, which are described in the section below. This report also serves as Caltrans’ project initiation document.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Regional Transit Services and Highway Improvements for the I-805/I-5 South Corridors

Long-Term Improvement Strategy

Table 1 and Figure 1 include the regional and corridor transit services, new high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and managed lanes, direct access ramps (DARs), and HOV to HOV connectors recommended for I-805 and I-5 south of SR 54 (Alternative 9).

3

Most of these transit services and highway improvements are included in MOBILITY 2030, the reasonably expected revenue scenario. However, several others were identified as unfunded needs in the 2030 RTP. They are:

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route 616 and Route 624 I-805: Two additional mixed-flow lanes between H Street and SR 15 I-805: Two additional mixed-flow lanes between SR 52 and La Jolla Village Drive DAR in the vicinity of Lusk Boulevard Three additional DARs at locations to be determined between National City and University City

area. HOV to HOV connector at I-805/I-15 HOV to HOV connector at I-805/SR 94

Interim Improvement Strategy The interim configuration of I-805 between SR 54 and SR 905 through 2030 is shown below:

Two new HOV lanes (one in each direction) Two new transit-only lanes (one in each direction) Two auxiliary lanes between SR 54 and Telegraph Canyon Road (one in each direction, as

needed) Highway improvements for I-805 north of SR 54 and for I-5 South would be implemented as described in Alternative 9, as well as the recommended regional transit services, as shown on Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1.

4

Table 1

I-805/I-5 South Corridor Study Recommendations

Alternative 9: MOBILITY 2030 Plus ¹ Regional and Corridor Transit Services

Heavy Rail

Route 398: Increase in Coaster service from 36 min. to 20 min. headways in peak period (Tunnel at UTC)

Light Rail

Route 510: Increase in Blue Line Trolley service from 15 min. to 7.5 min. headways in off-peak

Route 570: New Mid-Coast to Balboa, to UTC, and to Sorrento Mesa with 7.5 min. headways in peak period

New Bus Rapid Transit Route 616: Pt. Loma to Mira Mesa and to Scripps Poway Pkwy via Black Mtn & Linda Vista with 5 min. headways in peak period Route 619: 32nd Street to Clairemont Mesa and to Sorrento Mesa with 5 min. headways in peak period

Route 621: Centre City to Fashion Valley and UTC via Hillcrest/Genesee Avenue with 5 min. headways in peak period

Route 624: University Avenue with 5 min. headways in peak period

Route 627: H Street to Otay Ranch via Southwestern College with 30 min. headways in peak period

Route 628: Centre City to Otay Mesa via SR 94/I-805 with 5 min. headways in peak period

Route 660: El Cajon to UTC via SR 52 with 10 min. headways in peak period

Route 680: San Ysidro to Sorrento with 5 min. headways in peak period

HOV and Managed Lane Facilities Freeway From To Existing After Improvements I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 2HOV I-805 SR 905 H Street 8F 8F + 4ML I-805 H Street SR 15 8F 10F + 4ML I-805 SR 15 I-8 8F 8F + 4ML I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct 8F 8F + 4ML I-805 I-8 SR 52 8F 8F + 4ML I-805 SR 52 La Jolla Village Dr. 8F 10F + 4ML I-805 La Jolla Village Dr. I-5 8F 8F + 4ML

Direct Access Ramps 2

Freeway Arterial

I-5 San Ysidro Border Crossing

I-805 Beyer Blvd.

I-805 E. Palomar Street

I-805 Plaza Bonita

I-805 Lusk Blvd.

HOV Connectors

Freeway Intersecting Freeway Movement

I-805 SR 52 West to North and South to East

I-805 I-15 North to North and South to South

I-805 SR 94 West to North, South to East, East to South, and North to West

F = Freeway Lanes, ML = Managed Lanes (HOV & Value Pricing), HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes

¹ The I-5 HOV Connector (at the I-805 merge) and the I-5/I-805 Port of Entry (Inspection Facility) are assumed in all alternatives. The 2030 RTP Mobility Network is assumed outside the study area. 2 Other candidate locations for DARs at I-805 are in the vicinity of SR 905, Otay Valley Rd./Main St., H St., Plaza Blvd., 47th St., El Cajon Blvd., Balboa Ave., Nobel Dr./Eastgate Mall.

P A C I F I C O

C E A N

P A C I F I C O

C E A N

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

Del Mar

County of San Diego

1-D

90511

5

125

54

805

805

5

5

282

163

94

6752

56

67

8

8

15

125

75

15

12594

52

805

5

8F + 4ML

8F + 4ML

8F + 2HOV

10F + 4ML

10F + 4ML

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

County of San Diego

I-805/I-5Corridor Study

January 2005

MILES

KILOMETERS

0 321

0 4.833.221.61

Alternative 9

Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes

General Purpose Lanes

HOV Connectors

Direct Access Ramps

Study Area

ais

Text Box

Figure 1 I-805/I-5 South Corridor Study Recommendations (Alternative 9)

ais

Text Box

5

6

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Background and Existing Conditions

I-805 and I-5 are the principal north-south interregional freeways for people and goods movement in the San Diego region, connecting the San Diego metropolitan area with Baja California and the greater Los Angeles basin to the north. They are extensively used as commuter and truck routes and provide access to major employment centers in the region. Both I-805 and I-5 South are eight-lane freeways with auxiliary lanes at various locations and no HOV lanes. Currently, no regional transit service operates on these corridors to major job centers. Only one bus route (Route 960) has a short segment on I-805 between SR 52 and La Jolla Village Drive.

Transportation Alternatives Evaluated

The I-805/I-5 South Corridor Study developed and evaluated eight multimodal transportation alternatives. Each alternative included different levels of regional transit service and highway improvements. In addition, the alternatives include different types of highway improvements, such as HOV lanes, Managed Lanes, and mixed-flow lanes.

In May 2004, the Transportation Committee approved four of the eight alternatives for further analysis: Alternative 1: No Build scenario; Alternative 3, which is essentially the MOBILITY 2030 network; Alternative 5 which would provide enhanced transit services in the South Bay and Mid-Coast areas beyond MOBILITY 2030, and Alternative 6 would provide two additional mixed-flow lanes on I-805 between Telegraph Canyon Road, in Chula Vista, and the I-805/I-5 merge in Sorrento Valley.

Development of Alternative 9

Following the evaluation of Alternatives 3, 5, and 6, and in response to comments received at community meetings in Fall 2004, Alternative 9: MOBILITY 2030 Plus was developed combining synergistic improvements from Alternatives 3, 5, and 6.

The evaluation of Alternatives 3, 5, and 6 pointed to strengths and weaknesses in their performance. For example, Alternative 5 showed the best performance in attracting work trips to transit at peak periods and in providing transit accessibility to homes and jobs; however, it would require the highest investment. Alternative 6 indicated the best performance in congestion relief and would call for the second highest investment. With the lowest estimated cost of the three build scenarios, Alternative 3 showed solid performance in congestion relief, transit mode share, and homes and jobs served by transit, but not as good as the other two alternatives.

Using Alternative 3 as the foundation, Alternative 9 was developed to incorporate the best performing BRT routes and DARs from Alternative 5 as well as the best performing highway

7

elements from Alternative 6, such as HOV to HOV connectors and additional segments of mixed flow lanes.

It should be noted that “highway elements” are, in fact, capital improvements that would benefit all users regardless of mode. Since some BRT routes will operate on the network of managed lanes, HOV to HOV connectors also will be used by transit vehicles. Equally, DARs, initially considered to facilitate travel of BRT vehicles, also would be used by carpools.

The proposed project additions in Alternative 9 will provide more travel options by transit to employment centers in Mission Valley, Kearny Mesa, and downtown San Diego and serve the densely populated University Avenue corridor. Direct access ramps and freeway connectors for HOV lanes will enhance travel times for carpools and BRT services.

Preliminary capital cost for Alternative 9 is estimated at $7.26 billion while operations and maintenance through 2030 are estimated at $890 million. Funding sources will include the recently approved TransNet measure plus federal, state, and local partnership monies.

Interim Improvement Strategy

The SR 125 Franchise Agreement was amended after the February 2000 adoption of the 2020 RTP. According to the agreement, during the 35-year term of the franchise, Caltrans is able to expand the capacity of I-805 between SR 54 and SR 905 as identified in the 2020 RTP. This Plan includes two HOV lanes for the I-805 corridor.

There are no restrictions on Caltrans’ ability to make safety improvements on the I-805 corridor. Capacity improvements on I-805 beyond the two HOV lanes included in the 2020 RTP may result in compensation to the developer, California Transportation Ventures, for potential revenue losses estimated by an independent traffic analysis, and annual reassessments based on actual traffic and revenue data.

While the I-805/I-5 South corridor study recommends that the ultimate configuration of I-805 between SR 54 and SR 905 include four new managed lanes and two general purpose lanes north of H Street (up to SR 15), as incorporated in Alternative 9, the interim strategy proposes to include the improvements outlined below:

Interim Configuration of I-805 between SR 54 and SR 905:

Two new HOV lanes (one in each direction) Two new transit-only lanes (one in each direction) Two auxiliary lanes between SR 54 and Telegraph Canyon Road (one in each direction, as

needed) The interim strategy would develop the ultimate footprint of the I-805 corridor and would advance the recommended DARs, which will provide safer, faster, and more direct travel for BRT services and other HOV traffic. The two BRT services planned to operate on I-805 south of SR 54 are routes between Otay Mesa and downtown San Diego and between San Ysidro and Sorrento Valley.

8

Evaluation Summary

The mix of transit and highway improvements included in Alternative 9 meets the objectives outlined in the study’s Need and Purpose. Within the study area, in addition to implementing the MOBILITY 2030 plan for regional transit services and highway improvements, Alternative 9 would also advance other projects identified as unfunded needs in the 2030 RTP. These additional projects will be reconsidered for inclusion in the Reasonable Expected funding scenario during the next MOBILITY 2030 update.

In the study area, Alternative 9 addresses mobility by increasing capacity to move people and goods and by providing travel choices for regional trips. Compared to the No Build alternative, it supports reliability by yielding the highest travel time savings, and provides for congestion relief by substantially reducing (but not eliminating) Level of Service (LOS) F at peak hour. Finally, Alternative 9 surpasses the goal of a minimum 10 percent transit mode for work trips during peak periods and comes within reach of the goal of a 12 percent carpool mode share.

Compared to current conditions, the proposed improvement strategy would result in a slight increase in carpooling and a 4.2 percent increase in transit mode share for work trips within the study area while at the same time reducing congestion at peak hour by 78 percent. There is considerable synergy among travel modes when transportation improvements are made. Generally, it is expected that providing transit improvements without improving facilities for drive alone would yield a higher transit mode share. Conversely, if only mixed-flow lanes were built, an increase in drive alone rates would be expected. The mix of transit, HOV, and mixed-flow lanes included in Alternative 9 simultaneously is anticipated to achieve congestion relief and a shift in travel mode from drive alone to both carpool and, in particular, transit.

Along the I-805 and I-5 South corridors, projected travel times at peak periods from selected residential areas to employment centers by carpool, transit, and drive alone show that travel times for carpool will be between three and 12 minutes faster than if driving alone. Transit travel times are competitive with driving alone for several typical commutes, such as San Ysidro to downtown San Diego, Mid-City to University Towne Centre, and East Chula Vista to downtown San Diego.

In brief, with the implementation of the transportation projects and services included in Alternative 9, travel conditions on the I-805 and I-5 South corridors are projected to improve even when considering a regional population growth of one million residents and almost another half a million jobs by 2030. More travel choices will be available with the provision of managed and HOV lanes as well as regional transit services.

However, by 2030, the interim configuration for I-805 between SR 54 and SR 905, which includes one HOV lane and one transit lane in each direction, is projected to result in two segments of the freeway operating at LOS F. In the morning peak hour, the segment of I-805 between H Street and SR 54 in the northbound direction would operate at LOS F. In the southbound direction, in the afternoon peak hour, I-805 again would operate at LOS F from SR 54 to Bonita Road. The interim improvement strategy is geared towards fully implementing Alternative 9 with four managed lanes in the long-term.

1

NEED AND PURPOSE

ais

Text Box

10

NEED AND PURPOSE

OVERVIEW

Existing Corridor Characteristics

I-805 and I-5 are the principal north-south interregional freeways for people and goods movement in the San Diego region connecting the San Diego metropolitan area with Mexico and Los Angeles. Both I-805 and I-5 south of SR 54, which are the focus of this study, are extensively used commuter and truck routes, providing access to major employment centers in the region (downtown San Diego, Sorrento Valley/Sorrento Mesa/University Towne Centre (UTC), Kearny Mesa, and Otay Mesa). I-5 connects to the San Ysidro border crossing, which is the busiest land port of entry in the United States and is the region's primary international gateway for auto and pedestrian traffic between Mexico and the United States. Additionally, I-805 is the only direct connection to the Otay Mesa Port of Entry (POE), which is key to the regional, state, and national economy and crossborder goods movement. East of I-805, the future SR 125 South will provide a new north-south traffic corridor linking the border area and new communities in eastern Chula Vista to the rest of the San Diego region.

Corridor Study Scope

The corridor study will identify and assess transportation improvement options to enhance the mobility of inter-regional and regional trips. It will focus on recommending corridorwide improvements that will serve as key elements of the overall regional transportation facilities and services. Subsequent subregional studies will focus on refining the systems-level infrastructure improvements for highways, arterials, and transit in coordination with local land use and development plans. The study area is shown in Figure 2.

THE NEED

Limited Travel Choices - I-805 and I-5 south of SR 54 are general purpose facilities with no HOV lanes. Currently, no regional transit service operates on the I-805/I-5 corridors to major job centers, except for Route 960 (on I-805 between SR 52 and La Jolla Village Drive.) Currently, regional transit trips must be accomplished through the use of localized and corridor service such as the Mid-City and South Bay transit routes on the I-805 corridor and the Blue Line Trolley on the I-5 corridor. Consequently, many trips are very slow and may require multiple transfers. In addition, many of the existing transit routes operate at or near capacity.

163

56

52

52

54

9494

75

67

905

125

125

805

805

805

8

8

8

5

5

5

15

15

15

ais

Text Box

Figure 2 Study Area Map

ais

Text Box

11

12

Travel Times and Peak Congestion - Currently, both I-805 and I-5 are operating at or near capacity during the weekday peak period that typically spans 3.5 hours in the morning and 2.5 hours in the afternoon.1 In the I-805 corridor, three segments operate at Level of Service (LOS) F2: Bonita Road to SR 54, Market Street to SR 163, and SR 52 to La Jolla Village Drive.

Between Chula Vista and Sorrento Valley, current peak travel times average 47 minutes for solo drivers, 44 minutes for carpools, and 88 minutes for transit. Without improvements, in 2030, travel times are projected to increase to 69 minutes for solo drivers, 66 minutes for carpools, and 89 minutes for transit.3 During off-peak periods, current travel times for solo drivers average 25 minutes and would increase to 27 minutes in 2030 if no improvements were made.

From San Ysidro to downtown San Diego, existing peak travel times for solo drivers average 31 minutes, 30 minutes for carpools, and 44 minutes for transit. Again, without improvements, travel times would increase to 40 minutes for solo drivers and 39 minutes for carpools. Transit travel times would remain at 44 minutes.4 Currently, during off-peak periods, a trip from San Ysidro to downtown San Diego takes an average of 20 minutes for a solo driver and would increase to 22 minutes in 2030 if no improvements were made.

