Mid-City Transit Network Plan - San Diego Health Reports ...sandiegohealth.org/sandag/sandag_pubs_2009-7-25/publicationid_117… · The Mid-City Transit Network Plan is a long-range

Page i

Mid-City Transit Network Plan Report

Table of Contents

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................1

2. Study Area......................................................................................................................1

3. Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................3

4. Mid-City Transit Network Plan...................................................................................27

5. Conclusion......................................................................................................................37

6. Appendix – Advisory Committee Meetings..............................................................38

San Diego Association of Governments Mid-City Transit Network Plan

Page 1

1 Introduction The Mid-City Transit Network Plan is a long-range comprehensive transit plan to serve the Mid-City area. The idea of preparing a network plan originated from community members as an outcome of discussion about the proposed El Cajon Boulevard Showcase Project. The Showcase Project is a planned rapid transit line between San Diego State University (SDSU) and downtown San Diego, running along El Cajon and Park Boulevards. Various members of the public questioned how the Showcase Project would fit into a network of services for the community and recommended that a plan be prepared as a vehicle to debate community priorities for transit improvements. Therefore, this study was undertaken to define a network of services including the neighborhood, local, corridor, and regional services needed to serve the Mid-City communities. The network plan outlines both a long-term (Year 2030) vision for service improvements in the project area, and a phased implementation plan based on community priorities. This plan was developed with the assistance of an advisory committee consisting of community and business interests. .The study addresses the mobility needs of the Mid-City area, both internally and its connections to the regional network. Transit issues related to the rest of the region are being addressed by the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) currently being conducted by the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) study.

2 Study Area The Mid-City network plan study area (Exhibit 1) extends from the south rim of Mission Valley to just south of University Avenue, and from SR 163 east to the San Diego/La Mesa boundary.

!T

!T

!T !T!T

!T

!T

!T

!T

!T!T

!T

!T

!T !T

!T!T!T

!T!T

!T

!T

!T

!T

!T

!T

!T!T

!T

!T

!T

!T

!T

!̂

!̂

?À

?Þ %s

?À

?ÀAù

!_

!_

Aù

%s

!_

!a

!_

!_

%s

?Þ

%s

?Þ

?Þ

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

ADAMS AV

6TH

AV

30 T

H S

T

UPAS ST

PAR

K BL

PAR

K BL

PA R

K BL

RIC

HM

ON

D S

T

TEX

AS S

T

HO

ME

AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

EU

CLI

D A

V

HOME A

V

EUC

LID

AV

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

54T

H S

T 5

4TH

ST

EU

CL I

D A

V

47T

H S

T

MARKET ST

PER

SHIN

G D

R

FER

N S

T 3

0TH

ST

BROADWAY

LAUREL ST

WASHINGTON ST

MONTEZUMA RD

COLLEGE AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

43R

D S

T

70 T

H S

T

MAS

S AC

HU

SETT

S AV

!̂LINDA VISTA RD

FRIARS RD

°0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

Data: SANDAG, U.S. Census, USGS

Mid-City study areaMExhibit 1 Mid-City Study Area

Coaster

Orange Line

Blue Line

!T Trolley stops

MVE project (open 2005)

Bus routes


Page 3

3 Existing Conditions A number of planning and transportation studies have been conducted on the transit mobility issues of Mid-City. A brief discussion of each follows.

3.1 Area Planning Studies

Mid-Cities Community Plan – August 1998

This plan noted the high density nature of Mid-City the major activity centers nearby, and the fact that a large percentage of the population is transit dependent. The Transit Vision stated for the area was:

“an efficient transit system that features fixed rail, electric buses, and intra-community shuttles”

The transit goals for the area were stated as follows:

▪ To provide accessible public transit service for all residents, employees, shoppers, and visitors to Mid-City.

▪ To provide a high level of public transit service along major corridors.

▪ To provide direct public transit access to major regional employment centers.

The recommendations for transit were as follows:

▪ Provide fixed rail on I-15 as soon as possible (note: light rail was being studied at the time; the corridor is now planned for high speed Bus Rapid Transit).

▪ Reevaluate the feasibility of fixed rail transit along El Cajon Boulevard or adjacent east-west streets.

▪ Consider the expansion of express bus service in Mid-City, linking the population centers to major activity centers in San Diego.

▪ Enhance existing urban level bus service to the extent possible by increasing the frequency of service, adding express service, reducing headway between buses, allowing buses to pre-empt traffic signals, and improving transit stops and surfacing of streets along bus routes.

▪ Consider the feasibility of restoring the fixed rail service on University Avenue between I-805 and Euclid Avenue, or provide a “rubber tire trolley” service.

▪ Provide shelters on all transit corridors.


Page 4

Greater North Park Community Plan – November 1986

Greater North Park Community Plan includes public transit objectives as follows:

▪ Provide a high level of public transportation service linking Greater North Park with Mission Valley and downtown.

▪ Evaluate the feasibility of fixed rail transit service to the community.

Uptown Community Plan – February 1988

The Uptown Community Plan includes the following public transit objectives:

▪ Provide a high level of transit service and promote usage.

▪ Establish a focal point of transit service within the community. This plan identifies the 4th and 5th Street corridors as high intensity public transit corridors where density should be enhanced to promote better access by residents to transit. This corridor is immediately west of the Mid–City study area.

Mid-City Bus Study – April 1999

The purpose of this study was to analyze the current transit service and needs in the Mid-City area and to recommend alternatives to improve service. Transit issues were identified as follows:

▪ The Mid-City area has a strong grid network of line-haul routes and crosstown bus routes, with one peak period express route connecting to Downtown San Diego.

▪ There are no unmet needs in terms of service coverage.

▪ Travel data suggests a need for transit service to Kearny Mesa, an important work trip destination for Mid-City residents. Current transit connections are either very circuitous and/or require a transfer at the Fashion Valley Transit City.

▪ Travel time is a major concern of transit riders. The El Cajon Boulevard corridor is an excellent candidate for a priority corridor demonstration project. Such a project offers maximum benefits if done at the corridor level instead of only at one or two intersections.

▪ Automated Vehicle Location technology would provide additional benefits in ensuring on-time performance and reducing costs if integrated with a priority treatment scheme for buses.

Recommendations of the study were as follows:

▪ Implement express bus service on El Cajon Boulevard between downtown and SDSU in the “peak of the peak” period.


Page 5

▪ Conduct a signal priority demonstration project along El Cajon Boulevard through Mid-City.

▪ Provide a new express bus service to Kearny Mesa and continuing to the University City/Sorrento Mesa area.

▪ Extend Route 8 to the proposed new transit plaza on El Cajon Boulevard at I-15.

▪ Reroute service along along Fairmount Avenue to connect to the trolley.

▪ Provide streetscape improvements at current on-street transfer locations.

