Chapter 4 Conceptual Alternatives ConsideredChapter 4 Conceptual Alternatives Considered . Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives ... with the Balboa Avenue Station having bus bays

M I D - C O A S T C O R R I D O R T R A N S I T P R O J E C T July 2010

Chapter 4

Conceptual Alternatives Considered

Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Chapter 4.0 - Conceptual Alternatives Considered

M I D - C O A S T C O R R I D O R T R A N S I T P R O J E C T 4-1 July 2010

4.0 CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The various alignment segments remaining after screening in each of the three segments (i.e., south, middle, and north) were combined into a set of full-length corridor conceptual alternatives carried forward to the comparative evaluation in step two of the three-step alternatives screening and evaluation process. The set of build alternatives for the Mid-Coast Corridor includes seven light rail transit (LRT) alternatives, four bus rapid transit (BRT) alternatives, and one Commuter Rail Alternative. Together with the No-Build Alternative and Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative, these alternatives represent the set of alternatives carried forward for conceptual definition and evaluation.

This chapter defines the conceptual alternatives under consideration for scoping. A discussion of alternatives proposed by others and the results of a peer review of the range of alternatives developed also is included. The definitions provide a description of the physical, operating, and policy assumptions developed for each alternative. Conceptual plans showing the horizontal and vertical alignments on aerial photography and station/stop locations for the proposed transit improvements under No-Build, TSM, and build alternatives are contained in Appendix A, Conceptual Plans, of this report.

The basis for the development of the transit service improvements included as part of the TSM and build alternatives was the identification of travel markets described in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, of this report. Travel markets identify the origins, destinations, and types of trips to be served by the proposed transit improvements under the alternatives. The travel markets served by each alternative are also described in this section.

4.1 No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative includes all of the highway and transit facilities identified in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (RTP) (San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAG] 2007). Figure 4-1 shows the location of the following major projects included in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the RTP that are located within the Mid-Coast Corridor and are considered part of the background transportation network for the No-Build Alternative. The major improvements from the RTP that are included in the No-Build Alternative are:

• Double tracking of San Diego Northern Railway (SDNR) railroad and other rail improvements with an increase in frequency of service of the COASTER to 20 minutes during peak and 60 minutes during off-peak periods.

• High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on Interstate 5 (I-5) from I-8 north to Oceanside, with direct access ramps (DARs) at various locations, of which the DAR at Voigt Drive would be located within the Mid-Coast Corridor. The HOV lanes would be restricted to vehicles with two or more occupants.

• Combination of HOV and Managed Lanes on I-805 from I-5 to South Bay, with DARs at Carroll Canyon Road and Nobel Drive.


M I D - C O A S T C O R R I D O R T R A N S I T P R O J E C T July 2010 4-2

Figure 4-1. No-Build Alternative Transportation Improvements



The No-Build Alternative transit system for the Mid-Coast Corridor is shown in Figure 4-2. The regional transit system consists of Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and North County Transit District (NCTD) bus, light rail, and commuter rail services that are projected to be in operation in 2030. The shuttle services operated by the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) are also included in the No-Build Alternative transit system.

The Mid-Coast Corridor LRT project included in the Revenue Constrained Scenario of the RTP is excluded from the No-Build Alternative in order to represent conditions in the corridor without the LRT project. With the exclusion of the Mid-Coast Corridor LRT project from the No-Build Alternative, more direct transit service would be needed between Downtown San Diego, Old Town Transit Center (OTTC), and University City.

To replace the loss of service under the No-Build Alternative, the existing transit Route 150, operating between Downtown San Diego, OTTC, and University City, is included in the alternative. The existing Route 150 was eliminated in the RTP Revenue Constrained Scenario with the inclusion of the Mid-Coast Corridor LRT line. Under the No-Build Alternative, the route would be modified to operate within the proposed HOV lanes on I-5 from OTTC north to Nobel Drive. This modification for operation in the HOV lanes would provide improved travel times over the existing Route 150 operation in the general-purpose lanes on I-5 north to Gilman Drive. The modification of the route to exit the HOV lanes at Nobel Drive instead of at Gilman Drive would increase the route’s utilization of the HOV lanes and improve travel times over the Gilman Drive routing. The new Route 150 would operate at 15-minute intervals during peak periods (i.e., 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) and 30-minute intervals during the off-peak and the midday period (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.). Articulated buses would be used in the operation of the service. The route assumes a fixed fare of $2.50 per one-way trip.

The No-Build Alternative also includes improvements to the Trolley system. As shown in Figure 4-3, the Trolley Green Line would be extended from OTTC to the 12th and Imperial Transit Center via the Convention Center. Other changes to the Trolley system include terminating the Trolley Blue Line at Santa Fe Depot and the Trolley Orange Line at America Plaza. All Trolley lines would be operated at 7.5-minute frequencies all day except the Trolley Orange Line, which would operate at 7.5 minutes during peak and 15 minutes during off-peak periods.

The fare structure for the Trolley system is a zonal fare. In the SANDAG model used for forecasting transit trips, each station has a fare zone number and the fare is determined based on the boarding and alighting stations for each transit trip. It is estimated that the average fare per one-way trip would be $2.50.

With the increase in service of the Trolley Green Line to 7.5-minute frequencies all day and the new termination point of the Trolley Orange Line at America Plaza, additional improvements would be required to the Trolley system that are not currently included in the RTP Revenue Constrained Scenario. These improvements include grade crossing improvements at Taylor Street in Old Town, where the Trolley Green Line and COASTER, Amtrak, and freight services cross Taylor Street at grade, and potential track and station improvements at Santa Fe Depot or America Plaza.



Figure 4-2. No-Build Alternative Transit System



Figure 4-3. No-Build Alternative Trolley System



Both of these improvements are included in the No-Build Alternative, as well as the TSM and build alternatives.

4.2 TSM Alternative The TSM Alternative would improve upon the No-Build Alternative bus services in the Mid-Coast Corridor by modifying Route 150 and adding a new rapid bus route (Route 156) operating between Downtown San Diego, Old Town, and UCSD and University Towne Centre (UTC) in University City with limited-stop service along Pacific Highway and Morena Boulevard between Downtown and Balboa Avenue. The TSM Alternative will serve a dual purpose in providing justification for the build alternatives.

First, the new rapid bus service would be designed to address the same needs as the build alternatives without the construction of a fixed guideway and would have a lower level of capital investment. Basically, the new rapid bus service is designed to replace the build alternative service with operation of lower cost transit improvements serving the same areas as the station locations under the build alternatives. Figure 4-4 presents the alignment and stop/station locations for the TSM Alternative developed for consideration.

Second, because SANDAG intends to pursue Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts funding, a New Starts Baseline Alternative is required for evaluation of the user benefits or travel time savings of the build alternatives. As identified in the FTA guidance for New Starts reporting, the Baseline Alternative is designed to demonstrate the extent to which the transportation needs in the New Start’s service area could be met without a guideway investment. The TSM Alternative developed for the Mid-Coast Corridor is designed to serve as the New Start’s Baseline Alternative for comparison of user benefits and calculation of the cost effectiveness of the build alternatives. The Baseline Alternative requires FTA approval during the application process for entry into preliminary engineering.

In addition to modifying Route 150 and the new Route 156, the TSM Alternative would require some new infrastructure to support the additional buses and connecting routes. These include park-and-ride lots at Tecolote Road Station and Balboa Avenue Station, with the Balboa Avenue Station having bus bays for connecting routes. Transit priority signals would be provided at certain intersections along Pacific Highway, Taylor Street, Morena Boulevard, Voigt Drive, and Genesee Avenue. The additional buses under the TSM Alternative would also require new storage and light maintenance facilities. Bus stops would include shelters, benches and other amenities, typical of BRT stations.

4.2.1 New Route 156 The TSM Alternative includes a new rapid bus route, Route 156, which is designed to provide enhanced transit service between Downtown San Diego to Old Town via Pacific Highway and from Old Town to UCSD and UTC Transit Center via Morena Boulevard and the planned HOV lanes on I-5, with stops at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, and Balboa Avenue. All three of these stop locations would include surface parking lots for park-and-ride passengers. At Balboa Avenue, the new Route 156 would access the planned I-5 HOV lanes and operate express to Nobel Drive. At Nobel Drive, the route would exit the HOV lanes in mixed-traffic via the general-purpose interchange and travel to UCSD West



Figure 4-4. TSM Alternative



via Villa La Jolla Drive and Gilman Drive. The new Route 156 would cross I-5 on Voigt Drive and then travel to Genesee Avenue to the UTC Transit Center.

4.2.2 Modification to Route 150 Because the new Route 156 would duplicate the service provided by Route 150 on Pacific Highway between Downtown San Diego and Old Town under the No-Build Alternative, Route 150 would be modified under the TSM Alternative to operate as an express service between downtown and Old Town by eliminating the stops on Pacific Highway. This modification would improve transit travel times between Downtown San Diego, Old Town, and University City. The local stop service on Pacific Highway previously operated by Route 150 would be replaced by the new Route 156.

4.2.3 Operating Plan Table 4-1 presents the operating plan developed for the TSM Alternative. The operating plan identifies the frequency of service, vehicle type, and fares for the modified and new routes included in the TSM Alternative.

Table 4-1. TSM Alternative Operating Plan

Route

Peak Frequency (6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.)