Since there are no HOV lanes in the I-805 and I-5 South corridors, the slight time advantage for carpools is most likely due to HOV lanes on metered ramps. By 2030, both I-805 and I-5 South are assumed to be metered, even in the No Build scenario.

Anticipated Growth - Projected population and employment growth in the region will result in additional travel demand on the I-805/I-5 corridors. By the year 2030, population growth in the study area is expected to reach 39 percent while employment growth is anticipated at 28 percent (Tables 6 and 7 on page 11). In particular, growth in the South Bay is expected to be higher than the San Diego regional average. For example, in Chula Vista, population is anticipated to increase by 60 percent from 2000 to 2030 or nearly 105,000 residents (from 173,600 to 278,200 residents).

Even with the completion of SR 125 South, traffic forecasts indicate that travel demand on the I-805 corridor will increase by 2030 up to 50 percent and up to 46 percent on the I-5 corridor south of SR 54. Without improvements, additional segments of these corridors are projected to operate at LOS F in 2030.

Goods Movement - Sustaining effective goods movement is essential for economic vitality of the state and the region. The I-805/I-5 corridors are key north-south goods movement corridors in the San Diego region. Commercial vehicles experience the same congested travel conditions as other motorists.

1 Peak period is the duration of average freeway travel speeds reduced to 35-45 mph. The PM peak period is shorter in duration due to many return trips being distributed outside of the peak. Data source: Caltrans, Draft I-805 Corridor Traffic Congestion Study, July 2004. 2 LOS describes operational conditions within a traffic stream and motorists’ perception of those conditions. LOS F represents heavy congestion and stop and go traffic. 3 SANDAG, 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, 2003. Chula Vista to Sorrento Valley segment is approximately 23 miles. 4 SANDAG, 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, 2003. San Ysidro to Downtown San Diego segment is approximately 16 miles.

13

The I-805 and I-5 South corridors will face the challenge of accommodating future goods movement travel as a result of continued implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and anticipated growth in interregional travel between the San Diego region and northern Baja California.

Currently, I-805 provides the primary goods movement route to and from the Otay Mesa POE to areas north of downtown San Diego. In 2002, the Otay Mesa POE handled more than $20 billion in crossborder travel, making this commercial crossing the busiest along the California-Baja California border. On average, nearly 11,000 trucks travel daily on I-805 in the South Bay, which represents about 7 percent of the total traffic. Assuming the same truck shares in 2030, commercial vehicle traffic would grow to more than 15,000 trucks per day.

THE PURPOSE

The purpose and desired outcomes of the I-805/I-5 Corridor Study align with the overall goals of MOBILITY 2030, SANDAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The 2030 RTP policy goals are concentrated in seven areas that are outlined below:

MOBILITY 2030 Policy Goals Mobility – Improve the mobility of people and freight

Accessibility – Improve accessibility to major employment and other regional activity centers

Reliability – Improve the reliability and safety of the transportation system

Efficiency – Maximize the efficiency of the existing and future transportation system

Livability – Promote livable communities

Sustainability – Minimize effects on the environment

Equity – Ensure an equitable distribution of the benefits among various demographic and

user groups The primary purpose of the corridor study is to specifically address and determine improvements in the study area to improve the mobility of people and freight for corridorwide trips. Consideration of the other policy goals will be addressed in greater detail during the subregional study phase that focuses on localized infrastructure and service improvements.

The purpose of identifying improvement alternatives for the I-805/I-5 Corridor Study is to accommodate the Need (discussed above) with the following objectives:

1. Increase capacity to move people and goods within the study area.

2. Provide cost-effective, convenient, and safe travel choices for regional trips that include transit, carpools, and vanpools, in addition to drive alone, particularly in those areas where no options currently exist.

3. Sustain current peak and off-peak travel times in mixed-use lanes in 2030 taking into account projected growth in population, employment, and travel demand.

14

4. Sustain current peak and off-peak travel times for goods movements related trips in 2030 taking into account projected growth in truck travel and potential diversion to freight rail.

5. Provide highway facilities and regional transit services that support transit, carpool, and vanpool travel times to major job centers competitive with driving alone.

6. Achieve a minimum 10 percent transit mode share and 12 percent carpool mode share for work trips during peak periods in 2030 in the study area.

The remainder of this chapter provides data related to current and projected travel conditions in the I-805 and I-5 South corridors.

CURRENT TRAVEL CONDITIONS

Highway Operational Conditions

The 2002 Congestion Management Program (CMP) indicates that three segments of I-805 are at Level of Service (LOS) F. These segments include Bonita Road to SR 54, Market Street to SR 163, and SR 52 to La Jolla Village Drive. The Draft 2004 CMP identified two additional segments of I-805 at LOS F. These segments are Telegraph Canyon Road to Bonita Road and SR 54 to Market Street. The CMP requires the preparation of a Deficiency Plan for those segments to improve operations to LOS E. Table 2 shows LOS data on the I-5 corridor south of SR 54 and the entire I-805 corridor. The LOS reported represents the “worst case” traffic condition by peak hour and direction.

Table 2 Current Traffic Conditions

2001 2003 From To

LOS LOS

Interstate 5

Mexico Border SR 75 (South) A-C A-C SR 75 (South) SR 54 D D

Interstate 805

I-5 (South) Telegraph Canyon Rd A-C I-5 (South) Palm Avenue A-C Palm Avenue Telegraph Canyon Rd. D Telegraph Canyon Road Bonita Road D F Bonita Road SR 54 F F SR 54 Market Street E F Market Street SR 163 F F SR 163 SR 52 E E SR 52 La Jolla Village Drive F F La Jolla Village Drive Mira Mesa Boulevard D Mira Mesa Boulevard I-5 (North) A-C La Jolla Village Drive I-5 (North) D

Source: SANDAG, 2002 Congestion Management Program, 2003 and Draft 2004 Congestion Management Program, 2005.

15

According to Caltrans, delay is defined as “a condition lasting for 15 minutes or longer where travel demand exceeds freeway design capacity. Recurrent congestion is defined as vehicular speeds declining to 35 mph or less during peak commute periods on a typical incident-free weekday.”

Congestion is expressed in vehicle hours of delay. Delay is calculated by using the estimated speed from the loop detectors or tach-runs and assuming that the vehicle flow rate is 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane. The average delay figure is determined by calculating the difference between travel time at 35 mph and travel time at the reported average speed. If a tach-run overlaps loop detectors, the tach-run data takes precedence.

Table 3 shows congested segments on I-805 during the morning and evening peak periods. The chokepoint locations identified in this table reflect the areas where congestion is currently experienced, however, the specific physical highway constraints have not yet been identified.

Table 3 I-805 Peak Period Congested Segments

Direction Beginning Segment

End Segment Duration (in hours)

Delay (in Vehicle-

Hours/day) Chokepoints

A.M. Peak (6:00 – 9:00 a.m.) NB Bonita Road/E Street I-805/SR 94 Intersection 3:00 3,670 1) Plaza Blvd to 43rd Street

2) Imperial Ave to I-805/SR

94 Intersection

NB I-805/SR 94 Intersection

I-805/SR 163 Intersection

2:00 635 1) University Avenue to

Adams Ave.

NB I-805/SR 163 Intersection La Jolla Village Drive 2:15 1,266

1) Route 52 to Governor Drive

P.M. Peak (3:00 – 7:00 p.m.) SB La Jolla Village Drive I-805/SR 52 Intersection 4:00 113 1) Governor Drive

SB I-805/SR 52 Intersection

I-805/I-8 Intersection 3:15 979 1) Mesa College Drive

SB I-805/I-8 Intersection Telegraph Canyon Road 4:00 2,803 1) El Cajon Blvd to

University Ave.

2) Market Street to Plaza Blvd.

3) Route 54 to Telegraph Canyon Road (including the SR 54/I-805 interchange)

Source: Caltrans. Data represents conditions in Fall 2002 Data for the segment from Bonita Road to 47th Street is based on tach runs, and the remaining segments are analyzed based on loop data.

Accident Data

Table 4 shows accident data for the I-805 and I-5 south corridors for the three-year period ending December 31, 2003. The data is broken into various freeway segments and includes the actual accident rates corresponding to these segments and a statewide average of similar facilities for comparison purposes. Most of the segments in the study show the actual rate for all accidents to be

16

lower than the statewide average. The exception is I-5 between the International border and SR 905 where the actual rate is higher than the statewide average. If fatal accidents only are considered, however, I-5 between the border and SR 54, as well as I-805 between SR 905 and SR 54 both show higher actual rates than the statewide average.

17

Table 4 Accident Rate Comparisons

January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2003

NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS ACCIDENT RATES*

LOCATION PM FATAL INJURY TOTAL

ACCIDENTS

ACTUAL

FATAL

RATE

ACTUAL

FATAL &

INJURY

RATE

ACTUAL

TOTAL

RATE

STATEWIDE

AVERAGE

FATAL

RATE

STATEWIDE

AVERAGE

FATAL &

INJURY

RATE

STATEWIDE

TOTAL

AVERAGE

I-5 NORTHBOUND

SR 905 TO SR 54 3.10 TO

9.80 3 149 308 0.005 0.28 0.56 0.004 0.28 0.90

I-5 SOUTHBOUND

SR 54 TO SR 905 9.80 TO

3.10 8 133 312 0.015 0.26 0.57 0.004 0.28 0.90

I-805 NORTHBOUND SR 905 TO TELEGRAPH CANYON

ROAD 1.81 TO

6.06 1 56 136 0.003 0.18 0.43 0.004 0.27 0.87

FROM TELEGRAPH CANYON

ROAD TO SR 94 6.06 TO

13.51 2 275 631 0.002 0.31 0.70 0.005 0.32 1.03

SR 94 TO I-8 13.51 TO

17.64 3 189 493 0.007 0.43 1.09 0.005 0.30 0.98

I-8 TO SR 52 17.64 TO

23.80 2 135 353 0.003 0.21 0.55 0.005 0.29 0.94

SR 52 TO I-5 23.80 TO

28.50 3 102 277 0.007 0.23 0.61 0.005 0.29 0.94

I-805 SOUTHBOUND

SR 52 TO I-5 28.50 TO

23.80 3 78 169 0.009 0.25 0.53 0.004 0.87 0.91

I-8 TO SR 52 23.80 TO

17.64 9 288 708 0.010 0.33 0.79 0.005 1.03 1.02

SR 94 TO I-8 17.64 TO

13.51 6 235 557 0.013 0.54 1.24 0.005 0.98 0.89

FROM TELEGRAPH CANYON

ROAD TO SR 94 13.51 TO

6.06 2 123 309 0.003 0.19 0.48 0.005 0.94

SR 905 TO TELEGRAPH CANYON

ROAD 6.06 TO

1.81 0 83 286 0.000 0.18 0.63 0.003 0.94 0.57

* ACCIDENT RATES IN NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS/MILLION VEHICLE MILES

18

Transit Services

There are 44 existing bus routes that operate within the study area. Of those 44 routes, 19 operate exclusively within the study area while the remaining 25 operate through the study area with stops within the area.

Currently, the routes with the highest ridership in the study area are the Blue and Orange Line Trolley as well as Routes 1, 7, 11, 34, 709, 712, 901, 905, 908, 929, 932, and 933/934. Both Chula Vista Transit and National City Transit have fairly high ridership per capita. Additionally, Routes 1, 7, 709, 908, 929, 932, 933/934, and the Blue and Orange Line Trolley currently are at capacity. Table 5 provides 2004 ridership data as well as service characteristics for the transit routes with highest ridership or at capacity noted above.

Table 5 Existing Transit Services within Study Area (Selected Routes)

Route Route Description

2004 Ridership

within Study Area

2004 Ridership

on Full Route

Days of Operation

Operating Hours

Average Frequency

(in minutes)

At

Capacity

1 73rd & El Cajon to downtown San Diego via El Cajon Blvd.

357,396 893,489 M-Su 4:58A - 15:58P 30

X

7 La Mesa to downtown San Diego via University Avenue

2,211,751 3,567,341 M-Su 4:31A – 1:34A 12

X

11 SDSU to Spring Valley via downtown San Diego

1,216,417 2,432,834 M-Su 4:36A – 11:36P 15

34 La Jolla/UTC to Downtown via Beaches

165,538 1,655,381 M-Su 5:08A - 1:37A 15

709 H Street Trolley Station and Eastlake Residential Area via Southwestern College

711,003 711,003 M-Su 5:05A - 10:19P 30

X

712 Palomar Street Trolley Station to Sharp Chula Vista Medical Facility via Palomar High

172,764 172,764 M-Su 6:00A – 10:42P 60

901 Downtown San Diego to Imperial Beach via Coronado Bridge and Silver Strand

1,216,172 1,216,172 M-Su 4:45A – 2:00A 30

905 San Ysidro Border Crossing to the Otay Mesa Border Crossing via SR 905 412,641 412,641 M-F 4:50A – 7:00P 30

908 Old Town to Mid-City via Washington & University Ave.

361,839 1,247,719 M-Su 5:25A - 11:15P 15

X

929 Downtown San Diego to Iris Avenue Trolley Station

1,589,061 1,765,623 M-Su 4:33A -2:00A 30

X

932 Downtown San Diego to SYITC via National City Blvd. 2,259,880 2,259,880 M-Su 4:15A – 2:13A 15

X

933/934 Imperial Beach and Palm Promenade via Palm Avenue

2,437,057 2,437,057 M-Su 4:40A – 1:02A 15

X

Blue Line

Mission Valley to San Ysidro Border Crossing via downtown San Diego

16,306,938 18,118,820 M-Su 4:17A – 2:27A 7.5

X

Orange Line

Santee Town Center to Bayside via downtown San Diego 1,381,904 8,128,849 M-Su 4:15A – 1:40A 15

X

Source: SANDAG, Short-Range Transit Plan, 2004

19

Goods Movement

Table 6 reports the volume and share of heavy duty trucks at two locations on I-805.

Table 6 Heavy-Duty Trucks and Total Vehicle Traffic

(Weekday Annual Average Daily Traffic)

Heavy Duty Trucks All Vehicles I-805 at Naples

Street North South Total North South Total

1999 4,050 5.6% 4,352 5.8% 8,402 5.7% 72,078 74,908 146,986

2000 4,202 5.8% 4,690 6.2% 8,892 6.0% 72,531 75,506 148,038

2001 4,759 6.4% 5,339 6.9% 10,097 6.7% 74,197 77,037 151,234

2002 5,146 6.8% 5,813 7.4% 10,960 7.1% 76,096 78,980 155,076

Heavy Duty Trucks All Vehicles I-805 at

Governor Drive North South Total North South Total

1999 5,480 5.6% 6,225 6.4% 11,705 6.0% 98,673 97,919 196,592

2000 6,015 6.1% 6,543 6.6% 12,558 6.4% 97,981 99,116 197,097

2001 6,255 6.2% 7,119 7.0% 13,374 6.6% 101,070 101,571 202,641

2002 6,707 6.3% 7,719 7.4% 14,426 6.9% 105,852 104,345 210,197

Note: Data from count stations 683 and 684. Heavy Duty Trucks include 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, and over 5-axle trucks.

Source: Caltrans, 2003

Cross-Border Travel

A distinct characteristic of both the I-805 and the I-5 corridors is the volume of international traffic they serve. Figure 3 illustrates annual vehicle crossings from Mexico into the San Diego region at the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa POEs which are located within the study area. On a daily basis, about 49,000 passenger vehicles cross northbound at San Ysidro and approximately 18,000 travel northbound across the Otay Mesa POE, transporting about 115,000 people. In addition, 2,400 trucks cross from Mexico into the U.S. via the Otay Mesa POE daily.