Mission Valley East Bus Study - 2003

The purpose of the Mission Valley East (MVE) Bus Study was to identify potential changes to the existing fixed route bus network serving MVE stations to enhance access from surrounding communities, modify the transit network as needed to reduce duplication with the new trolley line, and improve travel throughout the affected communities. The following recommendations for route revisions were made:

1. Discontinue Route 81 and establish a new shuttle route between Fashion Valley and Grantville, including new service along Camino del Rio South.

2. Provide weekend service on Route 27 between Pacific Beach and Fashion Valley,

3. Reroute Route 1 to use Montezuma east of SDSU

4. Reroute Route 936 to terminate at the 70th Street Station

5. Streamline Route 13 via Fairmount Avenue and replace the Allied Gardens–Del Cerro loop with new Route 13.

6. Truncate Route 15 at the El Cajon Transit Center and replace service east of the transit center with a new County route.

7. Add frequency on Routes 13 and 936 during peak periods.

University Avenue Mobility Plan – June 2004

The University Avenue Mobility Plan (UAMP) analyzed existing and future transit needs of University Avenue residents and visitors in the context of a plan to calm traffic, improve pedestrian safety, and beautify University Avenue through North Park. The transit portion of the UAMP study evaluated how best to use the transit lanes recommended in the new street design and how to modify the existing bus routes to provide improved service.

In this plan, consideration was given to a variety of transit priority strategies to improve service attractiveness and to make more efficient use of resources. The plan recommends measures such as bus stop consolidation, traffic signal coordination, bus lanes, and limited stop operations These measures would enhance the speed of transit vehicles using University Avenue, thereby providing better service and freeing up


Page 6

resources that can be used to improve frequencies. The study evaluated two service options including local and express services along the corridor. Further evaluation is required to determine the extent and frequency of these local and express services.

MTS Comprehensive Operational Analysis

The Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) is currently undertaking a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) of the system. The COA is intended to address the following issues:

▪ Financial Constraints: The need for reduced subsidies of $13 million in the immediate future to reverse a budget shortfall

▪ Transit Facility Development: Respond to development of new transit facilities in the region.

▪ Regional Service Concept: The development of the regional service concept will connect the COA recommendations with the RTP and ensure an integrated transit network and an effective transition to the approved TransNet transit projects.

▪ Service Strategies: The service strategies will be developed for the specific market geographies based on the previous market segment analysis conducted for MTS and SANDAG.

▪ Balancing Productivity and Coverage: The COA will address the competing needs of maximizing service coverage versus providing services where they are most utilizied.

▪ Travel Demand/Market Basis: The study will develop a regional service concept that acknowledges that transit cannot serve all areas and markets well, and must focus on areas where it can operate effectively.

3.2 Mid-City Existing Conditions This section of the report is broken into three areas to focus on the travel needs of the Mid-City area. These areas are:

▪ Market Assessment ▪ Current Transit Service ▪ Key Findings and Opportunities

3.2.1 Market Assessment

Land Use and Topography

The Mid-City area is a vibrant section of the city comprised of a variety of diverse communities. Land use within the Mid-City study area as illustrated on Exhibit 2 is a combination of residential and commercial/retail together with San Diego State University. The neighborhoods adjacent to the major travel corridors, University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard, have medium to high residential densities. The

!̂

!̂

?À

?Þ %s

?À

?ÀAù

!_

!_

Aù

%s

!_

!a

!_

!_

%s

?Þ

%s

?Þ

?Þ

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

ADAMS AV6T

H A

V

30 T

H S

T

UPAS ST

PAR

K BL

PAR

K BL

PAR

K B L

RIC

HM

ON

D S

T

TE X

A S S

T

HOM

E AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

EU

CLI

D A

V

HOME A

V

EUC

LID

AV

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

54T

H S

T 5

4TH

ST

EU

CL I

D A

V

47T

H S

T MARKET ST

PER

SHIN

G D

R

FER

N S

T 3

0TH

ST

BROADWAY

LAUREL ST

WASHINGTON ST

MONTEZUMA RD

COLLEGE AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

43R

D S

T

70T

H S

T

MAS

SAC

HU

SET T

S A V

!̂LINDA VISTA RD

FRIARS RD

°0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4

Miles


Exhibit 2Land Use in San Diego, 2000

Low-density residentialAgricultureExtraction, construction and vacantIndustrialTransportation and utilities

CommercialWater and floodwaysPublic facilities and institutions

Mixed urbanOpen space and recreation

Medium- to high-density residential


Page 8

commercial areas are focused largely along the east-west corridors (El Cajon Boulevard, University Avenue, and Adams Avenue), and along the north-south 30th Street. The northern and eastern sections of the study area are primarily lower density residential areas, except near SDSU, where higher density student residences are prevalent. North of the study area, Mission Valley has a mixture of retail/commercial, industrial, and residential uses. Immediately to the south of the study area, lower density residential and open space uses are prevalent.

The Mid-City mesa is separated from Mission Valley on the north and areas to the south by sharp elevation drops that allow limited roadway access. There are canyons on the south and west side of Mid-City that isolate individual communities and limit access from adjacent neighborhoods, limiting options for a complete network of regional and local transit services. Population Within the Mid-City study area, the population density is concentrated in a 1¼ mile band centering on the University/El Cajon corridors between Park Boulevard and 54th Street (see Exhibit 3). There are a few other areas with dense population near SDSU. The northern fringe and the areas east of 54th Street generally contain lower density residential development. Population growth is expected to occur through redevelopment at higher densities (see Exhibit 4). Employment

Except for the SDSU area and the western areas of Hillcrest and North Park, employment density is low (see Exhibit 5). Retail employment is concentrated along the frontages of El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue. Future employment in Mid-City is expected to increase in density, particularly between Park Boulevard and I-805 and in the vicinity of I-15. Also, areas on the eastern fringe of the study area are expected to accommodate increased employment density (see Exhibit 6). Many residents of leave the Mid-City area for work, making fast travel to regional employment centers a key element for transit success.

Travel Demand

Travel demand to and from the Mid-City is significant. Trips have been categorized by work, school, and other and are shown on Exhibits 7, 8, and 9, respectively. Work Trips (Exhibit 7). Exhibit 7 illustrates the two-way work trip travel demand between Mid-City and areas within San Diego County. Work destinations (197,000) are spread across the County with the key areas of attraction as follows:

▪ Centre City 7.8% ▪ University City 5.0% ▪ Mission Valley 4.4% ▪ Kearny Mesa 4.2%

!̂

!̂

?À

?Þ %s

?À

?ÀAù

!_

!_

Aù

%s

!_

!a

!_

!_

%s

?Þ

%s

?Þ

?Þ

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

ADAMS AV6T

H A

V

30 T

H S

T

UPAS ST

PAR

K BL

PAR

K BL

PAR

K B L

RIC

HM

ON

D S

T

TE X

A S S

T

HOM

E AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

EU

CLI

D A

V

HOME A

V

EUC

LID

AV

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

54T

H S

T 5

4TH

ST

EU

CL I

D A

V

47T

H S

T MARKET ST

PER

SHIN

G D

R

FER

N S

T 3

0TH

ST

BROADWAY

LAUREL ST

WASHINGTON ST

MONTEZUMA RD

COLLEGE AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

43R

D S

T

70T

H S

T

MAS

SAC

HU

SET T

S A V

!̂LINDA VISTA RD

FRIARS RD

°0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4

Miles


Mid-City study area

Exhibit 3Population DensityResidents per acre by Master Geographic Reference Area, 2000

