Item P - Presentation of I-15 Corridor Study Phase 1 Report
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
~ -" - / /,~ /~
/~/~v~~ ,<7_ ~-'1,b
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
James L. Bowersox, City Man~
Robert L. Thomas, Director of Community S~'ns
Patrick R. Foley, Senior Management AnaIYs/,~
October 22, 1996
~ROM:
INITIATED BY:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Presentation of the I-IS Corridor Study - Phase 1 Report
ABSTRACT
The 1-15 Corridor Study is evaluating the short- and long-term transportation needs for the 1-15
corridor between downtown San Diego and downtown Escondido. The Phase 1 analysis has been
completed and the consultant and MTDB staff will present the results of the study. It is
recommended that the City Council provide comments and direction to the Council representative
on the MID Board and the City staff.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
. :he Environmental Review for the 1-15 Study will be done by the consultant, Parsons, Brinkerhoff
Quade & Douglas. Inc.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City at this time.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Additional notification sent to Dave Schumacher, MTDB.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council provide their comments and direction to the City staff and
their MTDB Council representative on developing a position on Phase 1 of the 1-15 Corridor
Study.
ACTION
.
1 of 59
OCT 2. 1996 ITEM ,~' 'I~
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POW A Y
FROM:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
James L. Bowersox, City Man~
Robert L. Thomas, Director of Community Se~s ~&t--
Patrick R. Foley, Senior Management AnalYs~
October 22, 1996
TO:
INITIATED BY:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Presentation of the 1-15 Corridor Study - Phase 1 Report
BACKGROUND
The 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS) is evaluating the short- and long-term
transportation needs for the 1-15 corridor area between downtown San Diego and
downtown Escondido. The study area includes portions of the 1-15, SR 15, SR 163, and
SR 94 freeway corridors (Attachment A, maps). The study is a joint effort between
MTDB, the North County Transit District (NCID), and the local Caltrans District 11
office. A technical advisory committee made up of the above participants, as well as
representatives from: the San Diego Association of Governments; the cities of San
Diego, Poway, and Escondido; the county of San Diego; and affected transit operators,
has provided ongoing review of the study.
Because of the large number of alternatives being evaluated, the study has been
organized into four phases to help narrow the alternatives. Each phase involves a more
detailed level of analysis than the previous one. The aim of each phase is to eliminate
those alternatives that do not have a chance at becoming the preferred alternative.
The results of the Phase I study results are presented in the Executive Summary of the
draft Phase 1 Report (Attachment B). This item was approved for review by the MID
Board on October 17, 1996. The next step is to take the draft Phase 1 Report out for
public review. Adoption of the Phase 1 recommendations would take place following the
public review.
ACTION:
2 of 59
'\ \
Agenda Report
October 22, 1996
Page 2
FINDINGS
A summary of the draft Phase 1 recommendations are as follows:
1. Delete Rail Alternatives Between North County Fair and Kearny Mesa. The rail
alternatives do not appear to be cost-effective for this segment primarily due to
the low boardings per mile. This result is not surprising given the low density
development patterns and dispersed employment centers that make it difficult to
serve with a single rail line. The bus/high-occupancy-vehicle (HOY) alternatives
seem to hold more promise since they would facilitate both transit and car pool
trip-making.
2. Delete Both the SR 163 Rail and Bus/HOY Alternatives. None of the build
alternatives examined in the SR 163 corridor appear cost-effective, especially
when compared to those alternatives in the I-15/SR 15 corridor. The reason is
that while overall ridership is comparable, engineering/environmental issues result
in significantly higher costs. While a build alternative is not recommended, there
is still strong ridership in the SR 163 corridor. To facilitate this demand, it is
recommended that Transportation Systems Management (TSM)-type
improvements (lower capital cost - e.g., freeway ramp stops, bus bypass lanes) be
evaluated in Phase 2.
3. Evaluate a Rail Alternative in the I-15/SR 15 Corridor South of Kearny Mesa.
but Delete the Ruffin Road and SR 94 Rail Alternatives. Rail alternatives south
of Kearny Mesa in the 1-15/SR 15 may be cost-effective given the opportunity for
system connectivity with the Mission VaHey, East, and North-South Lines. The
Ruffin Road rail alternative is not recommended for further consideration given
that ridership is about the same as an 1-15 alignment, and engineering/
environmental issues result in higher capital costs. The SR 94 rail alternative has
low ridership given limited access to the surrounding area. It is recommended
that an alternative be evaluated that would directly connect an 1-15/SR 15 line
with the East Line for access to Centre City. Under these alternatives, a
bus/HOY alternative connection between Kearny Mesa and Escondido would be
included.
4. Continue to Evaluate Bus/HOY Alternatives Between Escondido and Centre City
via I-15/SR 15. The concept of a full length bus/HOY facility between
Escondido and Centre City via I-15/SR 15 is recommended for additional
evaluation since it is the most cost-effective of the Phase I alternatives.
3 of 59
OCT 2:: 1996 ITEM f
.\
Agenda Report
October 22, 1996
Page 3
5. Evaluate Various Options for a Lower Capital Cost Alternative. Because of the
concern over the financial feasibility of a large-scale capital investment, smaller-
scale improvements phased in over time and compatible with longer-range
investment alternatives should be addressed in Phase 2. Such alternatives could
include:
a. pinch-point HOV improvements that would concentrate initial HOV
construction at the most congested points in the study area; and
b. Evaluate possible congestion management/congestion pricing strategies
that would minimize the need to build new HOV facilities, instead focusing
on improving the efficiency of existing facilities.
6. Delete General PUJ:pose Lane Additions as an Alternative. The current freeway
system, for the most part, is made up of all eight-lane facilities. Additional lanes
are inconsistent with this study's goals and objectives, as well as policies outlined
in the Regional Transportation Plan and Caltrans plans for the I-IS, SR 15, SR
94, and SR 163 freeways.
The analysis supporting the draft recommendation is summarized in Attachment B.
Phase 1 Public Review
Release of the Phase 1 draft report by the Board on October 17, begins a three-month
public review period. MIDB has a public participation plan that encompasses four main
components: (l) project advisory committee, (2) community planning groups, (3) briefing
for political aides, and (4) community information kiosk.
Project Schedule
The current schedule anticipates that the MID Board will adopt Phase 1
recommendations in early January 1997.
Presentation
Tonight, representatives from the consulting fire Parsons, Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas,
Inc., and MIDB staff will present a summary in their analysis and answer questions from
the City Council.
At the conclusion of the presentation, the City Council may provide City staff and their
Council representative to the MID Board with direction on formulating a response and
position on the Phase 1 Study.
4 of 59
[)CT 22 1996 ITEM -r 'I~
,---
Agenda Report
October 22, 1996
Page 4
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review for the 1-15 Study will be done by the consultant, Parsons,
Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
FISCAL IMPACf
There is no fiscal impact to the City at this time.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Additional notification sent to Dave Schumacher, MTDB.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council provide their comments and direction to the
City staff and their MTDB Council representative on developing a position on Phase 1 of
the 1-15 Corridor Study.
JLB:RL T:PRF
Attachments:
A. Maps
B. 1-15 Study Phase 1 Report Executive Summary
,.,-
,
5 of 59
DCT ~ 2 1996 ITEM t
11
-
LRT Lines (exIsting)
-
LFlT Lines (Under Constnlct10n)
111111
Future Rail
o
Stations EXISting
or Under ConSfructlon
t
~
Freeway with Reversible HOV Lane
(Exlsllng)
Corridor Segments
o 1-15 f EscondJdlO
CD Centre City F'af1<way
CD Rancho Bemarclo
o Mira Mesa
I
d
I
+
N
o
,
1 Mile
AwroXll'MteScaIe
-
~
[;)~[jJ~
6 of 59
Att. A, AI 32, 10/17/96
CIP 432.1
"
/ "'~~ \\
Ii ~.,. ~:
is.- ~
.,.,./
t!;:'
,
,
(
.... ::0.
'~~
,..
\i J+.*;:
,~ '(-
~; f
n, CI (>
:= ~..
r---_"';.'a;~
'(
N. County Fair
,
,
...;
--'
,
Lake Hodg..
/
.~
~;
~
.
;;
J
:.g-,~ Esoola F1Cl
~
:; Rancho
-'~er~ardo
bo.1
g ~
...I' ..
, ;;
E
~
~
a:
.
~
.
"'
4-5 Ranch
-
_....(do Ad
~\~
t!'.cr,o -ae",
" ,-----
~ Rancho Bernard
~ustrl.1 Park .-'
C' ---
iI'>)"', ~ ,.,.-
~"o' )'
<1.; 15
1<,
0..,.,
Rancho
Penasquitos
T WIfl PeaM3 Rd.
'"-,'
~
a:
i
g
U1
56
,;'
a:
~
.
Sabre ~
Springs", ,/
~o. ~ {' Poway
~owa'i r-,1 ! Industrial
(\~
2 Mile
15 Scripps Ranch Nortlr-
. ....anch e~Q Canyon Ra
5enPPS" ~
r MItan'\8r ~-/:
R.......,oir ;.-'
If
~
Study Segments
1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
"lbI~ACHM1;t.gfP-~.-=
-....
~~~noNOlt
~GOVUNMENTS
---
/
. .r- -,'
~6"w
...
l'
, Poway
~
m
-
A-I
~
2
'"
'"
l-
Q
:::>
.
- LRT Lmes ,Existing)
- L.RT lines (Under Construction)
11111 I Future Rail
.. Stations EXisting
or unaer Constn.Jctlon
t Freeway WItt'1 Reve~Jble HOV Lane
(EXisting)
~ Corridor Segments
CD RanCho Bemardo
CD Mira Mesa
CD Keamy Mesa II- 15
0 Keamy Mesa I Ruffin Fload
@ Keamy Mesa! SR , 63
+
N
o
,
,-
.....
Apgtc~. Scale
. . .
~
',,-,~/'
~'
...
l
"
Catne, Mtn _ P-d.
/~,,-
"
~
..
, I ..--:
C(\I Ob.1 / ...,
~.~ "5.
;;. a:
(;, ~'
'.
Mira Mesa ilj
;
sa BNd. ~
..,.- ... I
!
,
i oniAd
~
/~
,,/ ~b/
---.--/ ~ '/
..'&' /" M.tamar Wy
~,. -....
)/ Miramar "-
/ NAS
..------/
,
\ ,--------
scri~ PO....y PkW'l ',/
, "-
Scripps Ranch Nortl'r-,
awa '51),.,,, ,,_
$CrIppl p.1f'C!" ...."yon fid
r'
Minlmar
R......oir
".-
,....
-
Scripps
Ranch
"
cr
..,
.
~,
..
.
: !
,",'
Tierrasanta
~~/
/~
/ - Gardens
\,.
'!:
jj
-
...
,.--
- -
--- --
=-~- -
- - ---
- ---
- ----
- - ---
- -
Study Segments
1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
A-2
.:"
;-
c..:
<.0
en
en
-
~
(;J~(JJ~
7 of 59
N
N
,..li:IItn:zns
NCTD~
_'"........,'~'_T_l
le:1~noN o.
~r;ovDNMiNT$
South Segment
~ LRT Lines (ExiStlng)
-
LRT Unes (Under Constl\Jction)
111111
Future Rail
o
Stations EXIsting
or Under ConstructIon
t
o
Freeway with ReverSlcle HOV Lane
(Existing)
Corridor Segment
o Mira Mesa
<D Keamy Mesa 11-15
(!) Keamy Mesa / Ruffin Road
(2) Mid-City
CD 32nd Street
o SR94
@ Keamy Mesa I SR 163
@ BalbOa Pari< I SR , 63
@ Sixth A.venue
@ Park Boulevard
-r
~
+
N
1 Mile
2 Mile
~rcXJTnl;. Selle
ili
~
. ......."'..,..