Also, approximately 22,000 pedestrians cross daily into San Diego from Mexico and most of them use the trolley or buses to complete their journey. About 1,500 people use their bicycles daily to cross the border.

20

Figure 3 San Ysidro and Otay Mesa Ports of Entry

Northbound Annual Vehicle Crossings

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

San Ysidro Passenger Vehicles Otay Mesa Passenger Vehicles Otay Mesa Trucks

Source: U.S. Customs Service. Data represents federal fiscal year (October 1 to September 30).

PROJECTED TRAVEL CONDITIONS

Projected Growth: Population and Employment

Projected regional growth will continue to put pressure on the transportation system. SANDAG periodically prepares population and employment growth forecasts for the San Diego region. In December 2003, the SANDAG Board of Directors accepted the Final 2030 Cities/County Forecast. This forecast reflects the likely distribution of growth to jurisdictions and other areas within the region based on the currently adopted land use plans and policies of the 18 cities and the most recent information from the County of San Diego’s general plan update process (GP2020).

Population and employment forecasts are used as inputs to prepare traffic projections. Tables 7 and 8 show growth forecasts for the Cities of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, and National City as well as for the portions of the study area within the City of San Diego and County of San Diego.

21

Table 7 Projected Population Growth from 2000 to 2030 within the Study Area

Jurisdiction/Community Planning

Area (CPA)

2000

Population

2030

Population

Numeric Increase

2000-2030

% Increase 2000-2030

City of Chula Vista 173,556 278,183 104,627 60% City of Imperial Beach 26,992 32,797 5,805 22% City of National City 54,260 62,837 8,577 16% City of San Diego – Study Area¹ 567,349 770,114 202,765 36% County of San Diego Sweetwater CPA 12,951 15,181 2,230 17% Total – Study Area 835,108 1,159,112 324,004 39% Regional Total 2,813,833 3,855,085 1,041,252 37% Source: SANDAG, Final 2030 Cities/County Forecast for the San Diego Region, 2003 ¹Includes the following CPAs – City Heights, Clairemont Mesa, Greater North Park, Kearny Mesa, Linda Vista, Mira Mesa, Mission Valley, Nestor, Normal Heights, Otay Mesa, San Ysidro, Serra Mesa, Southeastern San Diego, Torrey Pines, and University.

Table 8 Projected Employment Growth from 2000 to 2030 within the Study Area

Jurisdiction/Community Planning Area (CPA)

2000

Employment

2030

Employment

Numeric Increase

2000-2030

% Increase 2000-2030

City of Chula Vista 53,731 79,442 25,711 48% City of Imperial Beach 3,931 4,886 955 24% City of National City 24,763 27,263 2,500 10% City of San Diego – Study Area¹ 403,433 510,824 107,391 28% County of San Diego Sweetwater CPA 3,046 3,898 852 28% Total – Study Area 488,904 626,313 137,409 28% Regional Total 1,384,676 1,824,030 439,354 32%

Source: SANDAG, Final 2030 Cities/County Forecast for the San Diego Region, 2003 ¹Includes the following CPAs – City Heights, Clairemont Mesa, Greater North Park, Kearny Mesa, Linda Vista, Mira Mesa, Mission Valley, Nestor, Normal Heights, Otay Mesa, San Ysidro, Serra Mesa, Southeastern San Diego, Torrey Pines, and University.

Regionwide population is forecasted to grow by 37 percent from 2000 to 2030. The City of Chula Vista’s projected population growth is much higher at 60 percent. Similarly, Chula Vista’s employment growth is expected at 48 percent, compared to 32 percent regionwide. Other areas with higher than average projected employment growth include the South Bay communities of Otay Mesa and San Ysidro.

Traffic Forecasts

Table 9 shows average daily traffic (ADT) in 2003 and projections to 2030 under the No Build alternative. Segments that are anticipated to operate at LOS F in 2030 under the No Build alternative are noted.

22

Table 9 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and Level of Service (LOS)

2030 Forecasts

2003 ADT

2030 ADT No Build

ADT Increase from 2003 to 2030 No

Build Absolute Percent

2030 LOS F (No Build)

I-805 San Ysidro Blvd. to SR 905 65,000 93,000 28,000 43.1% SR 905 to Palm Ave. 108,000 159,000 51,000 47.2% Palm Ave. to Otay Valley Rd. 141,000 188,000 47,000 33.3% Otay Valley Rd. to Orange Ave. 141,000 213,000 72,000 51.1% Orange Ave. to Telegraph Cyn Rd. 141,000 218,000 77,000 54.6% Telegraph Cyn Rd. to H St. 201,000 257,000 56,000 27.9% H St. to Bonita Rd. 212,000 260,000 48,000 22.6% X Bonita Rd. to SR 54 239,000 248,000 9,000 3.8% SR 54 to Plaza Blvd. 225,000 251,000 26,000 11.6% Plaza Blvd. to 47th St. 228,000 259,000 31,000 13.6% 47th St. to Imperial Ave. 235,000 262,000 27,000 11.5% Imperial Ave. to Market St. 251,000 283,000 32,000 12.7% Market St. to University Ave. 240,000 260,000 20,000 8.3% X University Ave. to El Cajon Blvd. 176,000 266,000 90,000 51.1% El Cajon Blvd. to Adams Ave. 173,000 264,000 91,000 52.6% Adams Ave. to I-8 191,000 289,000 98,000 51.3% X I-8 to Murray Ridge Rd. 201,000 268,000 67,000 33.3% X Murray Ridge Rd. to Kearny Villa Rd. 197,000 262,000 65,000 33.0% X Kearny Villa Rd. to Balboa Ave. 190,000 222,000 32,000 16.8% Balboa Ave. to Clairemont Mesa Blvd. 182,000 212,000 30,000 16.5% Clairemont Mesa Blvd. to SR 52 173,000 206,000 33,000 19.1% SR 52 to Governor Dr. 204,000 298,000 94,000 46.1% X Governor Dr. to La Jolla Village Dr./Miramar Rd. 200,000 290,000 90,000 45.0% X La Jolla Village Dr./Miramar Rd. to Mira Mesa Blvd. 178,000 235,000 57,000 32.0% X Mira Mesa Blvd. to I-5 (merge) 144,000 195,000 51,000 35.4%

I-5 Int'l Border to I-805 117,000 158,000 41,000 35.0% I-805 to Dairy Mart Road 66,000 84,000 18,000 27.3% Dairy Mart Rd. to SR 905 80,000 94,000 14,000 17.5% SR 905 to Coronado Ave. 111,000 143,000 32,000 28.8% Coronado Ave. to SR 75/Palm Ave. 124,000 150,000 26,000 21.0% SR 75/Palm Ave. to Main St. 156,000 194,000 38,000 24.4% Main St. to Palomar St. 159,000 208,000 49,000 30.8% Palomar St. to L St. 157,000 222,000 65,000 41.4% L St. to J St. 166,000 239,000 73,000 44.0% J St. to H St. 169,000 244,000 75,000 44.4% X H St. to SR 54 172,000 222,000 50,000 29.1%

Source: Caltrans Traffic Volumes, District 11, 2004.

SANDAG Regional Transportation Model, September 2003.

23

Goods Movement and Future Rail Shipping

Existing freight rail service between San Diego and Tecate, Baja California, can be extended to the Imperial Valley by rehabilitating the 70-mile Desert Line portion of the San Diego & Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railway, which has been out of service since 1983. The San Diego & Imperial Valley (SD&IV) Railroad operates the San Diego portion of the rail line while Carrizo Gorge Railways, Inc., operates between Tijuana and Tecate, Baja California. In 2005, the SD&AE Railway Desert Line was refurbished and restored to functionality by Carrizo Gorge Railway. However, it is not yet open to revenue service.

Reopening the SD&AE Railway could divert some truck traffic away from the region’s freeways. Studies conducted in 1999, show that the projected truck-to-rail diversion after five and ten years in operation for both Basic and Modern services.5 Under Basic service, a key freight movement is between San Diego and eastern California locations. Between 42 percent and 53 percent of the truck diversion could benefit the I-8 corridor. Cargo in containers and trailers moving north also could represent an important share of the SD&AE operations and could reduce truck traffic on north-south highways, such as I-5, I-15, and I-805. No cross-border truck diversion is anticipated for this scenario. Table 10 summarizes the projected diversion of truck traffic.

For Modern service, in addition to the two cargo movements described above, the study projected that the SD&AE could capture manufactured goods and merchandise that currently move by truck across the international border and could provide some additional truck traffic relief on both north-south and east-west highways.

Table 10 SD&AE Railroad – Desert Line

Projected Diverted Truck Traffic (Trailer Equivalents per Year)

Truck Traffic

Traffic Lane Cargo Units Basic Year 5

Modern Year 5

Basic Year 10

Modern Year 10

Highways Traveled

San Diego/ Tijuana Border Region to US Markets

Manufactured Goods and Merchandise

Container - 3,600 6,288 I-5, I-405, I-710, I-805

San Diego to/ from Mexico via Calexico

Current Truck Freight

Container - 2,360 3,995 I-8, SR 94, SR 111, SR125

San Diego to Eastern CA

Municipal Solid Waste

Container 4,545 4,545 5,018 5,018 I-8

Tijuana - North Containers/ Trailers

Container 3,750 8,250 6,550 14,410 I-5, I-405, I-710, I-805

Port of San Diego Containers

Intermodal Container - 1,013 2,210 I-5, I-8, I-805, SR 15, SR 94, SR 124

SD-Eastern Markets

Long-haul truck

Container 238 238 264 264 I-5, I-8, I-805, SR 15, SR 94, SR 125

Total 8,533 20,006 11,832 32,185 Source: SANDAG and The Kingsley Group, 1999

5 SANDAG, An Updated Market Study for the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway, 1999.

24

In addition to the SD&AE Railway, the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway provides freight service on the Coastal Rail Corridor. BNSF currently operates six to eight freight trains from Los Angeles to San Diego daily. According to the Los Angeles Economic Development Council, future service along the corridor from Fullerton to San Diego is not anticipated to increase beyond nine to 12 daily trains by 2020.6

6 Caltrans and U.S. Department of Transportation, LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Plan, 2003.

25

TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED

ais

Text Box

26

TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Introduction

The I-805/I-5 South Corridor Study developed eight multimodal transportation alternatives. Outside the study area, the 2030 RTP Mobility network is assumed. The eight alternatives represent different levels of transit service and highway improvements and consequently different levels of expenditures. They include highway improvements such as mixed-flow lanes, HOV lanes, and Managed Lanes. Managed Lanes are HOV facilities that accommodate transit, carpools, vanpools, as well as solo drivers who pay a fee to use the lanes. The transportation alternatives are outlined below. The tables on the following pages show the highway projects and regional transit services included in each alternative. Figures 4 through 10 illustrate the alternatives.

Alternative 1: No Build Baseline transit service and no improvements to I-805 and I-5 South. Alternative 2: Limited Transit and Limited Highway Limited Regional Transit Service and limited High Occupancy Lane (HOV) improvements. Alternative 3: MOBILITY 2030 Transit and Highway MOBILITY 2030 Regional Transit Service and HOV improvements. Alternative 4: Limited Transit and HOV/Mixed Flow Highway Limited Regional Transit Service and HOV/Mixed Flow Lanes. Alternative 5: Enhanced Transit and MOBILITY 2030 Highway Enhanced Regional Transit Service (additional South Bay and Mid-Coast routes) and MOBILITY 2030 HOV improvements. Alternative 6: MOBILITY 2030 Transit and Enhanced Highway MOBILITY 2030 Regional Transit Service and Highway with additional I-805 Mixed Flow Lanes and HOV Connectors. Alternative 7: MOBILITY 2030 Transit and Toll Highway MOBILITY 2030 Regional Transit Service and Toll Lane highway improvements (transit toll free). Alternative 8: Baseline Transit and Unlimited Highway Baseline Transit Service and Unlimited Mixed-flow Lane Highway improvements to achieve Level of Service (LOS) E at peak hour.

27

Alternatives Evaluated

Alternative 1: No Build The No Build alternative (Alternative 1) generally represents current transit service and no improvements to I-805 and I-5 South. All alternatives, including No Build, assume completion of programmed projects such as the Mission Valley East and Mid-Coast to Balboa light rail transit extensions, the I-5 auxiliary lane between Bay Marina Drive and Harbor Drive, interchange improvements at I-805 and Olympic Parkway, the I-5 HOV connector at the I-805 merge, and the San Ysidro Port of Entry realignment. The 2030 RTP MOBILITY highway and transit networks are assumed outside the study area. Alternative 2: Limited Transit and Limited Highway¹ Limited Regional Transit Service and limited HOV improvements Regional and Corridor Transit Services

Heavy Rail

Route 398: Increase in Coaster service from 36 min. to 20 min. headways in peak period

Light Rail


Route 570: New Mid-Coast to Balboa with 7.5 min. headways in peak period

New Bus Rapid Transit

Route 628: Centre City to Otay Mesa via SR 94/I-805 with 10 min. service in peak period

HOV and Managed Lane Facilities

Freeway From To Existing After Improvements

I-805 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 2 HOV I-805 SR 54 I-8 8F 8F + 4ML

I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct

8F 8F + 4ML

I-805 I-8 I-5 8F 8F + 4ML

Direct Access Ramps

Freeway Arterial

I-805 E. Palomar Street F = Freeway Lanes

ML = Managed Lanes (HOV & Value Pricing)

HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes

¹The I-5 HOV Connector (at the I-805 merge) and the I-5/I-805 Port of Entry (Inspection Facility) are assumed in all alternatives. The 2030 RTP Mobility Network is assumed outside the study area.

