FINAL 2008 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE

Transcription

1 FINAL 2008 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE

2 ii

3 ABSTRACT TITLE: AUTHOR: Final 2008 Congestion Management Program Update San Diego Association of Governments DATE: November 2008 SOURCE OF COPIES: NUMBER OF PAGES: San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA (619) ABSTRACT: State Proposition 111, passed by voters in 1990, established a requirement that urbanized areas prepare and regularly update a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The purpose of the CMP is to monitor the performance of the region s roadway transportation system, develop programs to address near- and long-term congestion, and better integrate transportation and land use planning. SANDAG, as the designated Congestion Management Agency for the San Diego region, is responsible for developing, adopting, and updating the CMP. SANDAG, local jurisdictions, and transportation operators (i.e., California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, etc.) are responsible for implementing the CMP. iii

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many individuals aided in the preparation of material contained in the 2008 Congestion Management Program Update. In particular, the cooperation of members of various SANDAG committees and working groups are acknowledged. SANDAG COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS Transportation Committee Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee Regional Planning Technical Working Group San Diego Regional Traffic Engineers Council SANDAG STAFF Gary Gallegos, Executive Director Diane Eidam, Deputy Executive Director Julie Wiley, General Counsel Jack Boda, Director of Mobility Management and Project Implementation Bob Leiter, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Elisa Arias, Principal Transportation Planner Heather Werdick, Senior Transportation Planner, Project Manager Alex Estrella, Senior Transportation Planner Mike Calandra, Senior Research Analyst Ellison Alegre, Associate Transportation Planner Kimberly Weinstein, Associate Transportation Planner Scott Strelecki, Assistant Transportation Planner Joaquin Ortega, Research Technician Tom Neel, Associate Graphic Designer Tom Goggin, Business Services Supervisor Megan Womack, Administrative Offices Specialist Phillip Johnston, Office Services Specialist Mark Polinsky, Office Services Specialist iv

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 3 Introduction... 3 Summary of the Congestion Management Program Approach... 3 Report Organization... 4 Relationship Between the State and Federal Congestion Management Processes... 4 Corridor Level Reports... 5 Regional Reports... 5 Future Direction of the CMP CMP ROADWAY MONITORING... 9 Introduction... 9 Roadway Monitoring Definitions... 9 Level of Service Standard Roadway System Evaluation Evaluation Methodology State Highway System CMP Arterials Automated Traffic Data Collection Results of Evaluation Comparative Analysis of 2005 and 2007 LOS Data Freeways Other LOS Changes Conventional Highways Other LOS Changes CMP Arterials Other LOS Changes Conclusions TRANSIT SERVICE MONITORING Introduction Transit Corridor Definitions Transit Corridors Transit Routes Transit Data Collection Transit Corridor Analysis Population Served by Transit v

6 4. LAND USE ANALYSIS PROGRAM Introduction Enhanced California Environmental Quality Act Project Review Resources to Address Congestion Traffic Impact Study Guidelines Project Design Guidelines Congestion Mitigation Strategies CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Introduction Analysis DEFICIENCY PLANS Introduction Deficiency Plan Process Results of Deficiency Analysis APPENDICES A. CMP ROADWAY SYSTEM LOS ANALYSIS B. CMP TRANSIT CORRIDORS ANALYSIS C. DEFICIENT ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS D. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES E. GOVERNMENT CODE F. HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL EXHIBITS G. FEDERAL CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS H. GLOSSARY vi

7 LIST OF TABLES 2.1 CMP Roadway Statistics CMP Level of Service Standards CMP System Roadways LOS Thresholds Deficient Roadway Segments Changes in Deficient (LOS F) Freeway Segments Changes in Deficient (LOS F) Highway Segments Changes in Other Conventional Highway LOS Designations Changes in Deficient (LOS F) Arterial Segments Summary of Changes in Other Arterial LOS Designations CMP Transit Corridors Individual Transit Corridor Routes CMP Transit Corridors Analysis Summary Evaluation of Population Served by Transit Project Impact Standards Summary of Congestion Mitigation Strategies Summary of Transportation Funds Programmed by Mode FY 2009 Through FY Impacts of the 2030 RTP Improvements on Future Congestion Remaining Deficient Roadway Segments A CMP Freeways Level of Service Analysis A CMP Conventional Highways Level of Service Analysis A CMP Arterials Level of Service Analysis B.1 CMP Transit Corridors B.2 State Route 76 CMP Transit Corridor B.3 State Route 78 CMP Transit Corridor B.4 Interstate 5 North CMP Transit Corridor B.5 Interstate 15 North/State Route 163 CMP Transit Corridor B.6 State Route 52 CMP Transit Corridor B.7 Interstate 15 South CMP Transit Corridor B.8 Interstate 8 CMP Transit Corridor B.9 State Route 94 CMP Transit Corridor B.10 State Route 75 CMP Transit Corridor vii

8 B.11 Interstate 5 South CMP Transit Corridor B.12 State Route 905 CMP Transit Corridor C. 1 Evaluation of 2030 RTP Improvements on Deficient Roadway Segments D.1 Measure of Significant Project Traffic Impacts D.2 Roadway Classifications, LOS, and ADT D.3 LOS Definitions D.4 Ramp Metering Analysis D.5 Traffic Impact Study Screen Check G. 1 Summary of Single Occupancy Vehicle Multimodal Analysis viii

9 LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 Congestion Management Program System LOS Definitions CMP Update 2007 Peak Hour Level of Service CMP Transit Corridors CMP Enhanced CEQA Review Process Step Approach for Creating a Local Trip Reduction Ordinance Incorporating the Trip Reduction Guidelines Into the Development Review Process Deficiency Plan Process B.1 CMP Transit Corridors C.1 Future CMP Network with 2030 RTP Improvements 2010 Peak Hour LOS C.2 Future CMP Network with 2030 RTP Improvements 2020 Peak Hour LOS C.3 Future CMP Network with 2030 RTP Improvements 2030 Peak Hour LOS D.1 Flow Chart for Traffic Impact Study Requirements ix

10

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

12

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction State Proposition 111, passed by voters in 1990, established a requirement that urbanized areas prepare and regularly update a Congestion Management Program (CMP). The purpose of the CMP is to monitor the performance of our roadway transportation system, develop programs to address near-term and long-term congestion, and better integrate transportation and land use planning. SANDAG, as the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for the San Diego region, must develop, adopt, and regularly update the CMP, which includes six specific components as described below: Roadway Monitoring Designate a CMP roadway system, establish a level of service (LOS) standard for the system, and monitor congestion levels against the standard. Multimodal Performance Measures Establish performance measures to evaluate the region s multimodal transportation system. Transportation Demand Management Establish a transportation demand management element that promotes alternative transportation strategies. Land Use Impact Analysis Establish a program to analyze the effects of local land use decisions on the CMP transportation system. Capital Improvement Program Prepare a capital improvement program of projects that maintains or improves the performance of the transportation system. Deficiency Plan Prepare a plan of remedial actions when the roadway LOS standard is not maintained on the designated CMP roadway system. The original CMP for the San Diego region was adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors in 1991 and has been updated periodically as an element of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). An update to the CMP is required biennially and the last update (2006 CMP Update) was adopted by the SANDAG Board in July This document, the 2008 CMP Update, focuses on major changes since the 2006 CMP Update. Summary of the Congestion Management Program Approach The current, overall approach taken by the CMP to evaluate and mitigate congestion impacts involves a comprehensive process. The approach focuses on two main activities: biennial roadway level of service monitoring and evaluating and mitigating the impacts of new development. The basic building blocks to this approach are described in this chapter. 3

14 The CMP roadway system is monitored regularly (biennially) against the adopted LOS standard. If the roadway standard is met for a given segment, then the segment is reevaluated in two years. If the roadway standard is not met for a given segment, then the causes of congestion are evaluated further. On an ongoing basis, the impacts of new major developments on the CMP system are evaluated and, if there are significant impacts, then an attempt is made to mitigate those impacts. This consists of approved mitigation of new development impacts. If it is not feasible to mitigate new development impacts, then the project sponsor has the option of helping fund approved Deficiency Plan recommendations. The CMP provides a number of congestion management strategies for use in preparing Deficiency Plans and/or to mitigate the transportation impacts of new development projects. In addition, the CMP contains procedures to assist in ongoing program monitoring and to meet other legislative requirements. Report Organization This report is organized along the following elements required by current law. Additional technical information and implementing guidelines are provided in the appendices at the end of report. Updated Roadway Monitoring An evaluation of the CMP roadway system based upon 2007 traffic data and using the current CMP LOS standard (Chapter 2). Updated Transit Service Monitoring An evaluation of the CMP transit corridors using 2007 transit service data (Chapter 3). Land Use Analysis Program A discussion of the process to evaluate the impacts of local land use decisions on the CMP transportation system, including the provision of evaluation guidelines and congestion mitigation strategies (Chapter 4). Capital Improvement Program A discussion of the CMP capital improvement program of projects based upon the evaluation contained within the CMP and the 2030 RTP: Pathways for the Future (Chapter 5). Deficiency Plan Status Report A status report on preparation of deficiency plans required when roadway LOS standard is not maintained on the designated CMP roadway system (Chapter 6). Relationship Between the State and Federal Congestion Management Processes Pursuant to 23 CFR , each Metropolitan Planning Organization area designated as a Transportation Management Area (TMA) that is non-attainment for ozone or carbon monoxide, may not program federal funds for any project that will result in a significant increase in carrying capacity for single occupant vehicles (SOV) unless the project results from a congestion management process. Since the San Diego air basin is in non-attainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, the SANDAG process to document compliance with the federal congestion management process for each applicable SOV capacity increasing project is included in the 2008 CMP Update. This documentation is included in Appendix G (Federal Congestion Management Process). In the San Diego region there are a number of ongoing efforts that serve as this region s congestion management process. These efforts focus on the identification of short- or long-range management and infrastructure system improvements. These efforts include: 4

15 Corridor Level Reports Transportation Concept Reports The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) develops a "transportation concept" for each freeway and highway route in California, which is documented in system planning documents called Transportation Concept Reports (TCR) and Transportation Concept Summaries (TCS). The long-range transportation concept(s) developed for a particular State Highway reflect state, regional, and local considerations, such as funding, environmental/community concerns, etc. TCRs and TCSs typically focus on major capacity-enhancing improvements to State Highway projects and also include major infrastructure and operational improvements, such as high occupancy vehicle lanes, bypass lanes, auxiliary lanes, and local interchange improvements, as well as regionally significant transit projects. Performance of future corridor improvements is measured to determine the scope of the long-range transportation concept. Corridor Studies/Major Investment Studies These studies identify problems in a corridor and proposes a range of actions or improvements to address these problems. SANDAG, Caltrans, partner agencies, stakeholders, and the public are involved throughout the corridor study process. Corridor studies typically focus on long-range multimodal transportation strategies for an individual corridor. Project Study Reports/Project Reports/Environmental Documents Caltrans uses Project Study Reports (PSR) to initiate capital improvement projects from transportation concepts in the TCRs. During the development of PSRs, multimodal alternatives are identified and assessed. The development of PSRs is a primary step in setting priorities in the RTP and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). As State Highway projects are developed further through the project approval and environmental phases, viable multimodal alternatives are analyzed along with capacity-enhancing alternatives. Corridor System Management Plans The development of Corridor System Management Plans (CSMP) was initiated in partnership with Caltrans in The purpose of CSMPs is to provide a unified system network approach for managing, operating, and improving mobility and reducing congestion along/and through corridors. The foundation for developing the CSMP is to complete a comprehensive performance assessment and evaluation along a corridor to determine appropriate system management improvement strategies. The intent is to ensure that congestion management strategies are identified and assessed as a comprehensive, multimodal, and integrated approach and not as single network improvements. Regional Reports Congestion Management Program As previously described, the CMP serves as the primary document that monitors the performance of the region s transportation system. It addresses near- and long-term system improvements designed to manage congestion. Under the CMP process, transportation system deficiencies are identified and evaluated. The CMP serves as the platform for this region s RTP to identify congestion strategies. The CMP supports the concept that large capital projects alone cannot solve our congestion problems. The CMP promotes non-traditional strategies focusing on near-term, lower-cost alternative transportation strategies to address congestion. These strategies include transportation demand management, transportation system management, smart growth strategies, and design guidelines (pedestrian, transit-oriented, bicycle, etc.). The CMP is part of the Systems Management strategies of the 2030 RTP. 5

16 Regional Transportation Plan The RTP is the long-range transportation plan for the San Diego region. The 2030 RTP was developed around four main components: Land Use, Systems Development, Systems Management, and Demand Management. Each component has a unique, yet interdependent, role in improving mobility and travel in the San Diego region through the year Updated every four years, the RTP incorporates recommendations from various corridor studies and PSRs. All projects are evaluated and prioritized for future funding. The RTP also includes corridor level performance indicators that are reflective of a multimodal approach and are the basis for determining the most effective long-term system development, management, or demand management strategies for minimizing/managing anticipated congestion. Regional Transportation Improvement Program As the short-term document that implements the RTP, the programming document, the RTIP includes projects funded with federal, state, and local transportation funding. These projects include regionally significant capacity increasing projects (as identified in the RTP), minor projects, maintenance and operations projects, and other exempt projects. For the regionally significant capacity increasing projects, including single occupant capacity increasing projects, the RTIP relies on the process implemented through the CMP for the individual project alternatives and the RTP for the coordination and consultation involved in developing and establishing the congestion management strategies. The projects included in the RTIP are the end result of the implementation of the process established in the CMP and the RTP. Future Direction of the CMP SANDAG staff evaluated two options for future CMP updates. One option is to streamline the state CMP process and the other option is to opt out. The SANDAG Board is expected to take action regarding future direction of the CMP in Streamlined CMP Approach Staff evaluated incorporating the CMP requirements and monitoring into other SANDAG ongoing planning and monitoring activities, such as the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) Annual Performance Monitoring Report and Intergovernmental Review Program. In order to implement the streamlined approach for the CMP monitoring and reporting process, the RCP Annual Monitoring Report would continue to include CMP deficiency analysis information, but it would be expanded to include other information that is required to be reported for the CMP, such as the monitoring results and a status report on Deficiency Plans. This streamlined approach for state mandated CMP monitoring could be fully incorporated into the 2010 RCP performance monitoring report. CMP Opt Out The CMP legislation allows congestion management agencies to opt out of the state CMP process. In order to opt out, a majority of the local jurisdictions representing a majority of the population in the county must adopt resolutions electing to be exempt from the state congestion management program. Under this option, SANDAG would still comply with federal congestion management provisions; however, this could be done through existing SANDAG planning and performance monitoring activities, such as the RTP and corridor studies, as well as environmental clearance documents prepared by state and local agencies. 6