\~.'..-
(P',
'l Tierrasanta
~
5 ;..... ~__... ,"
i '"'_/ ..... '-- ."
Balboa Av..
!
\.'"
"
/
.-~
I 4~
,.;rf' Allied
I /.;f Gardens"
. b
$, ~,'
""--- 1"
;
-----
,
8 '" I .
> "~su.,,,
'. .\f. I P'
";~OfJtu.,,)tM Ad. ~
, ---=------
Kensington "\
" ~,~
- -- 'C;
'.
,
,~-
"
iF>
=
"
Il'l~__
',,-"
---
~
f,..
+-:,.
:Ii
ad
t:
i!:..."
:(~;<-;;
<D
en
-:
.~
.,..
I-
c.J
o
,
Study Segments A-3
- 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ lit tbltn.vrs NCTDiii""l ~=~ONOf
---- _","C_""'~llllll'_T GOV!INMEtm
.. 8 of 59 (;)~(I)~
Draft
1-15 Corridor
Major Investment Study
Phase 1
Screening of Initial Set of Alternatives
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Prepared by:
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Quade & Douglas, Inc.
Prepared for:
Metropolitan Transit Development Board
North San Diego County Transit Development Board
San Diego Association of 'Governments
California Department of Transportation
9 of 59
ATTACHMENT B
October 1996
OCT 22 1996 ITEMY ''"'I'
1-15 CORRIDOR MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY
PHASE 1 ANALYSIS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Interstate 15 (1-15) Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS) is evaluating the short- and
long-term transportation needs for the 1-15 corridor area between downtown San Diego and
downtown Escondido, The study area includes portions of the 1-15, State Route (SR) 15, SR
163, and SR 94 freeway corridors (see Figure 1), The study is a joint effort between MTDB,
the North San Diego County Transit Development Board (NSDCTDB), and the local California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 11 office,
The four major study tasks are to:
1, define and compare alternative highway and transit improvement strategies, including
alignments, stations, and modes (Le" rail, bus, carpooling);
2, prepare an MIS Evaluation Report summarizing the results of the analysis and
documenting all relevant technical information used to recommend a preferred
transportation improvement alternative;
3, analyze land use factors that impact the ability to service the corridor with alternative
modes, and develop recommendations that could improve access to the preferred
alternative, and
4, prepare a finance plan for implementing the preferred alternative,
Because of the large number of alternatives being evaluated, the study has been organized
into four phases to help narrow the alternatives, Each phase involves a more detailed level of
analysis than the previous one, The aim of each phase is to eliminate those alternatives that
do not have a chance at becoming the preferred alternative, This phase of the study process
takes the Initial Set of Alternatives developed over the last year and, through the use of an
agreed upon set of criteria, screens these alternatives to a smaller number for further
screening and refinement in Phase 2,
This report summarizes the results and recommendations from the Phase 1 analysis
PROBLEM STATEMENT AND STUDY OBJECTIVES
The San Diego Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) developed by the San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG) identified the 1-15 corridor and the freeways that make up the
study area as having moderate to heavy congestion now and in the horizon year of 2015.
Population within the study area between 1990 and 2015 is expected to grow 41 percent to
1.09 million, while employment is projected to increase 23 percent to 600,000 jobs over the
same period, As a result, the number of daily trips within the study area will rise significantly,
some 40 percent to nearly 8.5 million trips, Of this total, about 40 percent will occur in the
weekday morning and evening "rush hours.,
Development patterns vary greatly in the study area and have had a direct effect on the
transportation choices made by travelers, Much of the area north of Mission Valley and south
10 of 59 ' - Screen,ng, Parsons Bnnckerhoft
-1.
eel ~ ~ 1996
ITEM f
..:,"
-
LRT Lines (ElIusnng)
-
LRT Lines (Under COnslructiOn)
........111
Future Rail
o
StatJons EXisting
or Uncer ConslnJctlon
t
~
Freeway with Reversible HOV Lane
(ExIsting)
Comdor Segments
q+-....y.,.
f/
~I
'l'.~
-----
/"
r'
,-
CD 1.15,' Escondidio
CD Centre City Par1<way
CD Rancno Bemardo
o Mira Mesa
./.-
,,'
Lake Hodg..
') Hi~f\c1IJSI'.~ ~6'
\
,
i\
i:
-\
.,
~~
I Espola Ad
/'
~'
,
",/
..--
~~tdO ~d.
4.5 Rancn p.'If'~'
~F1..ncho hrnerd
, . -....!ndUstrill P.rk .
e-. -'
~.,,;,. ~
"'0 . ....
a\
ty"'k"
0".
Rancho
Penasquitos
Rar\fho
,Bernardo
" .J ~
$I~' I.
g/ .sl w
-I' .' W
g;' ~:
"t/ ~;
.--{""
i '
I
1'win Puks Rd.
camel Mtn. Rd.
~,
, "
,,' ; \..
, I' '
56
,\
~,
a:,
ii
[
o
0'
I
............. ---_/
~/
..'f1~'
~o
, Poway
I
.J
;
POWIIY
industrial
'e..
15 Scripps Ranch Nort
. ---- ewd. \ Spl)n Can on Fia
scnppl ~~.. ,
Mini...,
Jleeervoir
~'
~o
II
~
:E
~
+
N
1MI"
2Mi"
ApproXImate Scale
,r- Study Segments
. 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ ,.lbItrrzns ~ ~~ONO'
---- ~'/IIMIIlENIS
11 of 59 (;J~[I)~ -2-
<.0
0>
~
""
""
I-
o
o
~ LRT Lines (EXIsting)
-
LRT Lines (Under Constn.JCl:ion)
IIll1t
Future Rail
o
Stahons EXlsrmg
or Under Construction
t
~
Freeway witn Reversible HOV Lane
(EXisting)
Corridor Segments
o RancM Bemardo
o Mira Mesa
o Keamy Mesa f 1.15
(!) Keamy Mesa, Ruffin Road
@ Keamy Mesa,' SR 163
7
,
~
+
N
o
,
1 Milt
A,p!)tOlOmAtII Scale
.
~
----
[;)~(I)~
12 of 59
~I
5I~t.' "Cil
,.t> "I
ii
Sabre ~'
Springs" _/'
Powa'l~
/
'\
----;---
se~ P'o"'.y P'~ \.....,........ ,
I '.
Scripps Ranch North--
\ S '
. ~S\~gC.nyon Ra
~~ -._,
r
(
I
Mid-Segment
2 Mile
56
.
~I
",
~I
~:
Mira Mesa "I
...eNd. r
".\(e."". I
(
CnstOOal
."
,,~
........,
A..rvolr
~f'd, ,./
<<".,.
~o
~ Scripps
USIU R h
anc
(t-O:/
~/
~.f!, Mlramar Wy
~" -"
/ Miramar
, NAS
~
d!
~'
i
~'
E
.
:;
I
I
52
Tierrasanta
Study Segments
1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
,. tbltrrzns
~m:12..1i:
~~""o,
~<>o_
~
-0'
",
~
.~;
~,
"
/
.-
,r'
- LRT Unes (Existing)
......... LRT Lines (Under ConstructJon)
111111
Future Rail
o
Stations EXisting
or Under Construction
t
~
Freeway with Reverslole HOV Lane
(Existing)
Corridor Segment
o Mira Mesa
o Keamy Mesa .' j., 5
CD Keamy Mesa' Ruffin Road
C!)t..M.City
C!) 32nd Street
~ SR 94
10 Keamy Mesa f SR 163
" BalbOa Parle' SR 163
@ Sixth Avenue
@ Patio; Boulevard
7
~
+
N
o
,
'~ile
A,p~olama"Scale
III
~
----
~li1[1)~
13 of 59
II:)
I
2Mi..
52
Tierrasanta
""--'-'~
,
''--'-,
,'i""
I #Allied
I/~ G:rdet)~.
. "'.
'\ l,
J l
'.'/"dJ ,
8 ""
'\ " "i",s~",
~a~~"N _ _..
Kensington ~
, J
/'~ GI
, \.... i
I
ii
in
~
;;;-
Study Segments
1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
,. tbJfrruIs
NCTO....
_TMl;OUIIIT1'~~
~~~ONOf
~GOVUNMENTS
1-15 Corridor MIS
of the Downtown Escondido area are characterized by land-use development patterns
oriented primarily around the automobile, Little effort was made to design building sites and
streets to facilitate walking or public transportation, The result are auto ownership rates and
low transit potential.
Based on the RTP future forecasts of population and employment, the following problem
statement was agreed upon:
"There is insufficient capacity on existing and programmed transportation facilities to
handle projected travel demand by the year 2015, This situation is aggravated by
inadequate alternatives to single-occupant vehicle travel, including HOV lanes, transit
services and facilities, and transportation demand management strategies:
The causes of the problems can be traced to the auto-orientation of existing development
patterns, the dispersed home-to-work development patterns (Le" there is no one dominant
employment center), the lack of parallel arterial streets that could handle many short-
distanced trips that could be made on freeways, and several environmentally sensitive areas
that constrain implementation of new transportation facilities In addition, there is no identified
funding over the near-term future for major facility improvements in the corridor outside of the
completion of SR 15 in the Mid-City area,
Based on the problems and needs above, a list of study objectives was developed and is
summarized below'
. achieve a balance of transportation options that minimize reliance on the single-occupant
vehicle;
. provide cost-effective capital investments that seek to maximize the efficiency of the
highway and transit system while minimizing capital costs;
. seek to develop a more balanced land use and transportation system that minimizes
adverse community impacts while seeking land use opportunities that can encourage use
of alternative modes; and
. ensure fiscal compatibility with the San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG's)
Regional Transportation Plan 2015 Cost-Constrained Plan
PHASE 1 ALTERNATIVES
A full range of highway and transit alternatives (33 in total) were developed for evaluation
based on input from the study technical advisory committee (made up of local agencies) and
project advisory committee (made up of community and business representatives), Because
of the time-consuming process that would be required to test all 33 alternatives. the Phase 1
analysis concentrated on ten of the alternatives to differentiate between the major modal and
alignment segments under consideration, Maps detailing each of the ten alternatives are
attached at the end of the report, '
. No-Build, The No-Build alternative adds no additional capital improvements other than
thos" already programmed, It is used for comparison with the other "build" alternatives
14 of 59
, Analysis ExecutIVe SUlTl'T'l8.ry
.5-
~CT 22 1996
ITEM -f
, 'I'
1.15 Corridor MIS
· Transoortation Svstems Manaaement (TSM), The TSM alternative evaluates operating and
capital improvements to the transit and highway network without a large infrastructure
improvement The key transit service improvements are the addition of two freeway
express routes: one that would operate between Escondido and downtown San Diego via
the 1-15fSR 163 corridors, and the second operating between Kearny Mesa and the
North-South Line Pacific Fleet Trolley Station via the 1-15/SR 15 corridors, There would be
a limited number of intermediate stations in order to maintain high speed operations,
· Hiah-Soeed BusfHiah-Occuoancv-Vehicle (HOV) Lanes. Two alternatives were tested
that would add two-way HOV lanes along various freeway segments, combined with the
TSM freeway express bus routes listed above, The HOV lanes would allow these routes to
bypass the congestion in the mixed-flow lanes, thus improving travel times and service
reliability, A limited number of intermediate "drop ramps. would be provided, allowing
direct connections from the HOV lanes to local arterial streets, Stations would be located
at these drop ramp locations, with transfer connections to local bus routes, Carpools
could also use the drop ramps to access the HOV lanes,
One alternative would add HOV lanes between Escondido and downtown San Diego
along the 1-15/SR 15/SR 94 corridors, while the second alternative would do so along the 1-
15fSR 163 corridors
· Conventional Rail Transit (CRn Conventional rail transit is a generic term that describes
rail transit modes that would have similar operating characteristics to the light rail vehicles
used on existing trolley lines or the diesel multiple unit (DMU) rail vehicles proposed for
NSDCTDB's Escondido-Oceanside line, Station spacing would generally be consistent
with existing trolley suburban stations, although topography and street patterns limit the
number of station options in many areas,
Five alternatives were tested that evaluated rail service between Escondido and
downtown San Diego, Since the Centre City Parkway segment has been previously
studied as an extension to the proposed Oceanside-Escondido line, the Phase 1
screening tests the segment as part of a Escondido-Downtown San Diego line For the
area between Escondido and Kearny Mesa, all alternatives would use an alignment along
Centre City Parkway and 1-15, For the areas from Kearny Mesa south, several alignments
were evaluated:
. 1-15fSR 15fSR 94 - tests the concept of operating along the 1-15/SR 15 corridor
through the Mid-City area, then into downtown San Diego via SR 94,
. 1-15fSR 15f32nd Street - tests the concept of operating along 1-15/SR 15, but
bypassing downtown San Diego in favor of tying into the North-South Line at the
Pacific Fleet Station,
. Ruffin Roadfl-15/SR 15132nd Street - same alternative as above, but tests the
concept of penetrating the Kearny Mesa industrial park to provide closer access to
job centers than is the case with operating along 1-15,
. SR 163fSixth Avenue - tests the concept of tying into downtown San Diego via the
SR 163 corridor to Hillcrest, then along Sixth Avenue.