P A C I F I C O

C E A N

P A C I F I C O

C E A N

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

Del Mar

1-D

90511

5

125

54

805

805

5

5

282

163

94

6752

56

67

8

8

15

125

75

15

12594

52

805

5

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

County of San Diego

8F + 4ML

8F + 2HOV


April 2004

MILES

KILOMETERS

0 321

0 4.833.221.61

Alternative 2

Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


HOV Connectors

Direct Access Ramps

Study Area

ais

Text Box

Figure 4 Alternative 2

ais

Text Box

28

29

Alternative 3: MOBILITY 2030 Transit and Highway¹ MOBILITY 2030 Regional Transit Service and HOV improvements Regional and Corridor Transit Services

Heavy Rail Route 398: Increase in Coaster service from 36 min. to 20 min. headways in peak period (Tunnel at UTC) Light Rail

Route 510: Increase in Blue Line Trolley service from 15 min. to 7.5 min. headways in off-peak Route 570: New Mid-Coast to Balboa, to UTC, and to Sorrento Mesa with 7.5 min. headways in peak period New Bus Rapid Transit

Route 619: 32nd Street to Clairemont Mesa with 5 min. headways in peak period Route 621: Centre City to Fashion Valley and UTC via Hillcrest/Genesee Avenue with 5 min. headways in peak period Route 627: H Street to Otay Ranch via Southwestern College with 30 min. headways in peak period Route 628: Centre City to Otay Mesa via SR 94/I-805 with 5 min. headways in peak period





I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 2HOV I-805 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 4ML I-805 SR 54 I-8 8F 8F + 4ML


8F 8F + 4ML

I-805 I-8 I-5 8F 8F + 4ML

Direct Access Ramps

Freeway Arterial



I-805 Plaza Bonita

HOV Connectors


I-805 SR 52 West to North & South to East F = Freeway Lanes




PA

CI F

I CO

CE

AN

PA

CI F

I CO

CE

AN

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

Del Mar

County of San Diego

1-D

90511

5

125

54

805

805

5

5

282

163

94

6752

56

67

8

8

15

125

75

15

12594

52

805

5

8F + 4ML

8F + 4ML

8F + 4ML

8F + 2HOV

8F + 4ML

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

County of San Diego

I-805/I-5 Corridor Study

April 2004

MILES

KILOMETERS

0 321

0 4.833.221.61

Alternative 3

Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


HOV Connectors

Direct Access Ramps

Study Area

ais

Text Box


ais

Text Box

30

31

Alternative 4: Limited Transit and HOV/Mixed Flow Highway¹ Limited Regional Transit Service and HOV/Mixed Flow Lanes Regional and Corridor Transit Services

Heavy Rail

Route 398: Increase in Coaster service from 36 min. to 20 min. headways in peak period

Light Rail


Route 570: New Mid-Coast to Balboa with 7.5 min. headways in peak period

New Bus Rapid Transit

Route 628: Centre City to Otay Mesa via SR 94/I-805 with 10 min. service in peak period

Highway and HOV Lane Facilities


I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 2HOV

I-805 SR 905 Telegraph Canyon

8F 10F + 2HOV

I-805 Telegraph Canyon

I-8 8F 10F + 2HOV


8F 10F + 2HOV

I-805 I-8 I-5 8F 10F + 2 HOV

Direct Access Ramps

Freeway Arterial

I-805 E. Palomar Street F = Freeway Lanes




P A C I F I C O

C E A N

P A C I F I C O

C E A N

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

Del Mar

1-D

90511

5

125

54

805

805

5

5

282

163

94

6752

56

67

8

8

15

125

75

15

12594

52

805

5

County of San Diego

10F + 2HOV

10F + 2HOV

8F + 2HOV

County of San Diego

10F + 2HOV

10F + 2HOV

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

County of San Diego


April 2004

MILES

KILOMETERS

0 321

0 4.833.221.61

Alternative 4

Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


HOV Connectors

Direct Access Ramps

Study Area

ais

Text Box


ais

Text Box

32

33

Alternative 5: Enhanced Transit and MOBILITY 2030 Highway¹ Enhanced Regional Transit Service (additional South Bay and Mid-Coast routes) and MOBILITY 2030 HOV improvements Regional and Corridor Transit Services

Heavy Rail


Light Rail


Route 570: New Mid-Coast to Balboa with 10 min. headways in peak period

Bus Rapid Transit

Route 480: Vista to UTC via College/I-5 with 10 min. headways in peak period

Route 616: Pt. Loma to Mira Mesa via Black Mtn & Linda Vista with 5 min. headways in peak period

Route 619: 32nd Street to Sorrento Mesa via I-15 Clairemont Mesa with 5 min. headways in peak period Route 621: Centre City to Fashion Valley and UTC via Hillcrest/Genesee Avenue with 5 min. headways in peak period Route 624: University Avenue with 5 min. headways in peak period

Route 625: Imperial Beach to Otay Mesa via SR 905 with 10 min. headways in peak period

Route 626: National City to Iris Station via 3rd/4th with 10 min. headways in peak period

Route 627: H Street Trolley to Otay Ranch via Southwestern College with 10 min. headways in peak period


Route 630: Old Town to Grossmont Center via El Cajon Blvd. with 10 min. headways in peak period

Route 631: 8th Street National City to Plaza Bonita via SR 54 with 10 min. headways in peak period

Route 632: Balboa Station to UTC via La Jolla with 10 min. headways in peak period

Route 634: Super Loop with 10 min. headways in peak period

Route 635: Main Street to Eastlake via Otay Ranch with 10 min. headways in peak period

Route 640: San Ysidro to Old Town via I-5/Pacific Highway with 10 min. headways in peak period


Route 670: El Cajon to San Ysidro via I-805/SR 125/SR 54 with 10 min. headways in peak period




I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 2HOV I-805 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 4ML I-805 SR 54 I-8 8F 8F + 4ML I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct 8F 8F + 4ML I-805 I-8 I-5 8F 8F + 4ML

Direct Access Ramps

Freeway Arterial



I-805 Plaza Bonita

I-805 Plaza Blvd.

I-805 Nobel Dr.

HOV Connectors


I-805 SR 52 West to North & South to East ¹The I-5 HOV Connector (at the I-805 merge) and the I-5/I-805 Port of Entry (Inspection Facility) are assumed in all alternatives. The 2030 RTP Mobility Network is assumed outside the study area.

PA

CI F

I CO

CE

AN

PA

CI F

I CO

CE

AN

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

Del Mar

County of San DiegoCounty of San Diego

1-D

90511

5

125

54

805

805

5

5

282

163

94

6752

56

67

8

8

15

125

75

15

12594

52

805

5

8F + 4ML

8F + 4ML

8F + 2HOV

8F + 4ML

8F + 4ML

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

County of San Diego


April 2004

MILES

KILOMETERS

0 321

0 4.833.221.61

Alternative 5

Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


HOV Connectors

Direct Access Ramps

Study Area

ais

Text Box


ais

Text Box

34

35

Alternative 6: MOBILITY 2030 Transit and Enhanced Highway¹ MOBILITY 2030 Regional Transit Service and Highway with additional I-805 Mixed Flow Lanes and HOV Connectors Regional and Corridor Transit Services



Route 619: 32nd Street to Clairemont Mesa with 5 min. headways in peak period Route 621: Centre City to Fashion Valley and UTC via Hillcrest/Genesee Avenue with 5 min. headways in peak period Route 627: H Street to Otay Ranch via Southwestern College with 30 min. headways in peak period




Highway and HOV/Managed Lane Facilities Freeway From To Existing Improvements I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 2HOV

I-805 SR 905 Telegraph Canyon

8F 8F + 4 ML

I-805 Telegraph Canyon

I-8 8F 10F + 4ML

I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct 8F 8F + 4ML

I-805 I-8 I-5 8F 10F + 4ML

Direct Access Ramps

Freeway Arterial



I-805 Plaza Bonita

HOV Connectors


I-5 SR 54 West to South, North to East, South to East, and West to North

I-805 SR 54 South to East & West to North

I-805 SR 94 West to South, North to East, West to North, West to East, East to South, and North to West

I-805 SR 163 North to North, & South to South

I-805 SR 52 West to North & East to South F = Freeway Lanes

ML = Managed Lanes (HOV & Value Pricing) HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes ¹The I-5 HOV Connector (at the I-805 merge) and the I-5/I-805 Port of Entry (Inspection Facility) are assumed in all alternatives. The 2030 RTP Mobility Network is assumed outside the study area.

PA

CI F

I CO

CE

AN

PA

CI F

I CO

CE

AN

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

Del Mar

County of San Diego

10F + 4ML

8F + 4ML

8F + 2HOV

County of San Diego

8F + 4ML

10F + 4ML

1-D

90511

5

125

54

805

805

5

5

282

163

94

6752

56

67

8

8

15

125

75

15

12594

52

805

5

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

County of San Diego


April 2004

MILES

KILOMETERS

0 321

0 4.833.221.61

Alternative 6

Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


HOV Connectors

Direct Access Ramps

Study Area

ais

Text Box


ais

Text Box

36

37

Alternative 7: MOBILITY 2030 Transit and Toll Highway¹ MOBILITY 2030 Regional Transit Service and Toll Lane Highway improvements (transit toll free) Regional and Corridor Transit Services



Route 619: 32nd Street to Clairemont Mesa with 5 min. headways in peak period Route 621: Centre City to Fashion Valley and UTC via Hillcrest/Genesee Avenue with 5 min. headways in peak period Route 627: H Street to Otay Ranch via Southwestern College with 30 min. headways in peak period Route 628: Centre City to Otay Mesa via SR 94/I-805 with 5 min. headways in peak period



Toll Road Facilities Freeway From To Existing Improvements I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 2T I-805 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 4T I-805 SR 54 I-8 8F 8F + 4T


8F 8F + 4T

I-805 I-8 I-5 8F 8F + 4T

Direct Access Ramps

Freeway Arterial



I-805 Plaza Bonita

HOV Connectors


I-805 SR 52 West to North & South to East F = Freeway Lanes

T = Toll Road Lanes



PA

CI F

I CO

CE

AN

PA

CI F

I CO

CE

AN

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

Del Mar

County of San DiegoCounty of San Diego

8F + 4T

8F + 4T

8F + 2T

County of San Diego

8F + 4T

8F + 4T

1-D

90511

5

125

54

805

805

5

5

282

163

94

6752

56

67

8

8

15

125

75

15

12594

52

805

5

San Diego Region

MAP AREA


April 2004

MILES

KILOMETERS

0 321

0 4.833.221.61

Alternative 7

Transit

Toll Lanes

Managed/HOV Lanes


HOV Connectors

Direct Access Ramps

Study Area

ais

Text Box


ais

Text Box

38

39

Alternative 8: Baseline Transit¹ and Unlimited Highway²

Baseline Transit Service and Unlimited Mixed-flow Lane Highway improvements to achieve Level of Service (LOS) E at peak hour.

Highway Facilities


I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 10F I-805 SR 905 SR 54 8F 10F I-805 SB SR 54 Madison 8F 12F I-805 SB Madison I-8 8F 14F I-805 NB SR 54 I-8 8F 12F

I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct 8F 12F

I-805 I-8 SR 52 8F 12F I-805 SB SR 52 Nobel Drive 8F 16F I-805 SB Nobel Drive I-5 8F 14F I-805 NB SR 52 I-5 8F 14F

Auxiliary Lanes


I-805 NB I-8 WB Murray Ridge Off-Ramp -- 2 I-805 NB Murray Ridge Off-Ramp Murray Ridge On-Ramp -- 1 I-805 NB Murray Ridge On-Ramp Kearny Villa Rd. -- 1 I-805 SB Governor Dr. SR 52 WB -- 2 I-805 SB Mesa College Dr. Murray Ridge Off-Ramp -- 1 I-805 SB Murray Ridge Off-Ramp Murray Ridge On-Ramp -- 1 I-805 SB I-15 SB Home Ave. -- 2 I-805 SB 43rd Ave. Plaza Blvd. -- 1 I-805 SB SR 54 EB Bonita Rd. Off-Ramp -- 2 I-805 SB Bonita Rd. Off-Ramp Bonita Rd. On-Ramp -- 1 I-805 SB Bonita Rd. On-Ramp H St. -- 2 F = Freeway Lanes

¹ The completion of Mission Valley East Trolley and Route 570 (Mid-Coast to Balboa) are assumed under this alternative. ² The I-5 HOV Connector (at the I-805 merge) and the I-5/I-805 Port of Entry (Inspection Facility) are assumed in all alternatives. The 2030 RTP Mobility Network is assumed outside the study area.

P A C I F I C O

C E A N

P A C I F I C O

C E A N

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

Del Mar

County of San Diego

14F

County of San Diego

16F + 2 AUX

12F +1-2 AUX

12F + 1 AUX

10F

10F

10F + 1-2 AUX

14F + 2 AUX

16F

12F

12F + 1 AUX

14F

1-D

90511

5

125

54

805

805

5

5

282

163

94

6752

56

67

8

8

15

125

75

15

12594

52

805

5

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

County of San Diego


April 2004

MILES

KILOMETERS

0 321

0 4.833.221.61

Alternative 8

Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


HOV Connectors

Direct Access Ramps

Study Area

ais

Text Box


ais

Text Box

40

41

Long-Range Traffic Forecasts for the Alternatives Evaluated

Traffic forecasts to 2030 were prepared for the No Build alternative and seven Build alternatives. SANDAG’s regional transportation model was used to prepare the traffic projections. The population, employment, and land use inputs for these initial projections represent SANDAG’s Preliminary 2030 Cities/County Forecast. Future roads included in the Cities and County circulation elements are represented in the road network. Within the study area, the network reflects the regional transit and highway improvements described for each alternative. Outside the study area, the road and transit networks reflect the improvements included in MOBILITY 2030. Table 11, on page 45, shows forecast volumes for selected highway segments for the No Build alternative (Alternative 1) and Build Alternatives 2 through 8. Alternative 1: No Build Under Alternative 1, I-805 is projected to have 56 lane-miles at LOS F in 2030, southbound from Sorrento Valley Road to I-8, SR 15 to SR 94, 43rd Street to 47th Street, and Bonita Road to H Street. Northbound congestion on I-805 would occur from SR 15 to University Avenue, and I-8 to Miramar Road. I-5 would have six lane-miles at LOS F, southbound from Camino de la Plaza to the international border and northbound from H Street to J Street. In 2030, average daily traffic volumes are forecast to range from 84,000 to 244,000 vehicles on I-5 from the border to SR 54. Volumes on I-805 south of SR 54 would range from 93,000 to 260,000 daily vehicles. Average volumes on I-805 from SR 54 to I-8 are projected to vary from 251,000 to 289,000 daily vehicles. Finally, the volumes on I-805 from I-8 to the I-5 merge are expected to increase from 195,000 to 298,000 vehicles per day.

Comparison of Build Alternatives

Compared to 2003, traffic volumes in 2030 are projected to increase substantially. On I-5 from the border to SR 54, traffic volumes are projected to increase 24 to 46 percent. On I-805 south of SR 54, traffic is expected to increase 15 to 67 percent by 2030 while volumes on I-805 from SR 54 to I-8 would increase between 17 and 49 percent. Finally, traffic volumes in the northern section of I-805 (from I-8 to the I-5 merge) are expected to increase between 14 and 61 percent over current traffic volumes. Build Alternative 2: Under Alternative 2, I-805 is projected to have 28 lane-miles at LOS F in 2030, southbound from La Jolla Village Drive to SR 52, Mesa College Drive to Madison Avenue, SR 15 to Home Avenue, 43rd Street to 47th Street, and SR 54 to H Street. Northbound congestion on I-805 would occur from SR 52 to Nobel Drive. Also, under Alternative 2, I-5 would have three lane-miles at LOS F, southbound from Camino de la Plaza to the international border and northbound from H Street to J Street.