17 CHAPTER 2 CMP ROADWAY MONITORING

18

19 CHAPTER 2 CMP ROADWAY MONITORING Introduction The Congestion Management Program (CMP) enabling legislation requires that SANDAG define and monitor the performance of a CMP roadway system. In instances when there is a decline in the system s performance or when performance standards are not met, then certain remedial actions are to be taken. The requirements for roadway monitoring are summarized below. A CMP roadway system is to be designated by SANDAG and, at a minimum, the system shall include all state highways and principal arterials. All new state highways and principal arterials shall be added to the designated system. A CMP Level of Service (LOS) standard is to be established for the CMP system. At a minimum, the standard cannot be below LOS E or the LOS in place when the CMP system originally was designated, whichever is the lower standard. The CMP system shall be monitored biennially against the CMP LOS standard. Whenever the CMP system LOS standards are not met for a given roadway segment, then a Deficiency Plan shall be prepared. Roadway Monitoring Definitions As required by State legislation, the original CMP roadway system was defined in 1991 and consists of freeways, state highways, and principal arterials. Since 1991, there have been a number of additions to the system, primarily adding new highways as they were opened. As shown on Table 2.1, the CMP roadway system consists of 747 route miles (centerline), including 333 route miles of state freeways, 71 route miles of freeway to freeway connection ramps, 235 route miles of state highways, and 108 miles of CMP arterials. Table 2.1 CMP Roadway Statistics 2006 Daily Vehicles Miles Traveled Modeled Route Mileage Millions % Miles % CMP Freeways % 333 7% CMP Freeway to Freeway Connection Ramps % 71 2% CMP Highways % 235 5% CMP Arterials % 108 2% Total CMP System % % Entire Roadway Network % 4, % Note: Due to rounding, percentages may not add up to 100 percent. Source: SANDAG,

20 Level of Service Standard Roadway LOS is a measure used to evaluate how well a roadway section or intersection operates. LOS commonly is described in letter form, ranging from LOS A (least congested) to LOS F (most congested). For purposes of this CMP, LOS is defined as: A qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream; generally described in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. LOS ratings typically range from LOS A, which represents free flow conditions, to LOS F, which is characterized by forced flow, heavy congestion, stop-and-go traffic, and long queues forming behind breakdown points. CMP legislation requires that a LOS standard be established for the CMP roadway system. If a roadway segment falls below the established standard, then a Deficiency Plan (see Chapter 6) must be prepared. The current CMP LOS standard for the San Diego region, established by the original 1991 CMP, is LOS E. However, a lower standard, LOS F, is allowed in circumstances when a roadway segment is operating at this level when the base year LOS was established. In these circumstances, LOS F shall be the standard; these segments also are referred to as grandfathered segments. However, with the adoption of the 2002 CMP Update, it is SANDAG policy that all roadway segments that operate at LOS F are subject to Deficiency Plan requirements, regardless of whether they were grandfathered segments. Table 2.2 summarizes the CMP LOS standards. Table 2.2 CMP Level of Service Standards 1 (Established in 1991) LOS Standard Freeways Highways Arterials LOS E LOS E LOS E 1 LOS calculations are for the highest peak hour (A.M. or P.M.) in the heaviest travel direction. The CMP system, shown in Figure 2.1, includes those roadways that serve the highest level of regional traffic, serve major regional facilities, and provide significant intercommunity traffic service and freeway congestion relief. The CMP system includes only 16 percent of total street and highway mileage, but currently carries about 62 percent of the total vehicle miles traveled within the region. The list of CMP system roadways is provided in Table

21 San Diego Region Camp Pendleton MAP AREA Oceanside 78 Vista 1 2 San Marcos 4 Carlsbad Escondido Encinitas Solana Beach 67 P A C I F I C P A C I F I C Del Mar Poway County of San Diego O O C C E E A A N N 6 Figure 2.1 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) SYSTEM 2008 Update San Diego Santee La Mesa Lemon Grove 67 El Cajon State Freeways State Highways CMP Arterials Toll Road Coronado National city MILES Chula Vista KILOMETERS Imperial Beach UNITED STATES MEXICO 1-D Tijuana, B.C. 11

22

23 Table 2.3 CMP System Roadways CMP Freeways: Interstate 5 (I-5): Orange County Line to United States/Mexico Border Interstate 8: Nimitz Boulevard to Imperial County Line Interstate 15: Riverside County Line to I-5 Interstate 805: I-5 (North) to I-5 (South) State Route 52 (SR 52): I-5 to SR 125 State Route 54: I-5 to Briarwood Road State Route 56: I-5 to I-15 State Route 67: Mapleview Street to I-8 State Route 78: I-5 to North Broadway State Route 94: I-5 to Avocado Boulevard State Route 125: SR 54 to SR 52 State Route 125: SR 905 to San Miguel Road 1 State Route 163: I-15 to I-5 State Route 905: Oro Vista Road to Otay Mesa Road CMP Highways: State Route 54: SR 94 to Grove Road State Route 67: SR 78 to Mapleview Road State Route 75: I-5 (North) to I-5 (South) State Route 76: Coast Highway to SR 79 State Route 78: North Broadway to Imperial County Line State Route 79: Riverside County Line to I-8 State Route 94: Avocado Boulevard to Old Highway 80 State Route 282: Alameda Boulevard to Orange Avenue CMP Arterials: (1) Manchester Avenue/El Camino Real: I-5 to SR 76/Mission Avenue (2) Palomar Airport Road/San Marcos Boulevard: I-5 to SR 78 (3) Olivenhain Road/Rancho Santa Fe Road: El Camino Real to SR 78 (4) Centre City Parkway: I-15 (North) to I-15 (South) (5) Scripps Poway Parkway: I-15 to SR 67 (6) La Jolla Village Drive/Miramar Road: I-5 to I-15 (7) Balboa Avenue: I-5 to I-15 (8) Sea World Drive/Friars Road/Mission Gorge Road/Woodside Avenue: I-5 to SR 67 (9) Fletcher Parkway/Broadway/E. Main Street: I-8 (West) to I-8 (East) (10) Nimitz Boulevard/North Harbor Drive/Grape Hawthorne Streets/Pacific Highway/Harbor Drive: I-8 to I-5 (11) Otay Mesa Road-Interim State Route 905: SR 905 (West) to SR 905 (East)² 1 This portion of SR 125 is a privately-funded toll road that opened to traffic in November Currently, LOS data are not available. 2 This CMP Arterial is designated as an interim facility on the CMP network and will be replaced by a state highway following its construction. 13

24 Roadway System Evaluation Evaluation Methodology Biennially, as required by state legislation, SANDAG requests that the Caltrans and local jurisdictions collect traffic data that is used to calculate LOS for CMP freeways, highways, and arterials. This section describes the methodology followed to calculate CMP roadway system LOS. State Highway System Caltrans employs two separate methodologies for the computation of LOS analyses, depending on whether the type of facility being studied is a freeway or a conventional highway. The traffic data source for both methodologies is the 2007 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Traffic Volumes, which were obtained from the Caltrans District 11 Traffic Census Branch CMP Freeway Analysis Control station data were used to convert the seven-day AADT volumes to five-day Average Weekday Daily Traffic (AWDT) volumes. Control stations also are the source of the directional split and peak hour percentage data. These data were analyzed using a spreadsheet that utilizes the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology for calculating the capacity of freeway segments, using the operational analysis, and planning data options. After the results were reviewed for accuracy and reasonableness, they were used to produce the segment summaries, AWDT ranges, and LOS. Table 2.4 provides the LOS thresholds based upon density (passenger cars per mile per lane). Figure 2.2 provides a graphic representation of the varying LOS. Table 2.4 LOS Thresholds Density Range (pc/mi/ln)¹ LOS Designation 0 11 A > B > C > D > E > 45 F 1 pc/ml/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane 2008 CMP Conventional Highway Analysis As with the freeway methodology, preliminary 2007 AADT Traffic Volumes were obtained and then converted to five-day AWDT. Control station data provided the information for the directional splits and peak hour percentages. The data were analyzed on a spreadsheet that uses a standard package developed for LOS calculations based on the HCM methodology that originally was used in the 1990/1991 CMP to calculate LOS for arterials. This method is consistent with previous efforts. Afterwards, the results were reviewed for accuracy and reasonableness, and then were used to produce the segment summaries, AWDT ranges, and LOS. 14

25 CMP Arterials For CMP arterials, local agencies currently collect traffic data biennially and have the option of using either the Computation Method or the Floating Car Method to calculate LOS. Computation Method Local agencies submitted intersection through and turning movement traffic volumes as well as traffic signal information. SANDAG uses this information to calculate the LOS using the Computation Method contained with the 2000 HCM. The Computation Method is a two-step process. First, delay times are calculated at each signalized intersection approach using Equations and from the 2000 HCM. Key determinants of intersection delay include cycle length, green time, and volume-to-capacity ratio. The second step adds intersection delay time from step one to street segment running times, which are computed using segment lengths and posted speeds. Average speeds then are calculated over street sections (or aggregations of street segments) and compared with free-flow speeds to determine LOS using Exhibit 15-2 from the 2000 HCM. Additional information is included in Appendix F. Floating Car Method Using vehicles and performing a number of individual runs, local agencies calculate the running time and distances between individual intersections. Average speeds then are calculated over street sections (or aggregations of street segments) and compared with free-flow speeds to determine LOS using Exhibit 15-2 from the 2000 HCM. In some instances, local agencies submitted the results of the LOS analysis directly to SANDAG and, in other instances, SANDAG calculated the LOS using the segment distance and running data submitted by local agencies. For purposes of determining whether the LOS standard is being met, the highest peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are used. Automated Traffic Data Collection Data are collected automatically for many freeway segments using various vehicle detection devices, including in-pavement loop detectors and microwave radars. In cooperation with the University of California, Berkeley, SANDAG, and Caltrans, data are collected through these detection devices and are provided to local agencies using the automated Performance Monitoring Systems (PeMS) for ongoing freeway performance monitoring data. SANDAG consistently is pursuing funding opportunities to enhance detection coverage throughout the transportation system in an effort to improve ongoing performance monitoring. An expansion of automated traffic monitoring to include conventional highways and selected regional arterials would be beneficial to the region in three ways. First, the data would be collected automatically, thus reducing the costs for manual data collection and the burden on local agencies. Second, data would be collected on an ongoing basis, allowing continuous monitoring of traffic data to assist in identifying trends in traffic growth. Finally, the expansion of such automated data collection efforts currently is underway to include real-time arterial performance data (A-PeMS). Accordingly, it is anticipated that as future funding opportunities continue to be examined for automated data collection enhancements along arterials, selection of detection coverage system expansion will be given to the CMP arterial network. 15

26 Figure 2.2 LOS Definitions 16

27 Results of Evaluation The results of the LOS analysis of the CMP roadway system using 2007 traffic data are shown on Figure 2.3. Based upon this analysis, individual roadway segments that do not meet the CMP LOS E standard are listed in Table 2.5. A complete listing of each CMP roadway s LOS is provided in Appendix A. Following Figure 2.3 and Table 2.5 is an analysis comparing 2007 LOS data with 2005 LOS data (from the previous 2006 CMP Update). Freeways, conventional highways, and CMP arterials all experienced changes in LOS designations when compared to the previous 2006 CMP Update. 17

28

29 San Diego Region Camp Pendleton MAP AREA Oceanside Vista 78 San Marcos Carlsbad Escondido Encinitas Solana Beach 5 67 P A C I F I C O C E A N P A C I F I C O C E A N Del Mar 56 Poway County of San Diego Santee Figure CMP UPDATE San Diego El Cajon La 54 Mesa Lemon Grove Peak Hour Level of Service LOS A-D LOS E LOS F MILES KILOMETERS 282 Coronado Imperial Beach National City Chula Vista UNITED STATES MEXICO 1-D Tijuana, B.C. 19