. SR 163fPark Boulevard - same alternative as above, but tests a Park Boulevard
alignment between Hillcrest/Uptown and downtown San Diego,
15 of 59
"lySIS E.x:ecuttve Surrmary
-6-
eeT 22 1996 ITEMP , ,;
1-15 Corridor MIS
. Hiah-Performance Rail (HPR) - Because of the 35-mile length of the corridor between
Escondido and downtown 5an Diego, we also tested the concept of a high-performance
rail alternative, The HPR alternative does not specify a specific technology, but assumes
that it would operate at higher speed than the conventional rail (70 mph versus 55 mph
top speed) and would have a lesser number of stations in order to improve travel times
within the corridor. The alignment tested was Centre City Parkway/I-15/5R 15/5R 94,
For the T5M and all rail and high-speed bus/HOV alternatives, there is a system of feeder bus
services assumed to access areas outside walking distance of stations. This scope of the
feeder bus network in terms of number of routes, alignments, and service frequencies is
consistent among the alternatives,
RESULTS OF PHASE 1 ANALYSIS
A number of criteria were developed to evaluate the alternatives, These can be grouped into
the following categories: transportation effectiveness, cost effectiveness, environmental
impacts (both physical and socio-economic), financial feasibility, equity, and engineering and
operational constraints,
Because of the large study area, it was divided into 13 segments as shown in Figure 1, This
allowed us to evaluate the relative performance of individual segments in addition to the full
length alternatives,
Alternatives. The key results from the evaluation of each of the alternatives is summarized
below:
. RidershiD - As shown in Table 1, daily transit trips within the study area are projected to
grow to over 148,000 in the year 2015 for the No-Build alternative, Much of the increase
over 1990 is attributable to considerable growth in population and employment, especially
in the north 1-15 corridor areas, The T5M alternative would increase the 2015 daily transit
ridership by about seven percent to 159,000 trips, For the rail and high-speed bus/HOV
alternatives, the numbers vary only slightly between alternatives, The 175,000 average
daily trips for these alternatives represents an 18 percent increase over No-Build
It should be pointed out that these are transit ridership numbers only; for the high-speed
bus/HOV alternatives, increased carpooling activity would be expected with the additional
HOV lanes, While detailed modeling of HOV usage will be done in Phase 2, a
conservative estimate is that an additional 25,000 person trips will be made by carpooling,
. Mode Choice - Another way to gauge the effectiveness of transit improvements is to
measure the impact on the chosen mode of travel (single-occupant vehicle, carpooling,
transit), To measure this, four locations in the corridor were selected to evaluate the peak-
hour mode split for transit (Le" the percent of peak hour trips made by transit), As shown
in Table 2, the transit mode splits at each of the four locations could increase significantly
over the No-Build depending on the alternative selected, This is especially true in the
southern half of the corridor where the percentage of transit trips would more than triple,
. Travel Time - Travel times to and from various locations in the study area were also
evaluated to compare between travel by single-occupant vehicle, carpool, and transit.
For carpools, travel times between the north 1-15 corridor and Centre City would be up to
18 minutes faster than single-occupant vehicles, For transit riders, travel times are
\natysls Executi....e SUl'TYT'ary
-7-
OCT 22 1996 ITEM ~
1-,
16 of 59
~
a
en III
C ~
'" c:
E '"
1ii~
'" '"
->lC
#-5 LU
c:
I- ~~:B
:! co
~1::
o 0
"a.
"e ~
o co
u.::
'"
-
i N .., 0
.. .., ..,
(t6~S/S~~S/S~.U.<Ml!d ~I:l ~"':l) J.~:l .. ~ N ~
~ ~ .. ..: ::
N 5!
... .. I. i
(pAIS ~'Rd/t9~~S/S~.U.<Ml!d ~:l8JlU8:l) J.~:l .. III :
N ,,; ..: ~ ..:
~ ... N ~
~
(BAit 1lI9/t9~~S/S~-U.<Ml!d ~I:l BJIU8:l) J.~O c iil l ~ !
N ~ ... ~ ..:
~ N ~
N It S i
...
lis PUZt/s~~S/S~.U.<Ml!d~I:l8~U801 J.~O .. .. - ~
~ ,., =- ~ .-
- :: ~
~ .. ... i
c ~ III
lis PUZt/P~ UII.I"~/S~.U.<Ml!d ~IO ~"'ol J.~O "l
~ on .. ! ,.:
~ ::: N ~
~ i i. ..
...
(t6~S/S~~S/S~-U.<Ml!d ~O ~U.O) ~dH o.
.. on =- ! ..
::: ~
~ I ~ ..
..
(..AIt 1lI9/tn~S/s~.1l ^OH/S"S .. N ..
.. on =- ! ..
::: ~
~ I ~ ~
(t6~S/S~~S/S~-I) ^OH/S"S .. N ..
... on =- ! .-
::: ~
I ~ I: ~ =
IUBW"~RURW SWBIS~S UOPllJodSUR.J. :E ..,
III ~ .. ~ .-
.. ~
I 12 N' 0' 5l 0
"5 ~I
PII"S ON 'I' .. Z
0 ~
z
0 ~ 8! 0
0 ,.. :l ;0
.. t ~- :;i vi
:l "I
I I
1
-! ..
: ~ I !
~ ..
u ~ )
j :l!
3fUJ. ItN~3J. lit HJ.~N3l lln~ ! s
'I r
> J .
UI .
t J: !
u ..
" .. a:
1 u
i ..
.
.. .. a:
I .. I i
III
C
!. I
~ 1
.!\ 0-
! ! I~
:z:
.
i ~ ~ a:
0-
.. :z:
17 of 59
-8.
l""'-# III L)
eCT2~1996 Liel;!,r
~
..
CIl ~
- ~
C ~
~ C
E ~
-~
~ "
~ ~
N~Z=
.!!-w
~5C:
ftI ..... 0
.....l'D:=:
:l; IV
~1:
o 0
" 0-
'C ~
~ c
o IV
u,:
It)
-
,
18 of 59
.1 II
# ~ # # ~ !: ~ #
N .. .. ..
(U~S/SUIS/S~-II.t1ou1d ~1:laJIUe:l) J.~:l .. .. ,.; ::i oi N ..: .. ~
- -
~ .. # .. # .. ." C
lD .. .. .. .. .. ..
(PAIS ~Jedlt9~~S/S~-II.t1ou1d ~I:l aJIUe:l) J.~:l N ,,; .. N oi ,.; .. !! N
- -
." .. ." # ~ B: ." C
c co .. .. .. ..
(aA\f 1lI9/t9~~S/S~-II.<Ml(d ~1:la.qU8:l) J.~:l .. ,,; .. ::i ,; ,.; oi ~ ..
- -
~ C ." .. ~ C ~ B:
lD .. ..
(IS PUtt/S~~S/S~-II.t1ou1d~l:la.qUe:l) J.~:l - .. .. ::i oi :!! .. .. of
- -
# ~ ." .. ." # # ..
C N .. .. N - .. ..
(IS pUttlP~ UU,jll~/S ~-II.t1ou1d ~I:l e.que:l) J.~:l - .. ,.; .. oi :!! ,.; .. of
- - -
~ .. ~ ~ ." .. ~ !:
.. ..
(t6~S/S ~~S/S ~-II.t1ou1d ~I:l aJIU8:l) ~dH .. .. .. ::! oi N .. - "
N -
# .. ." .. ~ B: # !:
co .. .. .. '"
('aA\!' 1lI9/t9~~SlU.I) ^OHfS"S lD ,,; .. N oi ,.; .; ~ .;
.. -
# .. # .. ~ .. ." ..
N .. .. .. .. ... ..
(t6~SIS~~S/S~-I) ^OHfSns .. .. ,.; ::i ,; !2 ,.; ,.; ~
.. -
# .. ." C ." .. il: ..
IE co .. N .. .. ..
luawaeeuew swals~s uoplQJodsueJJ. III 0 .; ,.; .; ,.; .; ~ ..:
I-
;j! # .. ." .. ~ ~ # ..
N .. .. .. ..
Pllns ON ~ - .; .. .. ,.; .. .. .;
0
. z
j # I .. ." .. ~ ..
Ii: 10, co .. .. .: c ..
I = - .; 0 ..; z z '" ~
I
f I I
. 1
..
i '" ~ J 'Ii
~ ~ i
. ~
. '" .
~ ~ i i I ::> ... 'l5 I 'I
'l5 ~
'l5 'l5 J J '"
u J
z: :! J :! :! :!
j l
3Ml.\fN~3J. 1\!' HJ.DN31 11n~ 1 s s .. s g . j
! r ~ f ii: f ii:
'li ., .,
>
~ 5 .! 5 5 5 .! .
I u I u I u I u I-
" '"
:z: "
~ 1 I I ..
.
'"
! ! I l I
! j j !
" u
I I j j 18
:c
'Ii '" 'Ii j .
~ '"
c c c
~ ~ ~ ..
l- I- I- :c
.9-
:;CT . 1996 li EM f
1-15 Corridor MIS
generally about 1,2 to 1,5 times that of single-occupant vehicles, which in some cases
represents a reduction in actual travel times by nearly 50 percent over the No-Build. The
greatest improvement comes for reverse commute trips (e,g" Mid-City area to Rancho
Bernardo Industrial Park),
Transit travel times between the rail and high-speed bus/HOV alternatives generally
indicate that the bus/HOV alternatives do better for longer trips, probably due to the higher
top speed for buses than conventional rail (65 mph vs, 55 mph). For shorter-distanced
trips, travel times are about the same between the rail and buslHOV alternatives,
· Cacital and Dceratina Costs - Table 3 provides an indication of the cost-effectiveness of
the various alternatives. Total capital costs for the TSM alternative are about $80 million,
and range between $738 million and $1.375 billion for the rail and high-speed buslHOV
alternatives, For the rail and high-speed bus/HOV alternatives, the costs show that the 1-
15/SR 15 rail and bus/HOV alternatives are less expensive than the 1-15/SR 163
alternatives The higher costs are directly associated with the amount of aerial structure
that would be required, This is discussed further under the segments section,
Operating costs are fairly similar between the rail and high-speed bus/HOV alternatives,
adding $20-25 million annually over the No-Build, While more buses would have to be
operated than rail vehicles, the lower costs achieved through MTDB's policy of
competitively bidding new bus services more than offsets this,
SeClments
Breaking down the study area into smaller segments allows a closer evaluation of ridership,
engineering and environmental issues, and costs
. Ridership Table 4 provides a good synopsis of the ridership productivity of each
segment, and shows that there is a wide range in the boardings per mile figures,
. For the north 1-15 corridor area, while the NSDCTDB segments (1-15/Escondido
and Centre City Parkway) are fairly productive, the Rancho Bernardo and Mira
Mesa segments productivity is considerably lower, When compared to the
productivity of existing and planned trolley line, these latter two segments are less
than half the lowest productivity line, This result is due to the low density land use
development patterns in these areas, and the fact that very few residential or
employment areas are within walking distance of the freeway corridor.