Fewer than 15

15 - 29

30 - 44

45 or more

!̂

!̂

?À

?Þ %s

?À

?ÀAù

!_

!_

Aù

%s

!_

!a

!_

!_

%s

?Þ

%s

?Þ

?Þ

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

ADAMS AV6T

H A

V

30 T

H S

T

UPAS ST

PAR

K BL

PAR

K B L

TE X

A S S

T

HOM

E AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

EU

CLI

D A

V

HOME A

V

EUC

LID

AV

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

54T

H S

T 5

4TH

ST

EU

CL I

D A

V

47T

H S

T MARKET ST

PER

SHIN

G D

R

FER

N S

T 3

0TH

ST

BROADWAY

LAUREL ST

WASHINGTON ST

MONTEZUMA RD

COLLEGE AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

43R

D S

T

70T

H S

T

MAS

SAC

HU

SET T

S A V

!̂LINDA VISTA RD

FRIARS RD

°0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles


Mid-City study area

Exhibit 4Population Density, 2030Predicted number of residents per acre by U.S. Census Block Group, 2030

Fewer than 15

15 - 29

30 - 44

45 or more

!̂

!̂

?À

?Þ %s

?À

?ÀAù

!_

!_

Aù

%s

!_

!a

!_

!_

%s

?Þ

%s

?Þ

?Þ

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

ADAMS AV6T

H A

V

30 T

H S

T

UPAS ST

PAR

K BL

PAR

K BL

PAR

K B L

RIC

HM

ON

D S

T

TE X

A S S

T

HOM

E AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

EU

CLI

D A

V

HOME A

V

EUC

LID

AV

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

54T

H S

T 5

4TH

ST

EU

CL I

D A

V

47T

H S

T MARKET ST

PER

SHIN

G D

R

FER

N S

T 3

0TH

ST

BROADWAY

LAUREL ST

WASHINGTON ST

MONTEZUMA RD

COLLEGE AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

43R

D S

T

70T

H S

T

MAS

SAC

HU

SET T

S A V

!̂LINDA VISTA RD

FRIARS RD

°0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4

Miles


Mid-City study area

Exhibit 5Employment DensityJobs per acre by U.S. Census Block Group, 2000

Fewer than 10

10 - 19

20 - 29

30 or more

!̂

!̂

?À

?Þ %s

?À

?ÀAù

!_

!_

Aù

%s

!_

!a

!_

!_

%s

?Þ

%s

?Þ

?Þ

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

ADAMS AV6T

H A

V

30 T

H S

T

UPAS ST

PAR

K BL

PAR

K B L

TE X

A S S

T

HOM

E AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

EU

CLI

D A

V

HOME A

V

EUC

LID

AV

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

54T

H S

T 5

4TH

ST

EU

CL I

D A

V

47T

H S

T MARKET ST

PER

SHIN

G D

R

FER

N S

T 3

0TH

ST

BROADWAY

LAUREL ST

WASHINGTON ST

MONTEZUMA RD

COLLEGE AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

43R

D S

T

70T

H S

T

MAS

SAC

HU

SET T

S A V

!̂LINDA VISTA RD

FRIARS RD

°0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles


Mid-City study area

Exhibit 6Employment Density, 2030Predicted number of jobs per acre by U.S. Census Block Group, 2030

0 - 4

5 - 9

10 - 14

15 or more

UNIVERSITY CITY

KEARNY MESA

LA MESA

SANTEE

CHULA VISTA WESTHARBOR AND NAVAL STATION

MIDWAY / AIRPORT

CENTER CITYSKYLINE /

PARADISE HILLS

MIRAMAR

WEST NAVAJO

TIERRASANTA

LINDA VISTA

MISSION VALLEY

MID-CITY EAST

SOUTHEAST SAN DIEGO

SERRA MESA

SORRENTO VALLEYDaily home-to-work trips that begin or end in Mid-City, 2000

°

0 1 2 3 4Miles


1,000

2,500

5,000

7,500

Center City 15,387 7.8%University City 9,743 5.0%Mission Valley 8,683 4.4%Kearny Mesa 8,177 4.2%La Mesa 6,395 3.3%Southeast San Diego 6,136 3.1%Internal trips 6,037 3.1%Midway / Airport 5,875 3.0%Harbor & Naval Station 5,211 2.7%Chula Vista West 4,955 2.5%Miramar 4,759 2.4%Sorrento Valley 4,615 2.3%Linda Vista 4,506 2.3%Skyline / Paradise Hills 4,387 2.2%West Navajo 3,932 2.0%Santee 3,912 2.0%Serra Mesa 3,786 1.9%Mid-City East 3,458 1.8%Tierrasanta 1,138 0.6%Other neighborhoods 85,604 43.5%

196,697 100.0%

Exhibit 7


Page 14

Other key destinations are La Mesa, southeast San Diego, the Midway/airport area, and internal trips within Mid-City itself. College Trips (Exhibit 8). Travel from Mid-City to colleges include City College in downtown San Diego and SDSU in the northeast area of Mid-City. With over 30,000 students SDSU is a major trip attractor from throughout the region. Exhibit 8 shows student travel demand to and from Mid-City. Over 30 percent of the overall trips (35,000) are between Mid-City and just eight zones:

▪ Linda Vista 8.7% ▪ Downtown SD 7.9% ▪ La Mesa 4.2% ▪ SE San Diego 3.1%

▪ West Navajo 3.0% ▪ Universal City 2.4% ▪ Mid-City East 2.4% ▪ Skyline/Paradise Hills 2.1%

Each of these zones generate over 700 trips per day, with the largest two being over 2,500 trips per day. The remainder of the trips are spread throughout the County. Other Trips (Exhibit 9). The vast majority of the 555,000 “other” (non-work) trips on Mid-City streets start and end within the Mid-City area. The following top five zones attracting “other” trips to or from Mid-City are directly contiguous to Mid-City, further emphasizing that people tend to stay close to home when making other trips.

▪ Mission Valley 5.2% ▪ La Mesa 5.2% ▪ Mid-City East 4.8% ▪ SE San Diego 4.7% ▪ Downtown San Diego 4.3%

This data suggests the need for an effective Mid-City transit network of corridor, local, and neighborhood services that facilitates internal mobility effective connections to the regional transit network, including the trolley, I-15 BRT, and SR 163 express bus.