30

31 Table 2.5 Deficient Roadway Segments 1 Freeways CMP Route Limits Affected Local Jurisdiction Interstate 5 SR 54 to Pacific Highway Ramp San Diego and National City Mission Bay Drive to Gilman Drive San Diego Interstate 8 I-5 to El Cajon Boulevard San Diego and La Mesa SR 125 to Johnson Avenue Interstate 15 I-8 to Balboa Avenue San Diego SR 163 to Miramar Road Miramar Road to Centre City Parkway Interstate 805 Telegraph Canyon Road to SR 163 La Mesa and El Cajon San Diego State Route 52 I-5 to I-805 San Diego State Route 94 I-5 to College Avenue San Diego State Route 163 Ash Street to Friars Road San Diego Conventional Highways San Diego and Escondido Chula Vista, San Diego County, Nacional City, and San Diego City State Route 67 Mapleview Street to SR 78 San Diego County and Poway State Route 75 Toll Plaza to I-5 North Coronado State Route 76 Melrose Avenue to South Mission Avenue Oceanside and San Diego County State Route 94 Jamacha Boulevard to Jamacha Road San Diego County Arterials El Camino Real Plaza Drive to Vista Way 2 Oceanside La Jolla Village Drive I-5 to Lebon Drive 2 San Diego City La Jolla Village Drive Lebon Drive to Town Center Drive San Diego City Miramar Road Black Mountain Road to I-15 San Diego City Balboa Avenue Clairemont Drive to Genessee Avenue 2 San Diego City Balboa Avenue I-805 to Kearny Villa Road 2 San Diego City North Harbor Drive Laurel Street to Hawthorne Street San Diego City Pacific Highway Hawthorne Street to Harbor Drive San Diego City Harbor Drive 8 th Avenue to 28 th Street San Diego City 1 All segments not meeting CMP LOS standard are considered deficient and will require Deficiency Plans if the deficiency remains after the systemwide deficiency analysis. 2 This is a new deficient segment previously unreported. Comparative Analysis of 2005 and 2007 LOS Data Freeways Deficient Freeway Segments Compared to the previous 2006 CMP Update there have been significant changes in the number of deficient (LOS F) freeway segments and total deficient freeway mileage as shown in Table 2.6. LOS F freeway segments and total deficient freeway mileage have both declined. This trend is an improvement compared to the 2006 CMP Update. 21

32 Table 2.6 Changes in Deficient (LOS F) Freeway Segments 2006 CMP 2008 CMP Difference Number LOS F Segments LOS F Mileage Based upon 2007 traffic data the following freeway segments operate at LOS F and require Deficiency Plans: I-5: SR 54 to Pacific Highway Ramp I-5: Mission Bay Drive to Gilman Drive I-8: I-5 to El Cajon Boulevard I-8: SR 125 to Johnson Avenue I-15: I-8 to Balboa Avenue I-15: SR 163 to Centre City Parkway I-805: Telegraph Canyon Road to SR 163 SR 52: I-5 to I-805 SR 94: I-5 to College Avenue SR 163: Ash Street to Friars Road Improved Freeway Segments When compared to the previous 2006 CMP Update, a number of Deficiency Plans would no longer be required on segments of Interstate 5 (I-5), I-15, and I-805 and State Route (SR) 52, SR 67, and SR 78. Other LOS Changes There were no other changes in other freeway LOS designations. Conventional Highways Deficient Conventional Highway Segments As shown in Table 2.7, the number of deficient (LOS F) conventional highway segments and total deficient conventional highway mileage decreased between the 2006 CMP and 2008 CMP Updates. Table 2.7 Changes in Deficient (LOS F) Highway Segments 2006 CMP 2008 CMP Difference Number LOS F Segments LOS F Mileage

33 Based upon 2007 traffic data the following highway segments operate at LOS F and require Deficiency Plans: SR 67: Mapleview Street to SR 78 SR 75: Toll Plaza to I-5 North SR 76: Melrose to South Mission SR 94: Jamacha Boulevard to Jamacha Road Improved Conventional Highway Segments When compared to the previous 2006 CMP Update, a number of Deficiency Plans would no longer be required on segments of SR 78 and SR 94. Other LOS Changes One conventional highway segment, as shown in Table 2.8, did show a decline in LOS. Table 2.8 Changes in Other Conventional Highway LOS Designations Freeway Segment 2006 CMP 2008 CMP Mileage State Route 76 Douglas Drive to Melrose LOS A-C LOS D 3.20 Total Mileage 3.20 CMP Arterials Deficient Arterial Segments CMP arterials have followed the same trend as freeways and highways showing a decrease in both the number of deficient (LOS F) segments and total deficient mileage, as shown in Table 2.9. Specific changes in LOS F designations follow Table 2.9. Table 2.9 Changes in Deficient (LOS F) Arterial Segments 2006 CMP 2008 CMP Difference Number LOS F Segments LOS F Mileage Improved Arterial Segments When compared to the previous CMP update (2006), the following previously deficient CMP arterials no longer operate at LOS F and do not require Deficiency Plans: San Marcos Boulevard: Rancho Santa Fe Road to SR 78 Rancho Santa Fe Road: Olivenhain Road to Melrose Drive La Jolla Village Drive: Town Center Drive to Eastgate Mall Miramar Road: Cabot Drive to Black Mountain Road Balboa Avenue: Ruffin Road to I-15 Sea World Drive: I-5 to Friars Road Friars Road: Sea World Drive to Via Las Cumbres 23

34 Friars Road: River Run Drive to West Ramp I-15 Nimitz Boulevard: West Point Loma Boulevard to Rosecrans Street North Harbor Drive: Winship Lane to Laurel Street Harbor Drive: Pacific Highway to 5 th Avenue Harbor Drive: 28 th Street to I-5 New Deficient Segments Based upon 2007 traffic data the following new deficient segments now operate at LOS F and will require Deficiency Plans: El Camino Real: Plaza Drive to Vista Way La Jolla Village Drive: I-5 to Lebon Drive Balboa Avenue: Clairemont Drive to Genessee Avenue Balboa Avenue: I-805 to Kearny Villa Road Harbor Drive: 8 th Avenue to 28 th Street Other LOS Changes Although the number of deficient segments has decreased greatly, based upon a review of other LOS changes for CMP arterials there has been an overall net increase in worsening segments and mileage as shown in Table Table 2.10 Summary of Changes in Other Arterial LOS Designations Number Mileage Improved Segments Worsening Segments Net Worsening Segments Conclusions As required by state law and SANDAG policy, CMP Deficiency Plans are required for the deficient CMP roadway segment identified in Table 2.5. One strategy by which SANDAG addresses this requirement is through the RTP. If the RTP improvements result in a deficient segment improving to LOS E or better, then no further action is required. For those segments that are not addressed by RTP improvements additional analysis and recommendations are required. The specific Deficiency Plan requirements, the SANDAG approach to meeting these requirements, and status report on plan preparation are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6 (Deficiency Plans). 24

35 CHAPTER 3 TRANSIT SERVICE MONITORING

36

37 CHAPTER 3 TRANSIT SERVICE MONITORING Introduction One aspect of the CMP legislation requirement to monitor the performance of the region's transportation system is that other transportation modes be included. Chapter 2 described the manner in which the CMP roadway system is evaluated and this chapter focuses on the evaluation of the region s transit service. In evaluating the performance of the region s transit service the following performance measures are used: Service Level The level of transit service provided as measured by frequency (headways) or number of trips. Travel Speed How fast transit service is operating as measured by average speed or travel time. Service Utilization How well transit service is being used as measured by ridership. The intent is to collect these data for individual routes operating within each corridor and to use weighting or averaging techniques to develop a corridor composite. This information is provided to support ongoing transit planning activities as well as supporting the following CMP activities: Assist With Deficiency Plan Preparation In evaluating solutions to roadway congestion, information on existing corridor transit service can be used as a basis for recommending transit service improvements. Assist With California Environmental Quality Act Review/Mitigation Information on existing transit service can assist in the review of project impacts on the transportation system and serve as a basis for proposed project mitigation or to allow a developer to take credit for locating a project next to high transit service corridors. In addition to the transit corridor analysis, the CMP also evaluates the percentage of the region s population served by transit within a quarter mile and a half mile of a bus stop or rail station. The methodology for defining the transit corridors and collecting data are discussed in the following section. Transit Corridor Definitions The process to evaluate corridor-based transit performance consists of three steps: (1) define the CMP transit corridors, (2) identify transit routes to be evaluated within each corridor, and (3) collect service level, speed, and utilization data for each route. These steps are detailed in the following sections. 27

38 Transit Corridors The existing evaluation of the CMP roadway network is conducted at a corridor level focusing on state highways and CMP arterials. To be consistent with this approach and to provide a means to compare transit service with roadway performance, transit corridors also are based upon the CMP roadway network with the focus on urban highway corridors currently served by transit. Non-urban highways were excluded because there is very little or no transit service operating on or near these facilities. The CMP transit corridors are listed on Table 3.1 and are illustrated in Figure 3.1. For purposes of this analysis, a transit corridor is defined as one mile on each side of the urban highway resulting in a corridor width of two miles. The purpose of this definition is to allow for the inclusion of transit routes operating on parallel roads which also provide alternatives to driving automobiles on the highways. Table 3.1 CMP Transit Corridors CMP Transit Corridor Limits (1) State Route 76 I-5 to I-15 (2) State Route 78 I-5 to I-15 (3) Interstate 5 North Oceanside to downtown San Diego (4) Interstate 15 North/State Route 163 Escondido to downtown San Diego (5) State Route 52 I-5 to SR 67 (6) Interstate 15 South Junction with SR 163 to I-5 South (7) Interstate 8 Sunset Cliffs Boulevard to El Cajon (8) State Route 94 Downtown San Diego to SR 125 (9) State Route 75 I-5 North to I-5 South (10) Interstate 5 South Downtown San Diego to Mexico Border (11) State Route 905 I-5 to Mexico Border Note: Corridor numbers correspond to numbers on Figure

39 San Diego Region Camp Pendleton MAP AREA Oceanside 78 Vista 2 San Marcos Carlsbad Escondido P A C I F I C P A C I F I C Encinitas Solana Beach Del Mar 5 56 Poway County of San Diego O O C C E E A A N N Santee Figure 3.1 CMP TRANSIT CORRIDORS 2008 Update Transit Corridor San Diego La Mesa Lemon Grove El Cajon 94 State Freeways State Highways CMP Arterials Toll Road Coronado 9 National city MILES Chula Vista KILOMETERS Imperial Beach UNITED STATES MEXICO 1-D Tijuana, B.C. 29

40

41 Transit Routes Within each corridor, there are a number of transit routes that provide both local and regional service. The focus of the transit corridor analysis is on those regional routes that provide an alternative to single occupant travel within each corridor. Included are transit routes generally classified as express, line haul/corridor, and cross-town routes that operate a significant percentage (generally 30% or more) of their total route mileage within the corridor. Routes included in each transit corridor are identified in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 Individual Transit Corridor Routes CMP Transit Corridor Transit Routes State Route , 313 State Route , 320, 324, 325, 347 Interstate 5 North 5, 9, 30, 41, 50, 101, 150, 310, 321, 398 (COASTER) Interstate 15 North/State Route /A/B, 20/A/B, 25, 210, 350, 358/359, 810, 820, 850, 860 State Route 52 27/A, 870, 960 Interstate 15 South 13, 955, 960 Interstate 8 7/A/B, 11/A/B, 13, 15/A/B, 520 (Orange Line Trolley), 530 (Green Line Trolley) State Route 94 3/A, 4, 5, 7/A/B, 11/A/B, 916, 520 (Orange Line Trolley) State Route , 904, 933, 934 Interstate 5 South State Route 905 Transit Data Collection 901, 905/A/B, 929, 932/A/B, 510 (Blue Line Trolley) 905/A/B For each route assigned to a transit corridor, the following types of information were collected to provide general route information and to track each route s performance for each of the three performance categories. New 2007 data are provided in this report and are compared to 2005 data from the 2006 CMP update. However, a number of transit routes changed in 2007 due to the implementation of the Metropolitan Transit System s (MTS) Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA). The impacts of these adjustments are discussed in the transit corridor analysis. General Information Route Number and Name: Route number and titles that appear on the front cover of the transit schedules for the period reported. Operator: Operator identified in the transit schedule. Related CMP Roads: The CMP roadways located within or near the CMP transit corridors. Service Level One-Way Route Miles: Mileage as reported in the SANDAG Transit Passenger Counting Program. 31

42 A.M. and P.M. Bus Trips: This is the number of bus trips operated within the weekday peak periods A.M.: 6 to 9 a.m. and P.M.: 3 to 6 p.m. The numbers were gathered from the individual route schedules. These data were taken for both northbound and southbound trips, as well as eastbound and westbound trips. Travel Speed Average Weekday Bus Speed (miles per hour): The vehicle bus speed as reported in the SANDAG Transit Passenger Counting Program Year End Route Summary Reports. Service Utilization Ridership: A.M. and P.M. peak period ridership data obtained from the SANDAG Transit Passenger Counting Program. Transit Corridor Analysis The results of the individual transit corridor analysis are provided in Appendix B, with corridor level summaries provided in Table 3.3. Changes between 2005 and 2007 data are noted. 32

43 Table 3.3 CMP Transit Corridors Analysis Summary Route Interstate 15 South Transit Corridor Interstate 15 North/ State Route 163 Transit Corridor Interstate 5 North Transit Corridor Interstate 5 South Transit Corridor Interstate 8 Transit Corridor State Route 52 Transit Corridor State Route 75 Transit Corridor State Route 76 Transit Corridor State Route 78 Transit Corridor State Route 94 Transit Corridor State Route 905 Transit Corridor All CMP Transit Corridors Year of Data One-Way Route Miles Average Weekday Peak Period Bus Trips Ridership A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB Average Weekday Bus Speed (mph) , , , , Change: ,536 2,229 2,294 1, ,272 2,193 2,081 1, Change: ,972 3,561 3,559 2, ,169 4,081 4,196 3, Change: ,850 5,665 8,640 12, ,224 6,091 6,880 13, Change: , ,470 6,082 6,555 5, ,484 9,000 9,883 8, Change: ,014 2,918 3,328 2, Change: ,159 1,200 1,223 1, ,275 1,331 1,457 1, Change: Change: ,094 1,094 1,057 1, ,064 1,202 1,041 1, Change: ,479 6,338 6,796 7, ,119 6,756 7,501 6, Change: Change: , ,773 28,090 31,982 34, ,672 32,661 34,868 38, Change: ,571 2,886 3,