. Productivity for segments from Kearny Mesa south are generally more in line with
existing and planned trolley lines, This is especially true for the 32nd Street
segment, given a combination of the relatively high-density development patterns
and system connectivity with the North-South and East Lines, There is relatively
low ridership productivity in the Sixth Avenue and Park Boulevard segments,
possibly due to the fact that much of the tripmaking to this area is local rather than
regional.
. For the three Kearny Mesa segments (1-15, Ruffin Road, and SR 163), the ridership
is fairly productive, but there is little difference in boardings per mile between them.
This reflects the low density development patterns and the fact that most
employees would have to use shuttle bus connections to access their work sites,
\&lySIS Executive Surrmary
- 10-
l"!CT 22 1996 ITEM P
1'1
19 of 59
>-
~
'"
j =
"'U
:!~~
co ._:=
...mw
2...
j8
u
It)
-
,
20 of 59
i It> '"' ~ ... ..
("HS/~ ~HS/~ ~.Vhi.Jld -<II::> 8.1lU8::>) lH::> vi ..: ! ~ wi
:! ... N '"'
'"' .. -
;; .. ..
... .., .. ... .. ~
.. ii '"' .; .; vi ...
(P'IS ~'.d/t9~HS/~~.Vhi.Jld -<II::> 8.1lU8::>) lH::> ... N ~ ... N
N N. '"' .. :;: '"'
'"' .. .. ..
;;
'"' .. ~ .. N ~
(o,V 1119/t9~HS/H.Vhi.Jld -<II::> 04UO::>) lH::> c ~ ~ l:: ! I!! ..
N '"' .. ;; :;: ::!
- '"' .. ..
..
.. '"' ... ~ .. "!
(IS PU~t/~~HS/~~.Vhi.Jld-<ll::> 84U8::>) lH::> !!! ~ ::! oj ! ~ ..
N -
'"' .. -
'"' .. ..
;;
It> ~ .. .. .. ~
(IS PU~t/Pl:! UIIoII1l:!/~ ~.Vhi.Jld -<II::> O.lluo::>) lH::> c oD ... ;!; a; ! =
::! ...
'"' ;; .. .. '"'
'"' ...
;;
.. .. .. .. ... ..
(~6l:!S/~~HS/H.VM\~d -<II::> 04UO::>) HdH i. oj III ! l1i :!
.. ...
;; .. :;: '"'
;; ...
.. .. .. ... ... ..
iii $, Iii .. ..: ..
(,,,V 1119/t9~HS/~~.I) ^OH/sng .. ... N .. =
.. .... ;;1 .. ;; :;:
;; ..
N N .. .. .. N
1Ii :8 .. Iii ..: ..
(~6l:!S/~~l:!S/H.I) ^OH/sng .. '"' ... ..
... ... ;; .. .. :;: ..
..
! .. ... .. It> .. ..
~uawafh!'uIVll w.~S^S UOR~odsul'Jl IE .. ~ .. '" iii ...
III ... .. .. .. '"'
... .. ;; ;; ..
I 0:> ~i ~ 0:> .. ..
.. : .. , .,;
PIIng ON .. .. ..
i ;;
~ -< -< -< -< -< -<
z z z z z z
I N
I j I
.
t ..
I I ;;; 111
-.:
u
! .. i I i..4
:JNl'tNH:Jl lV Hl~N:Jl l1n2 1 t i ill
i i uti
'- u
.. .. i
~ . 1
.. i . 51
~ I l
I i ~ )1;
. ~
. 1
I i IE 1
~ j!
! " ~
! ~ w ! n
u
- 11 -
r;CT 22 1996 ITEM P
,',
'I ~,
.
~ I ~ ~
.. 5! CI
~O""'.ln~;c",<~c:";
~;z~z~zliz
=
p.JI"e'ROIltJ'd
ilN~~~~m-llli!
CO) .. _ ~ !
! ,
- ! N
~
..
'" i ~
~
~ I ;;
.. i ,
..
~ .
N .
! :
Inu.^'f' 1.I:axIS =
~N!~~~m
" III III
" -
Z ~
: I ~
. <(
. Z
;;
tlI.WSIJtJ',.. woqrll8 :
; 1"1 ~ el
N
~ ! II N
N N
N
" III
I N
,. ~
:
i~~:~
.. iii I!: I =
~ ..
lilt : I
..
i !
tI a.WSlft. AW'.)4 :
=
Ii! ;; Il " c C
N ~ f..: Z Z
" " III
: " j ~
!5
..
- j ~
;!;
..
N N
! ~
"'IS .
~I :l ~ !l !!
:! . Iii: ~
la N
- " .
a I
..
I!: = I
:: :;
i i
)NJlS PUZr: .
~ :l ! !j ~ !
co =
.'101"01 :~g=a
)- ! & a ;; :i :i
All::>.,w
N
~I .1 ~ ;
~i :ll ~1
;1 :li ~'
s ~I ~
I ~
~I :ll !
;1 N' ~j
I
I
- ill .., f
" i
..
" ~ II ~
" "
z a
<fcRe
z'z~z
PW UIU"W,..IW .(UJU)I .
:!!
S~.I/ft.w AUJ"~ I 0
I
'''w IJIW I..
~j~j~~I-
I Ni ~
~i ~I ! il N' "! ~ N
"I .. .
~ :
;:
~ ~ I!: '" Il
lilt :: ::
N ..
S III
- ..
..
~
,
Vi
1;
n
..H
.! =
jL~ w
~'l
"
~
-'
I N
,. B
o t"'I ~ It!
f ~
~ ~II!: a ;
" -
~ !
!I ~ ~ ::!
I N -
.. ~ la .
_ ~ co
N "
OpJIW" O~:>U'W ..
_I N
:g 0 I: ,..
,. III
.
. "l
f
I!: " II
Z Ii
I!: <(
z
,('~'d ~::J ua.u.O ....
~! ~I
-1 ~
I
I
~ N
OPIPUOX3/Sa.-, -
:!!
'"
..
N
E
u
~
!i
!
Ii;
!Ii
~
.llGWOBS Aonu
'"
~ ~
l I
I j f f
t f i f
J f i i
21 of 59
nC1 22 1996 !-'~-r!l f '
~. I . t: ~t. I
-12.
1-15 Corridor MIS
. The SR 94 segment has low productivity given the limited number of stations that
can be located there given topography and the resultant poor street connections.
. EnaineerinalEnvironmentallssues and Cacital Costs, While there do not appear to be any
fatal flaw engineering or environmental issues, right-of-way constraints, severe grades,
and/or environmentally sensitive wetlands in many areas would require significant sections
of both the rail and high-speed bus/HOV alignments to be elevated, There are also
numerous hazardous waste sites throughout the corridor.
. The Centre City Parkway segment has the lowest capital cost per mile of all the
segments evaluated ($15 million per mile), There are a number of hazardous
wastes along this segment which will require additional analysis,
. The SR 163 alternatives prove to be very expensive ($65 million to $98 million per
mile) since aerial structures would be needed along the entire segment from
Hillcrest to the SR 163/1-15 junction due primarily to right-of-way constraints, severe
grades, and sensitive wetland areas, The 1-15/SR 15 segments are considerably
less expensive ($17 million - $43 million), especially for the high-speed bus/HOV
alternatives,
. The Sixth Avenue and Park Boulevard segments present environmental concerns
regarding traffic and community impacts, and parkland issues,
. The Mira Mesa segment costs are also high at nearly $50 million per mile given the
limited right-of-way available in the freeway due to the presence of the existing 1-15
HOV lanes, While these lanes could be converted to rail, the high usage forecast
of these lanes in the future (especially with the congestion pricing program in
place) make this unlikely,
. Financial Feasibilitv, The fact that there is no identified funding sources for 1-15 corridor
improvements attaches extra importance to the idea of minimizing both capital and
operating costs and selecting an alternative that can be implemented over time. The TSM
alternative is the lower capital cost alternative, although operating costs are not
significantly lower than the build alternatives For the build alternatives, the high-speed
bus/HOV alternative along 1-15/SR 15/SR 94 alignment has the lowest capital costs,
although it is still high in some segments, There may be opportunities to lower the costs of
HOV facilities through transportation demand management strategies such as the
congestion pricing program planned for the 1-15 HOV facility,
DRAFT PHASE 1 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the review of the alternatives above, the key draft Phase 1 recommendations are
outlined below and shown in Figures 2 and 3, These recommendations have been reviewed
and generally agreed upon by the Technical Advisory Committee,
1, Delete Rail Alternatives Between North County Fair and Kearnv Mesa. The rail
alternatives do not appear to be cost-effective for this segment primarily due to the low
boardings per mile, This result is not surprising given the low density development
patterns and dispersed employment centers that make it difficult to serve with a single
rail line, The bus/HOV alternatives seem to hold more promise since they would
Dh~.,. 1 AnalYSIS Executive SUl'TYTl8ry
22 of 59
eel 2 ~ 1996 L I c:ti! P
, j
-13 -
-
LAT wno5 (Existing)
-
LRT Lines (Under Construction)
111111
Future Rail
o
StatIOns EXISflng
or Under Construction
t
Freeway with Reversible HOV Lane
(ExIsting)
o Corridor Segments
-
~c
'..0....
I " I
Retain Rail Transit lor Phase 2
Eliminate Rail Transit
Enhanced Bus Service (10,",12)
CD 1.15 I Escondidio
(!) Centre City Parkway
o Rand'lo Bemardo
o Mira Mesa
~
+
N
o
,
1Mi'-
2 Mill
Appraldml.. Scale
,
l
//
,--'
uke Hodg..
~'
r-
- ----
"
a:
i
.
'"
Rancho
Penasquitos
,
Twin PeaksAcl.
,"--,"
,--
\..,
""""- .---,_..
~-
i~~
~o,
, Poway
J
Poway
Industrial
P...
~
:s
UJ
i-
-
- Recommendations - Study Segments - Rail Transit
III 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ ,.,/bIfmns ~,QI12.E ~~Of
23 of 59 [;J(;J(I)~ -l~
'\
"",
"'1
~;
-\
.
e,
a.Oj
I
I
camel Mtf', Pod.
~
/ )
56
, ......;
/ --=-A ;
. 56 'tl*"" "Ci ~
. ,\.0 cr
.g
.
Sabre ~
Springs ..
1'6,
Powa'l
'Ci:
"'
l
(J[
<D
.",
.",
~
"
'"
.....
U
=>
Legend
-
LRT LInes (EXJsting)
-
LRT Lines (Under Construction)
111111
Future Rail
o
Stations Existing
or Under ConstruCllon
t
Freeway with Reversible HOV Lane
(ExlslIrIg)
CD Conidor Segments
_ Retain Rail Transit for Phase 2
~ Eliminate Rail TranSit
1111 Ennan"'" Bus S.",;c:e (10,11,12)
CD Rancho Bemardo
o Mira Mesa
o KeamyMesa /1.15
@ Keamy Mesa / Ruffin Road
@ Keamy Mesa / SR 163
..
