USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Guideway transit and intermodalism

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Guideway transit and intermodalism function and effectiveness : case study, San Diego
Physical Description:
xiii, 94 p. : ill., maps (some col.) ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Sheck, Ronald C
United States -- Federal Transit Administration
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Lehman Center for Transportation Research
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Available through the National Technical Information Service
Place of Publication:
Tampa, FL
Springfield, Va
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Street-railroads -- California -- San Diego   ( lcsh )
Railroads -- Commuting traffic -- California -- San Diego   ( lcsh )
Local transit -- California -- San Diego   ( lcsh )
light rail transit
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
technical report   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (p. 91-94).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
"Authors: Ronald C. Sheck, et al."--Technical report documentation page.
General Note:
Prepared in cooperation with the Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University and the the Federal Transit Administration.
General Note:
"September 1996."
General Note:
Case study.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001931421
oclc - 37410896
usfldc doi - C01-00338
usfldc handle - c1.338
System ID:
SFS0032403:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

. ; '."' ... ... ' ' t . ; ; ':. .: ' . .... .. . . .. ... .. ' ,. : . .. . . . .. . < .. . .' .. .. . .... ........ '. -. . ... .. . .. ... ... . .. ,\ ........ : ; .. , ' ' ... . :' : . ... .... .... ... < .. .. . ....... . . ..... . ' : ... .. ' > . ' . .' :.' >" ... .:' ... . , .. . .:. . !' : .. .. .... .: '. ' .... ; .. .: .:. : : ... .. ,,: < , ... , . 1'.,. : . .; . .. :" > : . . . . ... \ . .' ... ,. . < '. .. ., .. .. .. .. .. .... . ... .. .. .. .... . . .. '., .... '' . : . .. ,, ... . .... ,: . t . . ... : .. : .. ; ? .. . . .. .. .... .... ' .. ; .. :..... ..... . :. ... ... : .. > . ... . ... : ' ., : : ' : ,' ; . : : ... .. ... ., ; ; , :: .. .' .. -,' I' .. . . . .... / .. ,' ... .. .. . .. .' .. . . ... ... : .. ,;: .

PAGE 2

/ ./ I / /" //' _,/ lj I I I I J ' I i / I '--+--Guideway Transit and lntermodalfsm: Function and Effectiveness Case Study San Diego ..JL_ CUTR Conter for Urban TransportatiOn Research CoJiege of Engineering, U n iversity of South Aorida 4202 E. Fowfer Avenue, ENS 118 Tampa FL (8 1 3) 974-3120 S u nCom 574-3120. Fax (813) 974-5168 emal t; btosch@eng usf.edu Gat)' L Brosch, Dlrec/or S&pt&mber 1996 Project Manager Ronaki C. Sheck Project Stslf Martin Cstala Forrest COtton J u leeGreen Michel& La Bruce Cherie Reid F adhely Viloria BenWa ln, F6dn exchdll{18. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereol811d does not endofss any vendors or prodUCts mentJonod In tho report \ \ T \ .D

PAGE 3

this page IS blank

PAGE 4

TR.CIINlCALRF.PORTDOCUMBNTA'IIONl'AGE t. Repolt /l."o. 2 Qcf.ltm"*lt No. (N'TlS) !. OrtalctJ GUID96USF2.1 UMTRISJFTA Section '. Tt:ro at4 Sull:tjo 0. GUIDEWAY TRANSIT AND INTERMODALISM: FUNCTION AND September 1996 EFFECTIVENESS: CASE STUDY, SAN DIEGO &. . . . . . .... 1 Jwlllol(s) a. Rpolt Ronald C. Sheck, et al 9. lll!IIIIO a.:d AddntSIS Center for Urban Transportation Rese-arch {CUTR) 1 0. Wotll Un'Wo, University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue 1 t CCntr.:lct 01 Grant rio. Tampa. Florida 33620 1 Z "81!11C)' N;ame ond 13, l)'po ol e:.d Poflo.:l eovcrt 6 U.S Department o f Transportation Case Study Federal Transit Administration (FTA) November 1994 August 1996 400 7th Street, S.W Washington, DC 20590 1'1, tiS. Slll)l)lw:'.c1'1!a'Y IIO:U 16. This report is one of n ine case studies prepared as part of the study, Guideway Transit and lntermodalism: Function and Effectiveness. This case study examines the i ntroduction of light rail Into San Diego, the first U.S. city to make use of this "new" techno l ogy-essentia lly a modernized adaptation of the electric streetcar to meet the changing travel needs of late 20th century urban a r eas. Ught r ail transit i naugurated i n 1981 and marketed as the "San D iego Trolley," was followed by new regi onal commut er rail service in 1995. The case study chronicles the development of these two rail modes in San D ie go. The study emp h asizes the four major themes of the Guideway p r oject: technology, poicy, plann in g and design. These themes are woven together Into the narr ative which characterizes the local setting, describes the r ail transit tech nolog ies and networlls follows their evolution, discusses planni n g and b u ilding of the systems and their intermodal components identifies poticies supporting transit and describes rail impacts A summary of ma i n points and l essons learned concludes the case study. 17. K&'( WOtlf' I& O:.bi!M SUICtmtlll Report available to the public t hrough the Guideway trans it, light rail, commuter National Technical Information Service (NTIS) rail San Diego transit, new starts 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 (703) 487-4650 19. S.:ufltta.:t. (cl1riet9ll0tl 20. (ottlt1'89t) 21. 22. Plf:t unclassified unclass i fied (NTIS) FonD DOT F 1700.7

PAGE 6

Gufd!way Transit and lnlermodo/Wn: Function and Errectllvaness Preface Over the past ffrw decades more than a aoteri l:J,S. cities have implemented new guideway public transH systems and virtually every major urban area has or is considering increasing of public transportation infrastructure frequently including the consideration of guideway transit investment s. The country's dramallc suburbanlzatlon and socio-economic changes have placed new challenges on public transportation. Various guideway investments are among the solutions tha t local communities have considered to meet the changing transportation needs of their communities. The result has been growing guideway transit ridership and an increase in the importance of guideway in the overall transportation system Guideway transit inves tments are perceived as the public transit investment that provides an excellent opportunHy to compete with auto travel, influence land use, motivate public and business financial support and address air quality and environmental goals. T h i s report does not advocate guideway solutions or discourage careful consideration of non guideway transportation investments, but provides a knowledge base to support t hose involved in guideway planning and implementation. With the development of numerous systems over the past few years, a great deal of experience and knowledge has been gained about all aspects of using guideway investments to meet transportation and other local goals. Much of this knowledge resides with loca l planning agency staffs and is of great value to other urban areas if the most relevant i nformation can be captured and communicated to the ever growing and changing group of pro fessionals that are involved in guideway project planning and decision-making. This report is one of several that are being produced as part of a sludy funded by the Federal Transit Administration on intermodallsm and guideway effectiveness. This multi-year effort i s being conducted by the Lehman Center for Transportation Research at Florida International UniversHy and the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida. The broadly-defined research project, a response to a U.S congressional authorization focuses on the examination of factors that influence the effectiveness and efficiency of guideway transit systems and passenger intermodal transportation The work program is driven by eight primary research tasks, each of which is being addressed through a variety of research methodologies. The overall objective is to assemble exis ting and new informa tion and interpret and communicate that information in a manner that supports the planning and decision-making efforts of public transportation planners. Knowledge gained in this project will provide useful information for the many communities and transportation

PAGE 7

professionals that are p lanning or considering guid eway transit as a key component in their transportation system. In addition, many of the issues and much of the informat i on will have application for all public transportation planning. The products of this research effort in 1995 include te chnical reports, case studies and data books.

PAGE 8

Gu!dew!y Trans;t and lntennodall.sm: Function and EtrectlfVenea Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v List of Ta bles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tX List of Figures .... .................... ................ x Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii In troduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Study Area .. .. .. .. .. .. .............. : .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 2 Physical and Political Characteristics . . .... .... . ..... ......... 4 Demographi c and Socio-Economic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Urban Patterns and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Transportation and Travel Characteristics ....... ....... .. ...... ... 12 Guideway Transit Components in the Region . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . 15 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Evolution of Guideway Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 San Diego Metropolitan Transrt Development Board . . . . . . . . . . 19 San Diego Trolley Inc ...................... .... .. .... ....... 20 North San Diego County Transit District ... ........ ....... ....... 39 lntermoda l Systems and Facimles .... ..... .... ......... ... ......... 49 San Diego Area lntermodal Facilities ...... ..... ................... ... 55 Best Examples of Successfullntermodallsm in the San Diego Area ......... 58 P lanning Guideway Systems and lntermodalism in the San Diego Area ........... 64 P!anning and Building the San Diego Trolley . ........................... 66 Planning and Building Coaster Commuter Rail ................. ... . 70 l ntermodalism In the P lanning Process . .... .... ........... .... 71 Policies Supporting .................... .... .... ....... ..... 72 Tran sportation Polic ies ....... ............. ..... ...... . ... 73 Downtown Development Policy ... ............. ...... .............. 75 Growth Management Polley ...... .............. .... ............ 77 Land Use Policies and Transit R elated Development ... ........ .. ....... 7g Measuring Guideway Transit Impacts ....... . .... . ... ... ........ ... .. 82 Guideway Transit Mode Share ..... ........ ....... .... .... 82 Land Use Impacts ... ..... . .... ........ .. ........... ........ 85 Area and Site I mpacts . .... .. ................. ........ ... 85 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 References ........... ... ..... ................ ......... 91 Centtr'for thlntn R..arch vu

PAGE 9

this page IS m1ss1ng

PAGE 10

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Ust of Tables Demographic Changes in the San Diego Urbanized Area: 1960 1990 .. .. 6 Population Growth in the San Diego Region ......... .............. 7 San Diego Urbanized Area Household Income Characteristics .... ... .. 9 Annual Unlinked Trips .......... . ... ... ..................... 16 Annual Passenger Miles .................... . ..... ....... 16 San Diego Trolley Rail System Characteristics .... ......... ....... 23 San Diego Trolley Rail System Vehicle Characteristics . . . . . . 33 North San Diego County Transit District . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Coaster Express Rail (Stations and Zonal Fare Configurations) ...... . 48 San Dieg o Transrt Center lntermodalism ......................... 52 Regional Transit Bus Routes Numbering Schedule . . . . . . . 54 Percent of Workers Us ing Trans i t for Work Trips . . . . . . . . . 83

PAGE 11

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figur e 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 F igu r e 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 1 1 Figure 12 Figur e 1 3 Figure 14 F igure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 F igure 1 9 Figure 20 F igure 21 F igu re 22 Figure 23 Guideway Transit and lnttmJodallsm: Ftmctlon and Effoctllvenoss List of Figures . San Diego Urbanized Area Map . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Travel Employment and Population . . .. . .. . . . . . . 13 Origins and Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 San Diego County Guideway Transit System ... ... ..... 17 San Diego Trolley System .......................... .... 21 Regional Rail Transit Plan ........................ . 25 Centre City Transit . . . . . .. .... . .... ...... ... . 29 I nitial San Diego Trolley .... . . .... ...... ... . ...... 31 Second Generation U-2 Model ..... ... ... ... .... .... .... 3 1 latest San Diego LRVs .... . .. ... ...... . . ...... 34 Coaster Cab Coach ... ........ ..... ... ..... . ... . 43 Coaster Locomotive ............... .... . . .... .... 43 Trolley/Bus Transfer .... : .. . . ... ......... ........ 57 Station Adaptive Re-use .. ........ ... ... .. ... ......... 57 Public/Private Joint Development ........ . ... .. .. ......... . 62 Cross Platform Rail Transfers . ....................... ... 63 Station Air Rights Development . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . 65 M ult i modal T ransportation Center ... .... ........ ." ......... 65 Joint Freight/Trolley Operation .... ................. .... 69 Trans i t Related Development ........ ....... .............. 77 San Diego Tro lley Major Station Development ....... 81 San D iego Urbanized Area Annual Unlinked Ttips ............... 84 San Diego Urbanized Area Annual Passenger Miles ... ........... 84 .. ... -

PAGE 12

CenferfMtlfDin RIIIWC'h XI

PAGE 13

Guideway Tramlt and lnfermodallsm: Function and.EffectiiVeness Foreword This report is one in a series of case studies examining guideway and intermodalism. These case studies are one component in a broadly defined research project that exam ines factors that have resulted in implementing successful guideway transit systems and how intermodalism can enhance the role of public transportation. These two goals are interrelated through the consideration of guideway transit where it is present as a core t ransportation element in c ities and metropolitan areas. The use of case studies as a research tool was chosen because ind ividual urbanized areas and transit systems have faced unique problems and sets of circumstances in the process of impleme nting fixed guideway service. Exogenous variables, including those such as the political environment that are difficult to quantify, have exerted significant influence on the development of public transportation services and intermodal connectlons. Therefore, case studies permit the careful identification of influent ial factors in particular situations. The information fro m multiple case studies can then be used to construct an overall paradigm regarding the I mplementation of guideway systems and intermodal connections. In addition, t he case studies will support the development of refined hypotheses and the testing of other hypotheses that result from other research tasks undertaken as part of this research Each case study in this series focuses on an urbanized area. The criterion for selecting the case study areas has been the presence of one or more elements of guideway transit including commuter rail, heavy or rapid rail, light rail, cable cars, monorails, automated people movers, suspended cableway, and busways. Each study reviews intermodalism and emphasizes how those various modes fit together as a system, recognizing tha t the facilit ies where transfers from one mode to another take place are critical components. To provide examples of lessons leamed that may benefit others and provide the base data and preliminary analysis for the broader project techno logy, policy and planning are emphasized in the case studies. Each case study begins with an overview of the guideway transit components in the region, followed by a d iscussi on of lntermodalism Planning history that has led to the present is examined. Each case study concentrates on issues the author feels are most r elevant to commun ica te to practitioners beyond the local region ConttrftN l.lt1Mn XII

PAGE 15

Guideway TtansJt and liJtennodallsm: Function and Effoctilvenus San Diego Case study Introduction San Diego is the birthplace of ligh t rail transit in the United States. In 1981 this southern California city inaugurated the San Diego Trolley, the first appliClrtion of a modem urban rail concept that evolved from the e l ectric street railway The development of this low-cost light rail system marked the beginning of a new trend In urban rail transit. Following on the San Diego model a number of other cities across the country have developed light rail as a major component of their urban transportation systems. The initia l one-line light rail project has been expanded to include a second major line with a third under construction for a planned 1997 open ing San Diego has moved more than any other new rail transit city toward the development of a multiple rou te, light rail system. In early 1995 a second guideway t ransit mode, commuter rail, came to this metropolitan southern California county with the inauguration of "Coaster" service over a 40-mile route between Oceanside and San Die go. San Diego is a logical choice as a case study site for the guideway project. Urban rail transit has been introduced into nearly two dozen U.S cities in the past two decades. Heavy rail was the favored mode choice for larger cities in the earlier part of that period. By the 1980s the lower capital costs and greater flexibility of light rail gave it an edge over more expensive heavy rail projects that used exclusive rights of way often in underground subways or on elevated structures. The inauguration of light rail service in San Diego in 1981 was followed by the opening of systems in Buffalo (1984) Portland (1986), Sacramento (1987), San Jose ( 1 988), Los Angeles (1990) Baltimore (1992) St. louis (1993) Denver (1994), and Dallas (1996). Older light rail systems have been upgraded and expanded in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco. Commuter rail, long a travel opt i on for trips between satellite bedroom communities and metropolitan core cities like Boston New York, Philadelph i a, Chicago and San Francisco, has been introduced as a component of the transportation system In Baltimore and Washington (1976), Miami (1990), Los Angeles (1992) and most recently to San Diego (1995). San Diego offers an opportunity to examine the evolution of a ligh t rail ne twork the introduction of commuter rail into a metropolitan transportation system in an economic and social context that i s undergoing dynamic change.