44 Based upon the corridor summaries, the following conclusions can be drawn: Between 2005 and 2007, there has been an overall 12.8 percent increase in the number of trips operated, a 9.2 percent increase in ridership, and a 0.8 percent decrease in average vehicle speed. However, despite an overall 9.2 percent increase in ridership, the following individual corridors experienced decreases in ridership: I-15 North/SR 163 Corridor 8.5 percent decline I-15 South Corridor 2.5 percent decline I-5 South Corridor 3.3 percent decline SR 52 Corridor 21.3 percent decline SR 905 Corridor 18.1 percent decline By contrast, the following corridors had an increase in ridership: I-5 North Corridor 14.8 percent increase I-8 Corridor 46.4 percent increase SR 76 Corridor 17.4 percent increase SR 75 Corridor 11.5 percent increase In general there is a decline in central city transit ridership, as was the case in the 2006 CMP analysis comparing 2003 and 2005 transit data. The I-8 Corridor is an exception due to the 2007 data generated from the Green Line Trolley. In the past two years, North County has seen both east-west and north-south corridor ridership increases. The north-south increase was not prevalent in the 2006 CMP Update. The SPRINTER began service in March 2008 and its data will be reflected in future transit service monitoring updates. Over the same period, ridership varied in South County. In 2006, the MTS Board adopted the COA that restructured metropolitan area transit services. COA service changes were implemented in June 2006, September 2006, and January Also, in 2006, NCTD began the SPRINTER bus redesign, a detailed effort to coordinate BREEZE 1 bus services with the start-up of the SPRINTER. 2 The NCTD service changes were implemented in early 2008 and their data will be reflected in future transit service monitoring updates. As a result of the MTS COA implementation, some of the routes within the transit corridor analysis have been eliminated or have had major route redesigns since the previous 2006 Update. These changes are reflected in Appendix B (CMP Transit Corridors Analysis). Population Served by Transit One additional measure of the region s transit service is the percentage of population served by transit. The current CMP goals are that at least 50 percent of the population should be served within a quarter mile of a transit stop and at least 80 percent should be served within a half mile of a transit stop. Using the most recent population data (2007 SANDAG estimates), an analysis of the 1 NCTD BREEZE buses carry passengers in the north San Diego County region from Oceanside to Del Mar, northeast to Escondido, east to Ramona; north to Fallbrook and to San Clemente in Orange County. 2 The SPRINTER runs 22 miles along the Highway 78 corridor in the north San Diego County region. 34

45 percentage of total population located within a quarter and a half mile of transit stops was conducted for both the MTS and NCTD service areas. The results of that analysis are provided in Table 3.4. For the San Diego region as a whole, 61 percent of total population is within a quarter mile of a transit stop, exceeding the CMP standard of 50 percent. However, for the total population within a half mile of a transit stop, the regional measure just falls short of the CMP goal. Although this goal was met in the 2006 CMP, the slight decrease in the 2008 CMP Update may be caused by the reorganization of routes through the COA. Table 3.4 Evaluation of Population Served by Transit Based Upon 2007 Population Estimates 1 Total Population Total Population Within 1/4 Mile of Transit Stop Total Population Within 1/2 Mile of Transit Stop MTS Service Area 2,197,243 1,400,731 64% 1,808,837 82% NCTD Service Area 901, ,557 53% 651,365 72% San Diego Region 3,098,269 1,876,288 61% 2,460,202 79% CMP Standard 50% 80% 1 SANDAG,

46

47 CHAPTER 4 LAND USE ANALYSIS PROGRAM

48

49 CHAPTER 4 LAND USE ANALYSIS PROGRAM Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all jurisdictions in the State of California evaluate the potential environmental impacts caused by new development or projects. If impacts are identified, then potential mitigation measures are evaluated and recommended. Congestion Management Program (CMP) enabling legislation requires that SANDAG develop a process to evaluate and mitigate the impacts of new development on the CMP system that is based on the existing CEQA review process. This process, called the Enhanced CEQA Review, is presented in this chapter along with a discussion of available resources to identify and mitigate current and future congestion. Enhanced California Environmental Quality Act Project Review An enhanced CEQA review process was established in 2002 for use by local jurisdictions and/or project sponsors to conduct traffic impact studies and provide mitigation for new large project impacts on the CMP transportation system. Local agencies are required to implement this enhanced CEQA review process. The key features of this process include: A large project is defined as generating, upon its completion, an equivalent of 2,400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peakhour vehicle trips. The review is to include a traffic impact analysis or Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and mitigation for project impacts to the regional transportation system. The current guidelines are provided in Appendix D. The traffic impact analysis must identify the project s impacts on the CMP transportation system, their associated costs, and appropriate mitigation. Early project coordination with affected public agencies and transportation operators is required. Local agencies are to coordinate with the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and the North County Transit District (NCTD) to ensure that transit operators evaluate the impact of new development on CMP transit performance measures. State regulation requires that all environmental documents prepared for projects in the San Diego region be submitted to the State Clearinghouse, and the State Clearinghouse in turn advises SANDAG of documents it has received. In many instances projects sponsors also send a copy of environmental documents directly to SANDAG. Under its regional intergovernmental review program, SANDAG reviews and comments on environmental documents submitted by various agencies. As part of that process, the documents are reviewed to ensure that the Enhanced CEQA Review Process is followed for large projects, and the results of the required traffic analyses and identified mitigation measures are adequate. 39

50 Comments, when appropriate, are submitted to the lead agency for the environmental review. The overall CMP Enhanced CEQA Review Process in summarized in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1 CMP Enhanced CEQA Review Process It is the goal of the CMP to ensure appropriate mitigation of significant new large project impacts on the CMP system through use of congestion management strategies (CMP roadway or transit improvements and/or alternative approaches, such as Transportation Demand Management [TDM]) contained within the CMP, including specific strategies identified in adopted Deficiency Plans. For the purpose of meeting CMP requirements, these guidelines do not apply to mitigation which would necessitate construction of freeway improvements, including interchanges until such time that Deficiency Plans have been prepared and adopted identifying specific improvements necessary to bring the freeway segments into conformance with the CMP LOS standard. Mitigation of project impacts may include demand management strategies and/or fair share contributions toward future improvements to be identified with the Deficiency Plan. The Deficiency Plans will identify potential funding sources to implement the recommended improvements including, but not limited to federal, state, local, and private funding sources. The preceding restriction regarding freeway improvements applies only to the CMP project review process and is not intended to limit a local jurisdiction s responsibility under CEQA for ongoing review and mitigation for projects that would impact freeways. 40

51 The following guidelines are provided to assist in meeting this goal. New Large Project A new development project generating, upon its completion, an equivalent of 2,400 or more new average daily vehicle trips, or 200 or more new peak-hour vehicle trips. Significant Impacts An increase in traffic on the CMP system generated by the project that exceeds the standards summarized in Table 4.1 and are provided in the Traffic Impact Studies Guidelines. (See Table D.1 in Appendix D for a further explanation on how to use these standards). Table 4.1 Project Impact Standards LOS with Project D, E, and F (or ramp meter delays above 15 min.) V/C Freeways 1 Speed (mph) Allowable Change due to Project Impact Roadway Intersections Segments V/C Speed (mph) Delay (sec) Ramp Metering 1 Delay (min) These guidelines apply only to freeways with adopted Deficiency Plans. Project Mitigation Summarize actions necessary to reduce the project impacts on the CMP system to or below the standards. The following section provides additional guidance on project mitigation strategies. Resources to Address Congestion One of the ways in which the CMP can address congestion is to provide the tools necessary to identify, quantify, and mitigate current and future congestion. This section summarizes a number of tools currently available to address congestion and describes how to obtain more information in the following categories: Traffic Impact Study Guidelines Project Design Guidelines Congestion Mitigation Strategies Traffic Impact Study Guidelines SANDAG, in cooperation with the San Diego Traffic Engineer s Council (SANTEC) has developed TIS Guidelines to assist local agencies and private developers in evaluating the traffic and transit impacts a development will have on the existing and future circulation infrastructure. The purpose of TIS is to assist project sponsors in both the development community and public agencies in making land use and other development decisions. A TIS quantifies the changes in traffic levels and translates these changes into transportation system impacts in the vicinity of a project. TIS requirements usually are outlined as part of any project environmental review process; and, in order to monitor effects by these requirements, Notices of Preparation must be submitted to all affected agencies. In addition, the Land Use Analysis Program of the CMP requires that an enhanced CEQA review be undertaken to evaluate the impacts of large projects on the regional transportation system. These guidelines are intended to provide guidance to local jurisdictions and/or project sponsors in meeting these CMP requirements. The current TIS guidelines are provided in Appendix D. 41

52 Project Design Guidelines In support of the CMP and other planning activities, project design guidelines to promote alternative travel modes including walking, bicycle, ridesharing, and public transit have been prepared. The available guidelines are listed below and are available for local agency use in mitigating the impacts of new development projects and in preparing CMP Deficiency Plans. Designing for Transit (Metropolitan Transit Development Board, July 1993) Urban Form Chapter Regional Comprehensive Plan (SANDAG, July 2004) Tools for Reducing Vehicle Trips Through Land Use Design (San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, January 1998) Bikeway Planning and Design California Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, February 2001) Planning and Designing For Pedestrians (SANDAG, June 2002) Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities: An ITE Proposed Recommended Practice (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2006) Congestion Mitigation Strategies In 2003, SANDAG conducted a study (Congestion Mitigation Strategies Research) to identify additional strategies for use in mitigating congestion. The research focused on the three following areas: Congestion Mitigation Toolbox Model Trip Reduction Ordinance Framework Trip Reduction Guidelines The results of the Congestion Mitigation Strategies research are summarized below. Copies of the final report are available on the SANDAG Web site ( Congestion Mitigation Toolbox Provides a compendium of transportation-related strategies designed to assist local agencies in mitigating the impacts of congestion due to growth in population, employment, and traffic and as a result of new developments. The Toolbox contains 40 strategies for potential use in reducing traffic congestion based upon national research and local agency input. A list of the strategies is provided in Table 4.2 and includes a wide range of options allowing local agencies to choose, at their own discretion, the best strategy, or combination of strategies suitable to local congestion issues and agency resources. The strategies are grouped into five broad categories (transit, land use, TDM, Transportation Systems Management [TSM], and capital) and support at least one of the following objectives: Increase transportation system capacity Increase transportation system performance Encourage use of other travel modes Shift peak-period trips to other time periods Reduce vehicle trips 42

53 For each strategy, information is provided on strategy effectiveness, local applicability, implementation requirements, costs, and other related strategies. References also are provided, should additional research be needed. Category No. Strategy Transit Land Use TDM TSM Table 4.2 Summary of Congestion Mitigation Strategies Increasing the Transportation System Capacity Improving the Transportation System Performance Congestion Mitigation Objective Electing a Mode Shift Away From Drive Alone Shifting Trips to Other Time Periods Vehicle Trip Reductions 1-1 Access to Light Rail/Commuter Rail/ Bus Rapid Transit X 1-2 Transit System/Service Expansion Local Express X X 1-3 System/Service Operational Improvements Increased Service Frequency Decreased Travel Time X X X 1-4 Subscription Services X X 1-5 Car Sharing X 1-6 Station Amenities and Public Transit Facility Improvements X 1-7 Shuttles from Transit Centers to Employment Centers (first and last mile solution) X X X 2-1 Development Along Transit Corridors X 2-2 Development Around Transit Nodes X 2-3 Mixed-Use Developments X 2-4 Locally Serving Commercial X 2-5 Interconnected Street Networks and Pedestrian Facilities X 3-1 On-Site Child Care/Cafeteria/Deli/Gym/Fitness Facilities X X 3-2 Transit/Alternative Modes Marketing X X 3-3 Trip Reduction Programs and Ordinances X 3-4 Transportation Management Associations X X X 3-5 Bicycle/Pedestrian Allowances X X 3-6 Bicycle Lockers X X 3-7 Distributed and Remote Work Centers/Video Conferencing X X 3-8 Alternative Work Schedules/Telework/Work-at-Home X X 3-9 Carpool/Vanpool/Transit Programs X 3-10 Carpool/Vanpool Subsidies X 3-11 Parking Restrictions/Reduced Minimums and Maximums/Areawide Caps X X 3-12 Parking Charges & Carpool/Vanpool Preferential Parking X X 3-13 Transit Pass Subsidies X 3-14 Guaranteed Ride Home Program X 4-1 Improved Traffic Control Devices Traffic Signal Coordination Adaptive Signal Control X Signage Improvements 4-2 Local Traffic Management (Monitoring and Control) and Arterial Monitoring X 4-3 Special Event Management X 4-4 Incident Management X 4-5 Commercial Vehicle Restrictions X 43