42

Average daily traffic volumes are forecast to range from 81,000 to 241,000 vehicles on I-5 from the border to SR 54. Volumes on I-5 are projected to be one to three percent less than on the No Build alternative. This is likely due to traffic shifting from I-5 to the I-805, as a result of additional capacity on the I-805. Volumes on I-805 south of SR 54 would range from 95,000 to 273,000. This is three to seven percent higher than the No Build alternative. Average volumes on I-805 from SR 54 to I-8 are projected to vary from 276,000 to 310,000 daily vehicles, which is 7 to 11 percent higher than No Build. Finally, the volumes on I-805 from I-8 to the I-5 merge are expected to increase from 206,000 to 316,000 daily vehicles, a six to eight percent increase over the No Build. Overall, systemwide transit ridership in the peak period is expected to increase 13 percent over the No Build alternative. Daily ridership on Routes 510, 570, and 628 is projected to be 83,300, 22,800, and 23,200 passengers respectively under this alternative. Build Alternative 3: Under Alternative 3, I-805 is projected to have 17 lane-miles at LOS F in 2030. This includes southbound lanes from La Jolla Village Drive to SR 52 and from Mesa College Drive to Madison Avenue. I-5 would have only one lane mile at LOS F in 2030, southbound from Camino de la Plaza to the international border. Average daily traffic volumes are forecast to range from 82,000 to 248,000 vehicles on I-5 from the border to SR 54. Volumes on I-5 are two percent more than on the No Build alternative. Volumes on I-805 south of SR 54 would range from 94,000 to 271,000 daily vehicles. This is two to six percent higher than the No Build alternative. Average volumes on I-805 from SR 54 to I-8 are projected to vary from 270,000 to 305,000 daily vehicles, which is six to nine percent higher than No Build. Finally, daily volumes on I-805 from I-8 to the I-5 merge are expected to increase from 204,000 to 312,000 vehicles, a two to five percent increase over the No Build. Overall, systemwide transit ridership in the peak period is expected to increase 29 percent over the No Build alternative. Daily ridership on Routes 510, 570, 628, and 680 is projected to be 73,000, 17,000, 24,200, and 34,600 passengers respectively under this alternative. Build Alternative 4: Under Alternative 4, I-805 is projected to have 38 lane-miles at LOS F in 2030. This includes southbound lanes from La Jolla Village Drive to Plaza Boulevard and northbound from SR 52 to Nobel Drive. I-5 would have only one lane mile at LOS F in 2030, southbound from Camino de la Plaza to the international border. Average daily traffic volumes are forecast to range from 82,000 to 248,000 vehicles on I-5 from the border to SR 54. Volumes on I-5 are two percent more than on the No Build alternative. Volumes on I-805 south of SR 54 would range from 95,000 to 278,000 daily vehicles. This is two to ten percent higher than the No Build alternative. Average volumes on I-805 from SR 54 to I-8 are projected to vary from 283,000 to 319,000 vehicles, which is 8 to 14 percent higher than No Build. Finally, daily volumes on I-805 from I-8 to the I-5 merge are expected to increase from 211,000 to 324,000 vehicles, a seven to 12 percent increase over the No Build.

43

Overall, systemwide transit ridership in the peak period is expected to increase 14 percent over the No Build alternative. Daily ridership on Routes 510, 570, and 628 is projected to be 83,700, 22,800, and 23,300 passengers respectively under this alternative. Build Alternative 5: Alternative 5 would provide congestion relief compared to the No Build alternative. Under Alternative 5, I-805 is projected to have 14 lane-miles at LOS F in 2030. This includes southbound lanes from La Jolla Village Drive to Madison Avenue. I-5 would have only one lane mile at LOS F in 2030, southbound from Camino de la Plaza to the international border. Average daily traffic volumes are forecast to range from 82,000 to 247,000 vehicles on I-5 from the border to SR 54. Volumes on I-5 would vary slightly compared to the No Build alternative (one to two percent). Volumes on I-805 south of SR 54 would range from 94,000 to 269,000 daily vehicles. This is one to five percent higher than the No Build alternative. Average volumes on I-805 from SR 54 to I-8 would range from 269,000 to 304,000 daily vehicles, which is four to nine percent higher than No Build. Finally, the volumes on I-805 from I-8 to the I-5 merge are expected to increase from 204,000 to 313,000 daily vehicles, a two to five percent increase over the No Build. Overall, systemwide transit ridership in the peak period is expected to increase 41 percent over the No Build alternative. Daily ridership on Routes 510, 570, 628, and 680 is projected to be 65,400, 13,200, 21,200, and 24,000 passengers respectively under this alternative. Build Alternative 6: Alternative 6 would relieve congestion compared to the No Build alternative. Under this alternative, I-805 is projected to have 18 lane-miles at LOS F in 2030. This includes southbound lanes from Nobel Drive to Madison Avenue. I-5 would have only one lane mile at LOS F in 2030, southbound from Camino de la Plaza to the international border. Average daily traffic volumes are forecast to range from 82,000 to 247,000 vehicles on I-5 from the border to SR 54. Volumes on I-5 would vary slightly from the No Build alternative (one to three percent). Volumes on I-805 south of SR 54 would range from 95,000 to 277,000 daily vehicles. This is two to nine percent higher than the No Build alternative. Average volumes on I-805 from SR 54 to I-8 are projected to vary from 283,000 to 321,000 daily vehicles, which is 8 to 15 percent higher than No Build. Finally, the volumes on I-805 from I-8 to the I-5 merge are expected to increase from 212,000 to 323,000 vehicles, a seven to nine percent increase over the No Build. Overall, systemwide transit ridership in the peak period is expected to increase 30 percent over the No Build alternative. Daily ridership on Routes 510, 570, 628, and 680 is projected to be 73,400, 17,000, 24,100, and 34,600 passengers respectively under this alternative. Build Alternative 7: Under Alternative 7, I-805 is projected to have 53 lane-miles at LOS F in 2030. This includes southbound from Sorrento Valley Road to Balboa Avenue, Mesa College Road to Madison Avenue, SR 15 to 47th Street, and Plaza Boulevard to H Street. I-805 northbound congestion includes from Home Avenue to SR 15 and SR 52 to Miramar Road. Also, under Alternative 7, I-5 would have

44

five lane-miles at LOS F, southbound from Camino de la Plaza to the international border and northbound from H Street to J Street. Average daily traffic volumes are forecast to would range from 82,000 to 240,000 vehicles on I-5 from the border to SR 54. Volumes on I-5 range from a 3 percent decrease to a 1 percent increase compared to the No Build alternative. Volumes on I-805 south of SR 54 would range from 94,000 to 261,000 daily vehicles. This is up to two percent higher than the No Build alternative. Average volumes on I-805 from SR 54 to I-8 are projected to vary from 251,000 to 292,000 daily vehicles (3 to 5 percent change compared to the No Build). Finally, the volumes on I-805 from I-8 to the I-5 merge are expected to increase from 202,000 to 294,000 daily vehicles (1 to 6 percent change compared to the No Build). Overall, systemwide transit ridership in the peak period is expected to increase 24 percent over the No Build alternative. Daily ridership on Routes 510, 570, 628, and 680 is projected to be 73,700, 17,400, 24,500, and 34,900 passengers respectively under this alternative. Build Alternative 8: Alternative 8 was designed to test adding as many mixed flow lanes as needed to eliminate LOS F at peak hour and achieve LOS E. Average daily traffic volumes are forecast to range from 82,000 to 247,000 vehicles on I-5 from the border to SR 54. Volumes on I-5 range from a 3 percent decrease to a 1 percent increase compared to the No Build alternative. Volumes on I-805 south of SR 54 would range from 95,000 to 283,000 daily vehicles. This is 3 to 12 percent higher than the No Build alternative. Average volumes on I-805 from SR 54 to I-8 are projected to vary from 291,000 to 326,000 daily vehicles, which is 11 to 17 percent higher than No Build. Finally, the volumes on I-805 from I-8 to the I-5 merge are expected to increase from 213,000 to 331,000 vehicles, a 9 to 13 percent increase over the No Build. Overall, system-wide transit ridership in the peak period is expected to decrease 1 percent over the No Build alternative. Daily ridership on Routes 510 and 570 is projected to be 57,900 and 10,300 passengers respectively under this alternative.

45

Table 11 Preliminary 2030 Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

(in thousands)

2003 Traffic Counts Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Alt. 8

I-5 South Internationl Border to I-805 117 158 159 159 159 159 159 159 159 I-805 to Dairy Mart Road 66 84 81 82 82 82 82 82 82 Dairy Mart Rd. to SR 905 80 94 91 92 92 92 92 92 92 SR 905 to Coronado Ave. 111 143 138 140 140 140 138 138 139 Coronado Ave. to SR 75/Palm Ave. 124 150 144 148 147 148 146 145 147 SR 75/Palm Ave. to Main St. 156 194 188 193 192 192 191 190 192 Main St. to Palomar St. 159 208 203 208 208 208 207 204 208 Palomar St. to L St. 157 222 217 223 223 223 222 217 223 L St. to J St. 166 239 234 241 240 240 240 236 240 J St. to H St. 169 244 241 248 248 247 247 240 247 H St. to SR 54 172 222 217 225 224 223 224 217 223

I-805 San Ysidro Blvd. to SR 905 65 93 95 94 95 94 95 94 95 SR 905 to Palm Ave. 108 159 166 164 167 163 166 161 167 Palm Ave. to Otay Valley Rd. 141 188 196 192 196 191 195 190 197 Otay Valley Rd. to Orange Ave. 141 213 222 218 222 217 221 216 223 Orange Ave. to Telegraph Cyn Rd. 141 218 228 225 231 224 229 220 233 Telegraph Cyn Rd. to H St. 201 257 268 265 271 264 270 257 275 H St. to Bonita Rd. 212 260 273 271 278 269 277 261 283 Bonita Rd. to SR 54 239 248 266 263 272 261 271 252 278 SR 54 to Plaza Blvd. 225 251 276 270 283 269 283 251 291 Plaza Blvd. to 47th St. 228 259 286 280 294 280 295 264 303 47th St. to Imperial Ave. 235 262 291 285 299 285 302 271 307 Imperial Ave. to Market St. 251 283 310 305 319 304 321 292 326 Market St. to University Ave. 240 260 280 276 284 273 284 250 293 University Ave. to El Cajon Blvd. 176 266 287 283 291 280 291 255 298 El Cajon Blvd. to Adams Ave. 173 264 284 281 287 278 287 251 295

46

Table 11 Preliminary 2030 Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) (continued)

(in thousands)

2003 Traffic Counts Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Alt. 8

I-805 Adams Ave. to I-8 191 289 309 305 312 302 312 277 320 I-8 to Murray Ridge Rd. 201 268 286 280 288 277 288 252 293 Murray Ridge Rd. to Kearny Villa Rd. 197 262 280 274 282 271 281 246 286 Kearny Villa Rd. to Balboa Ave. 190 222 239 230 244 229 239 218 247 Balboa Ave. to Clairemont Mesa Blvd. 182 212 229 218 235 217 229 207 238 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. to SR 52 173 206 223 211 230 210 222 199 233 SR 52 to Governor Dr. 204 298 316 312 324 313 323 294 331 Governor Dr. to La Jolla Village Dr./Miramar Rd. 200 290 306 302 314 304 313 287 322 La Jolla Village Dr./Miramar Rd. to Mira Mesa Blvd. 178 235 248 243 254 243 252 237 257 Mira Mesa Blvd. to I-5 (merge) 144 195 206 204 211 204 212 202 213

Source: Caltrans Traffic Volumes, District 11, 2004

2030 Regional Transportation Model (September/October 2003)

47

INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

ais

Text Box

48

INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION

Performance Measures

The transportation alternatives evaluated in the I-805/I-5 South study are multi-modal in nature. For the initial screening of alternatives, a set of quantitative measures was developed to capture the performance of each transportation alternative regardless of travel mode. A qualitative analysis also was conducted. The performance measures are described below. The five study area measures were computed for the subset of the region that is the focus of the I-805/I-5 South study. Regional measures were computed for the entire San Diego region. Study Area Performance Measures:

People Moved: It measures daily person miles traveled (PMT) on the facilities and transit routes that are being improved within the study area. This indicator includes travel by solo drivers, carpools, and transit users. Better performing alternatives have a higher daily PMT.

Travel Time Savings: It measures the daily travel time savings (TTS), in minutes, resulting from a particular transportation alternative compared to the No Build alternative within the study area. Better performing alternatives have a higher travel time savings.

Congestion Relief: It measures how well a road segment operates by computing the number of lane-miles at LOS F at peak hour of the I-805 and I-5 freeway corridors within the study area. The regional LOS standard is LOS E. Better performing alternatives have a lower number of lane-miles at LOS F.

Work Trips using Alternative Modes: It measures the percentage of work trips by mode during morning and afternoon peak periods. This measure captures the use of alternative transportation modes during peak periods. Alternative modes are carpool, vanpool, transit, and bike/walk. Better performing alternatives show a higher share of alternative modes and a lower share of drive alone travel.

Ratio of Capital Cost and TTS: This ratio is calculated as a surrogate for cost-effectiveness of travel time savings. Better performing alternatives have a lower cost per TTS.

49

Regional Performance Measures:

Work/School trips within 30 minutes (peak periods) and Non-work trips within 15 minutes (daily): These are measures of accessibility to jobs, higher education, and non-work related travel. These measures also were evaluated by minority and non minority as well as low-income and non-low-income to ensure that these populations are not disproportionately impacted by proposed transportation improvements.

Congested travel conditions at peak periods and daily: These are measures of travel reliability and represent the percentage of vehicle miles of travel at LOS E and LOS F during peak periods and all day.

Homes within ½ mile of a transit stop and Jobs within ¼ mile of a transit stop: These are measures of livability and represent the share of homes and jobs served by transit.

Analysis of Alternatives and Screening Results

An evaluation of the seven Build alternatives compared to the No Build alternative was prepared to understand how well the alternatives would meet the study’s Need and Purpose and objectives. As described in the previous section, both performance measures that focused on the study area and regional indicators were analyzed. Table 12 summarizes the evaluation of the alternatives. Table 13 includes the results of the study area performance measures, and Table 14 shows the results of the regional performance measures. The results of the performance measures for the Build alternatives first were compared to the No Build alternative and then were evaluated by comparing across the Build alternatives. The surrogate measure for cost-effectiveness (ratio of capital cost and travel time savings) was compared across the build alternatives only, since there is no capital cost associated with the No Build alternative.

50

Table 12 Screening of Alternatives


Alternative 2 Limited

Transit & Highway

Alternative 3 MOBILITY

2030 Transit & Highway

Alternative 4 Limited

Transit & HOV/Mixed

Flow Highway

Alternative 5 Enhanced Transit & MOBILITY

2030 Highway


2030 Transit & Enhanced

Highway


2030 Transit & Toll

Highway

Alternative 8 Baseline Transit & Unlimited Highway

Study Area Performance Measures People Moved + + + ++ ++ Travel Time Savings + ++ + Congestion Relief + + + ++ Work Trips using Alternative Modes + ++ + ++ ++ ++ Ratio of Capital Cost and Travel Time Savings + ++ ++ ++ +

Regional Goals & Performance Measures ACCESSIBILITY Work/school trips within 30 minutes (peak periods) + + Non-work trips within 15 minutes RELIABILITY Congested peak period travel conditions + + + + ++ + Congested daily travel conditions + + ++ ++ ++ ++ LIVABILITY Homes within 1/2 mile of a transit stop + ++ + ++ ++ ++ Jobs within 1/4 mile of a transit stop + ++ + + EQUITY (minority and low-income populations) Work/school trips within 30 minutes No disproportionate impacts to low-income or minority populations. Slightly higher accessibility for low-income and

minority populations.

Non-work trips within 15 minutes No disproportionate impacts to low-income or minority populations. Slightly higher accessibility for minority populations.