N
o
,
2Milit
1Mde
ApproXlmat. Scale
Mid-Segment
If'
."'" I
5& .,;'; ..
,01> "'I !i,
~, ii'
-I g
Sabre ~I ",
Springs ~i ~
~o~J . .))
Pows'! '
I ,
\ '
\
seriPP', Po....)' PkW'j
,
Scripps Ranch No \
Rand' Blvd. SP"'/'J Canyon Fia
scrippS . -,,'
/
CflSIOOal /
..~
"i,
/ M' M i
Ira esa"
,~
"'
lIiremll'
Reurvoir
Scripps
Ranch
~'-------'
Tierrasanta
..j
Recommendations - Study Segments - Rail Transit F
III 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .rl
. . .:.:
~ "
.lbIfmns ti~I]LII: ~=rn,",Of : ::;
(;)~IIl~ lioOYUNMINlS ==
-15-
24 of 59
-
LAT Unes (EXlsbng)
--
LRT Lines (Under Construction)
IIfJlI
Future Rail
o
StationS EXisting
Of Under ConstnJction
t
Freeway with Reversible HOV !.ane
(Existing)
G) Con1dor Segment
_ Aetain Rail Transit for Phase 2
E! Eliminate Rail Transll
II I I Enhanced Bus Service (10,1"'2)
o Mira Mesa
o Keamy Mesa 11.15
o Keamy Mesa I Ruffin Road
CD Mid-City
(!) 32nd Street
o SR94
@ Keamy Mesa I SA 163
e Balboa Par1c:: I SA 163
@ SIxth Avenue
6}) Pal'k BouJevarc
+
N
o
,
1 Milt
2 Mill
A,pptolrimll'-ScaIe
~,
~
52
Tierrasanta
,
,
/
)
,~
I /?~lIied
l/~ Gardel:ls/
,f/ ~/"
I t:
~,
;
I
,
8 , I,
11'4D,s~'~
4ro~lez-,)tM Rd. t
"
"~
)i
,,.
,<
,.
.-
v~
/is:
"',
:ii'
-
! '
-
:s
w
t::
Recommendations - Study Segments - Rail Transit
1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
. - -
to
en
en
-
~
----
~~I)J(@J
25 of 59
,. tizltmns
-16-
tj,,~l2..11:
I!::;-"]~TlOHOf
~c;oVllHMlNT$
Recommendations - Study Segments - Bus I HOV l'
III 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ lijrlizlfrrzns r;t~IP..li: ~=rn""Of
[;J~(IJ(@] ~VltNMDm
26 of 59 -17-
-
LRT Lines (EXIsting)
-
LRT Lines (Under Construction)
111111
Future Rail
o
Stations Existmg
or Under Construction
t
Freeway Wltn Reversible HOV Lane
(Existing)
G) Conidor Segments
_ Relaln Bus I HQV for Phase 2
~'&"'''. Eliminate for Bus / HOV
IIII Enhanced Bus S."ice 1'0,",'2)
CD 1- 1 5 I EscondldlO
o Centre City Par1(Way
o Rancho Bemardo
o Mira Mesa
+
N
o
1 Mi.
2Mi"
AclprolOmttt Selle
,.
i
,
/
"
/
Lake Hodg..
~~.
)
,
:J
~\
~\
'i',
E,
~I
......... j Espola Rd
Ra~ho
",Bernardo
'-, !
.b
,JlIo, ct;
ii'1\:
....l, !;
ii r
q" ~,
4-5 Aancn
\<,~tciO F=ld
~ho ~.,
~~~ BerN'
~URr"l parki
C;,,), -
~"'o l'
0'
.,
1&",
.
Rancho
Penasqultos
15 Scripps Ranch Nort
R--- BlVd Sp"ftp Can,on ~.
SCnppS ......'.
Mirarhllr
A..rvoir
/
--"-
,-'
~'
If
.
8-
.
w'
I
!
,
i
\
.,;'
0:,
>'
'~
~,
0'
"
Twin Peaks Ad
\.." /'-
..--'
q.~..'....
~~/
0.0/"
/ Poway
i
'-
-
~
.ri
-
~
~
~
0..>
~
...
Recommendations - Study Segments - Bus I HOV ...
-
r-
III 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ .
...l1zItmns ~ ~~ONOf .
CIl~IIl~ ""_EHlS
27 of 59 -18- .
Legend
- LRT Unes (EXlSling)
-
LAT Lines (Under Construction)
111111
Future Rail
o
Stations ExiSting
or Under Construction
t
Freeway wit" Reversible HOV Lane
(Exlstrng)
o Comdor Segments
_ Retain Bus j HOV for Phase 2
~ Eliminate lor Bus I HOV
IIII Ennanced Bus Service (10,11,12)
o RanchO Bemardo
o Mira Mesa
o Keamy Mesa 11-15
o Keamy Mesa I Ruffin Road
@ Keamy Mesa I SR 163
7
,
~
+
N
1 Mile 2MilII
ApprolCimate Seal4I
Mid-Segment
,"
Catne, Mtn. Pod.
/),
56
"
~'
"',
f:
~!
)
,
e{iSlOOel
,e
d,
/
//'
'ps" '\/~
sertP ...O....y p~ ~ .
Scripps R~nch Norbr--"
15 SCJ1PP1 Ranch BI~ \ SP~ Canyon f=la. '\
(r" ,".....,.. /~
A...rvoir r
;
ofl"o. /
~1a~~.:'---
~o",/
,,/ Scripps
us'u R h
anc
~
'"
i
Mira Mesa III
.-.Slvd.1
""\(..~. / !
! I
\ ca(\~on~d
~\
//'
/" 0"
-~' ,'1'/
I..~/' Mlramar Wy
,-; -...
/ ~iramar
_________ NAS IF i
~,
~,
E
.
~i
:lei
52
Tierrasanta
Allied
Gardens
~
:IE
<D
m
~
~
I-
~.
~
II'" lillill'.~1
. , ;,., .;., I .' j,jIDl ': _ _ :!l~
........ LRT Wnes (Existing)
-
LAT Lmes (Under Construction)
111111
Future Rail
o
Stall0ns Existinl;;
or Under Construction
t
Freeway with Reversible HQV Lane
(Existing)
G) Corridor Segment
_ Retain Bus / HOV lor "hase 2
&; Eliminate for Bus I HOV
IIII EM.need Bus SeMce (10,11,12)
o Mira Mesa
o Keamy Mesa I I- 15
C!) Keamy Mesa I Ruffin Road
(!) Mid-City
(!) 32nd Sfreet
o SA 94
@ Keamy Mesa! SF! 163
@ Balboa ParK I SA 163
@ Sixth Avenue
@ Paf1<;, Boulevard
~
.'
N '
1 Mile 2 Mile
AD\)l'Oxn'nlIt.Scale
South Segment
f{;
San Diego
J
Tierrasanta
I
,
\
,
.,-J
-,.-
,/
~
iii'
~
;;'
ll'Ir---_
'~
,
;
)
Centre
City
..._~~\:t::::~:tt;./P^
~
:e
UJ
t:
Recommendations - Study Segments - Bus I HOV I
II 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ SJl1zItn::uII NCTD~ ~~""Of
----
[;)(;J[JJ~ -19- _TM~T~IIIWnIIc:T I;OVEIHMIN1'$
28 of 59
to
en
~
.
~
I-
o
::>
'Q ~
,f"'
1-15 COL
facilitate both transit and carpool tripmaking,
2 Evaluate Centre City Parkwav Seament As Extension of Oceanside-Escondido Line,
Since this segment has relatively high ridership potential and low capital costs per
mile, It should be evaluated as part of the Oceanside-Escondido line in light of the
recommendation above to delete rail alternatives south of North County Fair,
,
3, Delete Both the SR 163 Rail and Hiah-Soeed BuslHOV Alternatives, None of the build
alternatives examined in the SR 163 corridor appear cost-effective, especially when
compared to those alternatives in the 1-15/SR 15 corridor. Overall ridership is the
same, and engineering/environmental issues result in significantly higher costs, While
a build alternative is not recommended, there is still strong ridership in the SR 163
corridor. To facilitate this demand, it is recommended that TSM-type improvements
(lower capital cost-e,g" freeway ramp stops, bus by-pass lanes) be evaluated in
Phase 2,
4, Evaluate Rail Alternatives in the 1-15/SR 15 Corridor South of Kearnv Mesa But Delete
the Ruffin Road and SR 94 Alianments, Rail alternatives from Kearny Mesa south in
the 1-15/SR 15 may be cost-effective given the opportunity for system connectivity with
the Mission Valley, East, and North-South Lines, The Ruffin Road alignment is not
recommended for further consideration given that ridership is about the same as an 1-
15 alignment, and engineering/environmental issues result in higher capital costs,
Similarly, the SR 94 segment has low ridership given limited access to the surrounding
area, It is recommended that an alternative be evaluated that would directly connect
an 1-15/SR 15 line in with the East Line for access to downtown San Diego, Under
these alternatives, a buslHOV alternative connection between Kearny Mesa and
Escondido would be included,
5 Continue to Evaluate Bus/HOV Alternatives Between Escondido and Downtown San
Dieao via 1-15/SR 15 The concept of a full length bus/HOV facility between Escondido
and downtown San Diego via 1-15/SR 15 is recommended for additional evaluation
since it is the most cost-effective of the Phase 1 alternatives,
6, Evaluate Various Ootions for a Lower Caoital Cost Alternative, Because of the
concern over the financial feasibility of a large scale capital investment, smaller scale
improvements phased in over time and compatible with a longer-range investment
alternatives should be addressed in Phase 2, Such alternatives could include:
. Pinch-point HOV improvements that would concentrate initial HOV construction at
the most congested points in the study area; and
. evaluate possible congestion management/congestion pricing strategies that
would minimize the need to build new HOV facilities, instead focusing on improving
the efficiency of existing facilities,
7, Delete General Puroose Lane Additions as an Alternative, The current freeway system
for the most part is made up of all eight-lane facilities, Additional lanes are
inconsistent with this study's goals and objectives, as well as policies outlined in the
Regional Transportation Plan and Caltrans plans for the 1"15, SR 15. SR 94. and SR
163 freeways,
.~
Maps for each of ten alternatives evaluated in Phase 1 are shown in Figures 4 through 13,
29 of 59
-20-
OCT 22 1996
ITEM f '-I~
I"l~__. .. A
'YSIS Executrve Sunvnary
Mira M a .......r
~'
Blvd. """"'olr Ii
+ ' Md. 2 Mile ""~ t
N Appl'OlUtT'Iate Sc:aM
No Build Alternative I
II 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
.
~ .l2t/frrzns NCTDIii"" ~~Of ~ .
----
(;J~[I]~ ~~T-'1IIn'IICT
'><
....... LRT l..mes (Existing)
toot-+++4 LRT Lines (Under ConstNCtlOn)
111111
Future Rail
o
Stations EXisting
or Under Construction
t
Freeway with Reversible HOV Lane
(Existing)
30 of 59
Escondido
..y
~
If
-.t-.~
N. County Fair
(-
~
!
Uike Hodg..
Hi
Qtv.na IJII'e~ p.6'
4-S ,qanc"
.....
";\
a:l
~i
el,
.. ..
o E;
_,,-!do F=ld! .; ,.0/'
~,--- " ... ...
p,...:.choe. ip~ , e,po<.Ad,
Rancho BemardGi I ~ he
\.....,j;;;;;;;;;,.'/i j'S' Ra\ho
~ \" Berl'!ardo
"'v ,,1
<1;:\ 15 -6' 0:(
10, go8l
i?'. ...J I!! 1
2 .