54 Table 4.2 Summary of Congestion Mitigation Strategies (con t) Category No. Strategy TSM (cont ) Capital Increasing the Transportation System Capacity Improving the Transportation System Performance Congestion Mitigation Objective Electing a Mode Shift Away From Drive Alone 4-6 Advanced Traveler Information X 4-7 Value/Congestion Pricing X 4-8 Peak Period On-Street Parking Restrictions X X 5-1 Park & Ride Lots (Transit) X 5-2 HOV/HOT Lanes/Access X 5-3 Roadway Widening X 5-4 Intersection Improvements X 5-5 Bicycle Facilities X 5-6 Pedestrian Facilities X 5-7 Bus Priority Treatments on Surface Streets X 5-8 Grade Separation/Urban Interchange X Shifting Trips to Other Time Periods Vehicle Trip Reductions TDM strategies are one of the many strategies available to mitigate congestion. A regional TDM program which aims to reduce peak-period congestion or change when, where, and how people travel has become increasingly important in the San Diego region. TDM focuses on encouraging alternatives to driving alone, improving transportation choices, and minimizing demand on the transportation system during peak periods. RideLink is the San Diego regional transportation assistance program managed by SANDAG. RideLink programs contribute to the following regional objectives as stated in the 2030 RTP: Reduction in travel time Reduction in the number of vehicle miles driven Reduction in number of vehicle trips Increase in average vehicle occupancy RideLink core programs include: Regional Vanpool Program Carpool Matching Guaranteed Ride Home program Regional Bicycle Locker program Traveler Information 511 SchoolPool Program Walking School Bus Program Regional Bicycle Map RideLink programs are administered via Employer Outreach Program, self-service TDM Web site, and the Commuter Customer Call Center. RideLink provides consulting services to local area 44

55 employers by providing surveys, program planning, TDM implementation, and TDM evaluation methods. RideLink also provides information for the following TDM options: Transit Options Telework and Flexible work schedules Bicycle and pedestrian options Carsharing First and Last Mile Solutions Model Trip Reduction Ordinance Framework The purpose of the Model Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO) Framework is to provide local agencies with a consistent process and format to prepare and adopt a TRO. Research has shown that TROs are effective in helping reduce trips generated by new development. The general process to prepare a TRO, along with two sample model TRO approaches, mandatory and voluntary, is provided in the Congestion Mitigation Strategies Research report. The model TROs are structured so that local agencies can modify each document as local needs and conditions dictate. Figure 4.2 summarizes the 11-step process to develop a TRO. A decision whether to prepare a TRO is solely at the discretion of local agencies. Trip Reduction Guidelines The current CMP TIS Guidelines provide a consistent methodology for evaluating the traffic impacts of new development projects on the CMP system. However, additional guidance is needed to evaluate smart growth developments and alternative project mitigation measures. The Trip Reduction Guidelines provide supplemental methodologies and specific guidelines for incorporating selected Congestion Mitigation Toolbox strategies into the traffic impact assessment process and estimating their effectiveness in terms of associated trip reduction potential. Trip Reduction Guidelines are intended for use for the following categories of Congestion Mitigation Toolbox strategies: Development near transit stations and transit corridors Mixed-use developments Transit service and operational enhancement strategies TDM programs Local jurisdictions may use the Trip Reduction Guidelines in a similar manner as they use the existing SANDAG CMP TIS Guidelines. The relationship between the Trip Reduction Guidelines and the existing Traffic Impact Study Guidelines is shown in Figure 4.3. When combined with the other components of the project, a local jurisdiction can use the Trip Reduction Guidelines to provide incentives for developers to include congestion mitigation strategies into their proposed developments, or to recognize successful existing TDM programs. The Trip Reduction Guidelines also include options for local jurisdictions to require ongoing traffic monitoring as a condition of project approval and use of congestion mitigation strategies. Ongoing monitoring of applied congestion mitigation strategies is important to help build a solid database of local information about the effectiveness of congestion mitigation strategies applicable to the San Diego region. The Trip Reduction Guidelines can be revised in the future, as needed, to more accurately reflect local experience and traffic conditions. 45

56 In addition, it should be noted that the local agencies and Caltrans may use different trip reduction rates. For projects that may impact the state highway system early consultation by a project developer with local agencies and Caltrans is strongly recommended. Caltrans and lead agencies should agree on the specific methodology for traffic impact studies involving any state highway facilities, including metered and unmetered freeway ramps. As the Areawide Clearinghouse, SANDAG reviews and provides comments on plans and projects with regional environmental impacts under the CEQA. These activities require close coordination with local jurisdictions, Caltrans, MTS, NCTD, and other agencies in the review of plans and development projects affecting the implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), the RTP, and the CMP. SANDAG is currently working on a Fair Share Methodology Study that will develop a consistent approach to mitigate the impacts of future public and private sector development projects on the regional transportation network. Figure 4.2 Step Approach for Creating a Local Trip Reduction Ordinance 46

57 Figure 4.3 Incorporating the Trip Reduction Guidelines Into the Development Review Process 47

58

59 CHAPTER 5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

60

61 CHAPTER 5 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Introduction The purpose of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is to program improvements needed to address deficiencies identified through ongoing transportation system monitoring and through the CMP land use analysis program and Deficiency Plan efforts. The CIP is one of the primary implementation tools of the CMP to address the region s congestion issues. CMP legislation requires that, when developing the CMP CIP, projects that increase the capacity of a multimodal transportation system be considered. Analysis SANDAG, serving as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), is responsible for developing the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). SANDAG has integrated the CMP CIP requirements into its existing programming responsibilities under the RTIP. The RTP, RTIP, and the CMP CIP are developed jointly as integrated programs designed to meet the region's growing travel needs, to mitigate congestion, and to improve air quality through the reduction of motor vehicle emissions. In addition, recommendations contained within completed Deficiency Plans are incorporated into the RTP and, if they include near-term improvements, then they are evaluated during the process to develop the RTIP. In evaluating highway, freeway-to-freeway connectors, arterial, and transit projects proposed for funding, SANDAG has established both quantitative and qualitative criteria to evaluate and rank project submittals. The criteria related to the CMP include: Congestion Relief Does the project provide current and future congestion relief? Mobility Does the project benefit a facility used by public transit as measured by number of routes and frequency of service? Smart Growth Is the project in an area targeted for smart growth or does it support smart growth strategies? Peak Period Trips Does the project serve a high number of peak period trips? The 2008 RTIP, covering FY 2009 to FY 2013, was developed considering projects that best achieved the CMP LOS standards by expanding roadway capacity where appropriate, increasing transit service to meet the transit performance measures, improving management of the road and transit system, reducing travel demand, and meeting air quality conformity requirements. The 2008 RTIP, adopted in July 2008, serves as the CIP for the 2008 CMP Update. Based upon an analysis of the 2008 RTIP funding was programmed for a number of projects from different transportation modes which, upon implementation, will result in improvements to the region s multimodal transportation system, thus meeting the legislative requirement. 51

62 RTIP funds programmed for FY 2009 through FY 2013, by mode, are summarized in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Summary of Transportation Funds Programmed by Mode FY 2009 Through FY 2013 Mode Dollars (Millions) Percent Highway $4, % Transit 2, % Local Street & Road 1, % Bicycle % Transportation Demand Management % Transportation Systems Management % Other % Total $8, % Source: 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (July 2008) The RTIP implements recommendations contained within the RTP. The impacts of RTP improvements on congestion, including the funds programmed in the RTIP, are analyzed in Chapter 6 (Deficiency Plans). In addition, in future SANDAG State of the Commute reports, the impacts of funds programmed for transportation improvements on congestion will be more closely monitored. 52

63 CHAPTER 6 DEFICIENCY PLANS

64

65 CHAPTER 6 DEFICIENCY PLANS Introduction If a Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway segment falls below the established Level of Service (LOS) standard, then a Deficiency Plan needs to be prepared. The current CMP LOS standard, as established by the original 1991 CMP, is LOS E. The purpose of a Deficiency Plan is to evaluate the causes of an existing roadway deficiency and to propose remedial actions necessary to address the deficiency. Under state law, the local jurisdiction or jurisdictions in which the deficiency occurs are responsible for the preparation of the Deficiency Plans. SANDAG and Caltrans are available to assist local jurisdictions in the preparation of these plans. Deficiency Plans are to address the following: Introduction and Setting A definition of the study area and short description of the facility or facilities, including a map showing the location. Deficiency Analysis An analysis of the causes and sources of the deficiency, and a quantitative assessment of the magnitude of the deficiency. Where applicable, an assessment of congestion impacts on transit service should be included. Multi-jurisdictional Participation Where applicable, provide a description of the process to involve other agencies and their roles in the analysis of the deficiency and development of remedial actions. Screening of Actions A table summarizing possible multimodal actions, including land use and TDM strategies, and an evaluation of most suitable actions. Use of the CMP Toolbox of Mitigation Strategies is strongly encouraged. Evaluation of Suitable Actions A determination of whether the action(s) will remedy the deficiency on the specific link or links, or will measurably improve air quality and the LOS on the entire CMP network. Action Plan A description of the proposed actions and their costs, and a schedule for implementation. For multi-jurisdiction Deficiency Plans, identify the respective funding and implementing responsibilities of each participating agency. Local agencies are encouraged to incorporate the CMP Toolbox of Mitigation Strategies in their Action Plan and to identify any needed changes in land use policies or actions, including smart growth implementation strategies, to address congestion issues identified in the Deficiency Plan. Deficiency Plan Process As required by statute, the deficient roadway segments identified in Table 2.5 in Chapter 2 (Roadway Monitoring) will require a Deficiency Plan analysis. Instead of preparing individual Deficiency Plans for all roadway segments projected to be deficient in the future, a first step is to use the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as a systemwide Deficiency Plan. This process provides the ability to evaluate roadway congestion and recommend systemwide and individual 55

66 corridor improvements. The process to use the RTP to address the Deficiency Plan requirements is described below and illustrated in Figure 6.1. Identifying Deficient Segments The 2008 CMP Update includes a systemwide Deficiency Plan analysis that identifies deficient roadway segments. Addressing Deficient Segments with the 2030 RTP The deficient roadway segments are evaluated to determine and identify possible mitigation strategies based on identified nearand long-term transportation improvements, programs, and projects included in the 2030 RTP. The process places emphasis on the 2030 RTP as the primary resource to determine if the CMP LOS E standard is met along the CMP roadway network. Segments Needing Further Analysis Further CMP deficiency analysis are conducted for deficient roadway segments that are not eliminated by proposed 2030 RTP near- or long-term transportation improvements, programs, or projects. An individual Deficiency Plan with additional analysis will be conducted by local jurisdictions in cooperation with SANDAG. Deficiency Plan Requirements Additionally, SANDAG will collaborate with local agencies to initiate Deficiency Plan preparation through subregional planning studies as appropriate for key corridors. SANDAG has identified the crucial factors in prioritizing subregional planning studies that will assist SANDAG to determine and set priorities in the Overall Work Program for developing corridor and subregional plans. These studies can help coordinate the development of regional highway, rail, bus rapid transit, Transportation Demand Management (TDM), and Transportation Systems Management (TSM) projects with local land use and transportation plans, one of the key initiatives identified in the RCP. Subregional studies are not intended to be conducted only for deficient CMP segments. CMP deficient segments located within the study area of a new subregional planning study should incorporate Deficiency Plans into the subregional studies. The subregional studies should include an analysis of existing and future conditions that lead to the identification of potential transportation solutions for a particular study area. Considerations for prioritizing subregional planning studies include: Areas where local jurisdictions are conducting general plan or specific plan updates that have the potential to affect regional transportation projects and services. Communities with a recently updated plan will be given a higher priority. Community should be included or be adjacent to a deficient CMP roadway segment. Communities near or adjacent to a deficient highway segment or multiple roadway segments will be given a higher priority. Areas that are identified in the current RTP or subsequent studies as a subregional area in need of further evaluation will be given a higher priority. Communities undergoing redevelopment will be given priority. Jurisdiction(s) should provide some level of funding commitment for subregional studies. The local jurisdiction may use a portion of TransNet local formula funds to contribute towards funding the study or use developer contributions. 56

67 The timing of conducting subregional studies is dependent on a number of factors including existing studies already underway and funding availability from SANDAG, Caltrans, and the local jurisdictions. Deficiency Plans should be prepared for deficient CMP segments not addressed by the RTP systemwide deficiency analysis, a subregional planning study, or a Corridor System Management Plan. It is the responsibility of the jurisdiction in which the deficiency occurs to prepare the Deficiency Plan. Deficiency Plans should contain possible multimodal actions, including land use and TDM strategies as well as low-cost and near-term improvements to address congestion. Results of Deficiency Analysis For purposes of evaluating the impacts of future improvements on the deficient roadway segments identified in this 2008 CMP Update, the most current RTP, 2030 RTP: Pathways for the Future was used. The 2030 RTP was adopted by the Board in November The funding scenario used was the Reasonably Expected revenue forecast that includes all the sources of funding in the revenue constrained forecast, plus additional sources of transportation revenue that are reasonably expected to become available through The additional potential revenue sources include increases in state and federal gas taxes, higher levels of state and federal discretionary funds, goods movement user fees, and regional development impact fees. This revenue scenario is the basis for the 2030 RTP and the recommended projects and programs. The 2030 RTP included improvements grouped into three phases: 2010 Near-term improvements to be implemented by the year Mid-range improvements to be implemented by the year Long-range improvement to be implemented by the year 2030 For each of these phases the RTP improvements were modeled against future congestion to determine the LOS resulting from these improvements. The results of this analysis are provided in Appendix C (Deficient Segment Analysis), and summarized in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 Impacts of the 2030 RTP Improvements on Future Congestion Existing LOS F 2007 Projected LOS F 2030 No Build Projected LOS F 2010 Projected LOS F 2020 Projected LOS F 2030 Deficient Segments Deficient Mileage CMP roadway segments operating at LOS F. Source: 2030 RTP; Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario 57

68 Figure 6.1 Deficiency Plan Process Based upon this analysis, deficient CMP roadway network mileage is projected to decrease by 22 percent in 2030 with the implementation of improvements contained in the 2030 RTP. However, even with this significant reduction in deficient mileage, 82 miles are projected to operate at LOS F in the future. 58