PAGE 16

The research approach f o r this case study began with a litera ture review conducted through a computer search via the Transportation Research Informa tion System (TRIS) and Transportation Library Subtile (TUB). A search was also made of trade publications to identify transit developments and activities occuning in the San Diego metropolitan area over the past two decades. A fie l d trip in June 1995 induded visits to the San Diego light rail system the commuter rail agency and the metropolitan planning organization This provided an opportunity to observe system operations visit with key resource people and collect reports and other data for the case study Agencies contacted include San Diego Metropo li tan T ransit Development Board (MTDB), San Diego T rolley Inc., the San Diego Associa t ion of Governments (SANDAG), and the North San Diego County Trans i t Agency. Other informa t ion used in preparation of this case study has come from Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 15 reports and other federal, state regional and local publications. The Study Area Metropolitan San Diego is a highly urbaniz ed r eg ion located on the Pacific coast of southern California just north of the border between the United States and Mex i co The metropolitan area stretches along the coast from San Ysidro at the border fifteen miles south
PAGE 17

, F.igure : 1 San Diego Urbanized Area

PAGE 18

Proximity to Mexico is an important aspect of the San Diego m etropolitan region Just south of the border i s the city of Tijuana, Baja Cal i fornia. Wrth a population est i mated between 1 5 and 1.8 million this rapidly growing metropolis on Mexico's northern frontier is now the fourth l argest city in a nation of 85 million persons. The central business districts of San Diego and Tijuana are only 18 m i les apart. Border crossings at San Ysidromjuana rank first of all U S./Mexico ports of entry Physical and Political Characteristics T he San Diego metropolitan region centers on the bay of the same name San Diego Bay provid e s one of the best natural harbors on the Pacific coast of the United States The 10 mile long bay is approaChed from the open ocean through a hook shaped deep water entrance protected by Po int Lorna on the north and Coronado I sland on the south San Diego Bay provides a deep water harbor ideally sui ted for nava l vesse l s and merChant shipping On the l andward side a coas t a l plain i s backed by rolling hills that gradually ri de eastward t o the westernmost summits of t he Coast Range whiCh average around 2000 feet in elevation. The coastal plain ranges from about a mile in width at the north end of San D i ego Bay to nearly five miles at the border with Mexico. A low ridge separates San Diego Bay from M i ss i on Valley and M i ssion Bay to the north Coastal plains terraces and outliers of the Coast Range make up the topography north o f Mission Bay. Pockets of coastal pla i n and terraces are the primary settlement s i tes for the cities and towns of the San Diego region The va ll eys of small ri vers and streams provide the main routeways i nto the Coas t Range and through a series of low passes to the desert basin of the Imperial Va ll ey east of the mountains. San Diego experiences a mild, Mediterranean climate Dry summers that are hot in the i nterior are moderated by cold Pacific currents that produce morn i ng fog. The 10 inChes of annual ra infa ll is concentrated in the winter months from Decembe r through Ma r ch. Summe r daytime temperatures average in the upper 70s; winter day highs are in the upper 60s and night time temperatures average 20 degrees lower Natural vegetation cons i sts of chaparral bnush and grasses with cactus and desert succulents on the higher elevations and willow and oak a l ong the stream valleys I n the aforementioned developed areas exotic p l ants dominate l argely species introduced from the Mediterranean Australia and the American sub-tropics

PAGE 19

GUideway lntonnodallsm: Function and Effetll/-...s The political map of the San Diego region initially appears to be relatively straightforward. Basic units consist of San Diego County and 18 municipal governments. Over 84 percent of the county population lives in towns. These ranged in size from Del Mar with 4,860 to San Diego with 1,110 549 inhabitants according to the 1990 U.S. Census of Population Of the total San Diego region (coterminous with San Diego County boundaries) population of 2,498,0 1 6, only 398,764 or less than 16 percent reside i n unincorporated areas. Urban places clearly dominate the region. The city of San Diego alone contains 44 percent of the total population. The polijical dominance of urban places extends to the regiona l transportation planning process. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) i s the area wide planning organization Voting members include one representative from each of the 18 municipa l governments and one representative from the San Diego County Board of Supervisors Three advisory and/or liaison members include Caltrans, the U.S. Department of Defense and a representative from Tijuana/Baja California Responsibility for public transit is divided among two transit deve l opment boards and SANDAG. The North San Diego County Development Board (NCTD) has a service area of 651, 604 persons focusing on Oceanside and Escondido in the northern western part of the county. NCTD operates bus services as North 9Dunty Transit District and since February 1995 operates commuter rail service under the name Coaster. The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) has a service area of approximately 1.5 million persons focusing on the city of San Diego and adjacent cities and towns The MTDB area is served by six t ransit operators: San Diego Trans i t Corporation (STDC), San Diego Trolley, lnc.(STDI) San Diego Regiona l Transportation (County of San Diego), National City Transit (NCT), Chula Vista Transit (CVT), and MTDB contract services. All services are bus except for light rail operated by San Diego Trolley San Diego County also operates services i n rural areas of the county outside of the jurisdiction of e i ther transit development board. Caltrans is also a political player in public transportation in the San Diego region most visibly i n i ntercity rail service on the San Diego-Los Angeles corridor. The state transportation agency has contribu1ed to capital improvements in the corridor which is used by Amtrak intercity trains, Metrolink commuter trains between Oceanside and Los Angeles and Coaster commuter trains between Oceanside and San Diego, and by Burlington Northern Santa Fe freight trains. The Amtrak intercity service is, in part, subsidized by Caltrans.

PAGE 20

Demographic and Socio-Economic Ninety-four percent of the 2.49 million people in San Diego County live in the San Diego Urbanized Area. Just over half (51.8 percent) of the UA population lives in central p laces which are defined as San Diego and Escondido The remaining 48.2 percent lives in the urban fringe. The population of the San Diego UA has increased 127 percent since 1960; from 1,033,011 inhabitants to a total of 2,348,417 persons in 1990 (Table 1). Population growth which was at a low rate (16.0 percent or 1.6 percent annually) between 1960 and 1970 increased significantly in the following two decades. The 1970 to 1980 decade experienced a total increase of 42.2 percent. Between 1980 and 1990 population growth slowed to 37.8 percent. In comparison with the 32 other urbanized areas with guideway trans i t, San Diego ranks 11th in size. Table 1 DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN THE SAN DIEGO URBANIZED AREA: 1960-1990 Category 1960 1970 1980 1990 T otaf Population 1.0 33 011 1 198,323 1,704.352 2.348 417 T otal Households 339 442 422 .630 621. 918 84 1 584 HousehoJd Population 948,883 1 .101.873 1. 6 1 8 116 2 257 142 Persons per Household 2 .80 2.61 2.60 2.68 Employed R .. idents 311 .911 384.204 699 716 1,085,513 WorXers per Household 0.92 0.91 1 13 1 .29 Total Househokl Vehicles 330.06 1 367. 1 99 640,486 988,679 Vehicles per Household 0.97 0 .87 1 .03 1 .17 The 1990 U.S. Census ind icate d that catifomia was one of three states where more than one half of the nation's population growth in the 1980-1990 decade occurred. In 1990 California contained 12 percent of the total U.S population and San Diego accounted for 8 percent of California's population. The 37.8 percent growth rate for the San Diego UA in the 1980-1990 period was much greater than the 23.0 percent for California. Between 1980 and 19go the highest population growth was taking place in suburban cities and towns (Table 2).

PAGE 21

T&ble 2 POPULATION GROWTH IN THE SAN DIEGO REGION: 197D-1t!IO JurlWJetlon 117 0 %Ma re !ISO '% a.h.aro %change 11190 pot:K'IIUon population population """"". 044 1 .2'A. ...... ISU,. 63.126 87,101 5."' 83,927 ..... .. "'"""' .. 20,9 10 1G,8S9 '-"" )10 4!1) 26,5<0 i l if i i l 3 850 0.31 5,017 o ,a" 2U% 4.4'11 13,892 ...... 41A'V. ,, .. ,. .......... 5.375 OM6 10,'196 o .... 100.04 5S,3$$ 00.712 3.1!1 ...,.. ..... 74 ... 1()0,035 .... --:111,244 ,,.,. 22.689 1.301 -----. -... .171 >.a ...... 3.01< ...... --- ..-. J .... -..... ---, "" c ----._. ,..., ,...,. lD,'IOO '""' I I ., .... ' .... .. ..... .. ;24$: k_, m 2.9" ,...,. .. . ' --41.<84 ...... 76.698 ....... ..... 128,398 .,.., 1,422 o.e .. ...,.. 1 .9!1 ........ -.. .... ,.. 58,tf/t 815.530 St.4Y. r san Marcos ...... o.o .. 17,479 1.09!! 3118,8% 38 974 s. ... 21,107 1.8% 4 7 ,080 2.8% 52,902 Sollnl Beach 0.4'l6 13,.047 ..... 19.7Y. 12,962 """ 24.888 2 1% 35.834 2.1% 4 S. I'i 7t,a72 lk!lnc:orporalld n.,m e ex. 173.715 10.1' ll&,N 398,764 san Olego Region 1,19e.32' tOO.CW. 1.704,539 10Cl.O'Io 412'0 2,.a, 016 .... e-%&hare """ 5.4')(, 1.1% 0.2% 3.6% 2.2'0 ..... 1.1% .. ,.,. .... 2.2!< ..,., 1.7'0 ....... 2.1% 0.5% 2 .... 100M. %chango 1!1e0-lte0 "'"" $7 ,4';1, (3.1!1) 20.011 4 13.0% ...... 11 .81' ...,. tS,ft "_,.,. $7 ,4$ 34.9$ ,. .... 12J.O% (0.7""1 tOQ,6(il 12SI. 6fl ...... "' I I l l l

PAGE 22

The rapid growth of the San Diego UA over the past two decades has resulted in population density higher than that of many other urbanized areas with guideway transit. San Diego ran ks 11th in population density among the guideway transit cities with 3,403 persons per square mile. The proportion of the urbanized area population living in the central city (51. 9 percent) is slightly higher than the U.S. urbanized area average of 49.8 percent. The central city population density (4, 770) persons per square mile) is almost identi cal to that of St. Lou is, where light rail service began i n 1984 and considerably higher than the central city density of Portland, Sacramento and Atlanta. San Diego has a moderate per capita leve l of transit ridership In 1994 there were 29 transit tri ps per capita in the Sa n D iego UA The age distribut ion of the San Diego UA population closely approximates tha t of the United States. Twenty-two percent of the UA population is under 16 years of age, nearty identical with the U.S. to tal. The age 65 and over population is a smaller percentage than for the U.S. and the 16 to 64 age group slightly higher This may be a reflection of the strong m igr at ion i nto the region which is dominated by wage-earn ing persons The 1990 U.S. Census indicated t hat 28 percent of the regions residents liv ed outside the county i n 1985. The median age of the total population is 30.9 years, an increase of about two years since 198 0 when the media n age was 28.8 years. Minorities comprise 36 percent of the popu lation in San Diego Persons of Hispanic origin are the largest minority group, account ing for 20 percent of the total. Asian or Pacific Islanders and African Americans make up eight and seven percent each The Native American population is less than one percent. The median age of the Hispanic (24.4 years) and the African American (25.2 years) components is considerably less than that of the White population (33.1 years). The med ian household income for the San Diego UA is $34,611, substantially above t he United States median of $30,056, but under the California median of $35 798. There is considerable difference among racial and ethnic groups (Table 3). The lowest median household income is for African Americans, over $11 ,00 0 below that of White households. The poverty level for a famil y of four was $12,674 in 1989. The poverty rate for San Diego is below the national average of 13 percent. However, the poverty rate for African American, Native American and Hispanic groups is between two and three times that of the White population in San Diego (Table 3).

PAGE 23

Table 3 ' : . ..,. . . .:.. . SAN DIEGO URBANiZED AREA HOUSEHOLD INCOM E CHARACTERISTICS Median Family Percent B elow Percent Below Percen t with Race Social Security Income Poverty Leve l $26,000 In come Whfte $36, 610 8.4% 32.2% 24.6% AfricanAmerlcan $25, 1 04 2 1.3% 50. 0% 11.8% Astan/Pacffic Islan der $35,945 13 .1 % 32.6% 9 1 % Native American $26,676 17.4% 44. 6% 16.8% Hispanic $26,268 22.8% 4 7 .1 % 13 .3% T ota l $35,022 1 1.3% 34.7% 22 0% S!!U K u.s B urNU ol t h o c-..s. San Diego ranks slight l y above the United States average i n households w ith wage income and in parti cipation i n the labor force. San Diego is lower than the nati onal average in households that receive soc ial security income, a reflect i on of a smaller share of popul ation i n the over age 65 category I n the San Diego U A 79 percent of househol d s had wage income compared with 77 percent nati onally. However only 22 percent of San D i ego households reported social security i n come compared with 26 percen t for the United States. Sixtyfive percent of the U.S population age 1 6 and over are in the labor force. For San Diego, the overall labo r f orce part i c i pat i on i s 69 percent. Seventy -nine percen t of San Diego mal es and 58 percent of females participa t e in the labor force. Comparabl e figures for the United States are 7 4 percent for males and 5 7 p ercent for fema les. Income l evels, poverty status and labor force parti c ipa t i o n indicat e that the San Diego population is quite similar to nationa l patterns and with other urbanized areas having gu ideway transit. Eight percent of the households in San Diego have no vehic l e available. This I s below the nati ona l average of 12 percent. The number of two-car households i s id e ntical to that of the United States wit h 37 percent. Only thre e percen t of commut ers use public transit as their m eans of transportation to work in the San Diego UA. This is less than half of the national transit mode share of eight percent. The share of people driving alone to work is on l y slight l y less i n San Diego (71 percent) than the 73 percent for the United States.

PAGE 24

Urban Patterns and History The pleasant landscape, mild climate and available land have been major factors in attracting newcomers to this region. Settlement began in 1769 when the Spanish established a military outpost on a hill overlooking both San Diego and Miss ion bays. Franciscan Friar Junipero Serra founded the first of 21 missions eventually establlshed along the Califomia coast, near the military outpost This settlement, today know as "Old Town" grew slowly and San Diego remained a small community of less than 2,500 even after Califomia achieved statehood in 1850. In the 1880s, a San Francisco merchant Alonzo Horton bought 900 acres and developed a nucleus that was called "New Town facing San Diego Bay. In the following decades San Diego made a major effort to become a center of commerce, industry and shipping having established railroad links to Los Angeles and east to the Imperical Valley. San Diego however remained in the shadow of Los Angeles, clearly the leader in the development of southern California. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor led to a decis ion to relocate the Pacific F leet to a new base on San Diego Bay. Wortd War II brought an increase in population with the expansion of naval and other military bases and development of associated industry. The m ild southern Galifomia climate was Idea l for aircraft testing and contributed to the development of aircraft and later, aerospace industries The U S tuna fishing fleet is primarily based in San Diego. Trade with Mexico has increased substantially since 1950 and is in part related to development efforts aimed at tourism and twin plants (maquiladores) by the Mexican govemmen t since 1960. Metropo litan San Diego has spread 15 or more miles to the north, east and south. Electric street railways made their first appearance in Richmond, Virginia in 1888 and by 191 0 had become the backbone of urban public transit. Thousands of streetcar lines operated In hundreds of cities and towns across the country. The streetcar is an electrically propelled vehicle running on rails laid in the street and taking power from an overhead wire centered above the tracks A roof-mounted pole, termed a "trolley," raised by spring pressure to make contact with the overhead wire provides electricity to traction motors undemeath the car to propel the vehicle. Streetcars dominated U.S. urban public transportation until the late 1920s. The automobile, which became almost universally affordable after World War I, offered new personal mobility and freed a large and growing segment of the population from depending on transit. The