. il e'
,.; 0:
q.. Q.,
i
i
",
d:
-!i
",
.'
w:
I
,
/~
56
"wi'lPealcsRd.
~.
i -~~/
il!, ~,
,:'l ~/
Sf "'~
~i i Poway
(.)! J
,
POWIY
Industr'W1
Park
~
~
:"'.j
-
~
<D
en
en
~
N
N
1-'
<:.
........ LRT Lines (Existing)
-
LRT lines (Under Construcbon)
111111
Future Rail
.J
Stations EXIsting
or Under Construction
t
Freeway with Aeversible HOV Lane
(Existing)
.
N
1 Mile 2 Mile
Approximatl ScalI
---
..,
0:,
~:
l
r
c.""OO., /J
I~ ;f
Y @
Mira Mesa~1
,a Blvd. !
~\~..."".
"..
,~.' \ \..
~....~ MiramarWy. I '\
~Miramar T-\
NAS ,,' =
" -
trj :
>,; -
ltIJ =
~/ g
E' ~
:1 ~
I _
f ::
/1
{,'~
,/~ s
, -
, ..
. ..
~
Scripps
Ranch
52
Tierrasanta
~
~
:e
w
t:
15
,~ No Build Alternative
II 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
.
~ ,.lizItrrzns ~~Qa: ~~ONOF ~ .
---- .
(;)(;)(I)~ lOOYI_
.,,"
31 of 59
CD
en
512
""
""
f-
c:>
=-
-
LRT Unes (EXlstmg)
-
LRT Lines (Under Construction)
111111
Future Rail
o
Stations Existing
or Under Constructton
t
Freeway with Reversible HQV Lane
(Existing)
~
+
N
o
,
2 Mile
1MI"
Apj:IroxrqteScaIe
II
~
----
(;J~()J~
32 of 59
II
J ,,"
CI"'l
"
$
/
f
52
Tierrasanta
/
/
15
I'd
I Go",,,,
r- Allied
1;/ ~ G~rpeD~
I -1':,' ,
i/ \
I
:l' "',{
8 "/
'-, II,~S~"''':
~Ottt.%~A~. "
Kensington .,
\
,
'-,
I,
81
~
No Build Alternative
.,
)
,~
....
1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
Figure
4C
::->
a->
t;
-
"ilblt:mJ1s
tI,~12..1(:;
~~ONOf
~wovmwlN1$
- TSM Alternative
-- 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ . /1zItrrzns WP-Ii: ~~Of
----
33 of 59 (;)~IIl~ ,,,
- LFlT Lines (Existing)
- L.RT Lines (Under Construction)
111111 Future Rail
0 Stalions Existing
or Under Construction
t Freeway witn Reversible HOV Lane
(Exlsling)
. TSM StatIons
Umited ExpreSi Routes
11I11I Aoute 100
- Aoute 200
I(
Ii
J."
r
j
/
Iii
~" ~i
." \
'. ~\
e>"" c.\
:"O'ooh._ III
':""'""Y I.r..'
L.likll Hodps
4-S oClanCh
56
M1.....'
-,
~'
if
.
N
1 Mile
2 Mile
AJ)DtOlllmate Scale
-------
/
/
,..
-
,-'~
.'~
..
a:,
.'
-0
or,
w;
"win~Rd.
'- r--
"",~'
~o;,.
~/
~'
~,
;' Poway
powey
Indu.trl.1
Po,k
),.
==
w
t:
<D
Sl
-
~
~
l-
e.:>
TSM Alternative ,
II 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ ,.lb/tTrzrag ~12.1C ~~ONOf
----
[;JreJ[f)~ ~f""
34 of 59 ,,~
- LRT Unes (Existing)
- LAT Unes (Under ConstructiOn)
111111 Future Rail
0 StatiOns Existing
or Under ConSlruCtJon
t Freeway with FleIJerslble HOV Lane
(Existing)
. TSM Stattons
Umited Express Routes
11I11I Aoute 1 00
- Route 200
+
N
1 Mile 2 Mile
Awroxirrce Scale
Mid-Segment
'-.......J
,
'0'
-=,
,:".
.
E'
g
"
56
/'
"
Cf\SlOb.1 / ~
~.~ l
" t ~
;:; I
Mira Mesa ~
MlnIlNlf /
R_..o'. r .
Scripps
Ranch
,~ ,~.'
.,j..~ Mlramar Wy
/ ~~ramar
~NAS ~
~
~
tl
:/
S2
Tierrasanta
Allied
Gardens
4,.
::
tu
I-
-
D
m
c-J
""
i-
~:
.r
~
- lRT Uno, IExJ'lIng)
......... L.RT Unes (Under Construction)
111111 Future Rail
Stations Existmg
or Under Construction
t Freeway with Reversible HOV Lane
(Exlsting,i
. T5M Stations
Umitad Express Routes
111I11 Route 100
- Route 200
r- TSM Alternative
. 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ .l1zItmns ~ ~~ONOf
(iJiii""i ~'N1I
35 of 59 ,.,,,
+.
N '
1 Mile 2 Mile
AporolllTllte Scale
Tierrasanta
,
,/
1
.
"
"
,
,
\
I
I
tiS'
~,
~
~~
I
'" centre
, .;9ftY
<t~t'~,2:~t: .
':\.....
~
!;J
1-
-
<0
~
~
~
f-
Q
:=
Alternative 7b - Bus I HOV (1-15/SR15/SR94)
II 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
.
~ 11112tI1mns NCTDIji"'ll ~~OF . .
----
[;J~[ll~ ~ClaUIIT1'~_,_,
~.
- LRT Lines (Existing)
- LRT Lines (Under Construction)
111111 Future Rail
0 Stations Existing
or Under Construction
t 2 Way
HOV Lanes
. Stations Limited Express
Routes on HOV Lanes
III Route 100
- Route 200
Il Intermediate Acx:esfJEgress
10 HOV Lanes
+0
N '
1 Mile 2M..
~JIItNI.ScaIe
36 of 59
1/
if
,
f
)
\
~
/
4.5 Ranch
Mira M
Lake Hod;..
~a:
'.
,
I
~(
it
wt
I
{
~i
~
"
iwin Peaks Fld.
\... /"'"-
" ,--.../
~./'
~I
..#;
( Poway
I
pow.,-
tndustriel
....
J...
:!
~
<.0
'T)
,
-"
~
f-
Q
:=
- LRT Lines (Existing)
- LRT Lines (Under Constructton)
III III Future Rail
Stations EXisting
or Under Construction
t 2 Way
HOV Lanes
. StationS Limited Express
Routes on HOV lanes
III Route 100
- Route 200
[) Inlermedlale Access/Egress
to HQV Lanes
.
N
1 Wilt 2 Milt
~ximate Scale
,.-,
/
r
0'
/""
"
en.IObll
~
CJ'iI;
/
Scripps Ranch Nort "
.......... \ Spr,r,,, Co ~
SCriPP' Rand'! D"'W ____ "yon "0 i
( Ml..".., /)-'
Reservoir ;-
-;
a:
@
Mira Mesa ~I
...Blvd.
""\l"~.
;
I
b'
,'?'
,~
~
Miramar
NAS
Scripps
Ranch
/
..----/
Ii;
~,
.,
~j
~,
E,
= !
"
52
Tlerrasanta
~;:.;.
"
~
q.
.
""
u
!:
"'-
Alternative 7b - Bus I HeV (1-15/SR15/SR94)
1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
III
u
o
5!
.lbIbwts
~,~l~
Figure
68
""
""
>-
c.
~
----
!Il~[l)~
37 of 59
~~OHOF
~c;.oVElNMEN1I
- LRT Lines (Existing)
- LRT Lines (Under Construction)
111111 Future Rail
0 Stations EXisting
or Under Construction
t 2 Way
HOV Lanes
. Stations Limited Express
Routes on HQV Lanes
.11 Route 100
- Roule 200
[] Intermediate Access/Egress
to HOV Lanes
,
+0
N '
1Mi" 2 Mile
Apprclllrnate Sau.
South Segment
ill ~
.'
,
"
,~
/J.,tmed
~/"f Gar~s/
I" q.b~,'~'
".' ~
0,
~:
i
/
\,
8 "'1
" ',sosu...'
\ "I ,\
'r'-~fez~ Ro.
ensington
r),
. , \
I ': '
J\
-- ;~
I.
,
-"'
./'
, -;;"
,/
uS:
:;)
...~
r.n:---_
~;, Centre
., CIty
J..;"'" ,
1iI~-':-' ,,':~ ~
~iS,.:, o:~{~'"'~,
--. '1't:<
~
~
!l.1
i''''
"""
Alternative 7b - Bus I HeV (1-15/SR15/SR94)
1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
II
~
----
[;]~)[Il~
'0
-,
2
38 of 59
.11zIfn:uts
NCTDIii""l
_Tll~~l_._,
~~~OHOF
~c;oV'EJNhlvm
Figure
6C
<",
o-J
S
- Alternative 8b - Bus I HOV (1-15/SR163/6th Avenue)
II 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ .lizItTans ri<al2.lii: ~~O<
----
(;J ~J(Ill@] . ^^ .
- LRT Lines (Existing)
-- LRT Lines (Under Construction)
1111 Fuwre Rail
0 StatIons Existing
or Under Construction
t 2 Way
HOV Lanes
. Stations Limited Express
Routes on HOV Lanes
III Route 1 00
- Route 200
(] Intermediate Access/Egress
to HOV Lanes
+
N
o
,
1MI"
Apptolllrnatt Scale
39 of 59
~
7\~
~
1; ?c-z.,~
II -...;,:
J/
(
,
!
\
,
,
r'
--
r/
...-
Lake Hodg..
2Ml..
scripps Po~)' p
15 Scripps Ranch Nort
. Ranch eWd. \ SPI"n Canyon lia
sene", '
Illtamllr ~.
-....... If'
0;
..y
.-.;'
t/
'l-.'
'tJ\.,,/
.--
---
/
/
r
~~
,/
d1'
.
l!
w'
I
!
Twr, PulIS Rd.
\...""" ;/
" ----
q..b;;-' '
I.~/
"/
( Poway
PoW.Y
Industrt.1
....
'J",
~
'J
-
:-
to
en
~
<"
N
f-
(.;)
- LRT wnes (ExLStlng)
- LRT wnes (Under ConstruClion)
111111 Future Rail
0 Stations EXisting
or Under Consln.Jction
t 2 Way
HOV Lanes
. Stations Limited Express
Routes on HOV Lanes
... Route , 00
- Route 200
I] Intermediate Aceess'Egress
to HOV Lanes
+'
N '
1 Mile 2M...
ApproXlrT\l'e Scale
Mid-Segment
.., l
,I'
~!
sa?,," ,I
,,,,'" il!:
~'
S .,
abre ~:
Springs of: /"
., ......-I
Powa'~. /
"
l;
"
56
Ct\SIClbal
t
"
./
.
..
a:
~
]
Mira Mesa"
Canyon Fit:l
/
.......,
A...rvoir
-
/
;
;
",
a:
~
.,
it
,.,!
E'
.
.'
><'
52
Tierrasanta
;
c
.
!
I
.