51

Table 13 Study Area Performance Measures

Study Area Performance Measures

Alt. 1

No Build

Alt. 2 Limited

Transit & Highway

Alt.3 MOBILITY


Alt. 4 Limited

Transit & HOV/Mixed

Flow Highway

Alt.5 Enhanced Transit & MOBILITY

2030 Highway

Alt.6 MOBILITY

2030 Transit & Enhanced Highway

Alt.7 MOBILITY

2030 Transit &

Toll Highway

Alt. 8 Baseline Transit & Unlimited Highway

People Moved 27,926,502 29,122,295 29,531,052 29,251,114 30,385,402 29,830,664 28,851,819 28,545,672 Travel Time Savings 788,310 1,590,599 966,441 2,140,393 1,766,143 662,730 547,743 Congestion Relief 63 31 18 39 15 19 58 0 Work Trips using Alternative Mode (peak periods) 23.8% 25.5% 28.1% 25.5% 29.7% 28.1% 28.7% 23.4%

Carpool 12.7% 12.6% 12.2% 12.5% 12.0% 12.1% 12.4% 12.6% Transit 8.1% 10.0% 13.2% 10.0% 14.9% 13.2% 13.4% 8.0% Bike/Walk 3.0% 2.9% 2.8% 2.9% 2.8% 2.8% 2.9% 2.9%

Ratio of Capital Cost and Travel Time Savings $3,539 $3,244 $3,239 $3,275 $3,890 $8,193 $4,875 Notes: All data represent characteristics within the study area. Forecast conditions in 2030. People Moved: Daily Person Miles Traveled (PMT) Travel Time Savings: Daily travel time savings compared to No Build in minutes Congestion Relief: I-5 South & I-805 peak hour lane miles at LOS F Work Trips using Alternative Mode (peak periods): Mode share for carpools, transit, bike and walk Capital Cost: Planning level capital cost estimates for transit and highways

52

Table 14 Regional Performance Measures

Regional Goals and Performance Measures Alt. 1

No Build

Alt. 2 Limited

Transit & Highway

Alt. 3 MOBILITY


Alt. 4 Limited

Transit & HOV/Mixed

Flow Highway

Alt. 5 Enhanced Transit & MOBILITY

2030 Highway

Alt. 6 MOBILITY

2030 Transit & Enhanced Highway

Alt. 7 MOBILITY

2030 Transit &

Toll Highway

Alt. 8 Baseline Transit & Unlimited Highway

ACCESSIBILITY Work/school trips within 30 minutes (peak

i d ) 67% 67% 67% 68% 67% 67% 67% 68%

Auto 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 71% 70% 71% Transit 10% 11% 12% 11% 13% 12% 12% 10% Carpool 81% 82% 83% 83% 83% 83% 84% 82%

Non-work trips within 15 minutes 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% Auto 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 72% 71% Transit 4% 4% 5% 4% 5% 5% 5% 4% Carpool 77% 77% 77% 77% 77% 77% 77% 77%

RELIABILITY Congested peak period travel conditions 28% 27% 26% 25% 26% 25% 30% 26%

Congested daily travel conditions 20% 19% 19% 18% 18% 18% 24% 18% LIVABILITY Homes within 1/2 mile of a transit stop 64% 65% 66% 65% 66% 66% 66% 64%

Jobs within 1/4 mile of a transit stop 46% 47% 49% 47% 51% 49% 49% 46% EQUITY Work/school trips within 30 minutes

Low-income population 68% 69% 69% 69% 68% 69% 68% 71% Non-low-income population 66% 67% 66% 67% 66% 67% 67% 67%

Minority population 68% 69% 69% 69% 68% 69% 69% 70% Non-minority population 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 67%

Non-work trips within 15 minutes Low-income population 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 68% Non-low-income population 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%

Minority population 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% Non-minority population 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66%

53

ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR FURTHER STUDY

Of the eight alternatives evaluated, the Transportation Committee approved four for further study. In addition to the No Build scenario (Alternative 1), the three Build alternatives approved for additional study are Alternatives 3, 5, and 6. The evaluation of these alternatives showed that the combination of transit and highway improvements proposed would best meet the Need and Purpose of the study. Previous Table 12, on page 50, summarizes the evaluation of the alternatives and the screening results. Within the study area, Alternatives 3, 5, and 6 best address mobility by increasing capacity to move people and goods, support reliability by providing the highest travel time savings, and provide for congestion relief by substantially reducing (but not eliminating) LOS F during the peak hour. Finally, these three improvement scenarios provide alternative travel choices for regional trips and achieve the highest transit and carpool usage for work trips during the peak periods. Alternatives 3, 5, and 6 improve LOS on I-805 segments identified as deficient (LOS F) in the 2002 Congestion Management Program (CMP), including Bonita Road to SR 54, and Market Street to El Cajon Boulevard. Additionally, Alternative 6 improves the deficient segment on I-805 between Nobel Drive and La Jolla Village Drive. In terms of regional goals, the three alternatives support the reliability goal by reducing congested travel conditions and encourage the integration of land use and transportation policies by proposing convenient transit services nearby homes and jobs. Alternatives 3, 5, and 6 also address the equity goal by affording slightly higher accessibility for work trips for minority and low-income populations.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY

Alternatives 2, 4, 7, and 8 were evaluated but not recommended for further study. An analysis of these four additional alternatives is presented below. Alternative 2: Limited Transit and Highway Alternative 2 fails to meet the Need and Purpose of the study, particularly for the I-5 South corridor. It provides few highway improvements in the South Bay (no improvements to I-5 South and one HOV lane in each direction on I-805 south of SR 54) and would result in limited implementation of the Regional Transit Vision. It would not support HOV choices, in particular on I-5 south of SR 54. In Chula Vista, planned development west of I-5 and redevelopment east of I-5 may result in additional travel demand beyond what is considered in current projections.

54

Alternative 4: Limited Transit and HOV/Mixed Flow Highway Alternative 4 would not perform as well in providing travel time savings and congestion relief within the study area, compared to the three Build alternatives recommended for further study. The addition of a single HOV lane on I-805 may not provide adequate capacity for carpools and transit. It is unlikely that the additional mixed-flow lane could be converted to HOV usage in the future. Moreover, it precludes implementation of Managed Lanes on I-805 and would result in limited implementation of the Regional Transit Vision. Alternative 7: MOBILITY 2030 Transit and Toll Highway Alternative 7 assumes the same highway and transit improvements as Alternative 3, but also assumes that a toll would be charged on the new freeway lanes to all users except transit vehicles. Compared to the other Build alternatives recommended for further analysis, this alternative would not perform as well as in accommodating travel within the study area and achieving travel time savings or congestion relief. In fact, highway congestion (measured in lane-miles at LOS F) would be nearly as high as in the No Build alternative. Alternative 8: Baseline Transit and Unlimited Highway Alternative 8 was develop to understand the level of highway improvements (mixed-flow lanes) that would be needed on the I-5 South and I-805 corridors within the planning timeframe to achieve LOS E at peak hour, assuming no improvements to transit service. This alternative fails to meet the study’s Need and Purpose, since it does not provide travel choices and does not implement the Regional Transit Vision (it would maintain transit at current levels). However, the analysis is useful in indicating areas where additional improvements (e.g., capacity, operational, transit frequencies) may be needed beyond what is proposed on other build alternatives.

55

SECOND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

ais

Text Box

56

SECOND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION

As a result of the initial screening of alternatives conducted in Spring 2004, three Build alternatives for the I-805 corridor and I-5 south of SR 54 were approved for further study, along with the No Build alternative.

Travel Demand Projections

The initial travel projections for Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 6 were conducted using the Preliminary 2030 Cities/County Forecast for population, employment, and land use. The SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Final 2030 Cities/County Forecast in December 2003 and travel projections prepared for the second evaluation and screening of alternatives use the latest forecast. The differences between the preliminary and the final forecast are two-fold: (1) the final forecast assumes the local jurisdictions’ current general plans and policies, which results in fewer housing units and less population within the region, and (2) the final forecast relied on the updated national economic forecast, which considered the recent recession. The population and employment projections for 2030 for both the preliminary and final growth forecasts are shown below:

2000

Preliminary 2030 Cities/County

Forecast

Final 2030 Cities/County

Forecast

Total Population 2,813,833 3,889,604 3,855,085 Total Housing Units 1,040,149 1,379,644 1,354,081 Total Employment 1,384,676 1,883,395 1,824,035

Sources: SANDAG, Preliminary 2030 Cities/County Forecast (2002), Final 2030

Cities/County Forecast (2003).

The final growth forecast assumes increased interregional commuting as a result of people seeking lower-cost housing elsewhere, but continuing to work in the San Diego region. The Preliminary forecast assumed about 7,400 “exported” households to northern Baja California while the Final forecast increased that figure to approximately 28,100 households. An even higher number of “exported” households to Riverside County are assumed in the final forecast.

57


The second screening of alternatives was conducted using the performance measures described below. The study area measures were computed for the subset of the region that is the focus of the I-805/I-5 study. Regional measures were computed for the entire San Diego region.


Travel Time Savings: It measures the daily vehicle hours of delay compared to the No Build alternative. Better performing alternatives have a higher number of hours of travel saved. Congestion Relief: It measures how well a road segment operates by computing the number of lane-miles at LOS F7 at peak hour of the I-805 and I-5 freeway corridors within the study area. The regional LOS standard is LOS E. Better performing alternatives have a lower number of lane-miles at LOS F. Work Trips using Alternative Modes: It measures the percentage of work trips by mode during morning and afternoon peak periods. This measure captures the use of alternative transportation modes during peak periods. Alternative modes are: carpool, vanpool, transit, and bike/walk. Better performing alternatives show a higher share of alternative modes and a lower share of drive alone travel. Number of homes and jobs served by transit: This indicator attempts to capture the integration between transportation and land use. It measures the number of homes and jobs within the study area that are served by regional and corridor transit services. Homes and jobs located within a ¼ mile of a transit stop are included in this performance measure. Better performing alternatives have a higher number of homes and jobs served by transit. Accessibility to major activity centers: This indicator illustrates ease of access to economic activity centers such employment sites as well as colleges and universities. It measures the share of trips within the study area that can access these activity centers in 15 or 30 minutes. Better performing alternatives show a higher share of accessibility to major employers and educational institutions. Total cost estimates: This indicator includes planning level cost estimates for capital, operation, and maintenance. Environmental Indicator: A preliminary environmental constraints analysis was conducted for the following environmental issues: air quality, habitat, cultural resources, hazardous waste, noise, socioeconomic, and visual.

7 LOS is defined as the ratio of travel demand (or volume) to road capacity at peak hour. LOS F represents a ratio of demand to capacity greater than 1.0.

58

In addition, eight trip origins and destinations were selected to measure peak period average door-to-door travel times for corridor trips by carpool, transit, and drive alone. The corridor trips represent travel from residential areas to major employment centers, as follows:

Sorrento Hills to Fashion Valley Western Chula Vista to Kearny Mesa San Ysidro to downtown San Diego Mid-City to University Towne Centre (UTC) Skyline/Paradise Hills to UTC East Chula Vista to Sorrento Mesa Mid-City to Otay Mesa East Chula Vista to downtown San Diego

Regional Performance Measures:

Work/School trips within 30 minutes (peak periods) and Non-work trips within 15 minutes (daily): These are measures of accessibility to jobs, higher education, and non-work related travel. These measures also were evaluated by minority and non minority as well as low-income and non low-income to ensure that these populations are not disproportionately impacted by proposed transportation improvements. Congested travel conditions at peak periods and daily: These are measures of travel reliability and represent the percentage of vehicle miles of travel at LOS E and LOS F during peak periods and all day.

Analysis of Alternatives and Screening Results

An evaluation of the three Build alternatives (Alternatives 3, 5, and 6) compared to the No Build alternative was prepared to understand how well the alternatives would meet the study’s Need and Purpose and objectives. The results of the study area performance measures indicated the following strengths and weaknesses for Alternatives 3, 5, and 6:

Alternative 3 showed good performance in travel time savings, congestion relief at peak hour, work trips using transit, and homes and jobs served by transit. The cost for Alternative 3 is estimated at $6.4 billion.

Alternative 5 indicated the best performance in attracting work trips to transit, with nearly

13 percent of commute trips at peak hours projected to use transit. Also, Alternative 5 provides the best transit accessibility to homes and jobs due to its comprehensive regional transit service. However, Alternative 5 would necessitate an additional investment of nearly $2.7 billion over Alternative 3, or about 40 percent higher. The estimated cost for Alternative 5 is $9.09 billion.

59

Alternative 6 showed the best performance in congestion relief at peak hour, with only seven lane miles at LOS F out of a total of 466 lane miles on the I-805/I-5 South corridors. The cost for Alternative 6 is estimated at nearly $8 billion.

Results of the regional performance measures were virtually identical across Alternatives 3, 5, and 6, and did not provide additional information to evaluate the alternatives.

60

Development of Alternative 9

Alternative 9 was developed following the evaluation of Alternatives 3, 5, and 6, and in response to comments received at community meetings in Fall 2004. Using Alternative 3 as the foundation, Alternative 9 was developed to incorporate the best performing BRT routes and DARs from Alternative 5 as well as the best performing highway elements from Alternative 6, such as HOV to HOV connectors and additional segments of mixed flow lanes. Table 15, on page 63, outlines the projects and services included in Alternative 9. Project and services added to Alternative 3 are shown in bold italics. Figure 11, on page 64, illustrates Alternative 9. It should be noted that “highway elements” are, in fact, capital improvements that would benefit all users regardless of mode. Since BRT routes will operate on the network of managed lanes, HOV to HOV connectors also will be used by transit vehicles. Equally, DARs initially considered to facilitate travel of BRT vehicles, also could be used by carpools. The additional projects will provide more travel options by transit to employment centers in Mission Valley, Kearny Mesa, and downtown San Diego and serve the densely populated University Avenue corridor. DARs and freeway connectors for HOV lanes will enhance travel times for carpools and BRT routes. Direct Access Ramps DARs are ramps between freeway HOV/Managed Lanes and major transit stations or park and ride lots as well as major roads and regional arterials. They provide safer, faster, and more direct travel for buses and other HOV traffic by bypassing regular freeway on-ramps.

To develop a list of candidate DAR locations for the I-805 corridor, capture areas were defined taking into account activity centers (major employers, government centers, colleges and universities), projected population and employment, planned regional transit routes, and park and ride opportunities.

The capture areas identified are the following: San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, Chula Vista, North Chula Vista, Sweetwater, National City, Southeast San Diego, Mid-City, Clairemont, University, and Sorrento. Among the potential DARs, seven of them would support BRT routes in addition to carpools. Table 16 shows the capture areas, potential DARs, and BRT routes served. Appendix B includes maps that illustrate the capture areas.

61

Table 16 I-805 Corridor – Potential DAR Locations

Capture Area Potential DAR Serves BRT Route San Ysidro Intermodal Transit Center/Beyer Blvd. (1) Route 680 (San Ysidro-Sorrento) Otay Mesa State Route 905 Route 628 Chula Vista Otay Valley Rd./Main St. Chula Vista E. Palomar St. Route 628 (Centre City to Otay

Mesa) North Chula Vista H Street Routes 628 and 680 Sweetwater Plaza Bonita Routes 628 and 680 National City Plaza Blvd. Route 628 Southeast San Diego 47th St. Route 628 Mid-City El Cajon Blvd. Clairemont Mesa Balboa Ave. University City NobelDr./Eastgate Mall Sorrento Lusk Blvd. (2) Route 660 (El Cajon to UTC) and

Route 680 (1) For the San Ysidro DAR, transit vehicles could access I-805 using the existing freeway on-ramps near the Intermodal Transit Station and a DAR in the vicinity of Beyer Blvd. could provide access for carpools. (2) South-facing DAR only. North-facing DAR at Lusk Blvd. is considered in the I-5 North Coast Corridor Project.