PAGE 25

. Guideway Transit and littennodal&nr. FUnction and EttecrHveness motor bus, an application of the internal combustion engine to vehic les capable of carrying as many people as a streetcar offered adVa(ltages of going anywhere there were streets. : > ... . The motor bus offered transit flex i bility and did nat require capital investment or operating expenses assoclated with track, overhead wire, electrica l substations, etc. Transit experienced a decline in ridership as automobile ownership became more widespread Transit companies initially used buses to extend transit service Into new sections of cities and towns as a l ower cost a l ternative to streetcars. After 1930 many companies began to r eplace streetcars on less patronized routes. In 1933 San Antonio, Texas became the first major city to replace its entire streetcar system with buses. The downward trend i n trans i t ridership and the substitution of buses for streetcars were both interrupted during Wor ld War II when gas and tire rationing seve r ely curta i led personal automobile use. However both of these trends resumed after the war. Transit ridership plummeted from an all time peak of 23 4 million annual riders i n 1946 t o only g_3 million in 1960. Wholesale substitution of buses for streetcars continued at an accelerated pace. By 1974 only seven cities (Boston Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland Newark, New Orleans and San Francisco) continued to operate streetcars. They survived in large part because they operate in unique env i ronments where buses could not be effectively substituted; i.e tunnels, subways or private rights of way not paralleled by streets or roads. In some instances local pride and preservation efforts were a major force in retaining streetcars By the 1960s growing traffic congestion and other quality of life issues led to a recons i deration of gu i deway transit as a means of moving l arge numbe r s of people i n cities and metropolitan areas that were rapidly expanding. In Cleve l and the San F r ancisco Bay Area, Atlanta and Washington D.C. the proposed solution was heavy r a i l rapid transit in a combination of subway, elevated and grade-separated surface rights-of-way The h i gh construction cost of these types of systems prec l uded them from a viable considerat ion in all but a few cities. T r ansportation specialists began to explore less costly alternatives and turned to examples from Europe that had developed out of the rebuilding of war-damaged cities. A modificat i on of the !raditional streetcar system was emerging in Europe Using traditional street running for only a portion of the trip combined with private right-ill-way and limited sections of subway or elevated structures for the remainder, results in shorter overall travel time than i f the entire ra i l trip were made mixed in with automobile traffic. This new concept became known as light r ail. The first North American applicat ion was put in place in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada in 1978. This new system used cily streets in downtown Edmonton and was Centerforl.htJan Transpottatlon Re&NI'Ch 11

PAGE 26

Guideway Tranalt .nd Function Md built on private right-of-way alongside existing intercity rail lines to reach residential suburbs. Rather than street comer stops typ i cal of the traditional streetcar Edmonton light rail employed high platform stations even in the downtown transit mall. Fewer stations and reduced dwell t i mes led to quicker journeys t han would have occurred if classic streetca r operations were f ollowed Growing traffic congestion and a deteriorat i ng city center confronted San Diego city leaders i n the early 1970s Community leaders recognized that an impor1ant aspect of rev i talizing economic activ i ty in downtown San Diego was the need to reduce traffic congestion and maintain quality access to residential areas Public transit, specifically rail, emerged in early discussions assessing the impor1ance of transpor1ation to downtown r e vital i zation. Consideration of several alternative guideway technologies l ed to the selection of l ight rail as the appropriate technology for San Diego. Relative cost simplicity of des i gn, proven t echnology, ease of implementation, and availability of exist i ng ra i l li nes were all factors which we i ghed in favor of light r a il. By 1978 a decision had been made to proceed with the construction of a 16 mile line linking downtown San Diego with the community of San Ysidro on the U S./Mexico Border Construct i on began in 1979 and the new l i ght rail line, known as the San Diego Trolley opened to service in 1981 Transportation and Travel Characteristics San Diego like other urbanized areas in the country has experienced an increase in travel that out paces the growth i n population (Figure 2) Growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMD was 180 percent between 1970 and 1993. In t he same period popu l ation grew by less than 100 percent. Although employment showed a drop beginn i ng with the econom i c downturn in southern California in 1990 travel has continued to grow Projections developed by SANDAG indicate that travel growth wi/1 out pace growth in both population and employment through 2015.

PAGE 27

CluldowoyTransM and II>Wmodlll$m: Funcllon-Etrt ctllvonoss . 2 , . : . lRAVEL, EMPLOYMENT, AND POPULATION: 1970-2015 EMPLOYMENT 1 1 1 200 . . ... ............... ..... ........ . ... ...... .,., ..... POPULATION ... ....... ........ .... . ... 100 ...................... . . ....... ......... ......... ,. ..... ... ... ......... .......... .... ..... .... . 0 1970 ....... .s;, ..... if'' .,_. 1975 ..... ,,, .... _..., .... ,..., Year Tnwet i"' Vehie Miles or Travel SCI.Re: SAHDAG .... 2000 2005 2010 2015 San Diego ra n ks 21st among the guideway transit urbanized areas in percent of workers using transit. Although only 3.4 percent of work trips are made by transit in the UA, 12 percent of employees in Centre City San Diego come to work on transit In the year 2015 it is projected that 6 percent of all trips and 14 percent of work trips In Centre City will be made by transit By 2015 the total number of vehicle trips is forecast to grow by about 35 percent T ransit trips are forecast to Increase by 70 percent but still comprise only 2 percent of t otal tri p s made in the reg ion. The current pattem of trips as illustrated by origins and destinations per square mile based on 1990 U.S. Census data i n dicates that the r e are dear concentrations in three major and severa l minor corridors {Figure 3) One corridor extends south from central San Diego east of the bay thro ugh National City and Chula Vista to San Ysidro A second corridor somewhat more broadly defined exists from San Diego eastward through Mission Valley to Del Cerro, Lemon Grove, La Mesa, E l Cajon and Santee. The third major corridor reaches northward I n two parallel concentrations, o n e westward to La Jolla and the other up 1 -805 through Clairemont to Sorrento Valley It i s more than coincidence that light rail and commuter rail lines appear In these corrid o rs.

PAGE 28

Figuno 3 TOTAL 1lUP ORIGINS AND OESnNAnONS: 1990 CENSUS TRACTS Ill 100 .. _, -HOt ... 11--0 -... .........

PAGE 29

Guideway Trenslt and lntennodaNsm: FUnction and EffKtHveness Guideway Transit Components in the Region Overview Rail transi t is a strong and growing presence in the San Diego Urbanized Area since the opening of the first light rail line in 1961 connecting downtown San Diego and the border community of San Ysidro, 16 miles to the south. Construction of a second line and subsequent extensions have increased the system to a total length of 35 miles, Light rai l is o perated by a non profit corporation under the name San Diego Trolley This is the region s first rai l transit service since the private San Diego Transit System abandoned the las t three r outes of a once-extensive streetcar networi< in 1949 In '1994, the thirteenth full year of l ight rail service, San Diego Trolley accounted for 14.8 million transit trips or 21. 0 percent of the total transit trips in the San Diego UA (Table 4, Table 5). Light rai l passengers traveled l onger distances than bus riders and generated 23.4 percent of all passenger miles. The rai l mode share of total transit ridership, which includes bus service operated by San Diego Transit C
PAGE 30

Table 4 ANNUAL UNLINKED TRIPS (000,000) Tran.111 1989 1900 1991 1992 1993 1994 S ystem Mode Subtotal % Subtotal % Subtotal % Subtotal ;. S ubtotal % Subto t al % SOT I 11. 2 19.80 15 9 23.70 18.0 25.20 17 2 23. 50 1 6 5 22.90 14. 9 22.01 SOTC MB 30.0 53.00 33. 2 49 .50 35.2 49.20 35. 4 48 .50 35. 2 48 .80 35. 4 52.29 NCTO M B 10.2 18.00 11. 1 1 6 .60 10 9 15 .20 10 3 1 4 10 10 4 14.40 1 0 5 15 .51 SANOAG MB 5 3 9 40 6.9 10 .20 7.5 10 .50 10 1 13 .80 10 1 14.00 6 9 10 19 J Totol 56. 7 100 .00 67. 1 100 .00 71. 6 100.00 73. 0 100 .00 7 2 1 100 .00 67. 7 100.00 -... Table 5 I ANNUAL PASSENGER MILES (000 000) Trantlt 1989 1990 199 1 1992 1993 1994 Syate m M-Subtotal % Subtotal % Subtota l % Subtotal % Su btotal % Subtotal % J SOT! 75.9 23.90 115.5 30.90 123 0 31.50 116 2 30 40 111 .7 30.20 75. 6 23.43 sore MB 143.2 45 10 147 8 39.60 154 1 39.40 1 48 3 38.80 142 7 38.50 143 7 44 53 NCTO M B 70. 0 22.10 78. 3 20. 40 75.4 19.30 72 7 19.00 70. 3 1 9 ,00 64. 0 1 9 83 SANOAG M B 28. 3 8 .90 34. 0 9 10 38 3 9 .80 44 8 11.70 45 6 12.30 39. 4 12 .21 Totol 100 .00 100 .00 373 7 100.00 390 8 100.00 382.0 100.00 370 3 100 .00 322.7 100.00 ,_lA$ediM

PAGE 31

Figure 4 San Diego County Guideway Transit System Ave.) Enclnltor Solana 8each SofTEtlb> e Commute r Rail Stat i on Commute r RaiVTrollo y Stat ion San Diego Trolley East Line San Diego TroOey North-South Uno Coaster ---San Diego Trolley (Under Construction) 17 . .. -/ -

PAGE 32

this page IS blank

PAGE 33

Guld!w!r)l TroMlt and lntormodollsm: Function end EffectJlVe
PAGE 34

San Diego Trolley, Inc. San Diego Trolley, Inc. (STDI) is a wholly owned subsidiary created by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTOB) in 1980 to be the operating agency for light rail service. A seven-member board appointed by MTDB overs8
PAGE 35

0 Transfer Point e Trolley Station e Mission Valley line S tation Sites East Line North-South Line ---Mission Valley Line (Unde r Construction) Figure 5 21 Massadlusetts Ave. 0 1 5 Miles Amelt Avenue s

PAGE 36

this page IS blank

PAGE 37

Table 6 SAN D I EGO TROLLEY, INC. (SDTI) Service Area Size (sq. m iles): 570 Service Area Popu l ation: 1,500 ,000 System Characteristics Ligh t Rai l (tr olley) Opening Year of Syste m 1981 Mileage (tota l) 34.4 At grade separate rlw 32.2 At grade street 2. 2 I n subWay or tunne l 0 Elevated 0 Numb er of stations (totaJ) 39 Wrth parking 21 t ra nsit 25 Number of Routes 2 service Frequency Pea k 10 m inutes Off Peak 1530 m inutes Type of T eehnology light rail Power suppl y (overhead or third rail) overhead Vottago 600V D C Rolling s tock 123 artic u la ted light rail e a rs High platform o r low low platform Train sfze 2 cars Train operation manual contro l System Use (1994) A nnua l unlin k ed trips 14, 887,952 Annual vehicle revenue mites 4,175,666 Annual passenger miles 75 619,679 System Operating Revenue Sources (1994) Farebox: 6 6% Local: 16% State: 17% Federal : 0% Other : 1% Soul8 : S8A D:tQO Tfd loy,lno., -Centet'tor Urban TfiJI'tSPOI'I.af R8sNfch 23 ....... ,, .. ___

PAGE 38

c.ntw fw t.ll1lert Ru 1.-a"'o 24

PAGE 39

.. Figure 6 Regional Rail Transit Plan -CommU1er RaU Ught Rail Priority/Express Bus R ail Tran.sil or EX.preu Bus ? . f . f MII,Q San Dl.cg o ASSOCIATION OP GOVl!RNMENTS B .C.

PAGE 40

this page IS blank

PAGE 41

Guideway Transit and lntennodallsm: AmcUon and Effectilveness South of the Imperial and 12th Station the line leaves city streets and enters private rail right of-way purchased from the former San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railroad Thi s former freight-
PAGE 42

System Physical Characteristics The San Diego light rail system is electrically powered from 600 voH, overhead lines. Power is purchased from local utilities and is supplied through 28 substations to an overhead system that consists of simple trolley wire over city streets and catenary on exclusive right-of-way Current is collected by roof mounted pantographs at the outer ends of each articulated light rail car. The entire system is double tracked. The 3.2 mile portion in Centre City is la id in city streets. A two mile East Line segment on Commercial Avenue in San Diego and a short segment in San Ysidro are also in street environments. Traditional streetcar rail is used mounted on wood and concrete ties and covered with a variety of street surface treatments from asphalt to concrete to paving blocks. Track in exclusive light-of-way incorporates 115 lb. welded rail laid on wooden ties and is fully ballasted. Thirty-seven stations are loca ted on the two San Diego Trolley lines. The South Line has 23 stations. Eleven are located in Centre City. Twelve are at suburban centers and towns. Twenty four stations are locate d on the East Line, three on the Bayside segment. Six Centre City stations are shared with the South Line. Two stations are located on Commercial Avenue. Suburban communities and towns are sites for the other 13 East Line stations Stations serving street-running segments of the line consist of or island low-level platforms with standardized shelter designs of arched roofs protecting limited seating, ticket machines and information boards. On Commerce Avenue where light rail trains are mixed with vehicle traffic, safety i slands are employed in trad ition al streetcar style requiring passengers to cross traffic lanes to access trolleys. Most of the suburban community stations are platforms and shelters constructed on one or both sides of the double track Pedestrian access across tracks is by surface walkways protected by warning devices. Several stations bear special mention. Light rail tracks have been laid adjacent to the Santa Fe depot between the historic Mission rev i v!ll building and the tracks used by Coaster commuter rail and Amtrak intercity trains. The America Ctntwfoir(kMn 28

PAGE 43

Figure 7 CENTRE CITY TRANSIT 1' 0 "" N ,. ._ ....... . . .. ....... .. ..

PAGE 44

Plaza station shared by North-So uth and East line trains, i s built into an open ground leve l section of the America Plaza office tower A 12 story office build ing, housing MTOB and ijs subsid i ary transportation agen cies, has been constructed over North-South and East line li ght tracks at the Imperia l and 1 2th station s i te The Lemon Grove station is a n historic wooden railroad station recycled as a commun ity center wijh platforms to serve light rail trains One or more fare machines are located at each station. Signage in English and Spanish provides information on San Diego Tro ll ey services and direct s passengers to connecting bus transit and/or parking lots. Wheelchair lift s are provided on all trains Tactile mats In stations assist passengers with v isual impairments in boarding Bicycle racks and/or lockers are provided at designated stat ions. Station spacing varies from two to five b l ocks in Centre City to over one mile on the suburban portions of the North-South and East li nes Parking is provided at 21 suburban stations where 5200 fre e spaces are located. Paid parking is available at American Plaza and Imperial and 12th stations in multilevel garages Rolling stock is cleaned, serviced and repaired at the SOTI maintenance facility located to the south of the Imperial and 1 2th station. The maintenance facility was constructed on land that wa s originally part of the SO&AE freight yard The facility has been expanded to provide additional capacity as the light rail serv ice and fleet have grown This growth has resulted in an expansion from the original 12 acre site to encompass an additional 7 acres southeast of the I mperia l and 12th station t o the east of the North-South Une track System Rolling Stock San Diego Trolley currently operates a fleet of 71 Model U2 articulated light rail cars and 52 Model S01 00 (Figure 8, Figure 9). Car bodies are made of lightweight welded steel with reinforced fiberglass cab ends and articulation covers. Each 76 foot long car sea t s 64 passengers and offers space for 86 standees. Four sets of double fold doors are mounted on both sides of each

PAGE 45

Figure 8. Initial San Diego Trolley. Articulated LRV 1024 leads a San Ysidro bound train from the original downtown San Diego Trolley tenninus in stub-end tracks on C Street In 1984. This non-air conattioned U2 model built In West Germany by Siemans/Duewag was part of the early light rail fleet. (Photo, Ron Sheck) Figures. Second Generation U-2 Model. LRV 1047, a later U2 model built at the new Siemens/Duewag plant in Sacramento is air-conditioned. It is leading an East Line train in the Bayside anoa as It loops around downtown San Diego on its way to suburban El cajon in 1994. Earlier U2 models have been notrofitled with air-conditioning (Photo, Ron Sheck) c.ntor for llrl>an Tnmspottation ReSNI'Ch 31

PAGE 46

Guideway Transit and lntenodaJism: Function and EW.Ctllvenes.s articulated car. The front right hand door on each end of the two-unit articulated car is dedicated to wheelchair access. Doors are individually activated by passengers pushing buttons after locks are released by the operator. A folding bottom step is lowered when doors open to facimate passenger access via additional interior steps to car floor levels. The first 24 cars were originally equipped with forced air ventilation and standee window panels that open. They have been retrofitted with roof-mounted air and the next 47 cars were ordered with factory-installed air. (Table 7). The 71 U2 LRV's were acquired in five separate purchases from Siemens!Duewag. The initial order of 14 cars and a subsequent purchase of an additional 10 were constructed in West Germany. The manufacturer opened a plant in Sacramento in 1985 and orders placed in 1986, 1989 and 1990 have been assembled in California. The six-axle cars are powered by motors mounted on the outer trucks; the center truck located at the articulation joint is non-powered. Operator cabs are located at both ends of the cars. The operator console contains acceleration and braking controls. Each truck is equipped with two 1Jack brakes and disc brakes are mounted on the four axles of the outer trucks. The L RVs are equipped for multiple unit (m.u.) operation in trains of up to four cars controlled by a single operator. SID! has taken delivery of 52 additional LRVs ordered in 1992. These SD1 00 model air-conditioned vehicles are also being constructed by Siemens/Duewag at the Sacramento plant. The new cars have the same passenger capacity as the earlier U2 design but diffe r in design of the cab ends and in step arrangements in the doorwells. (Figure 10) Car body construction is all lightweight welded steel. The SO 100 cars are equipped with dynamic brakes which generate electricity as well as track and disc brakes. Greater operating power requ irements in the new cars allow them to achieve a maximum speed of 55 mph compared with 50 mph for the older model U2 vehicles. The addition of 52 new light rail vehicles will satisfy STDI equipment needs for all route extensions presently under construction. 32