(3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) Off Peak Frequency

(9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) Vehicle Type Fare Structure

(each way) 150 (NB) 15 30 Articulated $2.50

150 (TSM) 7.5 7.5 Articulated $2.50 156 15 30 Standard $2.50

The TSM Alternative operating plan would connect the major travel markets of Downtown San Diego, Uptown, and UCSD and Golden Triangle in University City with Route 150 operating high-frequency, express service between Downtown and University City with an intermediate stop at OTTC. The major travel market of Mission Valley would be served by a transfer to the Trolley Green Line at OTTC. Transfers to the Trolley Green Line to access Mission Valley could also be made from Route 156, which would also stop at OTTC. Route 156 with stops along Pacific Highway would also link service to existing routes serving Point Loma and Uptown, which are also among the major travel markets. Route 156 would also serve Clairemont and Mission Bay with stops along Morena Boulevard linking service with connecting bus routes serving these areas. The travel markets in South San Diego, South Bay, and areas to the southeast of Downtown San Diego would be served by a transfer to connecting bus routes or to the Trolley system in downtown.

By increasing the frequency of service, providing two routes that connect the major markets of downtown and University City, and installing signal priority at several intersections along the routes, a faster and more reliable service to these markets would be achieved by the TSM Alternative.



4.3 Light Rail Transit Alternatives The LRT alternatives propose extension of the Trolley system north from OTTC to University City via the existing MTS/SDNR right-of-way to the vicinity of State Route 52 (SR 52) in University City. Figure 4-5 shows the location and configuration (i.e., at grade, aerial or above grade, and below grade) of the proposed LRT alignment and stations between OTTC and SR 52.

Within University City, there are seven LRT conceptual alternatives under consideration. Six of the alternatives would follow the I-5 corridor north to the UCSD campus and then turn east to a terminus at the UTC Transit Center. The remaining alternative would follow the existing MTS/SDNR right-of-way east to Genesee Avenue, turn north via a new tunnel to the UTC Transit Center, and then turn west to a terminus on the UCSD West Campus. Figure 4-6 compares the location and configuration of the proposed alignments and stations for the seven LRT alternatives under consideration within University City.

4.3.1 LRT Alternative 1 As shown in Figure 4-7, LRT Alternative 1 proposes the extension of the LRT alignment north from OTTC to University City via the MTS/SDNR right-of-way and I-5 corridor to the UCSD West Campus and east along Voigt Drive and Genesee Avenue to UTC, a distance of 10.94 miles. The alternative provides for eight new stations located at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, Nobel Drive, UCSD West, UCSD East, Executive Drive, and UTC Transit Center. The alternative consists of LRT alignment segments S-1, M-1, and N-1, which are identified in Table 3-1 in Section 3.3.5, Summary of Screening of Initial Alternatives and described below.

4.3.1.1 Alignment and Station Locations The alternative proposes the use of the existing LRT tracks from Santa Fe Depot north to a point just south of San Diego River where the alignment would cross the San Diego River on a new LRT bridge located parallel to and east of the existing railroad bridge and west of the existing Trolley Green Line LRT bridge. The LRT bridge would be approximately 900 feet long and be located approximately 21 feet east of the SDNR tracks (centerline to centerline) within the MTS/SDNR right-of-way, or as dictated by the lateral seismic movements of each bridge. In order to provide adequate vertical clearance over Friars Road, clear the 100-year flood elevation at the San Diego River, and not preclude a prestressed box girder superstructure, the LRT bridge would be constructed at a slightly higher elevation than the existing SDNR bridge, which has a through-girder type superstructure.

After crossing the river, the LRT alignment would continue north next to the existing SDNR tracks to the proposed at-grade station at Tecolote Road (under the existing Tecolote Road overcrossing). Because the MTS/SDNR right-of-way is shared with existing SDNR tracks, which accommodate Amtrak, COASTER, and freight heavy rail services, adequate separation between the two sets of tracks (one for LRT services and the other for heavy rail services) would be required. At the most constricted locations, the absolute minimum separation between the track centers would be 15 feet, with 18 to 25 feet being the general separation at all other points. A separation of 19 feet would allow the installation of a fence between the LRT and SDNR tracks. Where possible, a 19-foot separation would be provided. This is the only area that a minimum separation of 15 feet may be required between the LRT and SDNR tracks.



Figure 4-5. LRT Alternative Alignment between OTTC and SR 52



Figure 4-6. LRT Alternative Alignments within University City



Figure 4-7. LRT Alternative 1



The Tecolote Road Station would be located on City of San Diego right-of-way, directly under the Tecolote Road overcrossing, and on a lot currently occupied by a garden nursery, just south of Tecolote Road and west of West Morena Boulevard. The station would feature amenities similar to existing Trolley stations, including shelters, benches, variable message signs, and other amenities, as specified in the MTS and SANDAG design standards. All station platforms would be side platforms, 360 feet long, and have a minimum width of 15 feet. Vertical pedestrian circulation to Tecolote Road could be provided by stairs and elevators, if warranted. This station site could accommodate up to 110 parking spaces.

North of the Tecolote Road Station, the LRT alignment would continue along the east side of the existing SDNR tracks to the proposed at-grade station at Clairemont Drive, which would be partially located below the Clairemont Drive overcrossing. Pedestrian access would be provided by elevators on the north side of the overcrossing and by stairs and ramps on the east side of Morena Boulevard. A joint-use parking facility on the east side of Morena Boulevard is being considered.

The LRT alignment would then continue north to the proposed Balboa Avenue Station, which would be at grade south of Balboa Avenue. This station would include transfer facilities for feeder bus routes and a parking lot located immediately east of the station. Pedestrian access to the station platform would be provided by ramps on both sides of Balboa Avenue to the new LRT bridge over Balboa Avenue, which would include a pedestrian walkway.

North of Balboa Avenue, the alignment would be located along the east side of the existing SDNR tracks, generally within the existing MTS/SDNR right-of-way. South of the SR 52, the LRT alignment would transition to an aerial structure in order to cross over to the west side of the SDNR tracks, allowing the LRT alignment to continue north along I-5, while the SDNR tracks head east to Genesee Avenue.

North of SR 52, the LRT alignment would leave the MTS/SDNR right-of-way and travel along the east side of I-5, crossing under La Jolla Colony Drive in a cut-and-cover tunnel. North of the cut-and-cover tunnel, the LRT alignment would continue along the east side of I-5, generally within or adjacent to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way and transition to an aerial structure in order to cross I-5 south of Nobel Drive. The aerial structure would continue north along the west side of I-5 to an aerial station at La Jolla Village Square (Nobel Drive Station). The aerial guideway and the station platform together with its stairs, elevators and other station features are expected to impact approximately 250 surface parking spaces located along the easterly property line of this shopping center. A joint-use parking structure is proposed at this station, which would replace the parking spaces lost with the aerial guideway and transit station. Continuing north from the Nobel Drive Station, the alignment would remain in an aerial configuration along the west side of I-5 until returning to grade just north of the I-5/La Jolla Village Drive interchange.

North of La Jolla Village Drive interchange, the alignment would proceed at grade along the west side of I-5 and east side of the Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center. Cut-and-fill retaining wall systems would be provided along the existing slope to support the LRT guideway. North of the VA Medical Center, the LRT alignment would enter a cut-



and-cover tunnel and cross under Gilman Drive and the surface parking lot located north of Gilman Drive. North of the tunnel, the alignment would enter Pepper Canyon and continue at grade along the bottom of the canyon to the UCSD West Station, which would be at grade. UCSD’s Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) (UCSD 2004a) indicates that Pepper Canyon would be filled to the top of the canyon. In order to accommodate the proposed canyon fill, tall retaining walls would be required at the back of the station platform. Access to the station would be provided by elevators and stairs.

After exiting the UCSD West Station, the LRT alignment would enter a short tunnel, turn east, and surface in the median of Voigt Drive. Currently, Voigt Drive does not have a median. In order to accommodate the LRT in the median, Voigt Drive would be widened and realigned. Once on Voigt Drive, the alignment would run at grade in the center of the roadway, crossing over I-5 on the reconstructed Voigt Drive overcrossing that is being proposed as part of the I-5 North Coast Project. The I-5 North Coast Project proposes to lower the elevation of the Voigt Drive overcrossing, add north facing DARs in the center of the overcrossing, realign Voigt Drive to connect to Genesee Avenue, and realign Campus Point Drive to connect to Voigt Drive. The at-grade UCSD East Station is proposed to be located in the median of Voigt Drive, just west of the realigned Campus Point Drive.

The LRT alignment would continue at grade to Genesee Avenue, where it would turn south and transition to an aerial structure just before the intersection of Genesee Avenue and Regents Road. The LRT movements through the Voigt Drive intersections with realigned Campus Point Drive and Genesee Avenue would be traffic signal controlled. The LRT alignment would continue south in an aerial configuration to the proposed Executive Drive Station and UTC Transit Center Station. The Executive Drive Station would provide drop-off and pick-up access only, while the UTC Transit Center Station would include opportunities for a shared parking facility with the Westfield UTC shopping center. Both stations would have aerial platforms. The aerial station at Executive Drive would connect to an existing aerial walkway on both sides of the street, as well as the sidewalks along both sides of Genesee Avenue. The aerial station at the UTC Transit Center would connect to the at-grade transit center and a proposed parking structure on the east side of Genesee, as well as the existing sidewalk on the west side of Genesee Avenue.

4.3.1.2 Operating Plan A conceptual operating plan has been developed for LRT Alternative 1 for ridership forecasting and capital and operating cost estimating purposes. Table 4-2 presents the operating plan and fare structure developed for LRT Alternative 1 in comparison to the No-Build and TSM Alternatives. Hours of service would be similar to those operated on the existing Trolley Blue, Green, and Orange Lines. Weekday LRT service in 2030 would operate every 7.5 minutes during peak periods (i.e., 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) and the off-peak midday period (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.). The fare structure would be the same as the No-Build and TSM Alternatives.