3.2.2 Existing Transit Services

Transit Network

The transit network within Mid-City is largely grid oriented, in conformance with the street network (see Exhibit 10). The network makes strong connections between Mid-City and downtown San Diego, and provides good access to the downtown trolley stations. The east-west corridors have higher service levels (15/30 minutes) than the north-south corridors (30/60 minutes), due to the concentration of residential densities and commercial development along the east-west corridors This disparity in frequency diminishes the effectiveness of the transit network grid, limiting both local mobility and access to points north and south of Mid-City. Table 3.1 summarizes the services in Mid-City.

UNIVERSITY CITY

KEARNY MESA

LA MESA

SANTEE


MIDWAY / AIRPORT

CENTER CITY

SKYLINE /PARADISE HILLS

MIRAMAR

WEST NAVAJO

TIERRASANTA

LINDA VISTA

MISSION VALLEY

MID-CITY EAST

SOUTHEAST SAN DIEGO

SERRA MESA

Exhibit 8Daily college trips that begin or end at SDSU, 2000

°

0 1 2 3 4Miles


10

25

50

75

100

UNIVERSITY CITY

KEARNY MESA

LA MESA

SANTEE


MIDWAY / AIRPORT

CENTER CITYSKYLINE /

PARADISE HILLS

MIRAMAR

WEST NAVAJO

TIERRASANTA

LINDA VISTA

MISSION VALLEY

MID-CITY EAST

SOUTHEAST SAN DIEGO

SERRA MESA

SORRENTO VALLEYDaily trips, other than work or schoolthat begin or end in Mid-City, 2000

°

0 1 2 3 4Miles


1,000

5,000

10,000

50,000

Exhibit 9

Internal Trips 555,399 40.0%Mission Valley 72,875 5.2%La Mesa 71,683 5.2%Mid-City East 66,170 4.8%Southeast San Diego 65,014 4.7%Center City 59,178 4.3%Midway / Airport 47,346 3.4%West Navajo 31,647 2.3%Linda Vista 31,188 2.2%Kearny Mesa 26,107 1.9%Skyline / Paradise Hills 21,181 1.5%Serra Mesa 18,692 1.3%Chula Vista West 16,304 1.2%University City 13,595 1.0%Santee 11,138 0.8%Tierrasanta 9,993 0.7%Harbor and Naval Station 9,642 0.7%Miramar 5,248 0.4%Sorrento Valley 3,011 0.2%Other Neighborhoods 268,283 19.3%

1,390,101 100.0%

!T

!T

!T !T!T

!T

!T

!T

!T

!T!T

!T

!T

!T !T

!T!T!T

!T!T

!T

!T

!T

!T

!T

!T

!T!T

!T

!̂

!̂

?À

?Þ %s

?À

?À

Aù

!_

!_

Aù

%s

!_

!a

!_

!_

%s

?Þ

%s

?Þ

?Þ

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

ADAMS AV6T

H A

V

30T

H S

T

UPAS ST

PAR

K BL

TE X

AS S

T

HO

ME

AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV EU

CLI

D A

V

HOME AV

EUC

LID

AV

UNIVERSITY AV EL CAJON BL

54T

H S

T 5

4TH

ST

EU

CL I

D A

V

47T

H S

T

MARKET ST

PER

SHIN

G D

R

30T

H S

T

BROADWAY

LAUREL ST

WASHINGTON ST

MONTEZUMA RD

COLLEGE AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

43R

D S

T

70 T

H S

T

MA S

SAC

HU

SETT

S A V

7, 70

1, 6, 15, 115

1111

, 990

908

1, 15, 115 1, 15, 115

7,908 7, 908

1, 15, 115

111,

3, 2

5

2, 6

, 96

52,

62,

6

7

6A, 965

7, 908, 990

3, 16,908

33

66

1311

, 13

13

1, 15, 115

6B

9657, 908, 965

13

13

13

13

965

965

965

15, 2

0, 2

0C, 1

15, 8

10, 8

20, 8

50, 8

60

2

2

15,

115,

9901,

11

,99

011

16

40,

830,

96

0

40, 7

0, 83

0, 96

0

7, 70,908

965

965

965

13

2

908

5, 9

5595

595

595

5

5

115

1, 15

115,

93

6

1, 15, 115

11, 13, 81, 955

11, 13, 81

11 11

936

7

7, 70

7,70

7, 70

70,876

936

81 1, 15, 81

936

81

13,115

13, 1

15,

936

875,

876

5, 936

936

876

151, 15,876

1,15A, 876

81,

936

7

81

13 40

81

13,927

13

81

6, 13, 8113, 81

692

8

25

20, 25,

210, 810,

820, 850,

860, 980

27, 81

44 20, 4

1, 2

10, 9

80,

990

256

1, 3

, 25,

990

40, 7

0,

830

40, 70,

830

6

960

5, 165, 1640, 70, 830

5, 6,16 6

7

16

13, 1

65, 13

916

5

5

955

960

4

916

916

4

876

916

876

876,916

856,916, 936

856, 936

875,876

5, 1

6,95

5, 9

60

SDSU11, 13,81, 115,936, 955Fashion Valley 6, 13, 20,

25, 27, 41, 81, 928, 990

College Grove5, 856, 916, 936

Euclid Avenue3, 4, 5, 13, 16, 603, 916, 955, 960

1 ST

A V

MARKET ST

America Plaza2, 4, 7, 15, 20, 40, 70, 210, 850, 860, 901, 902, 922, 929, 932, 992, Coaster

13, 9

27

5

505, 50

445

1340, 11

5

13,

40

40

13

928

13 13

13830,

960

830,

960

927

25,41

44

44

25

2541,44

41

27

81

6,81

6

Old Town5, 6, 9, 26,28, 34, 35,44, 81, 908,Coaster

5

854

81,854

Exhibit 10Transit Routes Serving Mid-City Study Area, 2004

°0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles


Mid-City study area

Bus routes

Orange Line

Blue Line

Coaster

!T Trolley stops


Page 18

TABLE 3.1

Transit Demand

Exhibit 11 shows demographic data that predicts residents’ likelihood to use transit. The Residential Transit Oriented Index (RTOI) condenses five demographic characteristics associated with transit usage: residential density; zero vehicle households; population in poverty; youth population; and senior population.1 The southern and western portions of the study area have a high propensity for transit use, while the northern and eastern areas have an average propensity.

1 For each variable, a score is assigned to each census block group based upon how that variable compares to the countywide average. The score is derived using a comparative probability estimation method. A composite score is then obtained for each census block group by summing the scores for each of the four individual variables. These composite scores are then ranked and assigned to one of five transit orientation groups (very high, high, moderate, low, and other) based upon how each compares to the average score for the county as a whole. A higher score typically reflects a greater propensity to use transit.

Existing Service Frequency

AM Peak Midday PM

Peak Eve Midday Eve Midday Eve

REGIONAL830 3 trips 3 trips960 15-50 3020 15 15 15 30/60 30 30/60 30 30/60

CORRIDOR15/115 15 15 15 30 30 60 30 607 6 12 6 20/30 12 30 12 30908 15 15 15 15/30 30 30 30 3070 30 30

LOCAL1 30 30 30 45/60 30 302 10 11 11 30 15 30 15 306 30 30 30 60 30 60 30 6011 10/15 15 15 30/60 20 40 20 4013 30 30 30 60 30 60 30 60936 30 30 30 60 30 60 30 60955 15 15 15 30 30 30/60 30 30/60

NEIGHBORHOOD965 30 30 30

Note: time in minutes; periods with multiple times indicate change in frequency mid-period.