PAGE 47

Guld!way Transit and Ftliie6on at1d Etrectllveni!S$ T a b l e 7 San D i e g o T rolley System Vehic l e Characteristics Vehic l e Type, ( N umber in Six axl e, articulated double unH Six axle art i cu l ated, double fleet) L RV (71) uni t LRV (52) Vehic l e Mode l U2 SD 100 Manufacturer Siemens/Duewag Siemens/Duewag Length 75.7 76 7 Dimensions (feet) Width 8.7 8.8 Height 12.0 1 2 3 Weight (lb) 71,070 87,080 Seats 64 64 capacity Crush Load 154 Number of Doors 4 per side, folding exterior steps 4 per side, low level interior steps Air Conditioning Yes Yes Axl es/Traction Motors/Hp. 6/2/201 hp. (each) 6/2/325 hp. (ea) Propu l sion Contro l Cam Control Single OLC chopper Power Supp l y 600 Volt DC Overhead Catenary 600 VoH DC Overhead Catenary Brake Sys t em Disc, Track Disc, Dynamic, Track Speed 50 55 Train Consist 1 4 Cars 1 4 Cars

PAGE 48

Figure 10. Latest San Diego LRV'a. The second generation of San Diego LRVs: an SD100 vehicle is in the maintenance facility yard south of the Imperial and 12th Transfer Canter. The 52 vehicles in this seri&s diffar from the &artier U2 V&hic/es in end design and interior steps. (Photo. Ron Sheck) System Operations San Diego Trolley provides rail transit service on a 21 hour basis. Weekday trains generally operate between 4:00am and 1:OOam. South Line Saturday services start and end about one hour later. South Line Sunday and Holiday and East l ine Saturday, Sunday and Holiday services begin about 5:00am and end near Midnight. A special Owt service at approximately one hour intervals operates Saturday night/Sunday mornings on the South Line, primarily to serve entertainment travel between San Diego and Tijuana. North-South Line trains operate at 10 minute headways during weekday morning and aflemoonlearly evening peak hours. Service is at 15 minute intervals fnom 9:00am to 3:00pm and between 7:30pm and 1 0:30pm. Thirty minute headways prevail after that time. East Line weekday trains operate at 15 minute headways until 9:00pm when the service interval is increased to 30 minutes. Trains on both lines run at 15 minute intervals between 9:00am and CdortwllrOM 34

PAGE 49

7:00pm and at 30 m inute int ervals before and after those h ours on weekends and holidays. San Diego Trolley uses a single operator on board. Dispatching of trains is carried out from a control center in the maintenance facility near Imperial and 12th Streets. Operators control door locks from the cab, are in touch with t he control by radio-telephone and have public address access to all cars in the train and to passengers waiting on platforms. SDTI ligh t rail trains are limited to three cars on the 12th and C Street segments of the Centre City area in order not to block grade crossings when stopped at stations. South and East line trains can operate with up to f our cars south of the Imp erial and 12th Station. Two -car trains are the norm in off peak hours on the East line. Three-car trains are operated on the North-South line during the base period. Operators control acceleration, b raking, opening and closing of doors and operation of lifts for handicapped access. Trains are run on a visua l basis when in the street environment in Centre City. LRVs cannot preempt road traffic signa ls, sequential timing allows train movement between downtown stations. Automalic block signals govem train movements on the separated rights-()f -way on the North-South and East lines. Scheduled travel time is 53 minutes for the 20.1 miles between San Ysidro and Old Town on the North-South Line, an average overall speed of 23 mph Including 21 intermediate stops East Line trave l time is 62 minutes for the 22.4 mile end-to-end run, an average overall speed of 20 mph including 22 Intermed ia te stops between the Santee Transit Terminal and the Bayside platform at Imperial and 12th Streets. The slower overall speed on the East line Is the result of a larger proportion of running in city streets shared with motor vehicle traffic, more curved track and more grades. Fare payment is by purchase of tickets or passes. Passengers are required to cany proof of paymen t while riding trains. Fare inspectors may randomly ask passengers for their tickets. Single tickets and a one-day pass may be purchased from fare machines. These are located on platforms at all rail Con! for lhblm Tl'an&pOitaUINI ResNrtlt 35

PAGE 50

stations. Some machines require exact change; some accept $1.00 or $5.00 bills and make change. Susan B. AnthOny $1.00 coins are accepted. Monthly ready passes, good for unlimited riders on Trolley and most MTS buses, are sold at various outlets Two forms of multiride tickets are also available f rom these outlets. "Ready 2" is a ticket for 2 one way trips up to the maximum rail fare of $1.75 each. A book of 10 one-way discounted tickets, "10-Pack" is also sold. Both types of muHiride tickets must be validated in a station ticket machine before boarding the trolley. Fares on the San Diego Trolley are based on distance calculated on the number of stations. One to two station trips are $1. 00. Travel in an area that includes 3 to 7 stations is $1.50 For a distance covering B or more stations the fare is $1. 75. Senior/disabled fares for any distance are $.75. Regular monthly passes are $49.00. Youth passes (age 6-18 years) are $24.50 and senior/disabled are $12.25. An unusual feature of San Diego regular monthly passes is that users are encouraged to share them with family members and friends. A day ticket, good on all tro lley and SOTS bus lines, is sold for $5.00 at the downtown Transij Store and from machines at some light rail stations. Unlimited travel is allowed in the Centre City area (Figure 7) within two hours from the time of ticket purchase for $1.00 Bicycles are permiHed on San Diego Trolley trains during non-peak hours Trolley operators may limit the number of bicycles. Racks and lockers are pro v ided at many s t ations. System Performance The San D iego light rail system operated 4 .2 million annual vehicle revenue miles and 220,322 annual vehicle revenue hours, according to FTA Section 15 data from Fiscal Year (FY) 1g94_ In the same year the San Diego Transit Corporation (SOTC) bus system operated 12.6 m illion vehicle miles and 1,054,410 vehicle revenue hours. The North County Transit District (NCTO) bus system operated 6.7 million vehicle revenue miles and 476,636 vehicle revenue hours. c-ar for UrNn Jnmportsllon Re&Nn:h 36

PAGE 51

Guideway Transit errd and Etfe<:t!lvene&s In FY 1994, San Diego Trolley generated 14.9 million unlinked trips and produced 75.6 million passenger miles. The San Diego city bus system generated 35.4 million unlinked trips and produced 143.7 million passenger miles in the same year. The North caunty system generated 10.5 million un l inked trips and 64.4 million passenger miles. The number of rail passenger miles and unlinked trips both increased 47.2 percent from 1989 to 1993 (Tables 4 and 5). A decline in light rail trips and passenger miles in 1994 may reflect a rise in unemployment and a general downturn in the San Diego economy. San Diego Transit bus ridership increased 17.3 percent and North San Diego caunty Transit bus grew by 2 0 percent. Transit ridership has grown substantially in the San Diego UA since the inauguration of light rail service in 1981. The trolley service is clearly part of that growth, bu1 expanded bus service by both SDTS and NCTD have contributed significantly as well. Total annual operating expenses for light rail rose from $11.3 million in 19891o $19.3 million in 1994, a 71 percent increase. During the same period the system doubled in For the SDTS bus system operating expenses increased 35.6 percent from $41.8 million in 1989to $56.7 million in 1994. Of the total transit ridership in the San Diego UA in 1994, light rail accounts for 21.0 percent of the unlinked trips and 23.4 percent of the passenger miles. Motor bus service provided by San Diego Transit, North County TransH and Regional Transit Service accounts for the remainder. Operating expenses were $4.63 per vehicle mile in 1994 for San Diego light rail and $4.47 for San Diego Transit buses. Operating expenses per passenger t rip were $1.30 for light rail and $1.60 for SOTS buses. The expenses per passenger mile were $0.26 for light rail and $0.39 fo r bus. Passenger fare revenues for San Diego Trolley, Inc. $12.9 mi llio n in 1994 and covered 66 percent of operating costs. This is down from 92 percent in 1989. Center tor U11Jan TranspottatJon Research 37

PAGE 52

Guideway TratJ$It and Function .nd Ef'ffH:tJiveness Administrative Structure San Diego Trolley, Inc (STDI) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB). son was created by MTDB in August 1980 to be the regional light rail operator. A seven-member board, appointed by constituent cities oversees STDI operations and hires a general manager. Light rail operations and maintenance are major functions of San Diego Trolley. The agency has 259 employees By category, these include 23 in administration, 118 in transportation, 52 in LRV maintenance and 66 in right-of-way maintenance which includes track, traction power and signal systems. As an operator in the Metropolitan Transit System, STDI participates in regional fare and transfer agreements with San Diego Trans it, the County Transit Service operated by the County of San Diego, National City Chula Vista and MTDB's contract services. Close work ing relationships have been established between these organizations to ensure smooth and timely intennodat connections. New Technological Innovations San Diego Trolley has broken new ground in the areas of fare policy and fare collection. Among the fare policy contributions is the first adoption of the "proof of payment" system in the U.S. Payment of fares is by purchase of a ticket or pass, or by acquisition of a bus transfer, before boarding the Trolley. Inspectors, riding trains at random, may r equire passengers to produce a ticket, pass, or bus transfer as evidence of fare payment. Passengers failing to possess such proof may receive a citation resulting in a penalty son reports a fare evasion rate of less than two percent. Fare machines are located at all light rail stations. All machines accept coins and issue single tickets which are good for a one-way trip Some fare machines require exact change. Others accept one and five dollar bills, m ake change and dispense one and three day passes. Books of 10 one-way tickets and passes are sold at the downtown Transit Store, and at many other outlets including banks and supennarkets. Although not a technological innovation San Diego has pioneered in the joint use of rail light, rail lines for passenger and freight services. In fact, the construction of both the South and East lines involved the acquisttion of actively used freight rail lines Fre ight train service has been retained on both of these routes. On the East line, fre ight service is provided to Center tor Urban Ttansporui/ott Rueatdt 38

PAGE 53

Gllid!wg Transit and lliioilfloilimili: F'uii
PAGE 54

Guideway TtaMit and lntennodallsm: FunctJon and EffectJivneu The 42 mile Coaster route begins at the Oceanside lntermodal Transportation Center and continues south through the coastal communities of Carlsbad, Leucadia, Encinitas Cardiff by-the-Sea, Solana Beach and DelMar (Figure 1 2). The route then turns inland to Miramar and Sorrento Valley before c limb ing through Soledad Canyon 200 feet to Miramar Summit. The ra i l line then descends to near sea leve l at M ission Bay and enters San Diego passing the historic settlement of Old Town and termi nates at the Santa Fe Depot where connections are made with San Diego l ight rail and bus transit lines as well as International bus services to T ijuana. System Physical Characteristics The 42.0 mile Coaster route is predominantly a single track railroad with passing sidings A short double track segment exists over the Miramar Hills section. Except for this section track alignments are generally straight and curvature slight. Several passing sidings allow for meets between trains. Plans are under way to double track the entire route over a several year period. Track Is constructed of 116 lb to 132 lb welded rail laid on wooden ties. It is ballasted with crushed stone A combined automatic block signal and centralized traffic control (CTC) system governs train movement. Grade crossings are protected with flashing lights and/or gates (Table 8). Coaster trains serve eight stations. Three (Oceanside, Solana Beach, and San Diego) are shared with Amtrak intercity trains Six new stations have been built or are under construelion: Carlsbad Village, Carlsbad Poinsettia, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Sorrento Valley and Old Town. Two others may be added to the route in the future. Covered waiting f ac ilit ies are features of all stations. The Oceanside station is an intermodal facility built in 198 4 by NCTD to serve loca l transit, Greyhound and Amtrak tra ins Metrolink and Coaster commuter trains have been recent additions. Two central tracks at the Santa Fe Depot in San Diego have been rebuilt for use by Coaster trains The historic depot struelure was restored in the mid1980s. San Diego Trolley light rail trains use the two tracks closest to the station. Amtrak intercity tra ins use the two western most tracks. cemerforiJrban r,.,.,..,_Rosoat
PAGE 55

The Solana Beach station replaces the former DelMar station used by Amtrak tra i ns. Lack of adequate parldng facilities and l i mited space for expansion were reasons to relocate train seNice to the new site. The Old Town station is a combined commuter rail-light rail facility wilh parking and easy pedestrian access to this historic district with its various tourist attractions. Conffl' ror UrNn TransportBtlon Research 41

PAGE 56

Table 8 NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (NCID) SeMc:e Area Size (sq mites): 202 Service Area Population: 651,604 System Characteristics Light Rai l (trolley) Opening Yea r of System 1995 Mileage (tota l ) 42.0 At grade separate rtw 42.0 At grade street N/A In subway or tunnel N/A Elevated N/A Number of Stations (total) 8 With parking 6 Wrth transtt 5 Number of Routes 1 Service Frequency P eak/Off Peak 6 trains each way on weekdays Type of Technology commuter rai l Power supply (overhead or th ir d diesel locomotive rai l ) N/A Voltage t7 high-level oommuter cars Rolling stock low platform High platform or low 3 cars Train size manual control, automatic block Train operation s ignals System Use system started i n 1995 Annual unlinked trips N/A Annual vehicle revenue miles N/A Annual passenger mUes N/A System Operating Revenue Sources Farebox: N/A Local: N/A State: N/A Federal: N/A Other: N/A Centw tor UrNn Tramportatlon Rutarth 42

PAGE 57

Guideway Tranllt IMd Jnioiil.i>Uifl: FiJiietlon and EftRgure 11. Coaster Csb Coach. A Coaster commuter train operating in push" mode with a bi-l&vel Bombardier cab-equipped coach has arrived at the Santa Fe Depot at Broadway and Kettner Boulevard In downtown San Diego. (Photo, Ron Sheck} Figure 12. Coaster Locomotive. A southbound Coaster commuter train is ready for departure in the "push" mode from the Oceanside Transit Center as an Amtrak san Diegan occupies the adjacent station track. Coaster commuter trains operate with diesel locomotives positioned at the north end. (Photo, Ron Shock)

PAGE 58

Guideway Transit and lntermoda&.m: Function and EffKrllvtnt$$ All stations except the Santa Fe Depot have parking facilities. Ticket machines are located on the p latforms of all stations. Special access platforms for the disabled are located at the south e nd of each station platform. Public telephones are available at all stations. Stations are well marked with adequate signage and instructions on purchasing tickets and access for the disabled. Connecting transit inform ation is available on sign boards and/or in schedule racks. Information booths providing materials on transportation and local shopping, entertainment and recreational are found in the San Diego and Oceanside Stations. The Oceanside station includes a Burger King fast food facility. Coaster trains are currently serviced at a layover facility adjacent to the San Diego Trolley light rail yards or at a facility about two miles north of the Oceanside station The latter location is the of a planned maintenance and repair for Coaster locomotives and cars. System Rolling Stock Locomotive-hauled trains are composed of bi-level commuter cars. Sixteen cars were purchased from Bombardier of Canada and delivered in 1994. These cars are nearly identical to cars used by Metrolink and TriRail and are based on an original design produced for Toronto in the early 1980s The fleet includes eight coaches and eight cab cars. Cab cars are equipped with a full control cab for use by the engineer when the train i s operated in the "push" mode. The 85ft. long cars have two sets of double doors on each side. Located in the center tower level of the cars these door ways are only a short step-up from station platforms. Inside sta irs lead from the door vestibules to mid and upper levels Five cars were ordered in 1996. cars are air-conditioned, carpeted, and feature upholstered seating with fabric emphasizing the blue, green and aqua colors of Coaster's ocean water theme. Seats are grouped in facing pairs some with tables in between. Accessible restrooms are provided on each car. Access for the disabled is facilitated by a portable boarding ramp from specia l platforms at stations. Two wheel chair Center for lJrban TtansportM/on Resean::h 44