Further analysis of DARs will be conducted for the environmental clearance process of highway and transit projects. Alternative 9 includes the preliminary cost estimates of the DARs at San Ysidro/Beyer Boulevard, East Palomar Street, Plaza Bonita, and Lusk Boulevard as well as a cost allowance for three additional DARs at locations to be determined between National City and the University City area. Candidate locations for additional DARs at I-805 are in the vicinity of SR 905, Otay Valley Road/Main Street, H Street, and Plaza Boulevard, 47th Street, El Cajon Boulevard, Balboa Avenue, and Nobel Drive/Eastgate Mall. Regional Transit Routes Two BRT routes from Alternative 5 are included in Alternative 9. These BRT services are within the top five routes in terms of both peak and daily ridership in Alternative 5. They are:

Route 616: Point Loma to Mira Mesa via Black Mountain Road and Linda Vista Route 624: La Mesa to downtown San Diego via University Avenue

HOV to HOV Connectors HOV connectors allow for continuous movement on the HOV network from freeway to freeway. Selected HOV to HOV connectors from Alternative 6 are included In Alternative 9. These connectors will facilitate travel for carpools and for regional BRT services. They are:

I-805/SR 94 – BRT Route 628 I-805/I-15 – BRT Route 680

62

Additional Capacity Improvements After Alternative 9 was evaluated with the inclusion of the additional DARs, BRT routes, and HOV to HOV connectors described above, projected LOS data for peak hour was analyzed to determine whether additional highway capacity or transit services should be proposed to alleviate congested segments that were project to operate at LOS F on I-805 and I-5 South. I-805 Corridor: The segments between 43rd Street and 47th Street and between H Street and SR 54 in the southbound direction showed LOS F. Northbound, these segments are projected to operate at LOS E. In addition, the segment between Nobel Drive and SR 52 would experience LOS F in the southbound direction. Northbound, this segment would function at LOS E. As a result of the projected poor level of service, an additional mixed flow lane was included in Alternative 9 between H Street and SR 15 and between SR 52 and La Jolla Village Drive in both northbound and southbound directions. This added capacity would eliminate the congested conditions in the South Bay but still would not completely remove LOS F from Nobel Drive to Governor Drive in the southbound direction. I-5 South Corridor: The segments between Camino de la Plaza and the International Border and between H Street and Palomar Street in the southbound direction indicated LOS F. In the northbound direction, the segment from the International Border to East San Ysidro is not projected to experience congestion. However, the segment from Palomar Street to H Street would operate at LOS E. Beyond the two HOV lanes, no additional lanes are recommended in the I-5 South corridor. Congestion on the segment between H Street and Palomar Street appears to be the result of the additional interregional commute trips assumed in the final growth forecast. The Final 2030 Cities/County Growth Forecast assumed current general plans and policies leading to some workers living outside the region and enduring longer commutes. However, within the I-805/I-5 study area, both the cities of Chula Vista and San Diego are conducting General Plan updates, which consider smart growth concepts. Adoption and implementation of these plans would result in more housing within the region and is expected to lessen interregional commuting. The next update of the Cities/County growth forecast will include the local jurisdictions’ latest land use assumptions and is anticipated to be released in early 2007. As part of the 2030 RTP update, travel projections for I-5 South should be reevaluated with the new growth forecast. Another potential option to alleviate congestion in the I-5 South corridor is the addition of Route 640, which would operate from San Ysidro to Old Town via I-5/Pacific Highway with 10-minute headways at peak periods. This route is projected to attract nearly 8,000 transit users at peak and about 14,000 on a daily basis in 2030. Route 640 should be considered for implementation if the reevaluation of traffic conditions on I-5 still indicates deficient segments in 2030. Transit frequency enhancement evaluated but not recommended for inclusion in Alternative 9 BRT Route 627 (H Street Trolley to Otay Ranch via Southwestern College) is included in Alternative 3 with 30-minute headways in peak periods. Additional analysis with 10-minute headways in peak periods was performed. However, Route 627, even with the increased frequency does not achieve a significant increase to ridership to justify the increase in operating costs. Therefore, Route 627 is included in Alternative 9 with 30-minute headways.

63

Table 15

Alternative 9: MOBILITY 2030 Plus ¹ Regional and Corridor Transit Services

Heavy Rail


Light Rail


Route 570: New Mid-Coast to Balboa, to UTC, and to Sorrento Mesa with 7.5 min. headways in peak period

New Bus Rapid Transit Route 616: Pt. Loma to Mira Mesa and to Scripps Poway Pkwy via Black Mtn & Linda Vista with 5 min. headways in peak period Route 619: 32nd Street to Clairemont Mesa and to Sorrento Mesa with 5 min. headways in peak period

Route 621: Centre City to Fashion Valley and UTC via Hillcrest/Genesee Avenue with 5 min. headways in peak period

Route 624: University Avenue with 5 min. headways in peak period

Route 627: H Street to Otay Ranch via Southwestern College with 30 min. headways in peak period




HOV and Managed Lane Facilities Freeway From To Existing After Improvements I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F + 2HOV I-805 SR 905 H Street 8F 8F + 4ML I-805 H Street SR 15 8F 10F + 4ML I-805 SR 15 I-8 8F 8F + 4ML I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct 8F 8F + 4ML I-805 I-8 SR 52 8F 8F + 4ML I-805 SR 52 La Jolla Village Dr. 8F 10F + 4ML I-805 La Jolla Village Dr. I-5 8F 8F + 4ML

Direct Access Ramps 2

Freeway Arterial


I-805 Beyer Blvd.


I-805 Plaza Bonita

I-805 Lusk Blvd.

HOV Connectors


I-805 SR 52 West to North and South to East

I-805 I-15 North to North and South to South

I-805 SR 94 West to North, South to East, East to South, and North to West

F = Freeway Lanes, ML = Managed Lanes (HOV & Value Pricing), HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes ¹ The I-5 HOV Connector (at the I-805 merge) and the I-5/I-805 Port of Entry (Inspection Facility) are assumed in all alternatives. The 2030 RTP Mobility Network is assumed outside the study area. 2 Other candidate locations for DARs at I-805 are in the vicinity of SR 905, Otay Valley Rd./Main St., Palomar St., H St., Plaza Blvd., 47th St., El Cajon Blvd., Balboa Ave., Nobel Dr./Eastgate Mall Note: Bold italics represents projects/services added to Alternatives 3 (MOBILITY 2030).

P A C I F I C O

C E A N

P A C I F I C O

C E A N

Poway

SanDiego

Coronado

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

LaMesa

Santee

El Cajon

ChulaVista

Tijuana, B.C.

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

NationalCity

Del Mar

County of San Diego

1-D

90511

5

125

54

805

805

5

5

282

163

94

6752

56

67

8

8

15

125

75

15

12594

52

805

5

8F + 4ML

8F + 4ML

8F + 2HOV

10F + 4ML

10F + 4ML

San Diego Region

MAP AREA

County of San Diego


January 2005

MILES

KILOMETERS

0 321

0 4.833.221.61

Alternative 9

Transit

Managed/HOV Lanes


HOV Connectors

Direct Access Ramps

Study Area

ais

Text Box


ais

Text Box

64

65

Second Screening of Build Alternatives

Table 17 below summarizes the evaluation of the alternatives. Table 18, on page 67, includes the results of the study area performance measures, and Table 19, on page 68, compares peak period travel times for eight representative commute trips along the I-805/I-5 South corridors by carpool, transit, and driving alone. Finally, Table 20, on page 69, shows preliminary estimates for capital as well as operating and maintenance costs.

Table 17 Analysis of Alternatives





2030 Highway



Highway

Alternative 9 MOBILITY 2030 Plus


Travel Time Savings + + + ++ Congestion Relief

+ + ++ ++ Work Trips using Alternative Modes + ++ + + Homes & Jobs Served by Transit + ++ + ++ Accessibility to Major Activity Centers within 15 Minutes

Major employers Colleges & Universities

Accessibility to Major Activity Centers within 30 Minutes

Major employers Colleges & Universities

Total Cost M H M M Environmental Indicator See matrix on the following page

Legend: ++ = Strong Improvement + = Modest Improvement = No change

M = Medium

H = High

66

Table 17 (continued) Analysis of Alternatives

POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS BY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE Interstate 805 Interstate 5 South Environmental

Constraints Alt. 3 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 No Build

Alt. 3 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 No Build

Air Quality

Habitat

Cultural Resources

Hazardous Waste

Noise

Socioeconomics

Visual

= Potential Low Constraint

= Potential Moderate Constraint

= Potential High Constraint Note: Alternative 9 was not included as part of the environmental constraints analysis. For I-805, Alternative 9 is likely to share similar environmental constraints as Alternative 6. Alternative 9 includes a general purpose lane between H Street and SR 15 and between SR 52 and La Jolla Village Drive while Alternative 6 assumed a general purpose lane between SR 95 and the Mission Valley viaduct and north of the viaduct to the I-805/I-5 merge.

67

Table 18 Study Area Performance Measure Results


2000 Current

Alternative 1 No Build




2030 Highway



Highway


Travel Time Savings N/A N/A 57,100 63,700 53,700 77,700

Congestion Relief 32 52 11 12 7 7

Work Trips using Alternative Mode

(peak periods) 21.8% 21.9% 24.8% 26.6% 24.7% 25.5% Carpool 11.4% 11.9% 11.6% 11.4% 11.6% 11.7% Transit 7.2% 7.5% 10.7% 12.9% 10.7% 11.4%

Bike/Walk 3.2% 2.5% 2.4% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4%

Homes & Jobs Served by Transit 26,504 32,256 161,778 191,767 161,778 178,352

Accessibility to Major Activity Centers Within 15 Minutes

Major employers 65% 64% 64% 64% 64% 64% Colleges & universities 46% 50% 49% 48% 49% 49%

Accessibility to Major Activity Centers

Within 30 Minutes Major employers 88% 87% 87% 87% 88% 88%

Colleges & universities 72% 81% 80% 78% 80% 79%

Total Cost N/A $180 $6,410 $9,120 $7,950 $8,150

Environmental Indicator See matrix on the previous page Notes: All data represent characteristics within the study area. Forecast conditions in 2030. Travel Time Savings: Daily vehicle hours of delay compared to No Build Congestion Relief: I-5 South & I-805 peak hour lane miles at LOS F Work Trips using Alternative Mode (peak periods): Mode share for carpools, transit, bike and walk Homes & Jobs Served by Transit: Total number of homes & jobs within 1/4 mile of transit within the study area Activity Centers: Share of trips within the study area that can access selected activity centers in 15 or 30 minutes Total Cost: Planning level capital, operating and maintenance costs for transit and highways in millions Environmental Indicator: Based on Environmental Constraints Analysis N/A: Not applicable

68

Table 19 Average Travel Times for Selected Corridors

Average travel time (peak period) by mode for selected

corridors (in minutes) 2000 Current

Alternative 1 No Build




2030 Highway



Highway


Sorrento Hills-Fashion Valley Auto 25 26 27 27 26 27 Transit (walk access) N/A 68 62 62 62 62 Transit (drive access) 47 43 46 46 46 46 Carpool 25 25 25 25 24 24

Western Chula Vista-Kearny Mesa

Auto 32 34 29 29 29 28 Transit (walk access) 72 71 56 55 56 56 Transit (drive access) 60 60 40 40 40 40 Carpool 32 31 25 25 24 23

San Ysidro-Downtown San Diego


Mid-City-University Towne Centre (UTC)


Skyline/Paradise Hills-UTC


East Chula Vista-Sorrento Mesa


Mid-City-Otay Mesa


East Chula Vista-Downtown Auto 44 49 45 45 45 45 Transit (walk access) 102 76 43 42 43 43 Transit (drive access) 50 50 32 32 32 32 Carpool 43 44 42 42 40 38

69

Table 19 summarizes the preliminary cost estimates prepared for this study. Appendix E includes the cost breakdown for transit and highway capital and operating costs.

Table 20 Preliminary Cost Estimates (in millions)

Preliminary Cost Alt. 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 9 Capital $130 $5,650 $7,260 $7,180 $7,260 Operations & Maintenance $50 $760 $1,860 $770 $890 Total Cost $180 $6,410 $9,120 $7,950 $8,150

Source: Caltrans and SANDAG, April, September, and November 2004

Long-Range Traffic Forecasts for the Alternatives Evaluated

Traffic forecasts to 2030 were prepared for the No Build alternative and four Build alternatives. SANDAG’s regional transportation model was used to prepare the traffic projections. The population, employment, and land use inputs represent SANDAG’s Final 2030 Cities/County Forecast. Future roads included in the Cities and County circulation elements are represented in the road network. Within the study area, the network reflects the regional transit and highway improvements described for each alternative. Outside the study area, the road and transit networks reflect the improvements included in MOBILITY 2030. Table 21, on page 72, shows forecast volumes for selected highway segments for the No Build alternative (Alternative 1) and Build Alternatives 3, 5, 6, and 9. Alternative 1: No Build Under Alternative 1, I-805 is projected to have 29 lane-miles at LOS F in 2030, southbound from La Jolla Village Drive to SR 52, SR 15 to Home Avenue, 43rd Street to 47th Street, and SR 54 to H Street. Northbound congestion on I-805 would occur from H Street to SR 15 and Murray Ridge Road to Kearny Villa Road. I-5 would have 23 lane-miles at LOS F, southbound from E Street to the international border and northbound from H Street to Industrial. In 2030, average daily traffic volumes on I-805 south of SR 54 would range from 107,000 to 277,000 daily vehicles. Average volumes on I-805 from SR 54 to I-8 are projected to vary from 200,000 to 283,000 daily vehicles. Finally, the volumes on I-805 from I-8 to the I-5 merge are expected to range from 212,000 to 265,000 vehicles per day. Volumes on I-5 from the border to SR 54 would average 93,000 to 265,000 vehicles.

70

Comparison of Build Alternatives

Compared to 2003, traffic volumes in 2030 are projected to increase substantially even if no improvements are made to I-5 and I-805. On I-5 from the border to SR 54, traffic volumes are projected to increase 29 to 57 percent. On I-805 south of SR 54, traffic is expected to increase 11 to 69 percent by 2030. A traffic increase (12 to 17 percent) is expected on I-805 from SR 54 to I-8. Finally, traffic volumes in the northern section of I-805 (from I-8 to the I-5 merge) are expected to increase 14 to 36 percent over current traffic volumes. Build Alternative 3: Under Alternative 3, I-805 is projected to have seven lane-miles at LOS F in 2030, southbound from Nobel Drive to Governor Drive, 43rd Street to 47th Street, and Bonita Road to H Street. I-5 would have four lane-miles at LOS F in 2030, southbound from H Street to J Street, Bay Boulevard to Palomar, and Camino de la Plaza to the international border. Average daily traffic volumes are forecast to range from 91,000 to 265,000 vehicles on I-5 from the border to SR 54. Volumes on I-805 south of SR 54 would range from 108,000 to 289,000 daily vehicles. Average volumes on I-805 from SR 54 to I-8 are projected to vary from 217,000 to 315,000 daily vehicles. Finally, daily volumes on I-805 from I-8 to the I-5 merge are expected to increase from 208,000 to 285,000 vehicles. Overall, systemwide transit ridership in the peak period is expected to increase 25 percent over the No Build alternative. Daily ridership on Routes 510, 570, 628, and 680 is projected to be 144,500, 19,000, 20,600, and 31,500 passengers respectively under this alternative. Build Alternative 5: Alternative 5 also provides congestion relief compared to the No Build alternative. Under Alternative 5, I-805 is projected to have six lane-miles at LOS F in 2030, southbound from Nobel Drive to SR 52. I-5 would have five lane-miles at LOS F in 2030, southbound from H Street to Palomar and Camino de la Plaza to the international border. Average daily traffic volumes are forecast to range from 91,000 to 265,000 vehicles on I-5 from the border to SR 54. Volumes on I-805 south of SR 54 would range from 109,000 to 285,000 daily vehicles. Average volumes on I-805 from SR 54 to I-8 are projected to vary from 214,000 to 310,000 daily vehicles. Finally, the volumes on I-805 from I-8 to the I-5 merge are expected to increase from 206,000 to 287,000 vehicles. Overall, systemwide transit ridership in the peak period is expected to increase 45 percent over the No Build alternative. Daily ridership on Routes 510, 570, 628, and 680 is projected to be 126,000, 23,100, 20,000, and 31,500 passengers respectively under this alternative.