The proposed operating plan for LRT Alternative 1 provides for the extension of the Trolley Blue Line to University City. The plan provides for the operation of a single line operating from the existing San Ysidro/International Border Station on the south to the proposed UTC Transit Center Station in University City, with stops at all 29 intermediate stations. By extending the Trolley Blue Line to University City, LRT Alternative 1 would be able to connect the major travel markets in University City with Downtown San Diego and



Table 4-2. Comparison of LRT Alternative 1 Operating Plan and Fare Structure with the No-Build and TSM Alternatives

Route

Peak Frequency (6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.) (3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.)

Off Peak Frequency (9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) Vehicle Type

Fare Structure (each way)

150 (NB) 15 30 Articulated $2.50 150 (TSM) 7.5 7.5 Articulated $2.50 156 (TSM) 15 30 Standard $2.50

LRT 7.5 7.5 LRV $2.50

South San Diego and South Bay without a transfer in downtown. This direct connection is particularly important in serving home-to-college trips because UCSD is located in University City and a large percentage of the trips to the university originate in the travel markets to the south of Downtown San Diego. LRT Alternative 1 would also provide direct service between University City and Uptown, as well as areas of Mission Bay to the west and Clairemont to the east. The major travel market of Mission Valley would be served by a transfer to the Trolley Green Line at OTTC.

With the new LRT service under LRT Alternative 1, the service provided by Routes 150 and 156 operating between Downtown San Diego and University City under the TSM Alternative would be duplicated and would be eliminated. In addition to these modifications, several routes in the TSM Alternative would be modified to improve access to the proposed LRT stations. The frequency of service for the connecting bus routes would also be modified to improve the transfer of passengers between the bus and LRT system.

4.3.2 LRT Alternative 2 LRT Alternative 2, as shown in Figure 4-8, is similar to LRT Alternative 1 except it would follow an alignment on Regents Road and Executive Drive instead of Genesee Avenue. LRT Alternative 2 is 10.97 miles long and includes eight new stations. The station locations would be the same as LRT Alternative 1. The alternative consists of LRT alignment segments S-1, M-1, and N-2, which are identified in Table 3-1 in Section 3.3.5 and described below.

4.3.2.1 Alignment and Station Locations The alignment under LRT Alternative 2 would be the same as LRT Alternative 1 from OTTC north to the Voigt Drive overcrossing at I-5. East of the overcrossing, the alignment under LRT Alternative 2 would transition to a cut-and-cover tunnel configuration to cross underneath the eastbound lanes of the proposed realignment of Voigt Drive. It would exit the tunnel along the south side of Voigt Drive and continue east in a U-section, crossing under Campus Point Drive in a cut-and-cover box, then rising to grade to the UCSD East Station. The proposed station would be located within the existing UCSD parking lot rather than in the median of Voigt Drive under LRT Alternative 1.

Exiting the UCSD East Station, the LRT alignment would turn south onto the median of Regents Road, crossing the southbound lanes at a mid-block location using railroad gates and flashing signals. The alignment would run at grade in the median of Regents Road to






Executive Drive. Regents Road would be widened by approximately 44 feet in order to accommodate the LRT trackway. The required widening would accommodate the LRT tracks as well as left-turn lanes that can no longer be lined up opposite each other.

At Executive Drive, the alignment would turn east on Executive Drive in an at-grade configuration, which would require the elimination of one travel lane in each direction. Just west of Genesee Avenue, the alignment would transition from at grade to an aerial structure and turn south on Genesee Avenue. The alignment would remain in an aerial configuration to the Executive Drive Station and the UTC Transit Center terminal station. Both stations would be aerial and located in the same manner as those for LRT Alternative 1.

4.3.2.2 Operating Plan The proposed operating plan for LRT Alternative 2 and the modifications to the TSM Alternative bus routes would be the same as described under LRT Alternative 1. The fare structure and the travel markets served by the proposed operating plan for LRT Alternative 2 would also be the same as described for LRT Alternative 1.

4.3.3 LRT Alternative 3 The proposed alignment under LRT Alternative 3 would proceed north in the MTS/SDNR right-of-way from OTTC to SR 52 in the same configuration and with the same stations as described for LRT Alternatives 1 and 2. North of SR 52, the alignment under LRT Alternative 3 would continue along the MTS/SDNR right-of-way to just east of Genesee Avenue, where it would transition to a cut-and-cover tunnel configuration and travel northbound under Genesee Avenue and provide service to the UTC, then head east under Executive Drive and provide service to UCSD campus areas in a reverse manner than described for LRT Alternatives 1 and 2. LRT Alternative 3 is 10.48 miles long.

Figure 4-9 shows the LRT Alternative 3 alignment and station locations. The alternative includes six new stations, or two fewer stations than LRT Alternatives 1 and 2. Stations would be located at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, UTC Transit Center, UCSD East, and UCSD West. The alternative consists of LRT segments S-1, M-1, and N-3, which are identified in Table 3-1 in Section 3.3.5 and described below.

4.3.3.1 Alignment and Station Locations Just north of SR 52, instead of heading north along I-5, the LRT alignment would continue in the MTS/SDNR right-of-way, traveling along the west and north sides of the SDNR tracks. The LRT tracks would remain generally within the existing MTS/SDNR right-of-way to just east of Genesee Avenue. At Genesee Avenue, the LRT alignment would turn north and transition from an at-grade to a tunnel configuration with the alignment entering a tunnel portal south of Decoro Street. The LRT alignment would continue north under Genesee Avenue to the proposed below-grade UTC Transit Center Station. This station could be located further north on Genesee Avenue than proposed for the other alternatives (closer to La Jolla Village Drive), partially compensating for the lack of an Executive Drive Station under this alternative.

The LRT alignment would continue north in a tunnel on Genesee Avenue to Executive Drive, where it would turn west on Executive Drive, exiting the tunnel portal west of Regents Road, and transitioning to an at-grade alignment. The tunnel would be






approximately 1 mile long. The LRT alignment would continue west at grade, next to Athena Circle and Medical Center Drive, to the UCSD East Station located at grade near Thornton Hospital, along Medical Center Drive. West of the UCSD East Station, the LRT alignment would transition to an aerial structure, following the north side of Miramar Canyon and crossing over I-5 and Gilman Drive, entering Pepper Canyon, and terminating at the proposed UCSD West Station. The proposed station would be located at the same horizontal configuration as LRT Alternative 1. Because the LRT alignment would be crossing over Gilman Drive, and the proximity of the UCSD West Campus to Gilman Drive, the vertical elevation of this terminal station would be located at or slightly above the top of the existing side embankments of Pepper Canyon.

4.3.3.2 Operating Plan The proposed operating plan for LRT Alternative 3 and the modifications to the TSM Alternative bus routes would be the same as described under LRT Alternatives 1 and 2. The fare structure and travel markets served by the proposed operating plan for LRT Alternative 3 would also be the same as described for LRT Alternatives 1 and 2.

4.3.4 LRT Alternative 4 LRT Alternative 4, as shown in Figure 4-10, is the same as LRT Alternative 1 except it would provide an aerial alignment instead of an at-grade alignment on Voigt Drive. The aerial alignment under LRT Alternative 4 would extend all the way to the UTC Transit Center Station. Compared to LRT Alternative 1, LRT Alternative 4 would include an additional 0.58 miles of aerial alignment.

LRT Alternative 4 is 10.88 miles long and includes eight stations. The station locations under LRT Alternative 4 would be the same as LRT Alternative 1. The alternative consists of LRT alignment segments S-1, M-1, and N-4, which are identified in Table 3-1 in Section 3.3.5 and described below.

4.3.4.1 Alignment and Station Locations The alignment under LRT Alternative 4 is the same as LRT Alternative 1 from OTTC to University City via the MTS/SDNR right-of-way and I-5 corridor to the UCSD West Station.

From the UCSD West Station, the alignment under LRT Alternative 4 would enter a cut-and-cover tunnel segment just north of the station and exit the tunnel along the south side of Voigt Drive. The alignment would immediately transition to an aerial structure along the south side of Voigt Drive and travel adjacent to the eastbound lanes of Voigt Drive, crossing over Gilman Drive, I-5, and the Voigt Drive DAR. The aerial alignment would continue east to the aerial UCSD East Station. The UCSD East Station would be located east of the realigned Campus Point Drive, rather than west of Campus Point Drive as under LRT Alternative 1.

From the UCSD East Station, the LRT alignment would continue in an aerial configuration crossing the UCSD East Campus parking lots, Regents Road, and southbound lanes of Genesee Avenue. The aerial LRT alignment would then continue south in the median of Genesee Avenue to aerial stations at Executive Drive Station and UTC Transit Center, similar to LRT Alternative 1.






4.3.4.2 Operating Plan The proposed operating plan for LRT Alternative 4 and the modifications to the TSM Alternative bus routes would be the same as described under the previous LRT alternatives. The fare structure and travel markets served by the proposed operating plan for LRT Alternative 4 would also be the same as described for the previous LRT alternatives.

4.3.5 LRT Alternative 5 As under LRT Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, LRT Alternative 5 would proceed north in the MTS/SDNR right-of-way and along the I-5 corridor from OTTC to the UCSD West Campus. From this point east, LRT Alternative 5 would follow an alignment south of Voigt Drive to Genesee Avenue and UTC. Figure 4-11 shows the LRT alignment and station locations under LRT Alternative 5. The total length of the new alignment extension under LRT Alternative 5 is 10.82 miles and includes eight stations. Except for the station on the UCSD East Campus, the station locations would be the same as LRT Alternative 1. The alternative consists of LRT alignment segments S-1, M-1, and N-5, which are identified in Table 3-1 in Section 3.3.5 and described below.