Alternative 8b - Bus I HOV (1-15/SR163/6th Avenue) I
II 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ ,. ti:tltmns NCTD~ ~~ONOF
[;)~IIl~ _,"~~I_._, QOYDHMlN1S
40 of . .,. -
59
- LRT Unes IExls'nol
- lAT Lines (Under Construc:tlon)
111111 Future Aail
Stations Existing
or Under ConstructIOn
t 2 Way
HOV Lanes
. StatIons Limited Express
Routes on HOV Loanes
III Route 100 Tierrasanta
- Aoute 200
[I Intermechate AcceWE.gress
to HOV Lanes
r Alternative 8b - Bus I HOV (1-15/SR163/6th Avenue)
.. 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ ,.1iIItTr:uts NerO Iiji"lI ~=rnOHOF
----
(;)(;)(I)~ _"'_"'--'_nlK:l CiOVlINMENlS
41 of 59 .,,,
+
N
, Mill 2 Mile
Ap;IroXllTll.teScall
l
i
~"",
I r&o'Allled
/, ~ Ga~s
q.~. \
t<:i ,
,,'
f "
,-
u;
=
.
.,,~
-
i,.
:!
tU
r-
-
<J:)
""
~~
>..2
f0-
e.:>
'='
/
-
lRT lines (Exlstlng)
-
LRT lines (Under Constl'UCttOn)
""11
Future Rail
o
Stations Existing
or Under Construction
t
Freeway with Reversible HOV Lane
(Existing)
. St.'ons
_ High Perlormance Rail Transit (HPRl
1+-.pY'
Q/
<f'/
1/
'l'.~
f
Lau Hodgll_
4-5 RanCh
E'Poll Rd.
~
'"
l'
.,
wI
I
I
\
Rancho
Penasquitos
/
56
PO_
Industrial
Po"
.
N
1 Mill 2 Mile
y
~
~
'U
,-
...
~JU"". Scele
Alternative 9 - HPR (Centre City Parkway/I-15/SR15/SR94) I
. 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
.
~ III tblfn:InI ~,,~f2..~ ~~OF : .
----
42 of 59 [;J~(jJ~ 0""0
to
C')
<2
J
0->
l-
e.:>
-::l
.......... LRT Lines (existing)
......- LRT LInes (Under Construction)
1IIII1 Future Rail
Slallons Existing
or Under Construction
+
Freeway with Reversible HOV Lane
(Existing)
.
-
Stations
High Penormanc:e Rail Transit (HPR)
+0
N
1 Mile 2Mill'
Approlllmate Scale
,--
/
..
r'"
$COppa PO....y PkW"j
Scripps Ranch No~,
scnp . Ranch swcl. $prill C.nyon /!fc1. \
~.~l
,;1/ I
. ~
./. ~
Mlr:,,;::':1
Mlram.,
~ir
/
./
1..
:!
u:
f-
-
~
Alternative 9 - HPR (Centre City Parkway/l-15/SR15/SR94)
u:
0-
0"
-
~
----
[;]~~~
43 of 59
Scripps
Ranch
"'" ,~'
.Jt./; Mlramar Wy. !
~Miramar '.
NAS "
~'
>..
.'
~
>.,
e,
:,'
><:,
I
i
I
52
Tierrasanta
Serra
Mesa
;
~Ied
Gardens
1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
.lirIf:n:uIg
NCTDIiji"lI
_no~T~_,_,
~~""OF
~~...
..
. -
. .
::<.
f-
C
::.
- LRT Lmes (ExIsting)
- LRT Lines (Under Construction)
111111 Future Rail
0 Stations EXisting
or Under Construction
t Freeway with Re.....erslble HOV Lane
(ExISling)
. 52
StatIons
- High Performance Rail Transit (HPR) Tlerrasanta
!
~
+
N
, Mile 2Mi.
Approximllte~
\
~~'
I /"6,"'"-
8 /.,Y Allied
8/ ~ Gardens-
J; , -1'; ,
~~. ~~/
, .
~,
/
0;
"
"
~ ,---.
./
i
/
1-
:e
LU
t:
Alternative 9 - HPR {Centre City Parkway/l-15/SR15/SR94} I
III 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ ,.lbItmns NCTDIi"'l ~==ONOF
----
(;)~(I)~ _n'-"-'T~l_,_, ...,_IIm
44 of 59 ~c
~
"
c.
'"
I-
'-
C
-
lRT lines (Existing)
-
LRT Unes (Under Construction)
.........11
Future Rail
o
Stations EXIsting
or Under Construetion
t
Freeway with Reversible HOV Lane
(ExIsting)
. Stations
.. Conventional Rail Transit (CRT)
+0
N
1MiIlt 2Miii'
Appn:no".. Scale
(-
r
_r
,-
I
r
'~'
'., QhJ.na "8IJ.~ ROo
/
i
''\
il!\
~i
~)
a.8/
I
Rancho
Co", r--:.J. ,Berrtardo
....') "i
0'1.'\ 15 ...111/
'1<' 'g'/ -8\
">.-. ~i"1
01 .
ql/ ~;
;r" ~i
/"Y '
J "win~Ad.
~~/--
~' ~'<"/
"C\ i.7
Ii ~'Poway
ElPOla Rd
.j
il!
.1
I'
.'
w'
,
;
-01
, ~I
j Sabre Ii
1 Springs'"
Powe; ~.
56
)
Po..y
Indudrial
Por'
15 Scripps Ranch Nort
s.criPPI 'Ranct" 9\",0. Sp,in ~c1.
IIIrwn.r ~.
_r If
0:
~
:5
!'-1
1-
:-..
- Alternative 11a - CRT (Centre City Parkwayll.15lRuffin Road/32nd St)
. 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
.
~ .l11Ibrtns ~m:PE ~~OF . .
----
45 of 59 [;)~(I)I@) ..,.,
W
0",
0"'
-
""
""
l-
e.;;
Alternative 11 a - CRT (Centre City Parkway/l-15/Ruffin Road/32nd St)
. 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
.
~ lIjrl1zltnzns NCTDii"" ~~OHO' . -
---- -
[;)~(IJ(@J _'"~~rT I_T_1lUl;T ~....
46 of 59 - ~~ -
10++++04 LRT Unes (Existing)
~ LRT Unes (Under Construction)
111111
Future Rail
o
Stations EXisting
or Under Construction
+
Freeway with Reversible HOV Lane
(Existing)
. Stations
_ Conventiona! Rail TranSIt (CAT)
+0
N '
1Mi'- 2MI"
~.Sca"
camel MlfI. Rd.
r-J'"
, I .
56
. COSlOb., ~
,~ ~!
vi gl
./ e
Mira Mesa ill
"".~Bl\ld.,
",-\1"
~:.':!:~Ir //'
.'
USIU
Scripps
Ranch
<t-~'--
. ~.~ Miramar Wy
~' -...
Miramar '
~ NAS
Tierrasanta
-~p
I/"t~;~d
.. Gardens
\l...
~
I.'
~".,
-
~
~
~
""
f-
ee
_ Alternative 11a - CRT (Centre City Parkway/l-15/Ruffin Road/32nd St)
I
l- .
I- 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
~ ,.l21If:tr:u1I ~~J;t,~ ~~ONOf
(I) le)[I)~ ~OvtlMlft:NtS
47 of 50 _"'0 _
....... LRT lines (ExISting)
H+++4 LRT Wnes (Under Construction)
IIIII I Future Rail
Stalions Existing
or Under Construction
t
Freeway wlll'1 Reversible HOV Lane
(Existing)
. Stations
_ Conventional Rail Transit (CRT)
7
~
.
N
1 Mile 2 Mile
~lCIl'Mte Scale
~
S2
Tierrasanta
/
'\
~
"
~-
, /o<'I'~d
ll:rG! Allied
~/ ~ Garpen,s"
, qP, ~
1:'"
~:
J
I
-
/
In:
"
.
~-
.'--"",
- ,Centre
~
:;
!.l
r~
~
u:
a
a
-
""
""
l-
ce
:::
......... LRT Unes (ExiSting)
-
LRT Lines (Under Construction)
111111
Future Rail
o
Stations EXlsti"'g
or Under Construction
t
Freeway with Reversible HOV Lane
(Existing)
.
-
Stallons
Conventional Rail Transit (CRT)
+
N
1 Mile 2 Mile
AppR)ximal Scale
/
1/
JI
"
cU
(
I
,
"
\
/~/'
.." ,
<I".~
f(
~..~/
". '
.,
~,
0:,
ii
.'
w
,
iM'1 Peaks Ad
,~/
'" ./"..-
. -. ~
~b\/'
-i'>/'.
Q.J;/
( Poway
Lllke Hodg"
4-5 Ranch
camel Mtr.. Pod
';'
0:
I,
"
,
/
PO_
tndustri.1
Po'"
1-
:!
lli
I-
-
,/ )
56
<0
en
en
-
Alternative 11 b - CRT (Centre City Parkway/l-15/SR-15/32nd St)
.
~
----
[I)~(IJ(@)
48 of 59
1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
,.lbIt:n:zns
N.~I2.."'-:
l!:';;1~l1ON co
~I>OVIINMINlS
Figure
10A
.'>
:>>
f-
c.:>
::C'
- LRT Lines (ExiSllng)
.......... LRT lines (Under Consll'\JCtion)
IIIII1 Future Rail
Stations Existlng
or UnOer Construction
t
Freeway with Reversible HOV Lane
(Existing)
. Stations
_ Conventional Rail Transit (CRT)
+0
N
1 Mile 2 Mile
Approllinwte Scale
~
"
'-.....J
~1
~,
s,
I 5
~J7 ~I ~
( Sabre JI 8
sp:~~
POWI'! ' /
56
~"'IOb.' .1
",' ..
. ~I
Ci. @
/ -,
../ .'
Mira Mesa.:!1
~..... 6\vd. r
~\(.
Scripps Ranch No -',
~ ~ eNd. \ Sp"n Canyon ~a
,
IIlrlrnIIr /
.....-voir I
i
~.
~~
Scripps
Ranch
~<?:-b'
~
$:.
Miramar
~ NAS
i
I
iF!
~,
e
~i
E',i
e.
.,
""
i
52
Tierrasanta
')-
~
UJ
j--
....
- Alternative 11 b - CRT (Centre City Parkwayn-15/SR-15/32nd St)
. 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
.
~ .lbItrruIs ~&II2..~ ~~Of I :
----
49 of 59 (;)~[JJ~ . An.
<.0
en
en
-
'"
iN
i-
Q
'::"t
-
LRT Lines (E.xlStng)
-
LRT Lines (Under Construction)
111111
Future Rail
o
Stations EXisting
or Under Construction
t
Freeway Wltrl ReverSible HOV Lane
(Existing)
. Stations
_ Conventional Rail Transit (CAT)
I
7'
~
.
N
1 Mil. 2 Mile
ApprOJOtT'8te Scale
South Segment
52
Tierrasanta
"
'~
,
,
,
,
\
,/
/
I'd
I (;O,</,
. rAllied
I '$ Gs;rpeas
,,f>'
fllo::','
~
LlndNr'gh
F.1d
in
<;
..
ll)~,
~
Alternative 11 b - CRT (Centre City Parkwayn-15/SR-15/32nd St)
.
~
----
IIllel[l)~
50 of 59
1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
,. tizlt:n:u16
NCrOJiillll
_n._."-'_.....,
~~OHOF
~o>ovIINW"'"
- LRT Lines (Exlstlng)
- LRT LInes (Under Construction)
.........1111 Future Rail
0 Stations ExISting
or Under Construction
+ Freeway with Fleverslble HOV Lane
(Existing)
. Stations
- Conventional Rail Transit (CRT)
Eeconalda
TreftStt Center
1/
;J/
J/
('
(
,)
----
~
r'
I
,-'
.-'~
Lake HocIgn
,-
~....
\ QIV.nC1 '-J""e~ ,,6-
,
~
'en
"'\
~,
.\
EI
tf/
.
!
4-5 F1anCh
-"
'"
a:
.
c'
0.