PAGE 59

Guld!w!y Tramlt and tniehttttliWi l:trectJJveness spaces are l oca t ed on the lower level of each car. Space for bicycles is provided with velcro straps to secure front and ba c k t ires Five remanufactured F-40 diesel locomotives were purchas e d from Morrison Knudsen These provide 440 volt head end power for train lighting, heating and air conditioning in addition to delivering traction power The locomotives and cars are e quipped with train l ine controls so the trains can operate in push pull mode System Operations Coaster operates Oceanside-San Diego Monday through Friday except on the following holidays : New Yea(s Day, Mem o rial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Trains are opera ted In a push pull format. Locomotives are positioned on the north end of the trains and pull trains to Oceanside and push them with cab cars forward toward San Diego. A norma l train consists of three to four cars. Occas i ona l spac i al trains run to five ca r s Five additional cars are on order to provide more capacity. Coaster schedules in effec t in July 199 5 provide for five moming peak trains southbound depart i ng Oceanside between 5:34am and 7:48am. Five corresponding aflemoon peak hour trains depart San Diego between 4:20pm and 6:35pm. A single reverse-peak train departs from Oceanside at 5:26pm and from San D i ego at 6:41am Midday trains leave Oceanside at 11 :OOam and 3:00pm and from San D i ego at 9 : 50am and 1:50pm. A Summer special Friday evening service of two round trips departs from Oceanside at 6:30 and 9:40pm and from San Diego at 7:50 and 1 0:55pm to allow for evening shopp i ng, entertainment or specia l event travel. Ctmorfor Urban TramportaUon Research 45

PAGE 60

Trains operate end-to-end service in 58 minutes for an overall speed of 42. 5mph including five intermediate stops. Train dispatching is handled from the Metrolink control center in Los Angeles under contract from NCTD. Fare payment is by purchase of tickets or passes. Single ride, two ride, ten ride or monthly passes are available from ticket vending machines at stations. Cash, Visa and MasterCard are accepted and ATM cards will be accepted in the near Mure. Children age 5 and under ride free Monthly passes are also available by mail, and i f paying by credit card can be ordered by telephone Ttckets must be purchased and validated before boarding. No tickets are sold on the train by the conductor. All tickets except monthly passes must be validated. Validation is by inserting the ticket end into a designated slot in the t icket vending machine. Coaster fares are zone based. Basic fare paym ent is for one-trip, two-trip and ten-trip tickets. Ttckets and passes vary in price as to the number of zones traveled. For example a trip from Oceanside to Carlsbad is within a single zone; a trip from Encinitas to San Diego covers three zones. (Table 9). A single zone one t rip ticket I s $2.50; rising to $3. 25 for four zones. The Coaster P lus Monthly Pass is valid for unlimited travel during the month and within the Coas ter zones designated plus provides unlimited transportation on all San Diego County NCTD buses, San Diego Transi t buses and San Diego T r olley (Table 9). A Youth Pass is avai l able (18 and under) for $47.00 all zones and seniors/disabled (60 and over) can purchase an all zone pass for $23.00 Passengers transferring to Coaster from the above mentioned bus and light rail services can use their transfer for a $1.10 ($0.50 for seniors/disabled) discount on a Coaster one trip ticket. Center tor uman RearciJ 46

PAGE 61

Bicycles are allowed on trains. One entrance to each car is marked with a bicycle symbol and tie-downs are provided in designated bike spaces. No penni! is required. Cent.,-rorUtNn 47

PAGE 62

Table 9 COASTER EXPRESS RAIL (STA liONS AND ZONAL FARE CON F IGURA liON) Regular Far" Senior ond Disabled Fares i i Monthly Coni Ellpres Rail Number One T w o Ten Coaster "Co11tor" Number One TWo Ten ofZon .. Trip Trtpo Trlpo P lus of Zona Trtp T rtpo Trtpo Peoo t W ith i n $ 2 50 $4 75 $22 5 0 $80 .00 Zone 1 Oceanakfe Tnnslt Center Within $1 .25 $2 35 $11.25 1Zone Certobed VIllage Station 1Zono Within Cwtobed P olnoetto Stal1on Wllhln $2, 75 $5.25 $2US $85.00 Zone2 Enclnllo o stotlon 2Zoneo $1.35 $2.60 $12.3 5 2Zoneo Solono Beech stotlon ( Within $ 3 00 $5.7 0 $ 27 00 $90 .00 Zone3 Sorronto Volley S tation Wit hin $1 .50 $2 85 $13. 50 3Zoneo 3Zones With i n $ 3 .25 Zone 4 Old Town T r enalt Center W ithin $ 1.60 $3 10 4Zoneo $6. 20 $29 25 $95.00 Son Diego (So nto Fe Dopol) 4 Zona $14 .60 -----San Qioeo eo. .. EltPI"' R l I Monthly I Collier Plus Pan $ 23.00 $23 .00 $23.00 $23 .00 i ( l .-. I l

PAGE 63

Guideway Tr.tnSJt and and Effectifveness Administrative Structure The North San Diego County Transit Development District was created In 1976 to provide public transportation services in northern San Diego County. The District is governed by a nine member board of directors. The board members are local e lected officials selected by municipa l governments and by San Diego County. The District is supported by a portion of a one half percent sales tax for transportation purposes called TransNet. The Board hires an Executive Director who administers a staff of 500. A rail operations administrator supervises an 11 person staff. Train operations, dispatching, equ ipment and track maintenance, security and other funclions are all contracted out. Amtrak operates the trains and provides crews. Dispatching Is handled by Metro! ink from its Los Angeles center Car cleaning is provided by a local firm. Station and train security is contracted to a private service. NCTD marketing and public relations staff handle those functions for both Coaster commuter rail services and the District's bus system. New Technological Innovations T icket vending machines have become more sophisticated. Those Insta lled at Coaster stations issue a variety of zone based tickets and passes Credit cards can be used In addition to traditional acceptance of coins and bills; the machines will be programmed to take debit cards at a later date. The San Diego lntermodal Transit Systems and Facilities This seclion discusses how the transit components in the San Diego urbanized area function as a system. Emphasis Is placed on how the guideway components (San Diego Trolle y light rail and Coaster commuter rail) link to each other, how they link non-guideway transit (MTS and NCTD buses) to other local transportation, and to intercity transportation carriers. The ease of transfer from one mode to another or from one component to another is examined as the number, location, and size of intermodal facilities, coordina tion of transit schedules, and the payment of fares between modes. "One Team, Many Services, is the marketing thrust adopted by the transit providers in the San Diego urbanized area. Two agencies coordinate transit service in San Diego County, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) and the North San Diego Transit Development Board. This Center for Urban Transportation Resean:h 49

PAGE 64

Guldtw!Y Transit and lnrMrHXJMJ.sm: Funetlon and Elfectllveness cooperative effort allows riders to obtain information from a single source to use the same monthly passes on a variety of routes, and to transfer easily from one line to another. T he MTDB family of transit providers has a service area of 570 square mi les centered on the city of San Diego. The North San Diego County Tran sit Development Board coordinates services in a 1000 square mile area in the northern portion of the County. The combined service areas of these two agencies extends beyond the boundary of the 690 square mile San Diego UA. An estimated 92 percent of the urbanized area population lives within one half m ile of a transit route. The exis ting, under construction and planned elements of light rail and commuter rail will become the backbone of public transportation in the San Diego Urbanized Area by 2005. In 1994 San Diego Trolley produced 21. 0 percent of the unlinked trips and 23.4 percent of the passenger miles. Light rail ridership and mode share are expected to increase in steps as segments of the system are phased in during late 1995, 1996, 1997 and beyond. Coaster commuter rail service only came on line in early 1995. As service frequencies are increased and the Oceanside-Escondido l ine opens early in the 21st century commuter rail is expected to secure a greater share of the transit mode. The Metropolitan and North San Diego County development boards have developed a strategy for efficient integration of rail, bus and paratransit modes. A key part of this strategy has been to develop a series of transit centers where various transit elements connect to enhance functional integration as a single user-friendly network throughout the county. Another key element in this strategy is to use the bus as a feeder/distributor at rail stations once light rail or commuter rail is operational on a particular route. For example bus routes of San Diego Transit, National City Transit and Chula Vista Transit were reorganized to connect with South Line light rail stations in late 1981 and 1982. A simi la r rerouting of SDTC and County Transit System bus services took place as ditferent sections of the East Line opened. NCTD has rerouted existing bus route and added new ones to connect with Coaster commuter tra ins

PAGE 65

Examination of the 38 transit centers where connections are made between the various components of the transit system ind icates the importance of the three guideway transit routes that are currently (mid-1995) in place. Seventeen of these centers are served by either light rail commuter rail or both (Table 1 0). The transit centers provide designated bays or curbside stops for fixed route and demand responsive vehicles, train side platfonns drop-off zones for kiss and-ride travelers, signage to direct users to the appropriate locations, transit schedu l es and other infonnation. Fare machines are provided at those transit ce nters w i th rai l service. Many of the centers provide seating, sheltered waiting areas, emergency or pay phones, and other amenities. Automobile parl
PAGE 66

i I "' "' ..., I Trans tt Centers Sth Ave. and C Stre et Sltl S treet 24th Street 47th Street American P l az a BayfrontiE Street Broadway & 3rd Camp Pen d l e ton Cardiff Town Ctr. Carlsba d Co ll ege CMc Center El Cajon & 30th Street EJCajon Esoondldo Euclid Ave. FaH brook Fashion Val ley Grossmont H Street Imperial and 12th T a ble 1 0 SAN DI EGO RE G ION TRANSI T CE N TER I NTE RMO D ALI S M San Diego C oa st er Bua Parking Amtrak Greyhound Troll ey Commuter Rail Tra n t tt 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 I "' 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 i 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 $ 1 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 I I 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 7 0 1 0 0 2 0 9 0 $ 0 0

PAGE 67

"' w i r ,.. I I Transit Cen ten: Iris Avenue KoamevMeu La s P u l aas Lemo n G rove Depot Marllace a t tho Grow Mau.achusetts Avenue N orth County Fair Palm Avenue Palomar street Par1lway Plaza p Plaza Bonia Plaza Carrino ReaJ Rand'lo Bemado san Oleoo State Ur>Jversity San Marcos S a nta Fe Oeoot San Ysidr o S olana Beach I So rina St,.et UniversitY Towne Center V"os!a ..... T able 10 (continued) SAN DIEGO REGIO N lRANSITcam:R IIIITERMODALISM Son Diego Cooste< Bus Dlot.Aollldo Parking 1 0 6 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 5 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 14 0 1 I 0 3 0 1 I 0 4 0 I 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 $ I 0 I 0 $ 0 1 0 1 1 I 0 1 1 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 .... :v. Jll;.t 1W'. Amini< Greyhound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I ' ' : ., i .. !. ,... !. i i

PAGE 68

Guideway Transit and lntermod-'lsm: Function and Effectiltleness Table 11 REGIONAL TRANSIT BUS ROUTE NUMBERING SCHEDULE Transit System Route Numbers San Diego Transit 1-115 North County Transit District 301-388 National City Transit 601 304 Chula Vista Transit 70 1 -712 San Diego County System 844-894 MTS Contract Services 901-934 source: S&ll Oi ) COUll :v ral'4lt JU-10 I !ftM. San Diego Trolley trains connect with local buses at 23 of the 35 light rail s1ations. Eight of the stations are served by five or more bus routes. Bus and light rail schedules are coordinated to minimize transfer time Coaster commuter trains connect with bus transit service at six of the eight rail stations on the 42 mile route between Oceanside and San Diego. The Trolley and Coaster trains connect at Santa Fe Depot. When the first segment of the north line opens in 1996 a second connection will be forged at Old Town. The physical connections and ease of transfer facilitate travel invol ving bus and rail modes when both are necessary to complete the personal trip. Ease of payment is an important consideration in the use of an intermodal system. The disadvantage in having several different transit operators in the San Diego urbanized area has been partially overcome by a series of agreements on transfers, passes and fare allocation which have facilitated travel involving two or more modes and/or transi t providers. Free bus/light rail transfers exist among the transit operators that are part of MTS, the mari
PAGE 69

Gult:lewlly Transit and and Etfectllveness lntermodal Facilities The rol e and character of intermodal facilities that are part of the San Diego urbanized area guideway transit system are the focus of this section. Rail to Rail Stations Two connections currently exist between San Diego Trolley light rail service and Coaster commuter trains. One connection is made at the Santa Fe Depot in San Diego, the southern terminus of Coaster service, and incidentally of Amtrak inte rcity trains from Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. For South Line light rail trains this is a simple cross-the-platform change. Light rail tracks are on the west side of the station building adjacent to Coaster platforms and tracks. Transfer between Coaster and East Line tra in s involves a walk th[oug h or around the depot building to the America Plaza ligh t rail station across Kettner Boulevard. Coaster fare machines are located trackside on the commuter rail p latforms. Trolley fare machines are located at both the Depot and America Plaza stations, but only the latter dispenses Tripper one and four day tickets. A second connection was forged with the opening of light rail service to Old Town in mid 1996. Again a cross-platform transfer can be accomplished. RaiVNon Rail Transit Connections between San Diego light rail or Coaster commuter rail and various components of the bus and paratransa networ1< are important at several key points. The largest possible number of connections exist in Centre City San Diego where the South and East trolley lines share a common a l ignment for nearly two miles along C S1reet and 12th Avenue. Fifteen bus routes operate on paired one way north-sou th streets (F ront and 1st, 4th and 5th, 1Oth and 11th) that intersect C Street. These bus routes are within one or two blocks of light rail stations at Civic Center, 5th Avenue and 12th Avenue/City College. Twelve bus lines operate on Broadway, a two-way arterial that parallels C Street one block south of the l ight rail transitway The America Plaza station Is just off Broadway at Kettner Boulevard and provides the greatest combination of bus and rail routes In the metropolitan area. The Santa Fe Depot, on the north side of Broadway at Kettner provides the best connection between Coaster trains and the San Diego bus system. Shelters are provided at all of the light rail stations in Centre City but only at a few bus stops. Light rail stations are equipped with signs and maps Center for Utban Transportation 55

PAGE 70

Guldflway Tnmslt Mtd kttetmodaUsm: Function and Effectllverress that provide information about services at the stations and on nearby streets Bus stops only offer signs with the rou tes stopping there. Ferry service for pedestrians is provided between Centre City and Coronado from a dock on Harbour Drive at the foot of Broadway two blocks west of the Santa Fe Depot. Paid par1
PAGE 71

Gu!d!w!y Transit and lntemKJdlllsm: Function and Etfocutveneso Figure 13. Trolley/Bus Tnmll'fer. National City, 24th street station on the North-South line. The open covered station with ticket machines, bench seating and other amenities is typical of the low cost facilities built by MDTB for the San Diego Trolley. National City Transit bus lines, automobile parking, sidewalks and bicycle lockers proVide multimodal access to the light rail corridor. Ron ShE>ck) Figure 14. Station Adaptive Re-Use. The Lemon Grove station on th e East Une incorporates a former Southern Pacific depot now used as offices for the Chamber of Commerce. The building with its overhanging roofs, benches and landscaped site is an attractive focal point in downtown L e mon Grove (Photo Ron Sheck) C_,., for UrDan TtaMPOI'CrUon R..oarch 57

PAGE 72

l ntennodallinkages with the automobile are made easier at the Trolley and Coaster s t at i ons v.tlere par1
PAGE 73