4.3.5.1 Alignment and Station Locations LRT Alternative 5 would follow the alignment described for LRT Alternative 1 to Pepper Canyon, located on the UCSD West Campus. The UCSD West Station would be located slightly south of the station site proposed under LRT Alternative 1. After exiting the UCSD West Station, the LRT alignment would enter a short tunnel, turn east, and quickly ascend to grade and then onto an aerial structure to cross both Gilman Drive and I-5. The LRT alignment would descend back to grade near the south end of the existing baseball diamond parking lot and continue east, where the alignment would transition to a cut-and-cover configuration to cross the planned future soccer fields and the realigned Campus Point Drive, as proposed by the I-5 North Coast Project.

East of the realigned Campus Point Drive, the LRT alignment would transition to an at-grade configuration and enter the UCSD East Station, which is proposed to be located in the southeast quadrant of the re-aligned Voigt Drive and Genesee Avenue intersection, but outside of the Voigt Drive right-of-way.

After exiting the UCSD East Station, the LRT alignment would travel parallel to Genesee Avenue and transition to an aerial configuration prior to crossing Regents Road and entering the median of Genesee Avenue. The aerial alignment would then continue south in the median of Genesee Avenue to the Executive Drive and UTC Transit Center Stations, as under LRT Alternative 1.







4.3.6 LRT Alternative 6 LRT Alternative 6 would follow the alignment of LRT Alternative 5 to just northeast of the UCSD West Station. Then the alignment would proceed east to Thornton Hospital on the UCSD East Campus and along Executive Drive and Genesee Avenue to UTC. Figure 4-12 shows the LRT Alternative 6 alignment and station locations. LRT Alternative 6 is 10.76 miles long and includes eight stations. The proposed new stations would be located at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, Nobel Drive, UCSD West Campus, UCSD East Campus, Executive Drive, and UTC Transit Center. The alternative consists of LRT alignment segments S-1, M-1, and N-6, which are identified in Table 3-1 in Section 3.3.5 and described below.

4.3.6.1 Alignment and Station Locations After exiting the UCSD West Station, the alignment would remain below grade and then transition to an aerial structure, crossing Gilman Drive and I-5 in a southeasterly direction. The alignment would descend to grade near the northwestern corner of the Thornton Hospital complex and continue southward around the Thornton Hospital parking lot and then turn eastward, traveling parallel to Medical Center Drive to the UCSD East Station near Thornton Hospital.

After exiting the UCSD East Station, the alignment would follow Medical Center Drive and Athena Circle at grade to the Regents Road and Executive Drive intersection. Prior to the intersection, the alignment would ascend to aerial structure, crossing the intersection on structure. The aerial alignment would continue east in the center of Executive Drive to Genesee Avenue, and then south on Genesee Avenue to the Executive Drive Station and the terminal station at the UTC Transit Center. On Executive Drive, one through lane would be eliminated for construction of a new median to accommodate the support columns for the aerial structure. On Genesee Avenue, the support columns would be located in the existing raised median.


4.3.7 LRT Alternative 7 LRT Alternative 7 would proceed north in the MTS/SDNR right-of-way and I-5 corridor from OTTC to the Gilman Drive interchange in the same configuration and with the same stations as described for LRT Alternative 1. However, instead of crossing to the west side of I-5 to serve the UCSD West Campus, the alignment would continue on the east side of I-5 north to the UCSD East Campus and then along Executive Drive and Genesee Avenue to UTC.

Figure 4-13 shows the LRT Alternative 7 alignment and station locations. LRT Alternative 7 is 10.77 miles long. The alternative includes seven new stations, one less than LRT Alternative 1. Stations would be located at Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, University Center Lane (Nobel Drive), UCSD East, and UTC. The









alternative consists of LRT segments S-1, M-1, and N-7, which are identified in Section 3.3.5 and described below.

4.3.7.1 Alignment and Station Locations LRT Alternative 7 would follow the alignment of LRT Alternative 1 north to the I-5/Gilman Drive interchange. North of the interchange, the alignment would continue to travel north along the east right-of-way line of I-5. Just south of San Diego California Temple, the alignment would transition to a cut-and-cover tunnel, traversing the I-5 Nobel Drive off ramps as well as Nobel Drive. North of Nobel Drive, the alignment would exit the tunnel to reach the Nobel Drive Station at University Center Lane. This station would be a multi-story facility, with two or more levels of parking above and the LRT station platform at the lowest level. Access to the platform would be provided by stairs and elevators.

Exiting the Nobel Drive Station, the alignment would transition to an elevated configuration to cross the I-5/La Jolla Village Drive interchange. The alignment would continue in an aerial configuration to the north side of Miramar Canyon, where it would transition to grade. It would then travel along the north side of Miramar Canyon and south of Medical Center Drive to the UCSD East Station, in the same location as under LRT Alternative 6. East of the station, the alignment would follow the alignment of LRT Alternative 6 to the Executive Drive Station and the terminal station at UTC Transit Center. Access to UCSD West Campus will be provided by constructing a vehicular and pedestrian bridge across I-5, connecting Gilman Drive on the UCSD West Campus to Medical Center Drive on the UCSD East Campus.

4.3.7.2 Operating Plan The proposed operating plan for LRT Alternative 7 and the modifications to the TSM Alternative bus routes would be the same as described under the previous LRT alternatives. The fare structure and travel markets served by the proposed operating plan for LRT Alternative 7 would also be the same as described for the previous LRT alternatives, except there would not be a direct connection to the UCSD West Campus, which is the academic campus. This direct connection is important in serving home-to-college trips to the UCSD West Campus. A transfer at the UCSD East Station would be required for travel to the UCSD West Campus. Transfers could be made to UCSD shuttle buses which would use the new Gilman Drive overcrossing.

4.4 Bus Rapid Transit Alternatives The BRT alternatives propose the introduction of new BRT services operating in a range of exclusive, semi-exclusive, and shared lanes, where higher levels of lane exclusivity (i.e., exclusive lanes separated from general traffic) offer greater speeds and more reliable service. The highest level of exclusivity is exclusive lanes, or fixed guideway, where the BRT buses would be completely separated from general traffic with either at-grade or grade-separated crossings. The lowest level of exclusivity is semi-exclusive lanes, or HOV lanes, where BRT buses would operate in lanes with other HOV vehicles. Shared lanes provide no separation from general traffic.

The BRT alternatives developed for consideration in the Mid-Coast Corridor provide a combination of exclusive bus lanes or fixed-guideway BRT, semi-exclusive bus or HOV lanes, and shared lanes from Downtown San Diego north to University City. The alternatives would provide a Downtown San Diego to University City BRT route that would



offer a one-seat ride between the two major travel markets. Four BRT alternatives are under consideration and are numbered BRT Alternatives 1 to 4. BRT Alternatives 1 though 3 range from high to low in number of miles of exclusive lanes, or fixed guideway, and in total capital cost. BRT Alternative 4 was designed to provide exclusive lanes in the most congested areas within the Mid-Coast Corridor outside of Downtown San Diego. These are the Old Town and UTC areas. The remaining alignment under this alternative would be lower-cost shared or semi-exclusive lanes where BRT buses could operate with traffic at relatively higher speeds.

4.4.1 BRT Alternative 1 BRT Alternative 1 has the most miles of exclusive fixed guideway of the alternatives developed for consideration. Thus, this alternative would provide the highest level of traffic separation of the BRT alternatives under consideration. It would also represent the highest-cost alternative.

As shown in Figure 4-14, BRT Alternative 1 proposes new BRT services connecting Downtown San Diego with OTTC and University City. The new service would operate in shared lanes on Broadway Avenue and semi-exclusive lanes on Pacific Highway from Broadway to Palm Avenue. The BRT service would continue north on Pacific Highway on the aerial structure in exclusive lanes, joining the MTS/SDNR right-of-way at OTTC. It would then follow the MTS/SDNR right-of-way on an aerial structure to north of Clairemont Drive, where it would descend to an at-grade configuration within the rail corridor. North of Clairemont Drive, the BRT alignment would follow the horizontal and vertical alignment of LRT Alternative 1 to the UCSD West Campus, and east along Voigt Drive and Genesee Avenue to UTC.

The alternative provides for 15 stations located on Broadway at 5th Avenue, State Street, and Kettner Boulevard (Santa Fe Depot Station); Pacific Highway at Cedar Street, Palm Street, and Enterprise Street; OTTC; Tecolote Road; Clairemont Drive; Balboa Avenue; La Jolla Village Square (Nobel Drive Station); UCSD West; UCSD East; Executive Drive; and the UTC Transit Center.

BRT Alternative 1 is 15.6 miles long. The alignment is comprised of 12.6 miles of exclusive lanes in a combination of at-grade, aerial, and cut-and-cover tunnel fixed-guideway. The alternative consists of BRT alignment segments S-2, M-1, and N-2, which are identified in Section 3.3.5 and described below.

4.4.1.1 Alignment and Station Locations Within Downtown San Diego, BRT Alternative 1 would travel on Broadway Street in mixed traffic in shared lanes to Pacific Highway, where it would travel in semi-exclusive lanes on Pacific Highway. The semi-exclusive lanes would be for transit use, as well as for the right-turning vehicles.

North of Palm Street on Pacific Highway, the BRT alignment would transition from at-grade semi-exclusive lanes on Pacific Highway to exclusive lanes on an aerial structure in the median of Pacific Highway. Pacific Highway would be widened to the outside in order to accommodate the ramps to the aerial structure. The aerial structure would provide two 16-foot lanes, 4-foot shoulders, and a 2-foot median for a total width of 42 feet. At stations, a single passing lane would be provided.