Weekday Saturday Sunday

Route

!̂

!̂

?À

?Þ %s

?À

?ÀAù

!_

!_

Aù

%s

!_

!a

!_

!_

%s

?Þ

%s

?Þ

?Þ

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

ADAMS AV6T

H A

V

30 T

H S

T

UPAS ST

PAR

K BL

PAR

K BL

PAR

K B L

RIC

HM

ON

D S

T

TE X

A S S

T

HOM

E AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

EU

CLI

D A

V

HOME A

V

EUC

LID

AV

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

54T

H S

T 5

4TH

ST

EU

CL I

D A

V

47T

H S

T MARKET ST

PER

SHIN

G D

R

FER

N S

T 3

0TH

ST

BROADWAY

LAUREL ST

WASHINGTON ST

MONTEZUMA RD

COLLEGE AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

43R

D S

T

70T

H S

T

MAS

SAC

HU

SET T

S A V

!̂LINDA VISTA RD

FRIARS RD

°0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4

Miles


Mid-City study area

Exhibit 11Residential Transit Orientation IndexLikelihood that residents will use mass transitbased on housing density, zero-vehicle households, senior and youth population and persons in povertyby Master Geographic Reference Area, 2000

-2 (unlikely to use)

0

2 (likely to use)-1

1


Page 20

Table 3.2 summarizes the passenger boardings and alightings on Mid-City transit routes. Over 26,000 passengers per day board and alight buses in Mid-City. The University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard corridors dominate the demand, accounting for 39 percent and 26 percent of passenger activity, respectively. Table 3.2A breaks down the passengers traveling east-west and north-south in the Mid-City area. Over 70 percent of the passenger boarding and alighting in the area are traveling east-west.

1 1,321 860 2,181 1 826 1,190 2,01615 1,685 1,176 2,861 15 1,052 2,184 3,236

115 1,140 641 1,781 115 796 918 1,714 6,823 6,966

7 4,950 2,751 7,701 7 2,408 5,202 7,610908 1,753 676 2,429 908 775 1,690 2,465

70 197 14 211 70 16 137 15310,341 10,228

11 705 648 1,353 11 691 1,420 2,111

2 1,290 537 1,827 2 555 1,409 1,9646 755 827 1,582 6 322 693 1,015

3,409 0

13 605 468 1,073 13 379 559 938

955 1,371 261 1,632 955 258 1,262 1,520

936 534 222 756 936 219 505 724

81 226 472 698 81 251 428 679

40 17 1 18 40 2 34 36

990 74 4 78 990 43 3 46

965 253 253 965 292 292

TOTAL 16,876 9,558 26,434 TOTAL 8,593 17,926 26,519

TotalRoute Inbound OutboundRoute Inbound Outbound Total

Table 3.2 - Mid-City Passenger Ridership

Passengers Boarding Passengers Alighting

DIR. INB % OUTB % INB % OUTB %

E-W 11,751 69.6% 6,766 70.8% 6,564 76.4% 12,741 71.1%N-S 5,125 30.4% 2,792 29.2% 2,029 23.6% 5,185 28.9%

Total 16,876 100% 9,558 100% 8,593 100% 17,926 100%

Table 3.2A - Mid-City Passenger Ridership

Passengers AlightingPassengers Boarding


Page 21

Exhibit 12 illustrates transit ridership by bus stop for the routes in Mid-City. In addition, passenger activity on Park Boulevard, 30th Street, Adams Avenue and at SDSU is also significant.

The Mid-City routes have a high level of turnover in ridership, indicating strong internal travel demand.

▪ Route 1 – Along El Cajon Boulevard, 48 percent of passengers are traveling locally within the study area.

▪ Route 7 – Along University Avenue, 43 percent of passengers are traveling locally within the study area.

▪ Route 908 – 27 percent of ridership is local to Mid-City east of Park Boulevard with another 40 percent boarding and alighting on the route between Park Boulevard and the Pacific Highway (largely in Hillcrest).

▪ Route 2 – Along 30th Street, 46 percent of passengers board and alight locally between Myrtle and Adams Avenue.

▪ Route 6 – Nearly the entire passenger load turns over within Mid-City between 30th/Myrtle and Texas/Madison.

▪ Route 13 - Passenger loads virtually turn over within Mid-City between Myrtle/Fairmount and SDSU.

Table 3.3, which follows, illustrates ridership on University Avenue. Only 4 percent of the ridership travels east of 69th Street, and only 21 percent of ridership travels east of Fairmount Avenue. This trend is addressed by higher frequency service in the western portion of the corridor, with extra service on Route 7 west of 33rd Street, and extra service on Route 908 west of Fairmount. Downtown-destined passengers amount to 35-40 percent of total ridership. This trend does not support the current provision of express service from La Mesa and the eastern part of the study area to downtown (via Route 70, which uses I-15), while the major concentration of passengers along the western part of the corridor have only local bus service.

Table 3.4 illustrates the segment ridership for El Cajon Boulevard. Only 8 percent of the route ridership travels east of 73rd Street. Similar to the University corridor demands, downtown-destined passengers amount to about 20 percent of the total passengers boarding along the route (a significantly lower percentage than the University corridor).

As noted earlier, the UAMP study recommended that an improved transit service incorporating stop consolidation and transit priority measures be implemented along University Avenue. The El Cajon Boulevard Showcase Project is intended to provide similar benefits in that corridor.

!T

!T

!T !T!T

!T

!T

!T

!T

!T!T

!T

!T

!T !T

!T!T!T

!T!T

!T

!T

!T

!T

!T

!T

!T!T

!T

!T

!T

!T

!T

!̂

!̂

?À

?Þ %s

?À

?ÀAù

!_

!_

Aù

%s

!_

!a

!_

!_

%s

?Þ

%s

?Þ

?Þ

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

ADAMS AV

6TH

AV

30 T

H S

T

UPAS ST

PAR

K BL

PAR

K BL

PA R

K BL

RIC

HM

ON

D S

T

TEX

AS S

T

HO

ME

AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

EU

CLI

D A

V

HOME A

V

EUC

LID

AV

UNIVERSITY AV

EL CAJON BL

54T

H S

T 5

4TH

ST

EU

CL I

D A

V

47T

H S

T

MARKET ST

PER

SHIN

G D

R

FER

N S

T 3

0TH

ST

BROADWAY

LAUREL ST

WASHINGTON ST

MONTEZUMA RD

COLLEGE AV

FAI

RM

OU

NT

AV

43R

D S

T

70 T

H S

T

MAS

S AC

HU

SETT

S AV

!̂LINDA VISTA RD

FRIARS RD

°0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles


Mid-City study area

Exhibit 12Daily WeekdayBoardings and AlightingsMid-City Study Area, 2004

By stop, combined inbound and outbound Coaster

Orange Line

Blue Line OnsOffs

750 500 250

!T Trolley stops

Green Line (open 2005)