69 Table 6.2 Remaining Deficient Roadway Segments 1 Freeways CMP Route Limits Affected Local Jurisdiction Interstate 5 SR 54 to Pacific Highway Ramp San Diego and National City Mission Bay Drive to Gilman Drive San Diego Interstate 8 I-5 to El Cajon Boulevard San Diego and La Mesa SR 125 to Johnson Avenue Interstate 15 I-8 to Balboa Avenue San Diego SR 163 to Miramar Road La Mesa and El Cajon San Diego Interstate 805 Telegraph Canyon Road to SR 54 Chula Vista, San Diego County, and National City State Route 52 I-5 to I-805 San Diego State Route 94 I-5 to College Avenue San Diego State Route 163 Ash Street to Friars Road San Diego Conventional Highways State Route 67 Mapleview Street to SR 78 San Diego County and Poway State Route 75 Toll Plaza to I-5 North Coronado and San Diego State Route 76 Melrose Avenue to South Mission Avenue Oceanside and San Diego County State Route 94 Jamacha Boulevard to Jamacha Road San Diego County Arterials 1 Miramar Road Black Mountain Road to I-15 San Diego City North Harbor Drive Laurel Street to Hawthorne Street San Diego City Deficient segments that require Deficiency Plans. These deficient segments not addressed by the current RTP recommendations will require further evaluation through the following means: Local jurisdictions in cooperation with SANDAG will need to address remaining CMP arterial deficiencies through Deficiency Plans. The next RTP update will need to evaluate further improvements to address future freeway and highway congestion. The next RTP update is scheduled for adoption in Additionally, SANDAG, Caltrans, and local jurisdictions are working on a number of subregional and corridor studies that may lay the groundwork for specific Deficiency Plans, which are the responsibility of the local jurisdictions to prepare and adopt. Corridor System Management Plans are underway for the I-5 North and I-805 Corridors. Upcoming planning efforts include the I-5 South and the I-8 Corridors. Additional travel demand modeling to evaluate the cause of the deficiency also may help address the requirements of the Deficiency Plans. 59

70

71 APPENDICES

72

73 APPENDIX A CMP ROADWAY SYSTEM LOS ANALYSIS

74

75 APPENDIX A CMP ROADWAY SYSTEM LOS ANALYSIS Introduction The Congestion Management Program (CMP) enabling legislation requires that the CMP roadway system (as shown in Table 2.3, Chapter 2) be evaluated biennially against the adopted CMP Level of service (LOS) standard. The adopted CMP LOS standard for the San Diego region is LOS E. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for calculating the LOS data for the state highway system in the San Diego region that includes both freeways and conventional highways. For CMP arterials, local agencies are requested to submit traffic and roadway system data that is used by SANDAG to calculate LOS. Some local agencies do their own LOS calculations using the floating car technique and provide the results of the LOS analysis results to SANDAG. The results of the LOS analysis using 2007 traffic data are provided in the following Tables A.1, A.2, and A.3 for CMP freeways, conventional highways, and arterials, respectively. Roadway segments that exceed the LOS standard are noted and will require a Deficiency Plan analysis that is described in Chapter 6 (Deficiency Plans). Table A CMP Freeways Level of Service Analysis CMP Route/Segments Lengths (miles) 2007 LOS Exceed Standard? Interstate 5 Mexico Border to State Route 75 (SR 75) (South) 4.54 A-C SR 75 (South) to SR D SR 54 to 1 st Avenue 7.18 E/F Yes 1 st Avenue to Pacific Highway Ramp 0.87 F Yes Pacific Highway Ramp to Mission Bay Drive 6.49 E Mission Bay Drive to Gilman Drive 2.86 E/F Yes Gilman Drive to I D Interstate 805 (I-805) to Manchester Avenue 7.77 E Manchester Avenue to SR E SR 78 to Oceanside Boulevard 1.14 D Oceanside Boulevard to SR D SR 76 to Orange County Line A-C Interstate 8 Sunset Cliffs Boulevard to Midway Drive 0.76 A-C Midway Drive to I D I-5 to Fletcher Parkway F Yes Fletcher Parkway to El Cajon Boulevard 0.53 F Yes El Cajon Boulevard to SR E SR 125 to Johnson Avenue 3.06 F Yes Johnson Avenue to SR E SR 67 to Lake Jennings 6.02 E Lake Jennings to Imperial County Line A-C 65

76 Table A CMP Freeways Level of Service Analysis (cont.) CMP Route/Segments Lengths (miles) 2007 LOS Exceed Standard? Interstate 15 I-5 to Imperial Avenue 0.95 E Imperial Avenue to SR D SR 94 to I A-C I-805 to I D I-8 to Balboa Avenue 2.97 F Yes Balboa Avenue to SR D SR 163 to Miramar Road 2.17 F Yes Miramar Road to Bernardo Center Drive 9.29 F Yes Bernardo Center Drive to Centre City Parkway 4.63 F Yes Centre City Parkway to SR E SR 78 to Riverside County Line D Interstate 805 I-5 (South) to Palm Avenue 2.41 A-C Palm Avenue to Telegraph Canyon Road 3.16 D Telegraph Canyon Road to Bonita Road 1.70 E/F Yes Bonita Road to SR F Yes SR 54 to Market Street 4.10 F Yes Market Street to SR F Yes SR 163 to SR E SR 52 to Mira Mesa Boulevard 3.42 E Mira Mesa Boulevard to I-5 (North) 1.48 D State Route 52 I-5 to I F Yes I-805 to I D I-15 to Mast Boulevard 5.96 D Mast Boulevard to SR D State Route 54 I-5 to Woodman Street 4.40 D Woodman Street to Briarwood Avenue 0.60 C State Route 56 I-5 to Carmel Country 1.81 D Carmel Country to Black Mountain Road 5.42 A-C Black Mountain Road to I A-C State Route 67 I-8 to Broadway 0.30 E Broadway to Mapleview 4.61 C State Route 78 I-5 to College Avenue 3.29 D College Avenue to Melrose Drive 2.62 D Melrose Drive to Sycamore Drive 3.14 D Sycamore Drive to Rancho Santa Fe Road 1.53 D Rancho Santa Fe Road to San Marcos Boulevard 1.52 D San Marcos Boulevard to I E I-15 to Broadway 1.14 D 66

77 Table A CMP Freeways Level of Service Analysis (cont.) CMP Route/Segments Lengths (miles) 2007 LOS Exceed Standard? State Route 94 I-5 to College Avenue 6.35 F Yes College Avenue to Kenwood Drive 4.00 D Kenwood Drive to Avocado Boulevard 1.50 D State Route 125 SR 54 to SR A-C SR 94 to I D I-8 to SR A-C State Route 163 Ash Street to I F Yes I-8 to Friars Road 0.63 F Yes Friars Road to I D State Route 905 I-5 to I A-C I-805 to Otay Mesa Road 1.25 A-C 67

78 State Route 54 Table A CMP Conventional Highways Level of Service Analysis CMP Route/Segments 68 Length (miles) Campo Road to Willow Glen Drive 0.96 A-C Willow Glen to Grove Road 2.35 A-C State Route LOS Exceed Standard? Mapleview Street to SR F Yes State Route 75 I-5 (South) to Saturn Drive 0.33 D Saturn Drive to Delaware Street 1.38 A-C Delaware Street to Pomona Avenue 7.77 A-C Pomona Avenue to 3 rd Street 1.17 A-C Orange Avenue to City Limits 0.58 D Toll Plaza to I-5 (North) 2.00 F Yes State Route 76 I-5 to Douglas Drive 3.43 E Douglas Drive to Melrose 3.20 D Melrose to E. Vista Way 2.00 F Yes E. Vista Way to South Mission 2.92 F Yes South Mission to I E I-15 to Valley Center Road D Valley Center Road to SR A-C State Route 78 Lincoln Parkway to Washington Avenue 0.45 A-C Broadway to Ash Street 1.05 A-C Washington Avenue to Oak Hill Road 0.71 D Oak Hill Road to Bear Valley Parkway 1.42 D Bear Valley Parkway to SR D SR 67 to 7 th Street 0.33 D 7 th Street to SR A-C SR 79 to Imperial County Line A-C State Route 79 I-8 to Riverside Drive 1.26 A-C Riverside Drive to Riverside County Line A-C State Route 94 Avocado Boulevard to Jamacha Boulevard 0.79 E Jamacha Boulevard to Jamacha Road 0.52 F Yes Jamacha Road to Lyons Valley Road 4.53 E Lyons Valley Road to Otay Lakes Road 5.24 A-C Otay Lakes Road to Dulzura 3.57 A-C State Route 282 Alameda Boulevard to Orange Avenue 1.27 D State Route 905 U.S./Mexico Border to Otay Mesa Road 1.37 D

79 Table A CMP Arterials Level of Service Analysis CMP Route/Segments Manchester Avenue/El Camino Real (I-5 to SR 76/Mission Avenue) Length (Miles) Manchester Avenue: I-5 to El Camino Real 1.13 D El Camino Real: Manchester Avenue to Encinitas Boulevard 1.72 B El Camino Real: Encinitas Boulevard to Garden View Road 0.88 D El Camino Real: Garden View Road to Olivenhain Road 0.63 D El Camino Real: Carlsbad South City Limit to Plaza Drive 9.79 E 2007 LOS Exceed Standard? El Camino Real: Plaza Drive to Vista Way 0.26 F Yes El Camino Real: Vista Way to Oceanside Boulevard 1.35 C El Camino Real: Oceanside Boulevard to SR C Palomar Airport Road/San Marcos Boulevard (I-5 to SR 78) Palomar Airport Road: I-5 to Carlsbad East City Limit 5.96 D San Marcos Boulevard: Business Park Drive to Rancho Santa Fe Road 1.19 D San Marcos Boulevard: Rancho Santa Fe Road to SR E Olivenhain Road/Rancho Santa Fe Road (El Camino Real to SR 78) Olivenhain Road: El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road 1.01 D Rancho Santa Fe Road: Olivenhain Road to Melrose Drive 3.06 E Rancho Santa Fe Road: Melrose Drive to San Marcos Boulevard 2.20 C Rancho Santa Fe Road: San Marcos Boulevard to SR D Centre City Parkway (I-15 North to I-15 South) Centre City Parkway:Country Club Lane to Mission Avenue 2.21 C Centre City Parkway: Mission Avenue to 2 nd Avenue 0.82 E Centre City Parkway: 2 nd Avenue to Felicita Avenue 1.30 C Centre City Parkway: Felicita Avenue to Citracado Parkway 0.93 D Scripps Poway Parkway (I-15 to SR 67) Scripps Poway Parkway: I-15 to Springbrook Drive 2.43 C Scripps Poway Parkway: Springbrook Drive to SR B La Jolla Village Drive/Miramar Road (I-5 to I-15) La Jolla Village Drive: I-5 to Lebon Drive 0.54 F Yes La Jolla Village Drive: Lebon Drive to Town Center Drive 0.97 F Yes La Jolla Village Drive: Town Centre Drive to Eastgate Mall 1.24 C Miramar Road: Eastgate Mall to Cabot Drive 2.75 C Miramar Road: Cabot Drive to Black Mountain Road 1.21 D Miramar Road: Black Mountain Road to I F Yes Balboa Avenue (I-5 to I-15) Balboa Avenue: I-5 to Clairemont Drive 0.95 D Balboa Avenue: Clairemont Drive to Genesee Avenue 1.25 F Yes Balboa Avenue: Genesee Avenue to I E Balboa Avenue: I-805 to Kearny Villa Road 0.92 F Yes Balboa Avenue: Kearny Villa Road to Ruffin Road 1.03 C Balboa Avenue: Ruffin Road to I E 69

80 Table A CMP Arterials Level of Service Analysis (cont.) CMP Route/Segments Length (Miles) Sea World Drive/Friars Road/Mission Gorge Road/Woodside Avenue (I-8 to SR 67) Sea Word Drive: I-5 to Friars Road 0.88 E Friars Road: Sea World Drive to Napa Street 0.89 D Friars Road: Napa Street to Via Las Cumbres 0.70 C Friars Road: Via Las Cumbres to Fashion Valley Road 0.75 E Friars Road: Fashion Valley Road to Frazee Road 0.92 D Friars Road: Frazee Road to River Run Drive 1.54 E Friars Road: River Run Drive to W. Ramp I E Friars Road: W. Ramp I-15 to Mission Gorge Road 1.08 E Mission Gorge Road: Friars Road to Jackson Drive 3.00 B Mission Gorge Road: Jackson Drive to Santee City Limit 1.82 A Mission Gorge Road: Santee City Limit to Fanita Drive 1.63 B Mission Gorge Road: Fanita Drive to Cuyamaca Street 0.98 C Mission Gorge Road: Cuyamaca Street to Magnolia Avenue 0.95 D Woodside Avenue: Magnolia Avenue to SR D Fletcher Parkway/Broadway/E. Main Street (I-8 West to I-8 East) Fletcher Parkway: I-8 to Dallas Street 2.10 D Fletcher Parkway: Dallas Street to Navajo Road 0.68 C Fletcher Parkway: Navajo Road to Cuyamaca Street 1.22 C Fletcher Parkway: Cuyamaca Street to Ballantyne Street 1.24 E Broadway: Ballantyne Street to 2 nd Street 1.30 E Broadway: 2 nd Street to E. Main Street 0.79 D E. Main Street: Broadway to Greenfield Drive 0.37 E Nimitz Boulevard Nimitz Boulevard: W. Point Loma Boulevard to Chatsworth Boulevard 1.02 E Nimitz Boulevard: Chatsworth Boulevard to Rosecrans Street 0.68 E Nimitz Boulevard: Rosecrans Street to N. Harbor Drive 0.34 C North Harbor Drive North Harbor Drive: Nimitz Boulevard to Winship Lane 1.82 C North Harbor Drive: Winship Lane to Laurel Street 0.84 D 2007 LOS Exceed Standard? North Harbor Drive: Laurel Street to Hawthorne Street 0.31 F Yes Pacific Highway Pacific Highway; Hawthorne Street to Harbor Drive 1.06 F Yes Harbor Drive Harbor Drive: Pacific Highway to 5 th Avenue 0.70 E Harbor Drive: 5 th Avenue to 8 th Avenue 0.27 C Harbor Drive: 8 th Avenue to 28 th Street 1.74 F Yes Harbor Drive: 28 th Street to 32 nd Street 0.61 D Harbor Drive: 32 nd Street to I D Otay Mesa Road-Interim SR 905 (Corporate Center Drive to La Medla Road) Otay Mesa Road: Caliente Avenue to Heritage Road 1.16 D Otay Mesa Road: Heritage Road to Britannia Boulevard 0.50 B Otay Mesa Road: Britannia Boulevard to Otay Mesa Center Road 0.76 C Otay Mesa Road: Otay Mesa Center Road to Piper Ranch Road 1.00 D 70