Figure 4-14. BRT Alternative 1



The BRT service would continue north on Pacific Highway on the aerial structure to a station at Enterprise Street, then exit Pacific Highway, cross over I-5, and continue to OTTC, where another aerial station would be located near the existing transit center facilities and bus bays. Although standards for BRT have not been developed by MTS, it is expected that the BRT station platforms would be similar to those of the LRT alternatives. The platforms would be 15 feet wide and 200 feet long, and would be designated as fare paid zones, similar to the existing Trolley stations. Shelters, benches, and other amenities would be provided at all stations.

North of OTTC, the exclusive BRT lanes on an aerial structure would proceed north in the MTS/SDNR right-of-way and cross over I-8 as well as the San Diego River and Friars Road and then continue north in the rail corridor, with aerial stations at Tecolote Road and Clairemont Drive. The aerial structure along the MTS/SDNR right-of-way, from OTTC to north of Clairemont Drive, would allow this alternative to bypass congested streets in Old Town and Linda Vista. It also avoids potential impacts to the existing sanitary sewer trunk line located just east of the MTS/SDNR right-of-way, next to Morena Boulevard. However, the aerial structure has the potential to impact the existing transmission lines.

After leaving the Clairemont Drive Station, the aerial alignment would transition to an at-grade configuration with exclusive lanes within the MTS/SDNR right-of-way and proceed north to the Balboa Avenue Station. The at-grade BRT alignment along the SDNR tracks would be separated from the tracks by a concrete barrier. A minimum separation of 12 feet would be provided between the centerline of the nearest SDNR track and the face of the concrete barrier closest to the tracks. The Balboa Avenue Station would be at grade and would include transfer facilities and a parking facility immediately east of the station. Pedestrian access to the station platform would be provided by ramps on both sides of Balboa Avenue. The aerial structure across Balboa Avenue would be widened to provide pedestrian access from the north to south side of Balboa Avenue. The walkway would be connected to the proposed ramps along the north side of Balboa Avenue. A railing would be used to separate the walkway from the busway.

From south of Balboa Avenue to UTC, the BRT Alignment would follow the same alignment as LRT Alternative 1. The alignment would provide grade-separated, exclusive BRT lanes north to Voigt Drive, at-grade exclusive lanes from Voigt Drive to Campus Point Drive, and exclusive lanes on an aerial structure on Genesee Avenue to the terminus at UTC.

4.4.1.2 Operating Plan A conceptual operating plan has been developed for BRT Alternative 1 for ridership forecasting and capital and operating cost-estimating purposes. Table 4-3 presents the operating plan and fare structure for BRT Alternative 1 in comparison to the No-Build and TSM Alternatives. The proposed BRT service would operate seven days a week, including holidays. Hours of service would be similar to those operated on the existing Trolley Blue, Green, and Orange Lines. Weekday BRT service in 2030 would operate every 7.5 minutes during both the peak (i.e., 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) and off-peak midday period (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.).

The fare structure would be the same as the TSM Alternative. The BRT service would operate on a fixed-fare basis – $2.50 per one-way trip. Although the fare structure for the



Table 4-3. Comparison of BRT Alternative 1 Operating Plan and Fare Structure with No-Build and TSM Alternatives

Route

Peak Frequency (6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.)

(3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) Off Peak Frequency

(9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.) Bus Type Fare Structure

(each way) 150 (NB) 15 30 Articulated $2.50

150 (TSM) 7.5 7.5 Articulated $2.50 156 (TSM) 15 30 Standard $2.50

BRT 7.5 7.5 Articulated & Branded $2.50

LRT system would be a zonal system, the fares for representative trips in the Mid-Coast Corridor would be the same, i.e., $2.50 per one-way trip. The buses would be articulated, low floor, and branded for easy identification by transit riders.

The proposed operating plan for BRT Alternative 1 provides for the operation of a single BRT line between Downtown San Diego and University City, with stops at all intermediate stations. The new line would replace the service provided by Routes 150 and 156 operating between Downtown San Diego and University City under the TSM Alternative. Several routes in the TSM Alternative would be modified to improve access to the proposed BRT stations. The frequency of service for the connecting bus routes would also be modified to improve the transfer of passengers between the bus and BRT system.

BRT Alternative 1 would connect the major travel markets in University City (i.e., Golden Triangle and UCSD) with Downtown San Diego as well as areas of Uptown, Mission Bay, and Clairemont. The major travel market of Mission Valley would be served by a transfer to the Trolley Green Line at OTTC. Travel between University City and South San Diego and South Bay would require a transfer Downtown to the Trolley Blue Line or another bus line.

4.4.2 BRT Alternative 2 BRT Alternative 2, as shown in Figure 4-15, is similar to BRT Alternative 1, except it would provide shared lanes on Pacific Highway, from Palm Avenue to OTTC, and on Taylor Street, Morena Boulevard, and West Morena Boulevard, from OTTC to the Tecolote Road Station. From the Tecolote Road Station to the Clairemont Drive Station, BRT Alternative 2 would utilize semi-exclusive lanes. The alignment north of Clairemont Drive is the same as BRT Alternative 1. It would be exclusive lanes, or fixed guideway, from Clairemont Drive to the terminus at the UTC Transit Center Station. The station locations would also be the same as BRT Alternative 1. The alternative consists of BRT alignment segments S-1, M-2, and N-2, which are identified in Section 3.3.5 and described below.

BRT Alternative 2 alignment is 15.9 miles long. The alignment is comprised of 7.8 miles of exclusive lanes, which is second to BRT Alternative 1 in the number of miles of exclusive lanes. The remainder of the alignment is comprised of 4.5 miles of shared lanes and 3.6 miles of semi-exclusive lanes.

4.4.2.1 Alignment and Station Locations BRT Alternative 2 would follow the alignment of BRT Alternative 1 from Broadway Avenue in Downtown San Diego to the intersection of Pacific Highway and Palm Street. North of






Palm Street, BRT Alternative 2 would provide the continuation of the semi-exclusive lanes north to the I-5 on- and off-ramps to Pacific Highway instead of exclusive lanes on an aerial structure as under BRT Alternative 1. At the I-5 ramps, the BRT alignment on Pacific Highway would transition from a transit-only semi-exclusive lane to a shared-lane configuration, extending to OTTC, with an at-grade station at Enterprise Street to serve Midway and the Marine Corps facilities. The BRT alignment would provide access to OTTC via Taylor Street, looping into the east side bus bays of the transit center facilities.

After exiting the OTTC Station, the alignment would continue in a shared-lane configuration on Taylor Street and Morena Boulevard to an on-street transit station at Tecolote Road. North of Tecolote Road, the alignment would remain at grade, but the outside travel lanes of Morena Boulevard would become semi-exclusive and be designated as transit-only lanes. The semi-exclusive lanes would continue to Clairemont Drive, where an at-grade on-street transit station is proposed.

After the on-street station at Clairemont Drive, the alignment would travel within the MTS/SDNR right-of-way, where it would remain in an at-grade configuration but would be exclusive lanes. From this point north, BRT Alternative 2 would follow the same alignment and profile as described for BRT Alternative 1 to the UTC Transit Center Station.

4.4.2.2 Operating Plan The proposed operating plan for BRT Alternative 2 and the modifications to the TSM Alternative bus routes would be the same as described under BRT Alternative 1. The fare structure and travel markets served by the proposed operating plan for BRT Alternative 2 would also be the same as described for BRT Alternative 1.

4.4.3 BRT Alternative 3 BRT Alternative 3 has the fewest number of miles of exclusive lanes or fixed-guideway of the alternatives under consideration. Hence, it is also the lowest in cost of the build alternatives under consideration. BRT Alternative 3 would follow the alignment of BRT Alternative 2 between Downtown San Diego and Clairemont Drive. Instead of new exclusive lanes or fixed guideway north of Clairemont Drive, BRT Alternative 3 includes the extension of the semi-exclusive lanes on Morena Boulevard, from north of Clairemont Drive to Balboa Avenue, and the I-5 HOV lanes, from Balboa Avenue to Nobel Drive. The alternative would include a new DAR at Balboa Avenue to access both the I-5 HOV lanes and the proposed Balboa Avenue Station. On Nobel Drive, Villa La Jolla Drive, and Gilman Drive, the alternative would use shared lanes to the UCSD West Station. From the UCSD West Station to the UTC Transit Center Station terminus, BRT Alternative 3 would be exclusive lanes or fixed guideway.

Figure 4-16 shows the alignment and station locations under BRT Alternative 3. The station locations would be the same as BRT Alternative 2. The alternative consists of BRT alignment segments S-1, M-4, and N-1, which are identified in Section 3.3.5 and described below.

BRT Alternative 3 is 16.2 miles long. The alignment is comprised of 1.5 miles of exclusive lanes, which is the lowest of the BRT alternatives under consideration. The remainder of the alignment is comprised of 5.9 miles of shared lanes and 8.8 miles of semi-exclusive lanes.






4.4.3.1 Alignment and Station Locations BRT Alternative 3 would follow the alignment of BRT Alternative 2 between Downtown San Diego and Clairemont Drive. North of Clairemont Drive, the alignment would remain in semi-exclusive lanes on Morena Boulevard instead of transitioning to the MTS/SDNR right-of-way as under BRT Alternative 2. The at-grade semi-exclusive lanes would continue to the Balboa Avenue Station. North of the Balboa Avenue Station, the alignment would access the planned I-5 HOV lanes using transit-only DARs. BRT buses would operate in the planned HOV lanes on I-5 to Nobel Drive and exit I-5 using the existing Nobel Drive general-purpose ramps. From the interchange, the BRT buses would proceed in mixed-traffic to a transit stop on Nobel Drive.

The alignment would continue as shared lanes on Nobel Drive, Villa La Jolla Drive, and Gilman Drive to the UCSD West Station at Pepper Canyon. From the station, the alignment would be the same as BRT Alternative 1 to the terminal station at the UTC Transit Center.