Page 23

Ons Offs Ons Offs Ons Offs

La Mesa to 69th 7 426 117 137 438 563 5554.0% 4.0%

69th to 54th 7 640 145 159 728 799 87370 26 0 2 21 28 21

Total 666 145 161 749 827 8945.9% 5.5%

54th to Fairmont 7 1,049 455 467 1,122 1,516 1,57770 82 3 3 57 85 60

Total 1,131 458 470 1,179 1,601 1,63711.5% 12.0%

Fairmont to 33rd 7 1,223 706 764 1,087 1,987 1,793908 1,005 154 215 968 1,220 1,12270 88 13 9 59 97 72

Total 2,316 873 988 2,114 3,304 2,98723.7% 21.9%

33rd to Park 7 1,507 949 982 1,520 2,489 2,469908 594 389 334 612 928 1,001Total 2,101 1,338 1,316 2,132 3,417 3,470

24.4% 25.4%

Park to Centre City 7 806 3,189 3,457 1,071 4,263 4,26030.5% 31.2%

7 5,651 5,561 5,966 5,966 11,617 11,527908 1,599 543 549 1,580 2,148 2,12370 196 16 14 137 210 153

Corridor Total 7,446 6,120 6,529 7,683 13,975 13,803

Inbound OutboundRouteSegment

Total Route

Total

Table 3.3 - University Avenue Corridor Ridership


Page 24

Ons Offs Ons Offs Ons Offs

El Cajon T.C. to La Mesa 1 15 411 99 166 576 577 675

115 568 339 342 628 910 967Total 0 0 0 0 577 675

0 5.0% 5.9%

La Mesa to 73rd 1 15 226 133 88 113 314 246

115Total 0 0 0 0 314 246

2.7% 2.2%

73rd to College 1 275 24 14 173 289 19715 185 146 143 248 328 394

115Total 185 146 143 248 617 591

5.4% 5.2%

College to Fairmont 1 490 253 192 449 682 70215 562 292 411 820 973 1,112

115 499 185 151 350 650 535Total 1,061 477 562 1,170 1,623 1,647

14.2% 14.5%

Fairmont to 30th 1 262 207 222 233 484 44015 397 225 413 525 810 750

115 327 244 169 273 496 517Total 724 469 582 798 1,306 1,267

11.4% 11.1%

30 to University 1 191 251 264 222 455 47315 245 207 363 330 608 537

115 202 186 166 166 368 352Total 447 393 529 496 976 889

8.5% 7.8%

University to Downtown 1 471 954 838 453 1,309 1,40715 114 1,038 1,324 244 1,438 1,282

115 77 719 672 83 749 802Total 191 1,757 1,996 327 2,187 2,084

19.1% 18.3%

Route Total 1 1,689 1,689 1,530 1,530 3,219 3,21915 2,140 2,140 2,908 2,856 5,048 4,996

115 1,673 1,673 1,500 1,500 3,173 3,173

Corridor Total 5,502 5,502 5,938 5,886 11,440 11,388

Note: Route 115 joins the El Cajon corridor at College Boulevard. Route 15 begins at 73rd Street.

Inbound Outbound Total

Table 3.4 - El Cajon Boulevard Corridor Ridership

RouteSegment


Page 25

3.2.3 Route Performance

The greatest transit ridership in Mid-City is along the University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard corridors. The north-south routes (with the exception of Route 2 between Adams Avenue and downtown and Routes 5/955 south of University) carry a limited number of passengers.

Public complaints about bus bunching on El Cajon Boulevard appear to be valid. The overlap of Routes 1, 15, and 115 do not always provide for even headways. Buses are also scheduled to operate frequently at peak periods, causing bunching when any bus is noticeably early or late.

Passenger counts do not indicate any overloading in the El Cajon corridor. On the contrary, there is ample service for the current demand. For the most part, average loads are well below seated capacity; however, overcrowding on a given bus can occur when one or more buses are running late. Improved bus speed and schedule reliability, along with a more even service headway,would help address these problems of bunching and occasional overcrowding.

There are 95 bus routes operating in central and south San Diego County. Sixteen of these routes operate in the Mid-City area. Table 3.5 shows the performance ranking of the Mid–City routes relative to the system as a whole.

Passengers Per Revenue Hour

Passengers Per Revenue Mile

Subsidy per Psgr Boarding

Route Rank (out of 95) Rank (out of 95) Rank (out of 95)1 10 6 16

15 21 19 25115 32 36 38

7 3 3 3908 14 7 470 39 35 7311 20 13 242 6 5 106 33 12 29

13 27 32 32955 7 9 8936 31 21 2281 45 42 5140 60 70 70990 83 90 86965 84 74 82

Table 3.5 - Mid-City Route Rankings


Page 26

The key routes in Mid-City are among the top performers in the MTS system. For each of the three measures considered, there are ten Mid-City routes in the top third system-wide. The poor performing routes in Mid-City are either express services that operate in peak periods (Routes 40 and 990) or a shuttle route (Route 965).

3.2.4 Opportunities and Challenges

A number of new and planned transit services present opportunities for Mid-City.

▪ The opening of the Mission Valley East Trolley (Green Line) provides the opportunity to reorient transit services to improve both service directness and access to the Trolley, SDSU, and Mission Valley.

▪ The planned development of the I-15 transit stations at El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue will allow passengers in the Mid-City area to access the planned I-15 BRT service and reach a variety of key destinations, especially employment centers along the I-15 corridor.

▪ The proposed El Cajon Boulevard Showcase Project to develop either full BRT or Rapid Bus service between SDSU and downtown will improve service to downtown by providing faster travel times and better schedule reliability.

There are also challenges:

▪ Improved frequencies and new services must be made within budget constraints, at least in the short term.

▪ Implementation of proposed Rapid Bus service on University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard will require both funding and support.

▪ While the reauthorization of TransNet provides funding for the planned I-15 transit stations at El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue, no other facilities for Mid-City are currently budgeted.

3.3 Existing Condition Conclusions

Goals for the network plan fall into three major categories – connections to the regional transit network, internal travel, and service quality. Objectives for each are defined below.