81 APPENDIX B CMP TRANSIT CORRIDORS ANALYSIS

82

83 APPENDIX B CMP TRANSIT CORRIDORS ANALYSIS One aspect of the CMP legislation requirement to monitor the performance of the region's transportation system is that other transportation modes be included. This appendix provides the results of an evaluation of transit service within the eleven (11) CMP transit corridors defined in Chapter 3 (Transit Service Monitoring). The transit corridors and the corresponding tables are listed below (Table B.1), with Figure B.1 identifying the location of the CMP transit corridors. Table B.1 CMP Transit Corridors CMP Transit Corridor Limits Table (1) State Route 76 I-5 to I-15 B-2 (2) State Route 78 I-5 to I-15 B-3 (3) Interstate 5 North Oceanside to Downtown San Diego B-4 (4) Interstate 15 North/State Route 163 Escondido to Downtown San Diego B-5 (5) State Route 52 I-5 to SR 67 B-6 (6) Interstate 15 South Junction with SR 163 to I-5 South B-7 (7) Interstate 8 Sunset Cliffs Boulevard to El Cajon B-8 (8) State Route 94 Downtown San Diego to SR 125 B-9 (9) State Route 75 I-5 North to I-5 South B-10 (10) Interstate 5 South Downtown San Diego to Mexico Border B-11 (11) State Route 905 I-5 to Mexico Border B-12 Note: Corridor numbers correspond to numbers on Map B.1. For each transit route, the following information is provided: Route number, name, and operator Nearby CMP roadways One-way route miles Average trips operated with the weekday peak periods Average weekday peak period ridership Average weekday bus speed (miles per hour) The weekday peak periods are defined as A.M.: 6 to 9 a.m. and P.M.: 3 to 6 p.m. Data are provided and compared between 2005 and 2007 and is summarized for each corridor. 73

84

85 San Diego Region Camp Pendleton MAP AREA Oceanside 78 Vista 2 San Marcos Carlsbad Escondido P A C I F I C P A C I F I C Encinitas Solana Beach Del Mar 5 56 Poway County of San Diego O O C C E E A A N N Santee Figure B.1 CMP TRANSIT CORRIDORS 2008 Update Transit Corridor San Diego La Mesa Lemon Grove El Cajon 94 State Freeways State Highways CMP Arterials Toll Road Coronado 9 National city MILES Chula Vista KILOMETERS Imperial Beach UNITED STATES MEXICO 1-D Tijuana, B.C. 75

86

87 Table B.2 State Route 76 CMP Transit Corridor Route Route Name Operator Related CMP Roads Oceanside/Vista via Mission Avenue Oceanside/Town Center North via Mesa Drive NCTD NCTD I-5, SR 76, Mission Avenue I-5, SR 76, Mission Avenue, El Camino Real State Route 76 Transit Corridor Summary: Year of Data One-Way Route Miles Bus Trips Average Weekday Peak Period Ridership A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB Average Weekday Bus Speed (mph) 2005: : Change: : : Change: : : Change: Table B.3 State Route 78 CMP Transit Corridor Route Route Name Operator Related CMP Roads Oceanside/ Escondido via Vista and San Marcos Oceanside/Escondido Express via SR 78 Carlsbad Village/Vista via Plaza Camino Real Plaza Camino Real/ Tri-City Escondido/Palomar College NCTD NCTD NCTD NCTD NCTD SR 78, I-5, El Camino Real SR 78, I-5, I-15, Rancho Santa Fe Road, Center City Parkway, Mission Avenue SR 78, I-5, El Camino Real SR 78, El Camino Real SR 78, I-15,Mission Avenue, San Marcos Boulevard State Route 78 Transit Corridor Summary: Year of Data One-Way Route Miles 77 Bus Trips Average Weekday Peak Period Ridership A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB Average Weekday Bus Speed (mph) 2005: : Change: : : Change: : : Change: : : Change: : : Change: : ,094 1,094 1,057 1, : ,064 1,202 1,041 1, Change:

88 Table B.4 Interstate 5 North CMP Transit Corridor Route Route Name Operator Related CMP Roads 398 COASTER NCTD 101 Oceanside/UTC via Highway 101 NCTD 41 Fashion Valley/UCSD SDTC Downtown San Diego/ Market Street Pacific Beach/Old Town Transit Center University Towne Centre (UTC)/ Downtown San Diego UTC/Downtown San Diego Oceanside/UTC Express via I-5 UTC/Downtown San Diego Carlsbad Village/ Encinitas via Paseo del Norte SDTC I-5, SR 94 SDTC SDTC SDTC NCTD SDTC NCTD I-5, La Jolla Village Drive, Miramar Road, I-5 to 1-15, Pacific Highway I-5, La Jolla Village Drive I-5, La Jolla Village Drive, I-8, SR 163, Friars Road I-5, Pacific Highway, Sea World Drive I-5, La Jolla Village Drive, Pacific Highway I-5, La Jolla Village Drive I-5, Palomar Airport Road, La Jolla Village Drive, Mission Avenue I-5, Pacific Highway I-5, Palomar Airport Road Interstate 5 North Transit Corridor Summary: Year of Data One-Way Route Miles Bus Trips Average Weekday Peak Period Ridership A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB Average Weekday Bus Speed (mph) 2005: ,859 1, : ,895 1, Change: : : Change: : : Change: : : Change: : : Change: : : Change: : : Change: : : Change: : : Change: : : Change: : : ,169 4,081 4,196 3, Change: Route 34 has been eliminated as a result of the MTS COA. 78

89 Table B.5 Interstate 15 North/State Route 163 CMP Transit Corridor Route Route Name Operator Related CMP Roads Year of Data One-Way Route Miles Average Weekday Peak Period Bus Trips Ridership A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB Average Weekday Bus Speed (mph) 210 Downtown San Diego/ Mira Mesa SDTC I-15, SR 163, SR 52, Mira Mesa Boulevard 2005: 32.0 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A : 21.6 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A Change: N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A Escondido/San Diego Express MTS I-15, SR 163, Harbor Drive, Pacific Highway 2005: 34.2 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A : 32.1 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A Change: -2.1 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A Poway/San Diego Express MTS I-15, SR 163, Harbor Drive, Pacific Highway 2005: 28.0 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A : 25.7 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A Change: -2.3 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A Rancho Peñasquitos/ San Diego Express MTS I-15, SR 163, SR 56, Grape and Hawthorne Streets, Harbor Drive, Pacific Highway 2005: 26.4 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A : 24.2 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A Change: -2.2 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A Rancho Bernardo/ Carmel Mountain Ranch/ San Diego Express MTS I-15, SR 163, Grape and Hawthorne Streets, Harbor Drive, Pacific Highway 2005: 27.9 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A : 28.6 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A Change: 0.7 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A /A/B Downtown San Diego/ North County Mall SDTC I-15, I-8, SR 56, SR 52, Friars Road, Miramar Road, Balboa Avenue, Pacific Highway, Harbor Drive 2005: : Change: Fashion Valley/Kearny Mesa SDTC I-15, I-8, SR 163, Friars Road (Counterclockwise) 2005: : Change: /A/B San Diego State University/Downtown San Diego SDTC I-15, I-8, I-5, SR : : Change: Escondido/North County Mall NCTD I-15, Centre City Parkway 2005: : Change: /359 N. Broadway/Country Club and El Norte NCTD I-15, SR 78, Center City Parkway 2005: : Change: : ,536 2,229 2,294 1, I-15 North/State Route 163 Transit Corridor Summary: 2007: ,272 2,193 2,081 1, Service not provided during this period. Routes 81, 115, 980, and 990 have been eliminated as a result of the MTS COA. Change:

90 Table B.6 State Route 52 CMP Transit Corridor Route Route Name Operator Related CMP Roads 27/A Pacific Beach/ Kearny Mesa El Cajon/Santee/ Kearny Mesa Express University Towne Center (UTC)/Euclid Avenue Trolley Station SDTC MTS MTS SR 52, I-5, Balboa Avenue SR 52, SR 125, I-15, Balboa Avenue SR 52, I-15, I-805, SR 94, Balboa Avenue State Route 52 Transit Corridor Summary: Year of Data One-Way Route Miles Bus Trips Average Weekday Peak Period Ridership A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB Average Weekday Bus Speed (mph) 2005: : Change: : 18.1 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A : 18.1 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A Change: 0.0 N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A : : Change: : : Change: Service not provided during this period. Table B.7 Interstate 15 South CMP Transit Corridor Route Route Name Operator Related CMP Roads National City/ Grantville San Diego State University (SDSU)/National City UTC/Euclid Avenue Trolley Station SDTC MTS MTS I-15, I-8, Mission Gorge Road I-15, Harbor Drive I-15, I-805, SR 94, SR 52, Balboa Avenue, La Jolla Village Drive Interstate 15 South Transit Corridor Summary: Year of Data One-Way Route Miles Bus Trips Average Weekday Peak Period Ridership A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB Average Weekday Bus Speed (mph) 2005: : Change: : : Change: : : N/A 1 N/A Change: N/A 1 N/A : , , : , , Change: Service not provided during this period. Routes 40 and 70 have been eliminated as a result of the MTS COA. 80

91 Table B.8 Interstate 8 CMP Transit Corridor Route Route Name Operator Related CMP Roads 13 11/A/B 15/A/B 7/A/B National City/ Grantville SDSU/Downtown San Diego/Skyline Hills SDSU/Downtown San Diego La Mesa /Downtown San Diego SDTC I-15, I-8, Mission Gorge Road SDTC I-8, SR 163, I-5, SR 94 SDTC I-15, I-8, I-5, SR 163, SDTC I-8, SR-163, I-5, SR Orange Line SDTI I-8, I-805, SR 94, Fletcher Parkway 530 Green Line 2 SDTI I-8; Friars Road, Mission Gorge Road Interstate 8 Transit Corridor Summary: Year of Data One-Way Route Miles Bus Trips Average Weekday Peak Period Ridership A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB Average Weekday Bus Speed (mph) 2005: : Change: : , : , , Change: : : Change: : ,167 1,289 1,353 1, : ,526 1, Change: : ,431 3,237 3,473 2, : ,547 3,401 3,731 3, Change: : N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A : ,764 2,526 2,812 2, Change: ,764 2,526 2,812 2, : ,470 6,082 6,555 5, : ,484 9,000 9,883 8, Change: ,014 2,918 3,328 2, Service not provided during this period. 2 New service route within corridor. 3 Routes 27/A, 115, and 908 have been eliminated as a result of the MTS COA. 81

92 Table B.9 State Route 94 CMP Transit Corridor Route Route Name Operator Related CMP Roads /A/B 3/A 7/A/B Downtown San Diego/ Market Street Downtown San Diego/ Lomita Village College Grove/Euclid Avenue Trolley Station SDSU/Downtown San Diego/Skyline Hills Mission Hills/Euclid Trolley Station La Mesa/Downtown San Diego SDTC I-5, SR 94 SDTC 520 Orange Line SDTI MTS SR 94 SR 94, SR 125, I-5, Harbor Drive SDTC SR 94, I-8, SR 163, I-5 SDTC SR 94, SR 163 SDTC SR 94, I-8, SR 163, I-5 I-8, I-805, SR 94, Fletcher Parkway State Route 94 Transit Corridor Summary: Year of Data One-Way Route Miles Bus Trips Average Weekday Peak Period Ridership A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB Average Weekday Bus Speed (mph) 2005: : Change: : : Change: : : Change: : , : , , Change: : : Change: : ,167 1,289 1,353 1, : ,526 1, Change: : ,431 3,237 3,473 2, : ,547 3,401 3,731 3, Change: : ,479 6,338 6,796 7, : ,119 6,756 7,501 6, Change: Routes 5/A, 5/B, and 16 have been eliminated as a result of the MTS COA. 82