4.4.3.2 Operating Plan The proposed operating plan for BRT Alternative 3 and the modifications to the TSM Alternative bus routes would be the same as described for BRT Alternatives 1 and 2. The fare structure and travel markets served by the proposed operating plan for BRT Alternative 3 would also be the same as described for the previous BRT alternatives.

4.4.4 BRT Alternative 4 BRT Alternative 4 is designed to provide exclusive lanes in the most congested areas within the Mid-Coast Corridor outside of Downtown where separation from traffic would increase speed and reliability at the lowest cost. These are in the Old Town and UTC areas where traffic congestion affects the speed and reliability of buses operating in mixed traffic. The remaining alignment under this alternative would be lower-cost shared or semi-exclusive lanes where BRT buses could operate with traffic at relatively high speeds and with reliable service.

BRT Alternative 4 would follow the alignment of BRT Alternative 3 between Downtown San Diego and OTTC but would use the west side bus bays of the transit center facilities instead of the east side bus bays. From OTTC, the alignment would bypass the congestion on Taylor Street and Morena Boulevard by operating in shared lanes on Pacific Highway from OTTC to the San Diego River, where an exclusive guideway on aerial structure is proposed for the river crossing. The aerial structure would cross the San Diego River and continue north to just south of Vega Street. It then becomes at grade and travels east on Vega Street to West Morena Boulevard. The alignment would then follow the alignment of BRT Alternative 3 along Morena Boulevard and the planned I-5 HOV lanes to University City. South of Nobel Drive, BRT Alternative 4 would utilize transit-only ramps to connect the I-5 HOV lanes to exclusive lanes. From the I-5 HOV lanes, the alignment would ascend onto an aerial structure (the transit-only off-ramp), crossing the I-5 southbound lanes to the west side of I-5. From there, BRT Alternative 4 would follow the alignment of BRT Alternative 1 with exclusive lanes through University City.



The station locations under BRT Alternative 4 would be the same as BRT Alternative 3. The alternative consists of BRT alignment segments S-1, M-3, and N-3, which are identified in Section 3.3.5 and described below.

Figure 4-17 shows the alignment and station locations for BRT Alternative 4. The alignment is 15.7 miles long and is comprised of 3.4 miles of exclusive lanes, which is less than BRT Alternatives 1 and 2, but more than BRT Alternative 3. The remainder of the alignment is comprised of 3.5 miles of shared lanes and 8.8 miles of semi-exclusive lanes, which is the same as BRT Alternative 3.

4.4.4.1 Alignment and Station Locations From the OTTC Station, BRT Alternative 4 would re-enter the Pacific Highway shared lanes and proceed north to the San Diego River crossing. At this point, the alignment would leave the Pacific Highway right-of-way and cross both the San Diego River and the SDNR tracks on a separate aerial structure. The intersection of the BRT guideway with Pacific Highway would be traffic signal controlled. The alignment would then enter the MTS/SDNR right-of-way, continuing in an aerial configuration, crossing over the existing spur tracks and descending to grade just south of Vega Street. From here, the alignment would leave the MTS/SDNR right-of-way and proceed onto Vega Street towards the at-grade Tecolote Road Station (west of the Vega Street/W Morena Boulevard intersection). After exiting the station, the alignment would continue north on West Morena Boulevard and then Morena Boulevard in semi-exclusive lanes and again follow the alignment of BRT Alternative 3 to the proposed HOV lanes in the median of I-5.

The alignment would exit the HOV lanes through a transit-only DAR located south of La Jolla Village Square. The DAR continues as an aerial structure, crossing the southbound lanes of I-5 and continuing north to the aerial station at La Jolla Village Square. From there, the alignment would follow the BRT Alternative 1 alignment to the UCSD West, UCSD East, Executive Drive, and UTC Transit Center Stations.

4.4.4.2 Operating Plan The proposed operating plan for BRT Alternative 4 and the modifications to the TSM Alternative bus routes would be the same as described for the previous BRT alternatives. The fare structure and travel markets served by the proposed operating plan

4.5 Commuter Rail Alternative The Commuter Rail Alternative would provide new commuter rail service to the University Center area within the Mid-Coast Corridor. The alternative would require the construction of a tunnel under Genesee Avenue. The new service would be operated as a shuttle from Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego to a new station at UTC in North University City, as shown in Figure 4-18. The alternative consists of commuter rail alignment segments S-1, M-1, and N-1, which are identified in Section 3.3.5 and described below.

4.5.1 Alignment and Station Locations The new shuttle service under the Commuter Rail Alternative would use the existing SDNR tracks from Santa Fe Depot to the proposed Balboa Avenue Station via OTTC generally in an at-grade configuration. There are two segments of the SDNR tracks that






Figure 4-18. Commuter Rail Alternative



are not double-tracked, between the San Diego River and Tecolote Creek and south of Balboa Avenue to immediately north of SR 52. These segments are designated for double tracking as part of the Revenue Constrained RTP improvements. Although the cost associated with double tracking the SDNR tracks would not be part of this project, environmental clearance for the improvements would be addressed as part of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, should this alternative be selected as the LPA. With the double tracking, it is anticipated that the Commuter Rail Alternative could operate at an acceptable frequency of service without hindering the operations of Amtrak, the COASTER, or Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) freight service.

North of SR 52, the commuter rail alignment would utilize the existing double-tracks to just east of Genesee Avenue, where the alignment would enter a tunnel portal south of Decoro Street and continue north to the UTC Transit Center Station. The commuter rail tunnel would be significantly deeper than the one for LRT Alternative 3. The limitation of heavy rail to negotiate steep grades, and the intent to utilize the same tunnel to connect to Sorrento Valley so that the COASTER and Amtrak may bypass the Miramar curve alignment, would require that the station at UTC be located approximately 180 feet below the elevation of Genesee Avenue. Due to the depths of this alignment, the tunnel would either be bored or mined.

4.5.2 Operating Plan A conceptual operating plan has been developed for the Commuter Rail Alternative for ridership forecasting and capital and operating cost estimating purposes. The proposed service would operate seven days a week, including holidays. Hours of service would be similar to those operated on the existing Trolley Blue, Green, and Orange Lines. Weekday commuter rail service in 2030 would operate every 15 minutes during peak periods (i.e., 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.) and 30 minutes during the off-peak midday period (i.e., 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.).

The fare structure would be the same as the No-Build and TSM Alternatives. The commuter rail shuttle service would operate on a zonal-fare basis. In the SANDAG model used for forecasting transit trips, each station has a fare zone number and the fare is determined based on the boarding and alighting stations for each transit trip. The COASTER fare structure has four different fare zones, with the fare per one-way trip ranging from $5.00 to $6.50. The commuter rail shuttle fare per one-way trip between Downtown San Diego and the UTC Transit Center Station would be $4.50, which would be higher than the fare for the LRT and BRT alternatives. However, the commuter rail shuttle would have only two intermediate stops between Downtown San Diego and UTC, whereas the LRT and BRT alternatives would have from 7 to 11 intermediate stops, depending on the alternative. The fare for the commuter shuttle would be comparable to the existing COASTER fare of $5.50 for a one-way trip between Downtown San Diego and the Sorrento Valley Station.

The proposed operating plan for the Commuter Rail Alternative provides for the operation of a single line between Downtown San Diego and University City, with stops at OTTC and Balboa Avenue. The new line would replace the service provided by Route 150 operating between Downtown San Diego and University City under the TSM Alternative. Several routes in the TSM Alternative would be modified to improve access to the



proposed new commuter rail station at Balboa Avenue. The frequency of service for the connecting bus routes would also be modified to improve the transfer of passengers between the bus and commuter rail shuttle.

The Commuter Rail Alternative would connect the major travel markets in University City (i.e., Golden Triangle and UCSD) with Downtown San Diego as well as Clairemont. However, this alternative would not be able to directly serve Downtown San Diego as well as the LRT or BRT alternatives because the shuttle service would terminate at Santa Fe Depot on the western side of Downtown San Diego. Passengers would have to transfer or walk to and from destinations within downtown. The Uptown and Mission Bay travel markets would not be directly served by the commuter rail shuttle. Similarly, the Commuter Rail Alternative would not be able to provide direct service to the UCSD campus. Passengers traveling to UCSD would have to transfer to connecting routes, such as Route 201/202 or the SuperLoop. The major travel market of Mission Valley would be served by a transfer to the Trolley Green Line at OTTC. Travel between University City and South San Diego and South Bay would require a transfer to the Trolley Blue Line at the Santa Fe Depot in Downtown San Diego.

4.6 Alternatives Proposed by Others Move San Diego presented a proposed alternative to SANDAG in November 2008. Move San Diego is a non-profit community organization formed in January 2004. The Move San Diego plan, which is referred to as the “FAST Plan,” provides for the comprehensive redevelopment of the regional transit system. Move San Diego has identified the components of the FAST Plan that constitutes their proposal for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Their proposal for the Mid-Coast Corridor includes the following:

• An upgrade to and replacement for the existing COASTER service, with more frequent diesel multiple unit (DMU) train service and a rail tunnel under UTC with a joint COASTER/Amtrak station.

• A grade-separated guideway for rapid transit vehicles, or “quickway,” connecting a station at UTC with major destinations in the Golden Triangle and Sorrento Mesa.

• A quickway and other bus improvements connecting Pacific Beach with Mission Valley, Hillcrest, and Downtown.

4.6.1 Consistency Review The initial review of the Move San Diego proposal for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project focused on assessing its consistency with the purpose and need for the Mid-Coast Project.