Guideway Transit and lntennodalfsm: Function and EffecUiveness l . .... ::; Coordinat i on of schedules, development of shared transfer centers, fare re ciprocity arrangements and a unified marketing and promotion strategy are evidence of the commitment of several transit operators to provide integrated service in the region. Metropolitan Transit Services (MTS) is the marketing umbrella for what is called "a family of transportation services" in the city of San Diego and surrounding communities. San Diego Trolley, San Diego Transit, National City Transit, Chula Vista Transit and County Transit System are major participants in this program. A common logo is used on vehicles, signage, schedules and other information. Although the MTS designation prov ides a single image identity for the transit operators, there may be confusion among the general public as to who actually operates the services. The several transit providers working under the MTS umbrella to some degree honor fare payment from each other. For example, monthly and Tripper passes, multi-ride tickets and 10-pack tickets sold by San Diego Trolley are honored on most buses that are part of MTS services. The Trolley monthly and Tri pper passes work in effect as a pass throughout the MTS system. Premium fare express buses usually require payment of an additional amount above the pass or ticket. Similar reciprocal arrangements for fares exists between Coaster commuter trains and buses operated by North County Transit District. Commuter train tickets are useable for loca l bus services. Transfers from NCTD and MTS buses to Coaster tra ins are accepted as partial payment of fare. For example, a person who paid a $1.00 bus fare in San Diego can use the bus transfer as that value and rather than purchase a $3.25 all zone ticket to travel to Oceanside only has to buy a $2.25 ticket to complete the rail trip The Regional Transit Map, published jointly by MTS, NCTD and SANDAG, is an excellent example of regional transportation system in termodalism The map Identifies all transit routes th roug hout the county, contains large scale detail inset of downtown San Diego, and shows location and services at all transfer centers. The Map also p rovides a frequency tables for all trans it routes, telephone and other information sources for all transit and paratrans i t csntK tor Urban Tnmsportstlon Research 59

PAGE 74

operators. In brief, the Map is a guide to using public transportation in San Diego County. A t the facilit ies level there are several noteworthy examples of successful i ntermodalism includ ing: The light rail C Street transit mall and its several transfer centers provides the key interchange points. These Include the Santa Fe Depot and adjacent America P laza complex, the light rail stations at Civic Center, 5th Avenue and c Street and 12th Avenue/City College This collection of facilities on the mile long C Street mall and bus stops on parallel Broadway provides the maximum possible anray or intermodal connections in the San Diego Urbanized Area. The two light rail lines twelve bus transit lines Coaster commuter rail and Amtrak intercity trains are present in this corridor Automobile traffic is severely restricted along C Street. Connect ions betwee n bus and light rail the IYiO dominant local transit modes are possible directly a t light rail stations or within one or IYiO blocks. The Santa Fe OepoUAmerica Plaza trolley stops form part of the single most important intermodal facility in San Diego Santa Fe Depot, a gem of mission revival arch itecture, has been the city's intercity ra il station since constructed in 1907 by the Santa Fe Railway The building, on the national register of historic places did not suffer the degradation and indignities of many other rail stations wi1h the dedine of passenger train travel. Beginning in the early 1980s Amtrak and Cahrans colaborated to Improve and expand rail service i n the Los Angeles-San Diego corridor and the station benefrted from increased trai n ridership A tum.around loop i n front of the depot was the terminus of several San D iego streetcar tines until abandonment i n 1951 MDTB chose the i ntersection of C Street and Kettner Boulevard facing the Santa Fe Depot as the city end of the South line trolley I n 1986 a major newdevetopmenl was approved for a 22-story office complex with ground floor retail on tha block between C Street, Kettner and Broadway. Pla nn ing for this b uilding coin cided with that for the Bayside and North line light rail extensions. A unique arrangement was worked out between building developers and designers that allowed the rail line to be rerouted through the

PAGE 75

Guideway Transit and lntmnodaUs.m: Function and Etrectllwness . ' i '"' ;. ,-; I building site to provide aceess to the right-of-way 'west of the Santa Fe Depot which was to be used for the extensions. The America Plaza building has been constructed with a diagonal cut across the lot where the light rail station has been inserted (Figure 15). Today the Santa Fe Depot has been redeveloped as an intermodal terminal built around three guideway modes. The building has been cleaned repainted and restored to its 1930s appearance. The main structure continues to house ticket offices for Amtrak Intercity rail services and a waiting room for passengers and visitors The waiting room provides seating, a small snack bar, restrooms, a parcel and luggage check area and a kiosk with tourist and travel information. The exterior layout has been modified to accommodate light rail, commuter rail and intercity rail by rebuilding the former track and platform area west of the station building (Figure 16). Transfer between commuter and light rail is a s imple cross-the-platform walk. Fare machines for each operator are on their respective platforms. Amtrak Intercity trains use the outermost platforms and it is only a short walk to the Trolley and Coaster platforms A t ransfer to Amtrak however involves going into the station to purchase a ticket. Taxi and Mexicoach buses to Tijuana are located on the Kettner Bou levar d side of the building. Bus routes of San Diego Transit pass along Broadway at the south edge of the facility. Signage is adequate for rail-to-rail transfers, somewhat lacking in information about how to get to buses. The terminal track area and station building are owned by Catellus Development Corporation, a company spun off from reorganization of the Santa Fe Pacific Corporation holding company of railroad, real estate, mining and oonstruc1ion companies. Catellus has proposed construction of a Garden" in the rail area Tracks and platform areas would be surrounded by trees, plantings, fountains, pathways and other garden The proposal has attracted interest, but no funding. The I mperial and 12th Transfer Center is cited as an outstand i ng example of an air-rights development over a light rail station. In reality MDTB developed air-rights Faced with scattered offices at several locations in Centre Center for thf>an Thlm:pottJon Research 61

PAGE 76

Figure 15. Public/Private Joint Development The American Plaza station building constructed with a diagonal cut across the block allowing l i ght rail to be relocated from the stub terminal on C Street, continuing around the south side of Santa Fe Depot where the North-South and East hne tracks divetge to seN& Bayside and Old Town. (Photo, Ron Sheck) City San Diego, MOTB decided to construct its own building and to use a site n already owned. Tlle 12 story structure, completed In 1989, houses offices of MOTB, STOI, SOTS and a few smaller agencies (Figure 17). In 1994the building was named in honor James R. Mills former state senator and chairman of the MOTS board who was an ear1y champion of l ight rail. Located at the junction of the East and South Li n es the includes three tracks with platforms and retail space in the ground floor portion of the bu il ding which acts as a pedesta l for the larger structure that bridges the tracks. Tlle Bayside line since incorporated into the East line terminates at a single-track platform to the south of the building and perpendicular to the 12th Street alignment of the combined South and East l ines Seven MTS bus lines a tax i stand and a parking garage round out the intermodal transportation elements Buses stop on Imperial Avenue just north of the

PAGE 77

GuldewayTtaiUit and lntennodaUsm: Function and Efrectilveness Figure 16. Cross Platfonn Rail Transfers. lntermodalism at Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego From left to right are an Amtrak san Diegan" intercity train ready to depart for Los Angeles a Coasler commuter train jus/ anfved from Oceanside, and a San Diego Trolley North-South line LRV connecting Old Town end San Ysidro. The depot building is to the right. (Photo Ron Sheck} Center' for Udlan TtanSportatlon Researeh 63

PAGE 78

Transfer Center. The son light rail maintenance shops and the office tower make !he I mperial and 12th Transfer Center a significant commuter destination. The Oceans i de Transportation Center is an excellent example of a low-cos t, simple intermodal facility where initial success has led to an expanded role as additional transportation elements have appeared (Figure 18) The center is located in the western part of central Oceanside, on the Los Angeles-San Diego rail corridor between the railroad tracks and Tremont Street. Constructed by the North San Diego County Transportation Development District in 1984 !he faci lity consists of rail p latforms connected through an open plaza with a covered walkway to several one story block structures. These house an Amtrak ticket and baggage office, a Greyhound ticket office, a fast food restaurant, restrooms, a security office storage lockers and a bus transit employees office. A free par11ing lot is to the south An area to the north has been rebuilt with off-street bus bays, shelters and add i tional waiting areas of NCTD transit buses. Tax i s and Greyhound buses pick-up and drop-off customers on the north side of the plaza. The entire facility is attractively landscaped and distinguished by a streetside tower and artful sign age. Metrolink commuter trains to Los Angeles made this their southern terminus In 1994. Coaster commuter trains began service to San Diego in spring 1995. Ticket machines and validators for both rail services are located under !he canopied portion of the plaza. Transfers between modes are made easy in !his pleasant, safe facility that offers food restrooms, phones bicycle and storage lockers, newspapers as well as many trave l options. Planning Guideway Transit and lntennodalism in the San Diego Metropolitan Area The San Diego light rail system and the Coaster commuter rail line involved in termodal considerations from the onset of planning activity Early conceptualization of both focused on the importance of connection to local bus transit providing of feeder/distributor services, the need for automobile par11ing at suburban stations and the benefits of linkages to intercity transportation.

PAGE 79

Guideway Tmoslt and lntennodo/l$m: Function ond Effoc1Jfva
PAGE 80

Planning and Building the San Diego Trolley San Diego is the new light rail pioneer in the United States. The 1981 opening of San Diego Trolley with its bright red articulated cars mar1
PAGE 81

Guideway Tramlt end lntermodallsm: Function and Effec.tliVeness next decade a number of projects emerged that .were designed to contribute to enhance the .... .... :. ...... ... economic vrtality and quality of life in centra l San Dieg o These inc l uded Horton Plaza shopp i ng mall/hotel complex, the Seaport Vi ll age shopping/enterta i nment complex res t oration of the historic Gas Lamp district and others Other plans prov i ded for new office buildings, hotels, residentia l complexes and a convention center In 1975 the San Diego Metropoli t an Transit Development Board was created to des ign and i mplement a light rail transit system. A single starter li ne wou l d be bui l t first to test both techn ology and acceptance of rail trans i t in a city that had experienced growth in the automobile/freeway era. The overall starter project goa l s requ i red serv i ce to link downtown and the border with Mexico following the southern corridor along 1-5 The choice of the actua l alignment was influenced by severa l opportunities. Potential use o f the San Diego Arizona and Eastern Railroad {SDA&E) line for much of the d i stance. SEA&E offered a d i rect rou t e from the Santa Fe Depot south to the border a t San Ysidro The parent company, Sou t hern Pacific, was i nterested in selling the line which had suffered l oss of mos t through fre ight traffic. A major cost advantage of using the line was in not having to acquire righ t-of way o r to lay ent i rely new track. Exist i ng track could be rehabi l i tated at about one-third to one-ha l f the cost of new construction Signal system, improved grade crossing pro t ection and overhead catenary wou l d have t o be added Tracks could be laid in 1.7 miles of city streets in downtown San Diego to carry light rai l vehicles if major arterials were avoided A combina tion of C Street and 12th Avenue provided an L shaped route that would serve the city cen ter wh i ch the SEA&E line m i ssed between Imperia l and 12th Streets and the Santa Fe Depot. Reconst r uction of C Str eet as a transit ma ll for light rail vehicles offered an easy way to reach the Santa Fe Depot and allowed for retention o f Broadway as a major arterial for use by automobiles and transit buses

PAGE 82

GuldfW!Y Transit and lntennodallsm: FunctJon and Effectllveness The SDA&E also owned a branch line running east from Imperial and 12th to the city of El Cajon. This offered a possible second rail line in the next most heavily traveled comdor. Santa Fe Depot became a logical downtown terminal location for light rail. I nterchange possibilities with int ercity rail and major urban bus transit lines operating on Broadway were s i gnificant. The alignment combination of city streets and the existing SDA&E rail route serves a number of important traffic generating points including the downtown employment area, the shipyards and Pacific fleet headquarters along the east side of San Diego Bay, new industry developing in the comdor, the rapid l y expanding bedroom communities of National City and Chula Vista, and the major border crossing at San Ysidro. The construction of the second l ight rail line the East l ine, proceeded along similar lines. Again an existing railroad line was incorporated into the project thereby reducing capital costs. The East line comdor includ ed a different mix of activities from the South lin e Lemon Grove, La Mesa and El cajon are principally bedroom communities with a scattering of light industry but no significant employment concentrations. The outer end of the route does closely parallel Interstate 8 and potential fo r comdor traffic congestion relief exists. The eastem Metropolitan Area communities are among the fastest growing i n the reg i on. Implementation of light rail in San Diego benefited from other planning and development goals. Downtown and harbor front deve lopment and revitalizat ion, integrating bus and rail transit, improving air quality and enhancing neighborhood quality of life were all cited as goals which light rail could assist in atta i ning. I mplementing light rail i n San D i ego has i nvolved public input as a key part of the planning process. MTDB conducted an effort to involve local citizens. This was done with neighborhood meetings and public meetings, identifying and informing key community groups and an extensive public information program using both broadcast and print media Neighborhood meetings were particularly useful in resolving station siting traffic and parking issues.

PAGE 83

Guldoway l'ran$/tllltd lnt.,.odal/sm: Funcllon and ftfoctllvenos$ Conversion of former freight railroad track into the new light rail system involved relaying of rail, replacement of ties, new ballast and ecirttri.Jcffiori Of additional passing sidings. Double tracking of the South Line was phased In over a three year period after initial operat i ons were begun. New parallel tracks were constructed in two locati ons on the South line to provide separate lead tracks for freight trains to access clustered industries. (Figure 19). This reduced the number of turnouts that light rail vehicles would encounter. Figure 19. Joint Freight/Trolley Opemion. Joint light rail/freight train tim&-separted operations are carried out on major segments of East and South lines. Rail seNice to East Line industrial spur Is provided during a nighttiiTI& freight-only operating window (Photo, Ron Sheck) The initial San Diego Trolley line was constructed entirely with local and state funds. By not using federal funds the time from conceptual planning through final design to implementation and slart of service was kept to four years. The use of an existing freight railroad for much of the line reduced construction costs. At a total cost of$ 6.97 million per mile San Diego's South line remains even today the least expensive ligh t rail system implemented in North America. Cost of building the initial portion of the East line were also low for similar reasons. The Bayside lin e, the North line to Oldtown, the Santee extension of the East line, have all been more expensive. This reflects the added cost of acquiring rights-of-way, construction of track, bridges, grade separations, drainage and other items not required in the re-use of former freight railroads. .. .. .

PAGE 84

Guidflway TrattSII and lntwmodallsm: FunJon and Etf.ctilvtn.u Planning and Building Coaster Commuter Rail Planning and development of commuter rail service between Oceanside and San Diego began in a somewhat different manner than light rail in the city. The concept first surfaced in a series of public meetings and discussions associated with rail transportation improvements in the Los Angeles-San Diego corridor in the early 1980s. Intercity service was the major focus of discussion but emerging plans in Los Angeles brought commuter rail onto the route from Oceanside north by 1985. By 1986 talk in San Diego County expressed the idea of a similar service from Oceanside south to San Diego. The North San Diego County Transportation Development District proposed this commuter rail service be inc luded in l ocal t ran sportation plans in 1987. Adoption of the plan that year enabled the District to move ahead with detailed planning and towards imp l ementation of service. By 198 9 plans were finalized and a proposed service was targeted for a 1994 start-up. Service on the single 42-mile initial route was modeled in large part along the lines of Tri Rail in Florida and the emerging Metrolink system in Los Angeles. A number of opportunities facilitated development of the Oceanside-San Diego commuter rail line These include : The availability of a good quality, albeit single-track, rail line in the corridor that had been generally well maintained for intercity rail passenger service operated by Amtrak. Stations were already in place and being used by Amtrak intercity trains at Oceanside, Delmar and San Diego. commuter rail service on the existing traffic pattern of eight Amtrak trains and two to three freight trains in each direction over the route did not pose a significant operating problem. Caltrans had committed funds to some upgrading of the line for state-supported Amtrak San Dlegan corridor t rains. This included welded rail, len gthened

PAGE 85

Gu/doway Transit and lnt.,ocM!/sm: Fundlon and Effectllvem.ss passing sidings, a short double track section, signal upgrading and additional grade crossing protection. ; .... Planned redevelopment of Santa Fe Depot In San Diego to include integration of l ight rail with Intercity rail and possibly commuter rail In cross-platform interchanges. The presence of local bus service at stations in San Diego, Oceanside and at other locations that were potential stops on the line Enhanced mobility, aHemative transportation and congestion mitigation were other goals that were cited i n the planning and imp leme ntat ion of Coaster commuter rail service. A major issue in planning the Coaster service has been the speed reduction and result ing increased travel time where the rail route diverges from its relatively straight coastal alignment to avoid the Miramar hills. This inland deviation Inv olves about three miles of curving track and climbing up a 1.8 percent grade to Miramar Train speeds are limned to 35mph on th is segment as opposed to 79mph on most of the line north of Del Mar. A proposed technical solution, to elimination this bottleneck, is construction of a tunnel. However, estimated costs ($120 million) exceed the total implementation cost of the entire Coaster rail project. North County Transportation Development District is in the early planning stages for rail service on the 24.0 mile Oceanside-Escondido line which the district purchased from the Santa Fe Railway in 1991. The choice of an appropriate rail technology has not been finalized. Alternatives being considered include the use of diesel multiple unit (DMU) cars, Coaste,...type locomotive-hauled commuter trains, and light rail. DMUs appear to be the favored technology because they are less costly to operate yet can adequately serve the projected per-train ridership. The higher capital costs resulting from e lectrifica tion place light rail lowe r in the priority of choices. lntermodalism in the Planning Process San Diego Trolley involvement in intermoda lism preceded the enactment of the lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), passed in 1991 which emphasizes the Center for Urblm Transportation R-.esrr:h 71