93 Table B.10 State Route 75 CMP Transit Corridor Route Route Name Operator Related CMP Roads 901 Downtown San Diego/ Coronado/Imperial Beach MTS 904 Coronado Shuttle MTS SR Imperial Beach/ Otay Mesa/Nestor Imperial Beach/ Otay Mesa/Nestor I-5, SR 75, Harbor Drive MTS SR 75, I-5, SR 905 MTS SR 75, I-5, SR 905 State Route 75 Transit Corridor Summary: 1 Service not provided during this period. 2 Routes 902 and 903 have been eliminated as a result of the MTS COA. Year of Data One-Way Route Miles Bus Trips Average Weekday Peak Period Ridership A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB Average Weekday Bus Speed (mph) 2005: : Change: : 13.7 N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 N/A : 2.3 N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 N/A Change: N/A 1 N/A N/A 1 N/A : N/A 1 16 N/A N/A N/A : N/A 1 15 N/A N/A 1 1,071 N/A Change: N/A 1-1 N/A 1 93 N/A N/A : 16.5 N/A 1 17 N/A 1 16 N/A N/A : 16.6 N/A 1 16 N/A 1 16 N/A N/A Change: 0.1 N/A 1-1 N/A 1 0 N/A 1 32 N/A : ,200 1,223 1, : ,275 1,331 1,457 1, Change:

94 Table B.11 Interstate 5 South CMP Transit Corridor Route Route Name Operator Related CMP Roads /A/B 905/A/B Downtown San Diego/ Coronado/ Imperial Beach Downtown San Diego/ San Ysidro Border Crossing Downtown San Diego/ San Ysidro Border Crossing Iris Avenue Trolley/ Otay Mesa Border Crossing MTS MTS MTS 510 Blue Line SDTI I-5, SR 75, Harbor Drive I-5, I-15, I-805, SR 94, SR 54, Harbor Drive I-5, I-805, Harbor Drive MTS I-5, SR 905, I-805 I-5, Pacific Highway, SR 905 Interstate 5 South Transit Corridor Summary: Year of Data One-Way Route Miles Bus Trips Average Weekday Peak Period Ridership A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB Average Weekda y Bus Speed (mph) 2005: : Change: : : Change: : : , Change: : : Change: : ,676 3,953 6,876 10, : ,141 4,094 5,054 10, Change: , : ,850 5,665 8,640 12, : ,224 6,091 6,880 13, Change: , Table B.12 State Route 905 CMP Transit Corridor Route Route Name Operator Related CMP Roads 905/A/B Iris Avenue Trolley/ Otay Mesa Border Crossing MTS I-5, SR 905, I-805 State Route 905 Transit Corridor Summary: Year of Data One-Way Route Miles Bus Trips Average Weekday Peak Period Ridership A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB Average Weekday Bus Speed (mph) 2005: : Change: : : Change:

95 APPENDIX C DEFICIENT ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS

96

97 APPENDIX C DEFICIENT ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS Background The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is the primary mechanism for evaluating CMP-identified deficient segments and recommending improvements. For purposes of evaluating the impacts of future improvements on the deficient roadway segments identified in this CMP update, the most current Regional Transportation Plan, the 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future (RTP or the Plan ), was used RTP was adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors in November The funding scenario used was the Reasonably Expected revenue forecast that includes all the sources of funding in the revenue constrained forecast, plus additional sources of transportation revenue that are reasonably expected to become available through The additional potential revenue sources include increases in state and federal gas taxes, higher levels of state and federal discretionary funds, goods movement user fees, and regional development impact fees. This revenue scenario is the basis for the 2030 RTP and the recommend projects and programs. The 2030 RTP included improvements grouped into three phases: 2010 Near-term improvements to be implemented by the year Mid-range improvements to be implemented by the year Long-range improvement to be implemented by the year 2030 For each of these phases the recommended 2030 RTP improvements were modeled against future projected congestion to determine the Level of Service (LOS) resulting from these improvements. The results of this analysis are illustrated in Figures C.1 (2010 LOS), C.2 (2020 LOS), and C.3 (2030 LOS) and detailed in Table C.1. 87

98

99 San Diego Region Camp Pendleton MAP AREA Oceanside Vista 78 San Marcos Carlsbad Escondido Encinitas Solana Beach 5 67 P A C I F I C O C E A N P A C I F I C O C E A N Del Mar 56 Poway County of San Diego Santee 67 8 Figure C.1 FUTURE CMP NETWORK CONGESTION WITH 2030 RTP IMPROVEMENTS Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario San Diego El Cajon La 54 Mesa Lemon Grove Peak Hour Level of Service LOS A-D LOS E LOS F 282 Coronado National City MILES KILOMETERS Imperial Beach 5 Chula Vista UNITED STATES MEXICO 1-D Tijuana, B.C. 89

100

101 San Diego Region Camp Pendleton MAP AREA Oceanside Vista 78 San Marcos Carlsbad Escondido Encinitas Solana Beach 5 67 P A C I F I C O C E A N P A C I F I C O C E A N Del Mar 56 Poway County of San Diego Santee 67 8 Figure C.2 FUTURE CMP NETWORK CONGESTION WITH 2030 RTP IMPROVEMENTS Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario San Diego El Cajon La 54 Mesa Lemon Grove Peak Hour Level of Service LOS A-D LOS E LOS F 282 Coronado National City MILES KILOMETERS Imperial Beach 5 Chula Vista UNITED STATES MEXICO 1-D Tijuana, B.C. 91

102

103 San Diego Region Camp Pendleton MAP AREA Oceanside Vista 78 San Marcos Carlsbad Escondido Encinitas Solana Beach 5 67 P A C I F I C O C E A N P A C I F I C O C E A N Del Mar 56 Poway County of San Diego Santee 67 8 Figure C.3 FUTURE CMP NETWORK CONGESTION WITH 2030 RTP IMPROVEMENTS Reasonably Expected Revenue Scenario San Diego El Cajon La 54 Mesa Lemon Grove Peak Hour Level of Service LOS A-D LOS E LOS F 282 Coronado National City MILES KILOMETERS Imperial Beach 5 Chula Vista UNITED STATES MEXICO 1-D Tijuana, B.C. 93

104

105 FREEWAYS Interstate 5 Location/Limits Table C.1 Evaluation of 2030 RTP Improvements on Deficient Roadway Segments Length (miles) Existing Future LOS With RTP Improvements Percent 2020 Percent 2030 Percent LOS LOS LOS F LOS LOS F LOS LOS F SR 54 to 1 st Avenue 7.18 F F 100% F 100% F 100% 1 st Avenue to Pacific Highway Ramp 0.87 F F 100% F 100% F 100% Mission Bay Drive to Gilman Drive 2.86 F E-F 82% E-F 37% E-F 13% Interstate 8 I-5 to Fletcher Parkway F E-F 60% E-F 88% E-F 81% Fletcher Parkway to El Cajon Boulevard 0.53 F E E-F 55% E-F 55% SR 125 to Johnson Avenue 3.06 F D-E E-F 33% D-F 84% Interstate 15 I-8 to Balboa Avenue 2.97 F E-F 40% D-F 20% D-F 17% SR 163 to Miramar Road 2.17 F E-F 32% D-F 46% E-F 46% Miramar Road to Bernardo Center Drive 9.29 F D-E D-E D-E Bernardo Center Drive to Centre City Parkway 4.63 F D-F 27% D-E D-E Interstate 805 Telegraph Canyon Road to Bonita Road 1.70 F C-E C-E C-E Bonita Road to SR F D-E D-E B-E SR 54 to Market Street 4.10 F E-F 77% E-F 73% E-F 90% Market Street to SR F D-F 62% D-F 53% D-F 52% State Route 52 I-5 to I F D-F 50% D-F 36% C-F 36% State Route 94 I-5 to College Avenue 6.35 F D-F 68% D-F 21% D-F 53% State Route 163 Ash Street to I F D-F 76% C-F 88% C-F 88% I-8 to Friars Road 0.63 F C-F 20% C-F 41% C-F 41% CONVENTIONAL HIGHWAYS State Route 67 Mapleview Street to SR F C-F 55% C-F 34% D-F 31% State Route 75 Toll Plaza to I-5 North 2.00 F E E D-F 50% State Route 76 Melrose to East Vista Way 2.00 F F 100% F 100% F 100% East Vista Way to South Mission 2.92 F F 100% D-F 84% E-F 84% State Route 94 Jamacha Boulevard to Jamacha Road 0.52 F E D-F 50% E-F 50% CMP ARTERIALS Manchester Avenue/El Camino Real (I-5 to SR 76/Mission Avenue) Plaza Drive to Vista Way 0.26 F B-D B-E B-E La Jolla Village Drive/Miramar Road (I-5 to I-15) I-5 to Lebon Drive 0.54 F C C C Lebon Drive to Town Center Drive 0.97 F C C C Black Mountain Road to I F F 100% F 100% F 100% Balboa Avenue (I-5 to I-15) Clairemont Drive to Genessee Avenue 1.25 F B-E B-E B-E I-805 to Kearny Villa Road 0.92 F B-D B-D C-E North Harbor Drive Laurel Street to Hawthorne Street 0.31 F D-F 50% E-F 50% E-F 50% Pacific Highway Hawthorne Street to Harbor Drive 1.06 F A-B B B-C Harbor Drive 8 th Avenue to 28 th Street 1.74 F A-C A-D A-D ¹ LOS calculations represent the highest peak hour (A.M. or P.M.) in the heaviest travel direction

106

107 APPENDIX D TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES

108

109 APPENDIX D TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GUIDELINES Background In September 1998, the San Diego Regional Traffic Standards Task Force gathered for the first time to promote cooperation among the cities, Caltrans, and the County of San Diego to create a region-wide standard for determining traffic impacts in environmental reports. Ultimately the San Diego Traffic Engineers Council (SANTEC) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE California Border Section) were requested to prepare guidelines for traffic impact studies (TIS) that could be reviewed by the Task Force and other appropriate groups. The primary documents used to help prepare these guidelines were the SANDAG Congestion Management Program (CMP) and Traffic Generators manual, City of San Diego s Traffic Impact Study Manual and Trip Generation Manual, and Caltrans Draft Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Purpose of Traffic Impact Studies TIS forecast, describe, and analyze the traffic and transit effects a development will have on the existing and future circulation infrastructure. The purpose of the TIS is to assist engineers in both the development community and public agencies when making land use and other development decisions. TIS quantifies the changes in traffic levels and translates these changes into transportation system impacts in the vicinity of a project. TIS requirements usually are outlined as part of any environmental (CEQA) project review process; and, in order to monitor effects by these requirements, Notices of Preparation must be submitted to all affected agencies. In addition, the Land Use Analysis Program of the CMP requires that an enhanced CEQA review be undertaken to evaluate the impacts of large projects on the regional transportation system. These guidelines are intended to provide guidance to local jurisdictions and/or project sponsors in meeting these CMP requirements. Note: These guidelines are subject to continual update, as future technology and documentation become available. Local jurisdictions should be consulted regarding their preferred or applicable procedures. Objectives of TIS Guidelines The following guidelines were prepared to assist local agencies throughout the San Diego region in promoting consistency and uniformity in traffic impact studies. All Circulation/Community Element roadways, all state routes and freeways (including metered and unmetered ramps), and all transit facilities that are impacted should be included in each study. In general, the region-wide goal for an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) on all freeways, roadway segments, and intersections is LOS D. For undeveloped or not densely developed locations, as determined by any local jurisdiction, the goal may be to achieve a LOS C. Individual local jurisdictions, as well as Caltrans, have slightly different LOS objectives. For example, the Regional 99

110 Growth Management Strategy for San Diego has an objective of LOS D; while the CMP has established a minimum standard of LOS E. In other words, if the existing LOS is D or worse, preservation of the existing LOS must be maintained or acceptable mitigation must be identified. Definitions of LOS currently used by Caltrans are provided in Table D.3. These guidelines do not establish a legal standard for these functions, but are intended to supplement any individual TIS manuals or LOS objectives for the various jurisdictions. These guidelines attempt to consolidate regional efforts to identify when a TIS is needed, what professional procedures should be followed, and what constitutes a significant traffic impact. The instructions outlined in these guidelines are subject to update as future conditions and experience become available. Special situations may call for variation from these guidelines. Caltrans and lead agencies should agree on the specific methods used in traffic impact studies involving any State Route facilities, including metered and unmetered freeway ramps. Need for a Study TIS should be prepared for all projects which generate traffic greater than 1,000 total average daily trips (ADT) or 100 peak-hour trips. If a proposed project is not in conformance with the land use and/or transportation element of the general or community plan, use threshold rates of 500 ADT or 50 peak-hour trips. Early consultation with any affected jurisdictions is strongly encouraged since a focused or abbreviated TIS may still be required even if the above threshold rates are not met. Currently, a CMP analysis is required for all large projects, which are defined as generating 2,400 or more average daily trips or 200 or more peak-hour trips. This size of study usually would include computerized long-range forecasts and select zone assignments. Please refer Figure D.1 for TIS requirements. The geographic area examined in the TIS must include the following: All local roadway segments (including all State surface routes), intersections, and mainline freeway locations where the proposed project will add 50 or more peak-hour trips in either direction to the existing roadway traffic. All freeway entrance and exit ramps where the proposed project will add a significant number of peak-hour trips to cause any traffic queues to exceed ramp storage capacities (refer to Figure D.1). (Note: Care must be taken to include other ramps and intersections that may receive project traffic diverted as a result of already existing, or project causing congestion at freeway entrances and exits.) The data used in the TIS generally should not be more than two years old, and should not reflect a temporary interruption (special events, construction detour, etc.) in the normal traffic patterns unless that is the nature of the project itself. If recent traffic data are not available, current counts must be made by the project applicant/consultant. 100

111 Figure D.1 Flow Chart for Traffic Impact Study Requirements * ** Check with Caltrans for current ramp metering rates and ramp storage capacities. (See Table D.4 Ramp Metering Analysis) However, for health and safety reasons, and/or local and residential street issues, an abbreviated or focused TIS may still be requested by a local agency. (For example, this may include traffic backed up beyond an off-ramp s storage capacity, or may include diverted traffic through an existing neighborhood.) 101