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is currently in the project- or corridor-planning phase, which is the next phase of planning after system planning. This phase of project development involves a study of an adopted LPA and alternatives identified for consideration based on changed conditions since the Mid-Coast Corridor Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (AA/DEIS/DEIR) (Metropolitan Transit Development Board [MTDB] 1995a). The purpose and need and study area for the analysis of transportation problems and needs is consistent with the earlier AA/DEIS/DEIR for the Mid-Coast Corridor.



Review of the FAST Plan’s proposal for the Mid-Coast Corridor indicates it is comprised of several transit projects, each with significant capital investments. As such, even the proposal for the Mid-Coast Corridor would be characterized as a systems plan alternative to the RTP rather than a project-level alternative for consideration for the Mid-Coast Corridor. Furthermore, many of the components of the FAST Plan are inconsistent with the Mid-Coast Project purpose and need and the RTP adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors.

The FTA project development process as described in FTA’s Major Investment Planning guidance requires that the transportation system under study be consistent with the adopted RTP. For the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, the existing transportation system with the project improvements from the SANDAG-adopted RTP comprise the No-Build Alternative highway and transit network. All improvements in the No-Build Alternative also are included in the build alternatives. In addition to the No-Build Alternative improvements, the build alternatives include transit service improvements within the Mid-Coast Corridor. The range of alternatives under consideration for the Mid-Coast Corridor include a TSM Alternative representing the best that could be done without constructing new fixed-guideway, LRT, BRT, or Commuter Rail alternatives. Some of the improvements included under the TSM Alternative include signal priority, queue jumps, park and ride facilities, increased frequency of service, and new routes. Outside the Mid-Coast Corridor, the transit network is the same as the No-Build Alternative.

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project TSM, LRT, BRT or Commuter Rail alternatives noted in this document cannot include the FAST Plan as the No-Build Alternative outside of the corridor because of the inconsistency of the FAST Plan improvements with the RTP and FTA’s guidance. However, the improvements could be considered at a systems planning level during the next scheduled update of the SANDAG RTP. In the meantime, the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project can only consider the improvements in the FAST Plan that are proposed for the Mid-Coast Corridor, not those outside the corridor.

4.6.2 Evaluation of Technology and Alignment This section discusses the components of the FAST Plan that Move San Diego proposed for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. These components were identified above, at the beginning of Section 4.6.

4.6.2.1 Upgrade or Improvement to Existing Coaster Service As specified in the Move San Diego FAST Plan, this improvement for the Mid-Coast Corridor provides an upgrade to and replacement for the existing COASTER service with more frequent service with a tunnel under the Golden Triangle and a joint COASTER/Amtrak station at UTC. The service is identified in the FAST Plan as DMU service. Move San Diego refers to the proposed service as SPRINTER-like service, which is the name of the NCTD operated service between Oceanside and Escondido in North San Diego County.

To operate the proposed services on the existing tracks, the vehicles would have to be Federal Railway Administration (FRA) compliant for crashworthiness (49 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 229). The SPRINTER vehicles and DMUs do not meet the FRA crashworthiness requirements. There was only one manufacturer that did make DMUs



with the required FRA crashworthiness (Colorado Rail Cars), but that company went out of business in 2008. In January 2009, the assets of the company were purchased by US Railcar LLC. US Railcar LLC purports to be able to manufacture DMU vehicles that do meet the crashworthiness requirements of FRA. However, no such vehicle has been manufactured to date. There is no other company that currently manufactures DMUs that meet the FRA requirements. Furthermore, because of the existing and projected traffic on the existing SDNR tracks, temporal separation of compliant and non-compliant vehicles cannot be achieved. Therefore, the alternative providing for DMU service on existing tracks is considered to be infeasible and dependent on the survival of a single company.

Without being able to meet FRA requirements, and in order to be able to operate a DMU service between Downtown San Diego and Oceanside, two new tracks dedicated to the new DMU service would have to be constructed. Construction of two new tracks would incur significant constraints in the downtown area. These constraints include encroachment into Harbor Drive; right-of-way acquisitions between Harbor Drive and Santa Fe Depot, where existing buildings are located at the right-of-way lines; and impacts at Santa Fe Depot, where two additional DMU tracks and a platform would be required. Between Downtown San Diego and Old Town, the additional tracks would require closure of an existing frontage road (California Street), which is the only access to a number of properties that front California Street. Between OTTC and San Diego River, the right-of-way is constrained due to existing buildings and the columns supporting the I-5/I-8 interchange.

Additionally, the tunnel at University City cannot be shared by Amtrak and freight services. From the plans dated May 20, 2009, available on the Move San Diego’s website, it appears that Move San Diego is proposing to abandon the existing tracks along the Miramar curve. Abandoning these tracks implies that Amtrak and freight services would also use the University City tunnel. Noting that the tracks for the DMU cannot be used by Amtrak and freight, abandoning the tracks along Miramar curve would require a separate set of tunnel and tracks for those services.

4.6.2.2 Quickway Connecting UTC Transit Center with Destinations in Golden Triangle and Sorrento Mesa This improvement proposes a quickway connector from a below-grade station at UTC, which is referred to as a “Super Station,” to Sorrento Mesa and another quickway connector to Scripps Memorial Hospital and the UCSD West Campus/Torrey Pines. The UTC Super Station, as proposed, would include a combined COASTER/Amtrak station on one level, a quickway station on a second level, and a pedestrian tunnel on a third level. According to Move San Diego, the station would also serve the planned high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Diego, at another (presumably fourth) level.

The proposed UTC Super Station would not connect directly with the planned transit center at UTC, which is located on Genesee Avenue. Passengers requiring a transfer between the two stations would be inconvenienced by the lack of a short and direct connection. The plan does indicate the need for a grade-separated guideway (depicted as partly at grade, partly in a tunnel, and partly on an aerial structure) that connects the below-grade station on Towne Centre Drive with UTC but does not connect to the proposed transit center on Genesee Avenue. The added travel time for a transfer may adversely impact the number of transit trips, and hence the effectiveness of the proposal.



The first quickway connector is a combination of a grade-separated and freeway-shoulder alignment along I-805 from Towne Centre Drive to Sorrento Mesa. Within Sorrento Mesa, the alignment would be a combination of an at-grade, below-grade (tunnel), and aerial alignment to a terminus at Morehouse Drive. A connection from University City to Sorrento Mesa is considered to be a separate project outside the purpose and need for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project; however, it would not be precluded by implementation of the project.

The other quickway connector is a combination of an at-grade, below-grade (tunnel), and aerial alignment connecting to the Towne Centre Drive underground station, or UTC Super Station, to the UCSD East Campus. It then branches out with two different alignments, one serving the UCSD West Campus and the other serving Scripps Memorial Hospital and areas to the north of Genesee Avenue. This quickway connector between UTC and UCSD and Scripps Memorial Hospital, when considered as a separate project, is outside the purpose and need for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. The connector depends on the Move San Diego COASTER improvement between Downtown San Diego and UTC in order to serve the travel markets between University City and Old Town and Downtown San Diego. Without this improvement, the proposed quickway connector does not meet the purpose and need of the project.

4.6.2.3 Quickway and Transitways/Bus Lanes Linking Pacific Beach with Mission Valley This quickway, with an at-grade station in Pacific Beach, would be located west of Mission Bay Drive. There would be a joint COASTER/quickway station south of Balboa Avenue. The alignment would then continue as an at-grade transitway on Morena Boulevard and continue south to Friars Road in Mission Valley. There would be a tunnel section in the congested segment of Morena Boulevard. A direct connection to OTTC has not been proposed. Within the Linda Vista community, the alignment branches with one branch connecting to Friars Road and the other terminating within Linda Vista. The transitway on Friars Road is proposed along the south side of the roadway and would connect with a Fashion Valley Transitway and a Hillcrest quickway.

As previously identified, the travel markets proposed for service by the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project are between University City and Uptown, Downtown San Diego, South San Diego, and South Bay, as well as Mission Valley. Move San Diego’s proposal for the Mid-Coast Transit Corridor connects the travel markets in Pacific Beach and Mission Valley, rather than focusing on the University City travel market and area that has the highest density of land use outside of Downtown San Diego. The Move San Diego proposal for a service connection between Pacific Beach, Mission Valley, and Hillcrest is considered to be a separate project outside the purpose and need of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project; however, it would not be precluded by implementation of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project.

4.6.3 Results of Review The results of the review of the Move San Diego proposed alternatives, specifically for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project, indicate that they are not reasonable or practical and would not meet the purpose and need and travel markets identified for improvement of transit services by the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. The inconsistencies of the Move San Diego proposal for the Mid-Coast Corridor include:



• Crashworthiness of DMU operating on heavy rails and opposition from FRA to operate DMUs together with heavy rail without temporal separation

• FTA opposition to development of a system plan as a single project

• Potential inability of Transnet to fund the project due to extensive tunneling, aerial guideway, and multi-level above ground and below ground transit center at UTC

• Service to markets that are not associated with the Mid-Coast Corridor

This does not imply that the improvements do not have merit. Instead, they could be considered during the update of the SANDAG RTP rather than by the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. Furthermore, the implementation of the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project would not preclude consideration of the Move San Diego improvements as separate projects in other corridor studies or as potential replacement of the existing bus feeder system to the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project.

4.7 Peer Review of Alternatives Following development of the alternatives, SANDAG created a Peer Review Panel to conduct a review of the alternatives developed for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. The purpose of the peer review was to review and comment on the range of alternatives developed for Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project in response to changed conditions. The panel members’ technical background was transit and all members were experienced in the FTA New Starts project development process. The three members of the panel were:

• Mick Crandall, Deputy Chief Planning and Programming, Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City, Utah

• Wulf Grote, Director, Project Development, Valley Metro, Phoenix, Arizona

• Kimberly Slaughter, Associate Vice President of Planning, Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris Authority, Houston, Texas

The Peer Review Panel met at SANDAG offices on October 19 through 21, 2009. The panel was first briefed by the SANDAG staff and the consultant team on the history of the project, purpose and need for the project, and the alternatives under consideration. All relevant studies and information regarding the alternatives was provided to the Peer Review Panel. The panel was also given a tour of the corridor and met with SANDAG and MTS management.