PAGE 86

Guldtwy Transit and lntennodallsm: Functlon and Effect/Jven&S$ i mportance of various transportation modes integrated together i nto a seam less system. An integrated bus-ra i l transrt system was a goal of the MDTB from the ean i est stages of planning tor light rail. Connect i vity of transit routes and the ability to transfer easily from one line to another were recognized as bei ng important to the transportation dependent and crucia l to attract i ng d i scretionary riders. While the first light ra i l line was being designed MTDB planners wer e working closely with San Diego, Nationa l City and Chula Vista tra n sit agencies to redesign bus routes to connect with trai ns. Bus networks wer e restructured to provi de feeder-distributor services at many rail stations However not all bus routes operating parallel to the l ight rail lines were eliminated as has happened in other light rail cities ( i .e. Portland, San Jose). MTS bus route 932 paralle l s the South trolley li ne usual ly no more than three orfour blocks away. Serv ing five ra i l stations thi s bus route provides l oca l service patrons an optio n to transfer to the trolley for faster travel on long trips. Six Centr e City and n i ne suburban stations of the seventeen on the o ri ginal South line were p l anned to accommodate bus/rail transfers Bus/rai l transfer was also a consideration at seven of the ten East line suburban stati ons. F ive East line and ten west line stations outside of Centre City also have parki ng l ots. Adequate, secure parking and drop-off lanes are crucial to attract i ng automobile users living in suburban communi ties to railtransrt. Provi ding for intenmoda l linkages has been incorporated into the development of Coaster stations also. Plans call for transit, automobile, pedestrian and bicycle access at ra il stations Only two of the rai l stations in this brand new system do not yet have transit. Policies Supporting Transit This section discusses the role of policies i n the San Diego urban i zed area that have worked in support of, or against transit in comparison with other travel modes. The main emphasis is on policies other than transportation. However a brief discuss i on of transportation policy is included to provide some context.

PAGE 87

GUideWay Transn and lnlM'I7IOdallsm: FuncUonltlld Effoctilveness Transportation Policies ... : . \ .... . . Public attitudes and perceptions about transportation have changed in California over the past two decades. Unrestra ined, sprawling urban growth and an ever-expanding freeway network that characterized California in the 1950s and 1960s began to change in the 1970s. By the 1980s new d irections were starting to emerge at local, state and national levels The impetus for this change came from a growing frustration shared by citizens, business and government. It culminated in a reexamination of transportation policy at the federal level that led to a new national policy that became embodied in the lntennodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) passed in 1991 Federal, Slate and Local Area Policies ISTEA provided important new direction for the nation's transporta tion future. A shift in emphasis from moving vehicles to moving people and goods lies at the heart of this policy. To accomplish this the preamble to this legislation suggests that each mode has a particular role to play and that integration of modes into a sing le system providing for seamless travel is an important national goal. Transit Is clearly Identified as a part of this system and the authorization levels contained in the Act provide for an increased share of surface transporta tion funding for transit. Congestion with resulting longer trip times and deteriorating air quality have Jed state and local l eaders to consider transportation alternatives to the automobile. The wide-spread nature and severity of this problem led to adoption in California of new state congestion planning regulations in 1991. According to a national study of urban areas carried out by the Texas Tra nsportation Institute congestion increased 54 percent In San Diego between 1 982 and 1g91. The San Diego urbanized area ranked first in the rate of congestion growth among the 29 locations examined in this study. State transportation policy in California since the mid-1980s has also stated that transit should play a greater role in solving state mobility issues, particularly in urban areas. The state has provided funding for transit assistance and allowed local communities wider lat itude in the use of local tax dollars for transit purposes. Perhaps the biggest single boost for transit occurred in 1990 w!1en California voters approved three major statewide bond issues for transportation purposes. These three bond issues provided $22 billion, of which $3.2 billion was available for loca l transit and intercity rail projects A companion ballot measure Ctnttt'for Urban Trsmportstion Research 73

PAGE 88

Guideway Tramlt Function and EtrtallvenN$ ra i sed the state gasoline lax by 10 cents pe r gallon phased i n over a five year period. The stale bond issues have prov i ded money used for expans i on of San Diego ligh t ra il and for implementing Coaster commu ter rail service. T he San D i ego Associat i on of Governme n ts (SANDAG) adopted a seri es of transportat ion goals i n 1974 as part of the Reg i ona l Comp r ehens i ve P l an These goals have been expanded and mod i fied in the 1994 Regiona l Transporta t ion Plan. Incl uded i n t hese goals are the following : Provide for and susta in a mix of transportation mo d es that is ca p able o f meeting the continuing need fo r pe r sona l mobi l ity and the m ovement of goods c onsistent wi t h other r e giona l goals and values Comprehensively plan for a ll regionally significant modes of transportation, i nsuri n g the ir i nterconnection and coordinate with all other j urisdictions that either i nfluence o r are affected by regional transportation planning efforts. Deve l op a balanced land use and transporta t ion system which minimizes the need for automobile travel and maximi zes the opportunity for transportation a l ternatives such as transit and non-motorized trave l modes. Maintain u p grade or deve l op exist i ng and futu r e transportation systems as a public service in a manner that renders them sate functiona l, flex i ble enviro n menta ll y acceptable, and aesthetically pleas i ng. Manage the t ransportat ion system to p rovide an optimum level of mobility for the greatest numbe r of persons, while i nsuring mob i l ity for the transportat i on d isad vantaged The deve l opment of l i gh t rail and commuter rai l serv i ces i n San Diego County are consistent with these goals. Transit Agency Policies The various trans i t agenc ies in San Diego County have also developed polic i es a n d programs t o operationalize these goa l s As an agency with overa ll trans i t service

PAGE 89

Guideway Ttanslt and lntermodalism: FUnction and Effectiiveness r esponsibility in the San Diego metropolitan area MTDB has created a number of coordinating groups to assist in integrat ) !"9 V!' ri<)US. trans i t services. . , . Fare pricing and operations task forces composed of staff from area operators develop policies and procedures for coordinating fares and operations. Regional transit management committee composed of general managers of all foxed-route operators reviews all major transit developments and recommends coordination and development policy for the San Diego reg i on Regional transit marketing group composed of staff from area operators develops regional marketing strategies. Regional transit service adv i sory committee composed of management from MTDB area jurisdictions advises the MTD Board of Directors on routings, serv i ce levels fares and other related matters for regional foxed-route services. Other transportation and trans i t policies are also important. Fare policies and service policies have been discussed earlier and are clearly relevant to transit use and affect the ability of MTDB and NCTD to attain their goals and meet policy objectives. Downtown Development Policies San Diego, like many other cities, experienced a decline in economic activ i ty and deterioration of downtown in the 1960s and 1970s. Retail stores moved to suburban shopping centers and malls. Office employment migrated to more attractive and accessible l ocations on the urban periphery. A new hotel and tourism corridor emerged in Mission Valley. Vacant buildings graffiti increased crime and a general malaise were symptomatic of a d rop in business income and tax revenues. Faced with a continuing downward spiral San Diego community leaders moved to take action by creation of the San Diego Centre City Development Corporation in 1975 Projects launched in the ensuing 20 years have resulted i n $7 billion in public and private investment. Transportation has been a component of the downtown revital i zation effort Street improvements new traffic signals and additional parking have been a part of the investment Cente for Ui'ban Transpottatson Research 75

PAGE 90

in infrastructure designed to support other projects. Light rail has been the high visibility element of the package of transportation improvements. Since its formation, also in 1g75, MTDB has invested $350 million in the 35 mile light rail system. Several downtown projects are noteworthy. Some are directly tied to the light rai l l ines, others are projeels developed a few blocks away, but contribute synergistically to the overall vitality of the downtown area. The 29 story America Plaza office tower wilh its glass and stainless steel light rail slation has replaced the historic Santa Fe Depot as the dominant landmark on Broadway. Horton Plaza shopping center, built in 1985 three blocks south of the 5 th Avenue Trolley station, has been a trend setter in downtown retailing spawning similar developments across the country. Under construction only two blocks from th e Bayside ligh t rail line is Live from Xanadu a 110 ,000 square foot entertainment complex of restaurants, shops, a seven-screen 2000-seat cinema, a nightclub and a 15,000 square foot virtual reality arcade Scheduled to open in late 1995 this center will be a key anchor in the redevelopment of the Gaslamp Quarter. other office buildings have opened and others extensively renovated in the downtown district. Housing in the form of a variety of low, mid and high rise multifamily complexes have emerged along the Bayside l ight ra il line on the southwest edge of downtown faci ng the new (1989) tent-like $161 million 760,000 square foot San Diego Convention Center. Nearby on Harbor Drive, more than 5,000 residential units have been completed since 1985 Major new hotels tower over the Convention Center. (Figure 20). A unique urban park King Promenade, includ es an operational railroad, a light rail line and a major thoroughfare, Harbor Drive. On the water edge of the marina is Seaport Village a blend of California and New England that houses shops and restaurants. Downtown development has created new jobs and shopping opportunities. An expanded residential population and a doubling of hotel capacity have brought more people into this activity zone. DowntO'M'I not only is an expanding destination possibility for potential transit ride rs it also has resident and tourist populations that may use transit to reach other destinations. Transportation oriented facilities include the C Street Transit Mall occupied by the bright red light rail cars of San Diego Trolley and the Santa Fe Depot. Catellus has very ambitions plans for the railway station property The city of San Diego approved in late 1992 the 3 340 000 square foot project that will feature new commercial hotel, retail and residential

PAGE 91

GJJ/delway TranSit and lntermodall&m: Function and etreetllveness neighbomood fronting on Pacific Highway just west of the station building and railroad tracks The combined commuter, intercity and light rail track and platform area will become a palm;' ';"> : lined transit courtyard serving 40,000 passengers a day Figure 20. TraMit Ra/lltad Development. Apartment and condomJum development adjacent to Seaport Village station, East Una, in the 19daveloped Bayside area. The San Diego Convention Center is in right background. The south edge of the Gas/amp district Is a block behind the apartment buildings on the left (Photo, Ron Sheck} Increased transit service and use have been expected corollary resu lts of downtown revitalization. Reduction of automobile traffiC has been a targeted benefit of increased transit ridership. However, parking supply has remained abundant and prices are low. Even in m i d 1995 some business leaders are calling for more parking. Growth Management Policy In January 1993 the SANDAG Board of Directors, serving as the Regional Planning and Growth Management Review Board for the San Diego region, adopted a Regional Growth Management Strategy This Strategy recognizes the need to ensure that quality of life does

PAGE 92

Guideway Transit and lntMnodallsm : FurtcUon and Effectllveness not suffe r as the result of a projected 44 pe r cent i ncrease in popu l ation projected between 1 990 and 201 5 This forecast will add 1.13 million people to the r egion. Associated with that growth are 316 000 new jobs and 445,000 new housing units To ma i ntain and improve quality of life as the San Diego reg i on continues to grow the Strategy focuses on nine important environmental factors. Air quality and transportation system and demand management are two factors with policy implications for transrt The Strategy assigns objectives and standards to eaCh of the nine factors in order to have a way of determining how well the region is doing to m a intain or i mprove quality of life. The actions recommended to aChieve the standards and objectives a r e d i vided into two categories; state and federal mandates and regional i nit i atives, i .e. those things the reg i on has decided to do on its own. Transportation Control Measures (TCM) and Congestion Management Programs (CMP) are actions associated with federal or state mandates. Addressing air quaiHy factors as established in the California C l ean Air Act of 1988 requires i mprovements i n air quality thorough the annual r eduction of emissions until state air qual i ty standards are met. EaCh communHy is required to develop a TCM P l an to i ncrease the number of people per motor vehicle during commuting hours to an average of 1.5 persons per car by 1999. Car pooling, vanpooling and transrt are incorporated as means to attain this goal. Des i gn standards for new development and redevelopment to imp r ove accessibility for pedestrians, bicycles and transrt are to be included in the CMP Expansion of transit capacity by about 17 percent over the capacHy already planned for 2000 is one of the recommended actions under air quality Level of service standards are proposed in the Congestion Management Programs element. These inc l ude : The f requency with which buses and trolleys arrive at bus stops and trolley stations is to be 10 to 45 minutes depending on the type of transit service involved and the area served The proportion of the region's res i dents served by transit i s to have 50 percent of the region's hous i ng units l ocated within 1/4 mile of a transrt route and 80 percent within one half mile of a transit route Center fiN urtwJ ReMM'Ch 78

PAGE 93

GuldOdailsm: FuneUM ami EffeeUIVIHIN$ Standards to minimize any inconvenience to transH passengers when they are transferring between areas servetll>y different t ransit operators. \Mlile these are clearly act ions supportive of transit they are not a radical departure from the direction that has been taken by local t ransit agencies and coordinating boards like MTDB and NCTD. They do give the fo rce of regiona l policy commitment and strengthen actions being undertaken or planned Land Use Policies and Transit Related Development Actions taken by the MTDB i ndicate a strong commitment to the development of land around l ight rail stations that will be supportive of transi t. These actions are designed to encourage uses that will generate additional ridership. New commercial and office buildings medium to high density housing entertainment and sports facilities all produce concentrations of people that offer increased ridership possibilities. Another thrust has been the cons i deration of mixed-use transit-oriented development where housing is clustered around other activities that both serve the needs of the new local residents and offer possible shopping or entertainment for persons arriving by transi t or making an intermodal connection to automobiles or between transit modes. The MDTB has established a real estate office to attract new development around station sites. The amount of land and variety of opportunities is site specific. Some of the land is owned by MDTB, but a large share of it is under the control of others. Figure 21 identifies parcels at various light rail stations by size and zoning category. The Transit Development Board provides a clearinghouse function and directs potential investors to appropriate agencies, i.e. the Centre City Deve lop ment Corporation for projects in the downtown area, or the Sou t heastern Economic Development Corporation for the two stations on Commercial Avenue. Most of the sites on the existing North-South and East lines are less than frve acres. The biggest site is 50 acres at Santee Town Center where light rail service began on an extension of the East lin e in August 1995. MTDB has developed a set of guide lines to be used i n pursuing appropriate land uses and design for station areas. In addition to these sites which are zoned usually for commercial or residential, sometimes for light industrial and occasionally for mixed use, there are also Center tor Urban Transportation Resewch 79

PAGE 94

Guldfi'Way Transit and lntermodaHsm: Flmetlotl and Elfectnvenea sites where "transit oriented developments (TODs) or "tra nsit villages" are being implem ented or considered. Three are of significance. LaMesa Village Plaza is a mixed-use complex containing residential, office and retai l activities in La Mesa at the East line Spring Street Station. Passengers exit from the station into a sma ll plaza with ground-floor retail on three sides. Retail is supported by 20,000 square feet of office space and 90 reside ntial units. Although the development was inijia lly planned before the light rail line arrived the site design and orientation was altered to incorporate the transit stop into the project. The use of transij by La Mesa Village Plaza's residents is significantly higher than for residents of suburban San Diego as a whole. While the 1990 work trip transit mode share for residents of suburban San Diego is only 2.5 percent it is 9.3 percent for Plaza residen ts. Rio Vista West is the first planned TOO to fall under the transit oriented deve lopmen t and d es ign guidelines imp leme nted in 1992 by the city of San Diego. Peter Calthorpe was hired to translate broad development and design concepts into specific actions including higher densities near transit stations, mixing of land uses and connected street patterns. Rio Vista West is a 90-acre mixed use development adjacent to a station on the now under construction Mission Valley trolley l ine which will open for service in late 1 997. The plan calls for more than 1,000 units of moderate density housing, 165,000 square feet of office space and 325 ,000 square feet of retail. The reta il area opened in late 1995 and hous ing will phase in over a two-year period Villages of La Mesa a 380 unij apartment development has been constructed adj acent to the La Mesa-Amaya l ight rail station on the Eas t line. Residents have only a short walk across the complex parking lot to reach San Diego Tro lley trains. It is too ear1y to determine the full effect of the transit-oriented development and design guidelines adopted by the City of San Diego and MTDB. What is significant though Is that elements of this new direction are being incorporated into projects that are emerging at various stations on the light rail system. Cet1tw for UrfHtn Ttat1$portat./ort Resean:h 80

PAGE 95

Ouldoway Ttanslt and lntennodal/sm: Funcllon and fffeclllvenoss Figura 21 SAN DIEGO TROLLEY MAJOR 119.!'l DI;VELOPMENT OPPORTUNillES . . . Source: San Diego Metropolt:en Transit 09v91opment Board c.Mtl'twfhl>an r--.R..81 1' 0 1 ,_ "--

PAGE 96

Measuring Guideway Transit Impacts This section examines several ways of measuring guideway trans i t impacts I mpacts can have policy impl i cat i ons The planning and decision mak i ng processes are affected by perceptions of how transit currently impacts the commun i ty Guideway Transit Mode Share There are two ways of measuring the impact of guideway transit mode share i n the San Diego metropo l itan region. The first cons i ders how tra n sit is performing as part of the total transportat i on system This is followed by a comparison of the use of light rail and bus transit modes Commuter rail service, wh i ch began in March 1 995, has no data history to make any comparison. Comparison of trans i t and total travel is discussed early in this case study Transit accounts for only 3.0 percent of the 1990 journey-to-work trips in the San Diego UA according to the U.S Census. This is smaller than the U.S average (5.27 percent) and markedly lower than that of older rail transit cities and somewhat lower than other new light rail cities (Table 12) Transit ridership grew nearly 40 percent in San Diego betwee n 1980 and 1990 However population in the San Diego region i ncreased 46. 6 percent in the same period.