71

Build Alternative 6: Build Alternative 6 provides the highest congestion relief compared to the No Build alternative, similarly to Alternative 9. Under this alternative, I-805 is projected to have only two lane-miles at LOS F in 2030. This includes southbound lanes from H Street to Bonita Road. I-5 would have five lane-miles at LOS F in 2030, southbound from H Street to Bay Boulevard, Palomar to Main Street, and Camino de la Plaza to the international border. Average daily traffic volumes are forecast to range from 90,000 to 264,000 vehicles on I-5 from the border to SR 54. Volumes on I-805 south of SR 54 would range from 109,000 to 294,000 daily vehicles. Average volumes on I-805 from SR 54 to I-8 are projected to vary from 228,000 to 335,000 daily vehicles. Finally, the volumes on I-805 from I-8 to the I-5 merge are expected to increase from 215,000 to 296,000 vehicles. Overall, systemwide transit ridership in the peak period is expected to increase 25 percent over the No Build alternative. Daily ridership on Routes 510, 570, 628, and 680 is projected to be 144,300, 19,000, 20,500, and 31,300 passengers respectively under this alternative. Build Alternative 9: Build Alternative 9 provides the highest congestion relief compared to the No Build alternative, equally to Alternative 6. Under this alternative, I-805 is projected to have two lane-miles at LOS F in 2030. This includes southbound lanes from Nobel Drive to SR 52 and H Street to SR 54. I-5 would have five lane-miles at LOS F in 2030, southbound from H Street to Palomar and Camino de la Plaza to the international border. Average daily traffic volumes are forecast to range from 91,000 to 261,000 vehicles on I-5 from the border to SR 54. Volumes on I-805 south of SR 54 would range from 107,000 to 298,000 daily vehicles. Average volumes on I-805 from SR 54 to I-8 are projected to vary from 215,000 to 332,000 daily vehicles. Finally, the volumes on I-805 from I-8 to the I-5 merge are expected to increase from 215,000 to 295,000 vehicles. Overall, systemwide transit ridership in the peak period is expected to increase 33 percent over the No Build alternative. Daily ridership on Routes 510, 570, 628, and 680 is projected to be 142,700, 19,500, 20,500, and 33,200 passengers respectively under this alternative.

72

Table 21 2030 Projected Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

(in thousands)

2003 Traffic Counts Alt. 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 9

I-5

International Border to I-805 117 173 170 170 171 175I-805 to Dairy Mart Road 66 93 91 91 90 91Dairy Mart Rd. to SR 905 80 103 101 101 100 100SR 905 to Coronado Ave. 111 163 161 161 160 157Coronado Ave. to SR 75/Palm Ave. 124 173 172 173 171 164SR 75/Palm Ave. to Main St. 156 210 210 210 209 211Main St. to Palomar St. 159 223 224 224 223 224Palomar St. to L St. 157 238 239 239 238 238L St. to J St. 166 255 256 257 256 254J St. to H St. 169 265 265 265 264 261H St. to SR 54 172 229 233 233 233 229

I-805

San Ysidro Blvd. to SR 905 65 107 108 109 109 107SR 905 to Palm Ave. 108 181 184 183 186 189Palm Ave. to Otay Valley Rd. 141 210 213 212 215 218Otay Valley Rd. to Orange Ave. 141 233 238 236 240 241Orange Ave. to Telegraph Cyn Rd. 141 238 245 243 248 245Telegraph Cyn Rd. to H St. 201 276 286 283 290 292H St. to Bonita Rd. 212 277 289 285 294 298Bonita Rd. to SR 54 239 266 280 277 289 294SR 54 to Plaza Blvd. 225 262 284 279 300 299Plaza Blvd. to 47th St. 228 265 293 289 310 31147th St. to Imperial Ave. 235 264 296 292 317 317Imperial Ave. to Market St. 251 283 315 310 335 332Market St. to University Ave. 240 200 217 214 229 215University Ave. to El Cajon Blvd. 176 204 221 219 232 218El Cajon Blvd. to Adams Ave. 173 203 219 217 228 219Adams Ave. to I-8 191 222 238 236 248 238I-8 to Murray Ridge Rd. 201 230 246 243 253 244Murray Ridge Rd. to Kearny Villa Rd. 197 225 242 239 249 240Kearny Villa Rd. to Balboa Ave. 190 221 234 232 242 239Balboa Ave. to Clairemont Mesa Blvd. 182 213 225 223 234 229Clairemont Mesa Blvd. to SR 52 173 212 222 220 231 227SR 52 to Governor Dr. 204 265 285 287 296 295Governor Dr. to La Jolla Village Dr./Miramar Rd. 200 260 280 282 290 290La Jolla Village Dr./Miramar Rd. to Mira Mesa Blvd. 178 226 240 238 247 249Mira Mesa Blvd. to I-5 (merge) 144 196 208 206 215 215

Source: Caltrans Traffic Volumes, District 11, 2004 2030 Regional Transportation Model (August and November 2004)

73

Interim Improvement Strategy for I-805 between SR 54 and SR 905

The I-805/I-5 South Corridor study developed an ultimate transportation improvement strategy referred to as Alternative 9. In addition, an interim strategy was developed to phase capacity improvements on I-805 between SR 54 and SR 905 in accordance with the Development Franchise Agreement for the SR 125 toll road. The SR 125 Franchise Agreement was amended after the February 2000 adoption of the 2020 RTP. According to the agreement, during the 35-year term of the franchise, Caltrans is able to expand the capacity of I-805 between SR 54 and SR 905 as identified in the 2020 RTP. The 2020 Plan includes two HOV lanes for the I-805 corridor. There are no restrictions on Caltrans’ ability to make safety improvements on the I-805 corridor. Capacity improvements on I-805 beyond the two HOV lanes included in the 2020 RTP may result in compensation to the developer, California Transportation Ventures, for potential revenue losses estimated by an independent traffic analysis, and annual reassessments based on actual traffic and revenue data. While the I-805/I-5 South corridor study recommends that the ultimate configuration of I-805 between SR 54 and SR 905 include four new managed lanes and two general purpose lanes north of H Street (up to SR 15), as incorporated in Alternative 9, the interim strategy proposes to include the improvements outlined below: Interim Configuration of I-805 between SR 54 and SR 905: Two new HOV lanes (one in each direction) Two new transit-only lanes (one in each direction) Two auxiliary lanes between SR 54 and Telegraph Canyon Road (one in each direction, as

needed) The interim strategy would develop the ultimate footprint of the I-805 corridor and would advance the recommended DARs, which will provide safer, faster, and more direct travel for BRT services and other HOV traffic. The two BRT services planned to operate on I-805 south of SR 54 are routes between Otay Mesa and downtown San Diego and between San Ysidro and Sorrento Valley.

Alternative 9: Evaluation Summary

The mix of transit and highway improvements included in Alternative 9 would meet the objectives outlined in the study’s Need and Purpose. Within the study area, in addition to implementing the MOBILITY 2030 plan for regional transit services and highway improvements, Alternative 9 would also advance other projects identified as unfunded needs in the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. These additional projects should be reconsidered for inclusion in the Reasonably Expected funding scenario during the next MOBILITY 2030 update. In the study area, Alternative 9 addresses mobility by increasing capacity to move people and goods and by providing travel choices for regional trips. Compared to the No Build alternative, it supports reliability by yielding the highest travel time savings, and provides for congestion relief by substantially reducing (but not eliminating) Level of Service (LOS) F at peak hour. Finally,

74

Alternative 9 surpasses the goal of a minimum 10 percent transit mode for work trips during peak periods and comes within reach of the goal of a 12 percent carpool mode share. Along the I-805 and I-5 South corridors, projected travel times at peak periods by carpool, transit, and drive alone from selected residential areas to employment centers show that travel times for carpool will be between three and 12 minutes faster than if driving alone. Transit travel times are competitive with driving alone for several typical commutes, such as San Ysidro to downtown San Diego, Mid-City to University Towne Centre, and East Chula Vista to downtown San Diego. In brief, with the implementation of the transportation projects and services included in Alternative 9, travel conditions on the I-805 and I-5 South corridors are projected to improve even when considering a regional population growth of one million residents and almost another half a million jobs by 2030. More travel choices will be available with the provision of managed and HOV lanes as well as regional transit services. However, by 2030, the interim configuration for I-805 between SR 54 and SR 905, which includes one HOV lane and one transit lane in each direction, is projected to result in two segments of the freeway operating at LOS F. In the morning peak hour, the segment of I-805 between H Street and SR 54 in the northbound direction would operate at LOS F. In the southbound direction, in the afternoon peak hour, I-805 again would operate at LOS F from SR 54 to Bonita Road. The interim improvement strategy is geared towards fully implementing Alternative 9 with four managed lanes in the long-range.

75

PUBLIC OUTREACH

ais

Text Box

76

PUBLIC OUTREACH

COMMUNITY OUTREACH STRATEGIES

Caltrans and SANDAG encouraged the public to get involved during the development of the I-805/ I-5 South Corridor Study to ensure that the recommended transportation improvement strategies reflected the best interests of the residents and businesses along the corridors. As the first step in promoting public involvement, SANDAG invited a core group of civic, government, business, and environmental representatives associated with the I-805 and I-5 South corridors to participate in the I-805/I-5 South Corridor Study Technical Working Group (TWG). The TWG includes 16 Community Planning groups that represent communities either within or adjacent to the study area. The public outreach plan was developed to involve the public in the planning process and, in particular, members of minority and low-income groups that reside within the project corridor.

Community Involvement Strategies

1) Developed an informational flyer with the following components: (1) the goals of the study; (2) a map of the study area; (3) the TWG meeting times, dates, and location; (4) a request for input and suggestions on how best to improve transit services and traffic flow on the freeway and adjacent arterials; (5) Internet address for the I-805/I-5 Study Web page at the SANDAG Web site; and (6) phone numbers and e-mail addresses for further information.

2) Developed an easily accessible project Web page (www.sandag.org/805-5) that includes:

(1) TWG agendas and meeting notes; (2) a map of the study area; (3) links from Caltrans and Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Web sites to the study Web page; and (4) Project Managers’ contact information (phone numbers and e-mail addresses) for comments or to obtain further information in English or Spanish.

3) In addition to the above on-going outreach activities, three open houses were held during

the initial screening of transportation alternatives in Spring 2004, and presentations to community planning groups and Planning Commissions were conducted prior to the selection of the recommended transportation strategy in Fall 2004.

OPEN HOUSES

SANDAG and Caltrans held three open houses in April 2004 for the I-805/I-5 Corridor Study. The purpose of the open houses was to provide information to the public on the study and obtain the public’s input on the proposed transportation improvement alternatives. The open houses were

77

held the week of April 12 on Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday in the evening (either from 5 to 7 or 6 to 8 pm). Roughly 1,000 meeting announcements were distributed via mail to organizations, businesses, and individuals. Two news releases were drafted to solicit participation at the open houses. The news releases contained background information about the study, as well as, meeting times and locations. The releases were distributed to 50 media outlets on April 9, 12, and 13. KGTV (Channel 10) and XETV (Fox 6) provided coverage prior to the first meeting at University City. That meeting also was covered by KNSD (NBC 7/39), KUSI (Channel 51), and Univision. In addition to the news releases, written advertisements were placed in several newspaper such as the San Diego Union Tribune, the Filipino Press, the El Latino, and also posted to the SANDAG and Caltrans Web sites. A variety of materials was provided at each open house. Boards depicting each alternative were displayed at each meeting. Comments cards were available near the boards for the public to provide written comments. Additional handouts showing transit routes also were provided. Staff was available to talk to members of the public about each alternative and to answer questions. All the materials from the open houses have been added to the SANDAG Web site. About 50 people attended the open houses in Chula Vista and the communities of City Heights and University City in the City of San Diego. Comments were received by e-mail and at the workshops from 18 people. Comments included suggestions regarding the various proposed alternatives and meeting locations and general comments about traffic, transit, and highways in the San Diego region.

PRESENTATIONS AT COMMUNITY MEETINGS

To provide more information and obtain additional input from the local communities on the I-805/ I-5 Corridor Study, Caltrans and SANDAG staff made 17 presentations at meetings of Community Planning Groups of the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego, and at the Planning Commissions of the Cities of Chula Vista and National City. Presentations were made to the following organizations throughout September and October 2004:

Organization Mission Valley Unified Planning Committee Normal Heights Community Planning Committee Sweetwater Planning Group City Heights Community Planning Group Otay Mesa/Nestor Planning Committee Skyline/Paradise Hills Community Planning Group Kearny Mesa Community Planning Group Otay Mesa Planning Committee National City Planning Commission San Ysidro Planning & Development Group Serra Mesa Planning Group Linda Vista Community Planning Committee Southeastern San Diego Planning Committee University Community Planning Group

78

Chula Vista Planning Commission Mira Mesa Community Planning Group Clairemont Mesa Planning Committee

Summary of Comments

More than 500 people attended the meetings referenced above and over 125 comments and questions were received. Brochures and postage paid comment cards were distributed at each of the meetings. A summary of the major comments received are shown below: Highway

Residents asked for clarification on what Managed Lanes are, about the status of the SR 125 toll road, and if highway enhancements were included to I-5 and I-805 in the proposed alternatives. There also were comments on freeway access, backup issues at ramps, and problems at freeway interchanges. Overall, residents felt that on/off ramps need to be improved. One group also asked about potential highway improvements for I-5 south of SR 905. Regarding the type of highway improvements, residents had differing opinions; there was support for adding only general purpose lanes or adding toll lanes. Others opposed general purpose lanes as they felt promoted solo driving. There were concerns as to the efficient use of carpool lanes.

Transit

Most groups had questions about which transit routes would operate in their community and the type of service proposed by the study. Residents also stated that there needs to be more transit and that it needs to be faster and more convenient. Finally, groups had questions about the proposed bus rapid transit (BRT) service.

Freight

Residents were concerned about the increase in truck travel on I-805 and I-5 during commute hours. Others commented on noise and pollution issues on the I-805 corridor related to trucks traveling in the off-peak when residents are at home.

Financial

Staff received many questions about TransNet, including which projects included in the proposed alternatives are part of TransNet and what happens if TransNet doesn’t pass. (Note: In November 2004, voters approved Proposition A which extended the TransNet sales tax.)

Environmental

Residents were concerned about the number of homes/property that would be lost or affected by this project.

79

General

Residents had general questions about how this study (future project) would affect their community.

Differing opinions were expressed regarding highway and transit improvements. While some groups stated that they preferred an alternative with more transit services to one that simply added more freeway lanes, others favored more highway improvements and less investment in public transit. The list of all comments and questions with responses provided is included in Appendix C.

INTERSTATES 805/ 5 SOUTH CORRIDOR STUDY › programs › transportation › ... · 401 B Street,...

Documents

Transcript of INTERSTATES 805/ 5 SOUTH CORRIDOR STUDY › programs › transportation › ... · 401 B Street,...