The Peer Review Panel then conducted an independent review of the alternatives and provided comments to SANDAG and the consultant team. The comments provided by the Peer Review Panel were organized into overall general comments, general comments on all modes and alternatives, comments specific to University City, and specific comments on each of the alternatives under consideration. Table 4-4 summarizes the Peer Review Panel comments and the project team’s responses to the comments.



Table 4-4. Summary of Peer Review Comments and Responses

Comment Response Overall General Comments Excellent job in taking a long term project and keeping it current and applicable to the existing and projected travel needs.

Comment noted.

New alternatives for BRT and commuter rail have been included to consider new modes.

Comment noted.

Updated LRT options to reflect the changing corridor conditions.

Comment noted.

Stayed current with FTA process and requirements. Comment noted. An additional screening of alternatives prior to FTA review may be appropriate.

An additional screening has been performed and the results documented in this Draft Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives Report.

Alternatives can be further screened based on initial possibility for a medium cost-effectiveness index (CEI).

A further screening of the alternatives has been performed to eliminate those not meeting the FTA medium-low cost-effectiveness breakpoint.

Screen for the best alternative by mode (i.e., LRT and BRT).

The additional screening has eliminated all BRT and Commuter Rail alternatives.

May still have several design variations of a given alternative.

Further design variations will be studied during the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement /Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/SEIR) and/or PE stages of project development.

General Comments on All Modes and Alternatives All reasonable mode and alignment options appear to have been identified.

Comment noted.

Expanded opportunities for parking at stations may provide significant increase in ridership.

Several proposed stations provide parking. Evaluation of expanded parking will be conducted during the Draft SEIS/SEIR and/or PE stages of project development.

Parking could be important at the northern terminus of the project, but could be costly.

The two terminal stations under consideration are the UTC Transit Center Station and UCSD West Station. Joint use parking at the UTC Transit Center is assumed under all of the alternatives. The UCSD West Campus would function as a terminal station under LRT Alternative 3 only. Opportunities for parking at this station would be restricted because of the lack of available land and UCSD policy.

Balboa Avenue Station is difficult to access, and could be justified only if there is strong feeder bus service.

Up to three bays for feeder buses are proposed at the Balboa Avenue Station to accommodate the re-routing of bus routes under all alternatives.

Clairemont Drive Station appears to have development opportunity, but would require a commitment by the City of San Diego.

The station is located within a SANDAG Smart Growth area and the City of San Diego is aware of the transit-oriented development (TOD) opportunities at this station.

Tecolote Road Station has potential with good bus access to Sea World and the surrounding area.

A bus connection for transfers between the Trolley system and Sea World is provided at OTTC, which is the next station to the south of the proposed Tecolote Road Station.



Table 4-4. Summary of Peer Review Comments and Responses (continued)

Comment Response Comments Specific to University City Confirm that the alternatives should focus on University City area as a major source of trip productions and trip attractions.

The Golden Triangle and UCSD are both located in University City and are among the highest in trip productions and attractions in the region.

Any alternatives that do not serve the UCSD East and West Campuses are a significant lost opportunity to serve a major travel market.

The purpose and need for the project identifies service to both the UCSD West and East Campuses as a goal for the project.

University City area appears to be a prime source of local and short distance trips within the market.

The high number of local and short trips is confirmed in that the Golden Triangle area of University City has the highest density of internal productions and attractions in the study area.

A better understanding of market specific travel patterns should be acquired through a market specific travel survey.

A market survey would be conducted after the selection of an LPA and during the PE application phase of project development.

The importance of a strong local circulator is critical to allow existing and potential patrons to access the new investment.

The SuperLoop is now in operation in University City and would provide transfers to the alternatives.

Comments Specific to the Alternatives No-Build Alternative Revisit the definition of the No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative has been defined to meet FTA

requirements. The No-Build Alternative should reflect the existing plus committed Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) (SANDAG 2008) projects in the corridor.

The No-Build Alternative assumes all proposed improvements in the RTP rather than the RTIP. This is a more conservative assumption which is consistent with FTA requirements.

Because the planned I-5 HOV lanes for the Mid-Coast Corridor are not included in the RTIP, the decision to include this project in the No-Build Alternative should be reconsidered.

The inclusion of the planned HOV lanes from the RTP in the No-Build Alternative has been approved by FTA as a conservative assumption for travel forecasting purposes.

TSM Alternative Service frequencies and hours of service should initially reflect the No-Build Alternative assumptions.

The service frequencies were adjusted through comparison of transit passenger loadings and capacities for route groups in the Mid-Coast Corridor.

Reconsider whether the planned I-5 HOV lanes should be included in the TSM Alternative.

The highway network in the No-Build Alternative is assumed to be the same for the TSM Alternatives and all build alternatives. This is consistent with FTA requirements.




Comment Response LRT Alternatives Too many alternatives to move forward. An additional screening of alternatives has been performed to

narrow the alternatives. The results are documented in Chapter 5 of this report.

Consider an at-grade LRT alignment option on Genesee Avenue or document why this is not a viable option. Any potential to relocate bike lanes or to reduce traffic lane widths?

An at-grade alignment alternative was considered on Genesee Avenue and eliminated from consideration. This and other alternatives considered and eliminated are discussed in Chapter 3 of this report. An at-grade LRT alignment would have a width of about 30 feet. At a minimum, this would require elimination of one lane in each direction. At the proposed stations at Executive Drive and UTC Transit Center, the guideway with side platforms would be 55 feet in width. To accommodate the guideway and platforms, additional right-of-way would be required in addition to loss of a lane in each direction. With the area being almost built-out, opportunities for acquisition of right-of-way are limited. A reduction in lane widths or relocation of bike lanes also would not provide the additional right-of-way needed.

Given the large travel demand between the Mid-Coast Corridor and Mission Valley, determine the importance of a direct LRT connection (e.g. no transfer).

A travel market analysis will be conducted to determine major travel markets for trips within the study area and trips passing through the area. The travel market to the south was determined to have a higher demand for a direct connection than the Mission Valley market to the east. The results of this analysis are presented in Chapter 1 of this report.

Need for close coordination with UCSD regarding UCSD West Station in Pepper Canyon.

Coordination with UCSD has been ongoing and will continue through completion of the project development process.

Eliminate LRT Alternative 7 because it does not serve the UCSD West Campus.

An additional screening of alternatives has been performed to narrow the LRT alternatives for scoping. The results are presented in Chapter 5 of this report.

Alignments on or adjacent to Voigt Drive provide better access to both hospital complexes and the UCSD East Campus.

The accessibility of the alternative alignments and station locations on the UCSD East Campus has been measured through comparison of user benefits, or travel time savings, and transit boardings. The results of this comparison are presented in Chapter 5 of this report. The comparison of user benefits and boardings for the two alternative station locations on the UCSD East Campus is only one criterion used in the evaluation of alternatives.

Consider elimination of LRT Alternative 6. LRT Alternative 6 is the lowest in capital cost and is cost effective. It also is considered to be an avoidance alternative to the alternatives that propose use of Voigt Drive.

What is the demand to extend northward? The extension of the Trolley system beyond University City is a separate project in the RTP. No ridership forecasts have been prepared for the planned future extension.

Only LRT Alternative 3 provides opportunity for future extensions northward without creating a branch.

The potential for future extension has been evaluated for each alternative under consideration and the results are presented in Chapter 5 of this report.

Cut-and-cover tunneling approach for LRT Alternative 3 may increase costs.

The tunneling method will be further investigated during the preliminary engineering phase of the project.




Comment Response Alignment along MTS/SDNR right-of-way without stations would provide an opportunity for high speed operation, but the existing light rail vehicles (LRVs) cannot travel faster than 55 mph. Will future LRVs have higher speed capabilities?

Trains serving the Mid-Coast Corridor could be a combination of new and older LRVs, with a maximum speed of 55 miles per hour.

BRT Alternatives Alternatives adequately represent the full range of investment levels for BRT.

Comment noted.

For alternatives that utilize the I-5 HOV lanes, will the lanes exist or will they need to be part of the build alternatives?

The HOV lanes on I-5 in the Mid-Coast Corridor are assumed to be included in the No-Build Alternative and all build alternatives.

BRT Alternative 1 is costly and does not provide the benefits provided by other alternatives.

Chapter 5 of this report presents the results of the analysis of cost and cost effectiveness of the alternatives based on forecasts of benefits.

Consider an at-grade alternative on Genesee Avenue or document why this is not a viable alternative either as BRT in mixed traffic or as a semi-exclusive lane.

An at-grade BRT guideway would require even a greater width than that for LRT. For reasons noted above for the LRT alternatives, an at-grade BRT guideway was not considered to be a practical alternative.

Commuter Rail Alternative The alternative was appropriately considered. Comment noted. Cost of a below-grade station and lack of all day service may make this an alternative that is easy to eliminate.

Chapter 5 of this report presents the results of the analysis of cost and cost effectiveness of the alternatives.

Does not adequately serve the University City internal travel market.

The Commuter Rail Alternative provides for only one station within University City and would not serve internal travel as well as the other alternatives with several stations.

Does not provide direct service to UCSD. Agree. The Commuter Rail Alternative would require a transfer for travel between the UTC Transit Center and UCSD.

Documents

Chapter 4 Conceptual Alternatives ConsideredChapter 4 Conceptual Alternatives Considered . Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives ... with the Balboa Avenue Station having bus bays