PAGE 97

GUideway TiimSit and lntennodalism: FCinctlon and Effect/fVene.ss Table 12 PERCENT OF WORKERS USING TRANSIT FOR WORK TRIPS New Light Rail Cities Portland 6.52% Buffalo 6 .67% Los Ang<>los 5 .50% San D i ogo 3 .44% San Jose 3 04% Sacramento 2 76% Older Rail Transit Cities Boston 14.69% San Francisco 14.03% Philade l phia 13.26% Pittsburgh 10.09% The rail share of trans i t r i dership has grown dramatically. Between 1961, the first year of South line operation and 1994 light rail has captured 21.0 percent of the total trans i t ridership in the region as measured by unlinked trips. The light rail sha r e of passenger miles has risen to 23.4 percent. The trend from 1961 through 1994 can be seen i n Figures 22 and 23. The rai l system has an advantage in that it serves heavily traveled corridors. Even where bus routes parallel the Trolley line, as in the case of route 932, trave l times are significantly longer as the bus is mixed in wit h stop-and-go vehi cular traffic on arterial streets. Other bus routes have been truncated and reorganized to feed into the l ight rail system In a sense trains are "force-fed by the restructured bus system ; not a bad action as travel times are probably reduced for many transit users over what they were prior to the i mplementation of the rai l system. CMttrfor Urban Transponatlon Research 63

PAGE 98

Guldtway Tran.slr and tnrtlffnOfiHsm: Functlon and Etfectllveness Figure 22 SAN DIEGO URBANIZED AREA ANNUAL UNLINKED TRIPS (IN MILLIONS) Figure 23 SAN DIEGO URBANIZED AREA ANNUAL PASSENGER MILES (IN MILLIONS) Source: r.dtrl Trmtt AdmlniJtfa.tlon s.ctlon 15 Datil I MB. L R c.mor tor lhDoo T,.,._._ ReMth 84

PAGE 99

Guideway Transit and lntermodalism: Function and EffectllvenKS The rate of light rail transit growth to total transit growth has slowed between 1990 and 1994. This is the result of only limited new rail line openings and an increase in bus service across the region. The rail mode share is expected to show increases again when data is available for Coaster commuter rail and after extensions of light rail open in late 1995 1996 and late 1997. Overall transit ridership is projected to grow at a faster rate than VMT by SANDAG between 1990 and 2015. Land Use and Development Impacts While it is evident that there are significant changes in land use and a very large amount of new investment made in Centre City San Diego, and elsewhere along l ight rail lines and near stations, it is extremely difficult to infer a causal relat ionship except in some very specific cases. It is certainly possible, as the Urban Land Institute has done, to document over $7 billion i n new development in Centre City and to account for $300 million in light rail investment, but explaining a connection beyond the complementarily of the two lacks hard evidence. Would the investment in new development have happened without light rail? It is hard to imagine that much of i t would not have occurred anyway. But light rail may well have been a factor In the choice of location and site. And certainly transit supportive policies have influenced those choices. Examination of development adjacent to, or in the San Diego case, over the ligh t rail line, can strengthen the case for the transi t-devel opment relationship. Some of the examples of this have been noted in earlier discussions in this case study. It is probably useful to review some of the more important of those, but also to note the general growth of office, retail, entertainment and residential activities that have taken place along the lines and adjacent to stations. The fact that both light rail and commuter rail plans developed by their respective sponsoring agencies, incorporate land use, neighborhood and site planning efforts to accomplish community economic development and quality of life goals is evidence of new thinking about the transit-land use linkage Area and Site Impacts Several area or site locat ions on the San Diego Trolley network are ident ified where development has taken place between 1981 and 1994. Ctnttr for UrUan Tnmsportlflion ResN!eh 85

PAGE 100

Centre City Area. This extensive area of nearly four square miles in the heart of San Diego has experienced a tremendous amount of investment. Private and public coordination has resulted in major in frastructure improvements and a revitalization of much of the area New office, re tai l hotel restaurant, entertainment activities have r aised employment by 20,000 to over 100,000. The skyline has changed in just over a decade as new office and hotel towers reach upwards of 40 or more stories. The C Street Transit Mall is part of the public investment Another investment has been in the Bayside l igh t rail line (now incorporated into the East line) which has been tied i n with the rebuilding of Harbor Boulevard and a new l i near park Several new low, mid and high rise residential developments have been constructed adjacent to the rail line, totaling over 1 ,500 units The numb e r of hotel rooms has doubled in San Diego since 1980 and tripled in Centre City The residential population has g rown to 5 000 Even more ambitious p lans exist for the future By 2025 the new City Centre Redevelopment Project calls for the public and private sectors to work together to build over 14 million square feet of office space, near1y 6,000 new hotel rooms and 25,000 plus new residential units. Rail transit is expected to benefrt from these new trip attractors and generators Maintaining the quality of life is expected to be helped by transit. Imperial and 121h Station Site. A joint development project has resu lt ed in a 10 story, 180 ,000 square foot office building housing MTDB and other transit agencies built on air rights over the light rail station which serves as a junct ion of the two lines and tenninus of the Bays ide line (now i ncorporated into the East line). America Plaza Station Site. This 565,000 square foot 29 story tower is the largest office project in the San Diego region. It incorporates a trolley station served by both lines that has supporting retail and good intennodal access to buses on Broadway and commuter and inter city rail across the street at Santa Fe Depot. Centw for Urf>att TraMpOf'tlllJon Research 86

PAGE 101

Guld!way Transit and lnt e rmoda&m: FunctiOn and EffectilveneH Summary . ..... .. l "
PAGE 102

Guideway Tnnslt and lnttrmotMUsm: Function iHtd Effectlfv1NM&.s when introduced in San Diego. Low evasion rates have refuted the arguments of critics and this system has become standard for collecting fares on all new light rail systems. San Diego also introduced the first articulated light rail vehicles and the first passenger-operated doors on urban transit vehicles in the U.S. Again, these developments have been emulated in most of the light rai l systems built subsequent to the San Diego Trolley. Public-private cooperation has been instrumental i n making light rail a successful venture in San Diego. The construction of office buildings over rail stations has been mutually beneficial at the two where this has occurred. Collaboration between the downtown development agency and the MTDB has paid div i dends In the synergism that exists between transit and economic growth. Integration of bus and rail transit is an important aspect in maintaining the competitiveness of transit for the discretionary urban travel market. Establishing this as a system goal before design of the rail element is imp ortant. Approaching transit planning and implementation at the regional l evel enhances the ability to make good investment decisions that recognize the changing nature of travel. The continued sub urbanization of population and dispersion of employment and retail produces more complex travel pattems that are better understood in a wider context. Shared use oflhe Santa Fe Depot by intercity, commuter and light rail increases regiona l travel connectivity, and also makes the and surrounding areas more viable for private sector investment as the number of daily travelers using the facility is expected to reach 40,000 by 2000 A region wide marketing strategy has made transit more use r friendly Information is readily available through published schedules and other material on how to use transit. Both MTS and NCTD have produced Cenfw for Ulbltn TtaMpotf.ltlon Research 88

PAGE 103

Guideway Transit and lntennodallsm-: Function and Effectllveness guidebooks that cover all transH and paratransit services in their areas plus information on how to acc,es s intercity . carriers. CenltrfOTI/man Resoareh 89

PAGE 104

Cent.,-for Uman TtaiiSpoi'Gt/on Rese.arch 90

PAGE 105

GU!d!W!y Tmslt and lntomHxlall$m: Function and Effectlfvenfi'SS REFERENCES Bemicl<, Michael and Cervero, Robert (1994). "Transit-Based Development in the United States." Passenger Transpott. Bushell, Chris. (ed ) (1993) Jane's Urban Transportation Systems Jane's I nformation Group, Inc. Alexandria, VA Calthorpe Associates. (1992) Transit Oriented Development Design Guidelines. Christian, Charles M (ed.) (1982). Modem Metropolitan Systems. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company. Columbus, OH Coleman P.M. Euritt and C. Walton. (1993) Dallas Area Rapid Transit Impact Study: A Framework for Assessing Land Use and Development Impact. Cervero, Robert (1996). "California's T rans i t Village Movement, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol1 No. 1, Fall1996, pp. 1-3-130. Cudahy, Brian J. (1990 ) Cash, Tokens, and Transfers: A History of Urban Mass Transit in North America. Fordham University Press, New York, NY. Demoro, Harre W., and Harder, John N. (1989). Ught Rail Transit on the West Coast. Diridon, Rod et al. (eds.) (1991). North American Rail Transit American Public T ransit Association. New York, NY. Hanson, Susan (ed.) (1986). The Geography of Urban Transportation. The Guilford Press. New York, NY. Hami l ton, Pamela M. (1994). The Metamorphosis of Downtown San Diego," Urban Land, Vol. 53, No.4, April1994, pp. 32-38. Hess, stephen and Paul i. Meyer (199 4). "Santa Fe Depot: Repositioning an Urban Development Plan," Urban Land, Vol. 53, No.4, April1994, pp. 62-64 Center tor Urban Transpottatlon RNNrCIJ 91

PAGE 106

Komb l att H. (1989). Oceanside San Diego Commuter Rail Project Larwin, Thomas F (1989) "San Diego's Ligh t Rail System: A Success Story," ITE Joumal Vol. 59, No 1 January 1989, pp 19-20 Lave Charles A. (ed ) ( 1 985). Urban Transit. The Private Challenge To Public Transportation Pacific For Pub li c Policy Research. S an Francisco CA Metropo l itan Transit Deve l opment Board. (1995). Metropolitan San Diego Short Range T ransit Plan FY 1995-2001 M i ddleton, William D. (1994) North American Commuter Rail, 1994 M i lls, James R. (1994). Light Rail Transit in San Diego The New Electric Railway Joumal, Vol. 6, No. 3 I ssue 23, Spring 1994 pp. 22 -27. Morrison-Knudsen Eng i neers, Inc. (1989 ) San Diego Oceanside Commuter Rail Study North American Light Rail Annual and User's Guide for 1992. North American Light Rail Annual and User's Guide of 1994 North County District (1995) A Gui de No rt h San Diego County Transit Development Board (1995) Short Range Trans i t Plan. Pi l grim, Richard D., Lonni e D Blaydes and William D Burge!. (1995) Issues Associated with Light Rail Transit Use o f Freight Railroad R i ght of-Way ," Proceedings, Seventh National Conference on Light Rail Transit: Volume 1. Salvesen David (1996) P r omo t ing Transit-Oriented Deve l opment, "Urban Land, Vol. 55, Number 7, Jul y 1996, pp. 3135. San Diego Association of Governments (1992). san D i ego Freeways L evels of Service," Info March-April 1992.

PAGE 107

.. ; . Gulc!tway T,.nslt and Function and Etrectllvonoso San Diego Association of Governments. (1993) "Economic Indicators," Info, May-June, 1993. San Diego Association of Governments. (1993). "land Use in the San Diego Region Info, Jan-Feb 1993. San Diego Association of Governments (1994) A look at San Diego's Future Info, Jan Feb 1994. San Diego Associat i on of Governments. (1995) "Average Wage/Sa l ary," Info, Update Special Issue, April 1995. San Diego Association of Governments. (1995). Interim Series 8 Regional Growth Forecast for Jurisdiction and other Communities San Diego Associat i on of Governments. (1995). A Progress Report on the Regional Growth Management Strategy. San Diego Associat i on of Governments (1995). Regional Transportation Plan. San Diego Metropolitan Transi t Development Board (1996). San Diego MTDB 19761996: 20 Years of Service. Schumann John W., and Suzanne Tidrick. (1995). "Status of North American Ught Rai l Transit Systems: 1995 Update Proceedings, Seventh National Conference on Ughl Rail Transit: Volume 1, pp. 3-15. S i emans Duewag-A Standard LRV?" The New Electric Railway Journal, Vol. 7 Number 4. Issue 28. pp. 8-12. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau Of The Census. 1990 Census of Population, General Population Characteristics, Urbanized Areas. U.S. Department of Transportation. (1984). San Diego Trolley: The First Three Years. Cents< for Url>an Resoaroh 93

PAGE 108

U.S. Department of Transp ortation, Federal Transit Administration (1994). Transit Profiles the Thirty Largest Agencies. U S Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration. (1994). Transit Profiles Agencies in Urbanized Ateas Exceeding 200,000 Population. U.S. Department of Transportation, lnterm odal Terminal Committee (19 94). lntermodal Passenger Terminal Facilities Project Summaries A Compendium Of Proposed, Active, And Completed lntermodal Passenger Terminal Facilities. V i lgrass J. William. (1995). Joint Use of Track by Electric Railways and Railroads: Historic View, Proceedings, Seventh National Confetence on Ught Rail Transit: Volume 1. pp 154-163 Weiner, Edward (1992). Urban Transportation Planning in the United Stales, An Historical OveNiew. Wilbur Smith Associates. (1990). Summary Rep o rt: Updated Patronage Estimates. Oceanside-San Diego Commuter Rail Service Wolinsky Julian (1994). san Diego's LRT-Trying to Stay Lean," 1994 Ught Rail Annual and User's Guide, pp. 15-19


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200349Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 001931421
005 20080401115255.0
008 970802s1996 fluab bt 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00338
2 local
027
GUID96USF2.1
035
(OCoLC)37410896
040
CBT
c CBT
d FHM
043
n-us-ca
049
FHMM
090
HE4491.S327
b G85 1996
0 245
Guideway transit and intermodalism :
function and effectiveness : case study, San Diego.
260
Tampa, FL :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research ;
[Springfield, Va. :
Available through the National Technical Information Service,
1996]
300
xiii, 94 p. :
ill., maps (some col.) ;
28 cm.
513
Case study.
Nov. 1994-Nov. 1996.
500
"Authors: Ronald C. Sheck, et al."--Technical report documentation page.
Prepared in cooperation with the Lehman Center for Transportation Research, Florida International University and the the Federal Transit Administration.
"September 1996."
504
Includes bibliographical references (p. 91-94).
530
Also available online.
650
Street-railroads
z California
San Diego.
Railroads
California
San Diego
x Commuting traffic.
Local transit
California
San Diego.
1 653
light rail transit
700
Sheck, Ronald C.
710
United States.
Federal Transit Administration.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Lehman Center for Transportation Research.
994
C0
FHM
8 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.338