1. Connection to the regional transit network

▪ Improve connections to regional services - Reduce corridor travel times - Increase direct Mid-City service connecting to regional hubs - Develop additional regional hubs


Page 27

▪ Minimize connecting times - Increase service frequencies on key routes - Reduce need to transfer

▪ Improve connections to: - Major job centers in Centre City, Mission Valley, Kearny Mesa,

University City, Sorrento Valley, and Southeast San Diego - Schools – SDSU, City College, UCSD, USD, high schools - Recreation – beaches, sports, entertainment

▪ Improve access to Mid-City from other areas - Develop two-way regional and corridor transit serving Mid-City

2. Internal Mid-City travel ▪ Need to improve internal Mid-City circulation

- Improve core grid of local service (address lower frequency of north-south service)

- Improve access to major Mid-City destinations including SDSU, senior high and middle schools, and community centers

▪ Stations should be within reasonable walk distance of housing and activity centers where feasible

3. Service quality ▪ Reduce passenger waiting times

- Improve frequencies ▪ Reduce travel delay (speed up travel)

- Provide BRT enhancements (signal priority, reserved bus lanes where appropriate, queue jumpers, consolidated bus stops)

- More low floor transit vehicles (for faster boarding) - Streamlined and reoriented routes

▪ Improve service reliability - Improve scheduling to minimize bus bunching and overcrowding - Use automatic vehicle location (AVL) for improved schedule reliability

and passenger information - Improve passenger information

4 Mid-City Transit Network Plan SANDAG’s Transit First program identifies four types of transit service to meet four distinct types of travel.

▪ Regional Services (Yellow Car Routes) - Long distance travel - Highest speeds with fewest stops - Oriented around major regional destinations

▪ Corridor Services (Red Car Routes) - Arterial-based inter-community travel


Page 28

- Moderate to high speed with stops spced ½ to 1 mile apart - Oriented around both community and regional destinations

▪ Local Services (Blue Car Routes) - Provides basic community mobility - Low to medium speeds with frequent stops - Provides access to the regional and corridor network

▪ Neighborhood Services (Green Car Routes) - Provides neighborhood circulation, connections to the network, and

coverage to areas that are otherwise unserved - Low speeds with frequent stops

A recommended service plan for Mid City is described below.

4.1 Proposed Regional Service (Exhibit 13)

The proposed Mid-City Transit Network Plan includes the following regional services that are already programmed as part of the Regional Transportation Plan:

▪ Three Regional Services

- I-15 BRT service between Escondido and downtown San Diego - I-805/I-15/SR52 BRT between South Bay and Kearny Mesa–UTC–

Sorrento Valley - SR163 Express bus to Fashion Valley and Kearny Mesa

▪ Regional/Corridor Transit Stations - University Avenue/I-15 - El Cajon Boulevard/I-15

No new regional services are proposed as part of the Mid-City Network Plan. However, a new regional transit station is proposed on University Avenue at SR163. The SR 163 hub would allow easy transfers from the east-west El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue service to regional routes serving Mission Valley and Kearny Mesa employment areas.

4.2 Proposed Corridor Service (Exhibit 14)

There are existing proposals for providing higher speed transit services along El Cajon Boulevard (the Showcase Project) and University Avenue (UAMP). These proposals include priority treatments to allow buses to achieve higher speeds. The El Cajon Boulevard service would connect SDSU and the Mid-City communities to downtown via Park and El Cajon Boulevards. Two routing options were evaluated for the University Avenue corridor as part of this network plan. One option would develop Rapid Bus service to downtown San Diego (along the Route 7 alignment) and retain local service to Old Town (along the Route 908 alignment). The other option would reverse the services, with Rapid Bus to Old Town and local service to downtown. The latter option was recommended by the advisory committee and is included in this plan.

Exhibit 13

Exhibit 14


Page 31

4.3 Proposed Local Service (Exhibit 15) The recommendation for local service include improving frequencies, reducing delay, providing more direct connections to regional and corridor services, and adjusting routes to avoid duplication in light of the opening of the Mission Valley East Trolley.

▪ Improve frequencies on core grid service - Allow for convenient walk-up transfers by providing service frequencies

conducive for spontaneous use - Most local routes should operate at a 15-minute frequency all day within

Mid-City portions ▪ Improve connections to Regional and Corridor services

- Route the Adams Avenue service (Route 11) to the I-15 stations at University Avenue and El Cajon Boulevard, and terminate the route near University/Fairmount instead of SDSU. The service would operate on I-15 between the two stations at University and El Cajon.

- Service on Fairmount Avenue (Route 13) should connect with the I-15 stations and with the Green Line Grantville Station; service will continue to connect with the Orange Line.

- Improve local connections to Mission Valley Green Line Trolley via Texas with a revised and more frequent Route 6 operating between North Park and Mission Valley.

- Reverse the routing of Route 13 around Del Cerro/SDSU and create a separate service for the Mission Valley portion of the route

- Serve the area east of SDSU (Alvarado/Montezuma) with neighborhood service (shuttle) instead of local bus service

Local service is an important part of the overall transit system. In order to make the local grid service work effectively, higher frequencies are needed (15-minutes or better in core areas).

4.4 Proposed Neighborhood Services (Exhibit 16)

This plan recommends three neighborhood shuttle routes that can operate bi-directionally (30-minutes or less in each direction). The shuttle routes are:

▪ City Heights area (Home Avenue, Euclid, I-15) ▪ North Park (Texas/30th/Adams/Upas) ▪ SDSU (Alvarado/Montezuma)

The entire proposed Mid-City transit network is presented in Exhibit 17.

Exhibit 15

Exhibit 16

Exhibit 17


Page 35

4.5 Proposed Mid-City Transit Plan – Service Frequencies

The proposed service frequencies reflect the need for a grid network of regional, corridor, and local services that provide frequency levels suitable for spontaneous use by the average passenger (minimum of 15 minute frequency during weekdays ).

4.6 Proposed Mid-City Transit Plan – Operating Costs

The impact of the proposed Mid-City Transit Plan on operating costs is estimated at an additional $12 million annually, based on the changes in the network and service frequencies. These additional costs will be partially offset by increased revenue from increased passenger use of the improved services.

Proposed Service Frequency

AM Peak Midday PM

Peak Eve Midday Eve Midday Eve

REGIONAL

I-15 BRT 10 15 10 30 30 30 30 30I-15/I-805 10 15 10 30 30 30 30 30SR 163 10 15 10 30 30 30 30 30

CORRIDOR

El Cajon Rapid (15/115) 10 10 10 15 15 30 15 30Univ-OTTC Rapid (908) 10 12 10 30 12 30 12 30

LOCAL

1 - El Cajon 15 15 15 30 15 30 15 302 - 30th/Broadway 10 10 10 30 15 30 15 306 - Texas 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 307 - University 8 12 10 15 12 30 12 3011 - Adams 15 15 15 30 20 40 20 4013 - Fairmount 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30936 - College 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30955 - 54th 15 15 15 30 30 30 30 30

NEIGHBORHOOD

City Heights 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30North Park 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30Alvarado/Montezuma 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

Note: time in minutes.

Weekday Saturday Sunday

Route


Page 36

4.7 Phasing Recommendations

The advisory committee for the Network Plan were asked to complete two exercises to help prioritize the recommended improvements to the Mid-City transit network In the first exercise, members were given a constrained amount of money to spend on the network, with the budget being inadequate to fund the entire package of improvements. In the second exercise, members were asked to prioritize the improvements assuming an unconstrained budget.

The Advisory Committee’s priority investment order for each task was:

A. CONSTRAINED BUDGET 1. Increase I-15 and I-805 service frequencies 2. Implement Rapid Bus service on El Cajon Boulevard (including signal

priority, station upgrades, and queue jumpers, but not including transit lanes)

3. Build the transfer station connecting I-15 with the Mission Valley light rail line

4. Implement Rapid Bus service on University Avenue, connecting to Old Town 5. Increases frequencies on north/south local routes 6. Implement the City Heights shuttle 7. Implement the North Park shuttle 8. Build the transit station connecting University Avenue to SR163 9. Complete the local bus route adjustments 10. Implement the SDSU area shuttle

Implementing BRT service on El Cajon Boulevard, which was defined to include transit-only lanes, was not recommended for funding in the constrained budget scenario.

Additional Annual Operating Costs - Proposed Service

Peak Vehicles Annual Service Hours

Annual Operating Cost

Regional 27 108,720 $8,698,000

Corridor 3 29,694 $2,079,000

Local 2 4,738 $284,000

Neighborhood 4 27,600 $966,000

Mid-City Total 36 170,752 $12,027,000

Note: Operating cost per hour (FY2006 dollars): Regional $80.00; Corridor $70.00; Local $60.00; Neighborhood $35.00.


Page 37

B. UNCONSTRAINED BUDGET Improvements were recommended in the following priority order. 1. El Cajon Boulevard Rapid Bus service 2. Increased frequencies on local north/south routes 3. City Heights shuttle 4. Increased I-15 and I-805 service frequencies 5. I-15/Mission Valley light rail transfer station 6. North Park shuttle 7. Local bus route adjustments 8. University Avenue Rapid Bus service to Old Town 9. SDSU- area shuttle 10. I-805/Orange line hub

5 Conclusion This study addressed the transit requirements of the Mid-City area. The Advisory Committee constituted to review the findings of the study provided valuable input regarding local needs and preferences. The resulting network plan will allow SANDAG to proceed with incorporation of the recommendations into the overall transportation development plan and for incorporation into the MTS Comprehensive Operational Analysis.


Page 38

6 Appendix: Mid-City Advisory Committee Meetings

6.1 Mid-City Advisory Committee – Review Findings (Meeting 1)

As part of the Showcase Project and this study, an Advisory Committee was constituted to discuss and review transit service needs and potential improvements in the Mid-City area. The committee was comprised of business community members, community group representatives, local area planners, and institutional representatives.

A first meeting was held on December 2, 2004, to advise the committee members of the project and to gather information and opinions regarding Mid-City transit needs. There were a variety of comments relating to transit in general and overall transit planning for San Diego. Specific comments regarding transit needs for Mid-City can be summarized as follows:

▪ Lack of service reliability ▪ Bunching of buses ▪ Overcrowding ▪ Inability to easily connect between Mid-City and major employment areas ▪ Directness of service ▪ Greater emphasis on north/south services

These comments were consistent with passenger comments received by MTS and SANDAG.

6.2 Mid-City Advisory Committee – Review Initial Recommendations (Meeting 2)

The preliminary Mid-City Network Plan was presented to the Advisory Committee on February 24, 2005. There was strong support for the improved services in the I-15 and I-805 corridors. However, a proposed diversion of the regional service from I-805 to serve the Euclid Trolley Station was questioned as costly time-wise and not supported. It was suggested that a connection be developed between the I-15 services and the Mission Valley Trolley without leaving the freeway. In addition, there was strong support for the corridor service option connecting to the Old Town Transit Center with BRT.

The strongest points of contention appeared to be the construction of reserved bus lanes on El Cajon Boulevard and the impact of same direction buses needing to pass each other along the University Avenue BRT corridor (the community plan calls for one bus lane and one general travel lane in each direction).

With regard to the local services, there was good support for the changes, especially the rerouting of Route 11 to serve the I-15 hubs at El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue.

The proposed neighborhood routes were well accepted. The idea of two-way service with even headways (every 30-minutes) received strong support. Comments were


Page 39

provided that there were other areas within the Mid-City study area that could support similar type neighborhood service particularly south and east of SDSU. A request was also made to consider extending the City Heights shuttle south to meet the Orange Line.

A variety of other comments were received that dealt with current operation and the potential for improvement.

6.3 Mid-City Advisory Committee – Review Final Recommendations (Meeting 3)

Based on the comments provided by the Advisory Committee members at Meeting 2, additional work was done to refine the proposed network changes. Fieldwork was also undertaken to confirm that the proposed neighborhood shuttles could operate as proposed. The following changes were made to the Mid-City network plan:

▪ New transfer hubs were added at the following locations: - Mission Valley Green Line Trolley with I-15 BRT. - Orange Line Trolley with I-15/I- 805 BRT.

▪ Corridor services were revised to include: - The option for University Rapid service to Old Town with local service to

downtown San Diego. - BRT and local service on University Between I-805 and Park Boulevard to

have the same stops with no passing.

▪ Neighborhood service routes adjusted to ensure reliable cycle times: - North Park route streamlined to stay west of I-805 - City Heights route option supported calls for shortened loop route east

from I-15 over current Route 965 via Myrtle St., Fairmount Ave., Home Ave., Euclid Ave., Landis St., to 43rd Street and University Avenue.

The foregoing update was presented to the Advisory Committee on April 28, 2005. The revised plan was accepted with the majority of discussion focusing on the City Heights neighborhood shuttle. Some committee members believed that some service should be provided between the areas south of University up to the El Cajon corridor. This change was not supported by the Committee. It was noted that the proposed local service network included 15-minute service on Fairmount (Route 13) connecting City Heights with El Cajon Boulevard.

At this meeting, the members were asked to assist with prioritizing the recommended transit improvements. The results of this exercise were presented in Task 4.7.

October 14, 2005

TO: Gary Gallegos, SANDAG Executive Director

FROM: Hon. Joe Kellejian, SANDAG Transportation Committee Chair

SUBJECT: North County Coastal Appointment to the SANDAG Transportation Committee

I have met with all of the North County Coastal primary representatives on the SANDAG Board to discuss the North County Coastal’s alternate vacancy on the Transportation Committee. The consensus was to select Oceanside Mayor Jim Wood to that position. Per Deputy Mayor Crawford’s suggestion that I contact Mayor Wood to discuss this issue with him, Mayor Wood has accepted this appointment. Please accept this memo as official notice that Mayor Jim Wood will serve as the North County Coastal alternate representative on the SANDAG Transportation Committee, effective immediately. Don’t hesitate to contact me if you have questions. cc: Transportation Committee Members

This Item Relates to Agenda Item #9Transportation Committee

October 21, 2005

Documents

Mid-City Transit Network Plan - San Diego Health Reports ...sandiegohealth.org/sandag/sandag_pubs_2009-7-25/publicationid_117… · The Mid-City Transit Network Plan is a long-range