-,
w,
I
!
/
"-
T..,J""
I' \.. - ..---
-ci! ,,~
ctj q.~v
r 1;;oway
c.J: I
, ~
56
....w"'
tndulltrilll
Po,.
".,
MI......r ~.
-, <P-
l;
..---J
~
II'
,,~
l''''
...
+0
N
1 Mile 2 Mile
Approxirna. SclIe
- Alternative 12a - CRT (Centre City Parkwayn-15/SR163/6th Avenue)
III 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study . '"
N
~ tl<tIPJIi: 0-
.lilItTrzns ~~11ONOf C,)
---- '::0
(;)[;)(I)[@J ~""
51 of 59 ."
<0
Q')
Q')
-
Alternative 12a - CRT (Centre City Parkwayn-15/SR163/6th Avenue)
III 1-'15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ ,. tbltn:zns NeTO..... ~~ONOO
----
(;J~[I)~ _TJll;;go,oo",_'_'_' <>OVUHlIIN1S
52 of 59 .~
,.w.s.'~..!.
~ LRT Lines (Existing)
-
LRT Lines (Under ConstructIOn)
IIIIII
Future Rail
o
Stations Existing
or Under Construction
t
Freeway with ReversIble HOV Lane
(Existlng)
. Stations
_ Conventlonal Rail Transit (CRT)
+
N
, Mile 2 Mile
Approllil'l'llte Scale
IWII~.~=-llliill.
I'
56
c~tOb.1
f
"
~
2
E
Mira Mesa ~I
"".....BlVd,
,,-,\la
Scripps
Ranch
b
<I'
~/
.$~
Miramar
NAS
S2
Tierrasanta
B A~..
;;.:
)"
~
"'"
U
I-
-
<0
en
en
-
,
"
l-
e.>
'::l
---
.......,. LRT lines (Existing)
.......... LAT Lines (Under Construction)
I I I I I I Future Rail
Stations EXisting
or Under Construction
t
Freeway with Reversible HOV Lane
(Exlstmg)
~
. ~~a A....
\~
. Stations
.. Conventional Rail Transit (CRT)
Tierrasanta
/'
Balboa ~v.
!
'\
~
"
/'
\.
,,""'"
I r"Allied
B $ Gardeas,/'
if( ~/ '{
I" '\
;
,
/
8 '"
" ' , I Ansu '~.'
, '" r" !
~Ad. (
Ken~ingto'~ \~
" l~
1 \t
i \
hts i ./
-,
~
'\
+.
N '
1 Milt 2M.
.
&
l
~
~
Approximatt Scale
,'_ Alternative 12a - CRT (Centre City Parkway/l-15/SR163/6th Avenue)
(j
c
c
p
53 of 59
~
----
(;J~1Il~
.l1zItrrzI1s
~~!?Ji~
~~OHOF
~c;o_
Figure
11C
""
C\:i.
l-
e.::
~
.
1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
-
LAT Lmes (ExiSllng)
-
LRT Lines (Uncer Construction)
111111
Future Rail
o
Slations EXISting
or Under COnstruction
t
Freeway Wltf1 Aeve~itlle HOV Lane
(Existing)
. Stations
_ Conventional Rail TranSit (CRT)
+
N
o
,
1 ~ile
Approximate Seale
..a\.'l,;./
q""
-t/
.~,
~,
",../
~
.-
!
N. County Fair __-/
uk. Hodges
/
~~
\ QIV.nO' \l1I'.~ RO'
~
,,'
0:,
~:
CliP
.1
.'
rf/
;
,
4-5 ~anch
"
a:
.
<;
"
.nt
"wi'l~Fld
, ,
''-~,~-
.~,
o~f
.'
i Poway
56
Pony
Induatrla'
Po..
Can on Ra.
MI...mar
.....-voir
~'
l;
'"
),
2Ml.
.
"
I.
I-
~
Alternative 12b - CRT (Centre City Parkwayll-15/SR163IPark Blvd.)
u
c
o
~
.
1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
Figure
12A
""
""
J-,
c.:
~
[;)~(I)(@)
54 of 59
tI~P_1iii:
~~
lltlbltml16
- Alternative 12b - CRT (Centre City Parkway/J-15/SR163/Park Blvd.)
l- .
. 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study
~ .lizItrrrn6 NCTDIiii"'l ~:;8lmON OF
----
[;)~OO~ _m_n,_,_"","' <>OVllNMENQ
55 of 59
-
LRT Lines (Existing)
-
LAT Unes (Under Construction)
.11111
Future Rail
Stations EXISll11o;
or UnCler Constr..;ction
t
Freeway with Reversible HOV Lane
(Existing)
. Statlons
_ Conventional Rail TranSit (CRT)
+0
N
1 Mile 2 Mile
~tcllllrMlt Scale
, I
....'
51," .;1
.....t> II: ,
i!
Sabre . i
S. ~i ~
prlngs ..: /
1'6,
Powl'i
,
-0'
a:,
,.
'~
E
E
o
"
,..----,
~ ~\
It a:t
g, li
./ M" M .j
Ira esa "I
I
Uinlmar /
Anervolr .
I
i
Scripps
Ranch
.' ,
,'l'
.<-"-
.$
Miramar
~ NAS
52
Tierrasanta
15
'9.
....
1'-:
r.
"
-
u:
cr.
cr.
-
c-->
""
>-
(..)
-
LRT Lines (EXlStI!".g)
-
LRT Lines (Under Construction)
111111
Future Rail
o
Stations EXIsting
or Under Construction
t
Freeway with Re.....ersible HOV Lane
(Existing)
. StatIons
_ Conventional Rail Transll (CRT)
52
Tierrasanta
I
~kv&.
i
j
i
,
~
,
ReId \
\
",
"
I'd,
I rC>~lIied
I, ~ G~rdeQ~/
,fJf'.~'
, 1'"
, ~I
I
I
8 I t I I
,,~~,,-;
"-1omez>.)1Tla Ad. ,/
"
\'i
7
~
\~
'.
,-
'7
V
0;:
",
.:
~---
'-
.
N
, Mi~ 2Mill'
.,
.......
"
..
r
i-
~
ApprOlllmale Scale
Alternative 12b - CRT (Centre City Parkway/l-15/SR163/Park Blvd.)
. 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ ,.li:tItnms NCTDIii"'l ~~~ONOf
56 of 59 (;)~[I)~ _1l'I1lQUIII"'_'_'_' f;OVUNMENlS
A"7
t.o
C
,
.
IX
'"
I-
~
-,
-
lRT Lines (EXlsting)
-
LAT Lines (Under ConslrudiOn)
ll..1111
Future Rail
..,
Stations EXisting
or Under Construction
t
Freeway with Reversible HOV Lane
(ExIsting)
. Stations
_ COnventional Rail Transit (CRT)
t:
:::'
1/
JI
r
~
/
,
,/
"
r-
~
.J
-"-""
Lake Hodg..
,./
~ ,.-/.
\ glv.-na~~ p.6.
f
'"
~\
~i
Di
EI
tf.'
.---
\
..
"
.'
!;
.
w,
,
,
I
I
Gamsl Mtf'l. Rd.
I
\
"
I
iwinPeallaRd.
\ ----
~v~
~~'/
4..~'
( Poway
, )
56
POWrf
tndu.trial
Par'
+
N
o
1t.lile
MiraM
'"
>I-~
c...nyonlttl.
2Mi"
MllWMr ~.
_... .t>.o
0.1i
AporOXJmate Scale
....
~
:;
1-'-
\;;
~ Alternative 13 - CRT (Centre City Parkway/l-15/SR15/SR94)
. 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ .lizItn:zn6 ~~P-~ ~~lIOH'"
----
(;)~IIl~ ~""
57 of 59 _4A_
u
o
c
~
c-:
e-
l-
e.
c
.......... LRT Lines (Existing)
-
LRT Lines (Under Constructlon)
111111
Future Rail
o
Stations Existing
or Under ConstructIon
+
Freeway with Re....ersible HOV Lane
(ExISlrng)
. Stations
_ COn....entional RaIl Transit (CRn
+0
N '
1 Mi'- 2MI'-
ApprCllumate Scale
Mid-Segment
,
5'~.' Mtl'l~
, "
, '
, I
r
~.
a:
~:
s
E
g
"
56
r
/
c{\st06.1 1J
~~ il
e,;fII' !
;; ~.
~ E'
Mira Mesa 111
\JI...a BI....d. i
,-,,1& 1
/
I
\
Mlram8t
.....rvolr
oo~
et~;...--
q<f"/
;/
Scripps
USIU R h
anc
_, / ,~b
~ ~~,
_~...~ / Miramar ~~
~ "
// Miramar
....----_____ NAS
"
~'
a:
~
.,
~
E
.'
.'
"",
,
,
,
S2
Tierrasanta
~
""-
:?:
11.1
~-
~
Serra
Mesa
Alternative 13 - CRT (Centre City Parkway/l-15/SR15/SR94) I
III 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ Sklblirruas ~&!P..Jii: ~~ONOf
----
(;J~(I)~ 1iOYI.........
58 of 59 .~
<D
en
'22
."
l-
e..>
='
- LFlT Unes (Existing)
- LRT Lines (Under ConstructiOn)
'.-'1 Future Rail
0 Stalions Existing
or Under ConstructiOn
t Freeway with Reversible HOV lane
(Exlstrng)
52
. Stations
- Conventional Rail Transit (CRT)
T'errasanta
/
\
"
'\
\
,/
"\
----..,
I;::::!
I/~ G:~~/
,f 1"
/.
I \.
/
/
~
In.
~:
~ :---
. -
,
+0
N '
, Mile 2 Mile
~
~
..
! .~
l ~
....
A,pprQJCl"-teScale
- Alternative 13 - CRT (Centre City Parkwayll-15/SR15/SR94)
. 1-15 Corridor Major Investment Study .
~ ,.lbIf:n:Ins NCTD~ ~~""Of
----
(;J~II1~ _,"GUUlIIIT'f~_,__' WOVDNMINlS
59 of 59 "^
<.C
ffi
-
N
N
l-
e.:>
Cl
MTDB 6!m
; Metropolitan Transit Development Board ~
.
1255 Imperial Avenue. Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (619) 234.3407
Memorandum
DATE:
October 17, 1996
CIP 432.1 .
TO:
FROM:
1-15 Corridor Study Project Advisory Committee (PAC)
Dave Schumacher, Project Manag9'
RELEASE OF PHASE 1 REPORT
SUBJECT:
At its October 17,1996, meeting, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board of Directors
authorized release of the draft 1-1 5 Corridor Major Investment Study - Phase 1 Screening of Initial Set
of Alternatives for public review. This report includes an analysis of the various rail, high-speed bus,
high-occupancy-vehicle (HOVllane, and general highway lane addition alternatives that we have been
evaluating in the first phase of the study. A copy of the Executive Summary is attached for your
review.
Information on potential ridership, capital and operating costs, engineering issues, and environmental
impacts was used to evaluate the alternatives. Based on this evaluation, we have developed a set of
draft recommendations on which alternatives should be deleted from further study.
We want to now hear what you have to say about the report's findings and recommendations.
Because of the length of the corridor and the large number of community groups and organizations,
we have set aside a full three months for public review. The public review encompasses three main
components:
. PAC meetings. As PAC members, you are our main source of input since you are the most
familiar with the study. We will be meeting with you early on in the review period through a
series of nine meetings set up throughout the study area (meeting date and locations are listed on
the next pagel. You are welcome to attend any of the meetings.
. Information kiosks. These will follow the PAC meetings, and are designed to provide the general
public with the opportunity to comment on the Phase 1 results. Information booths will be set up
at various regional and community shopping centers beginning in late November through the end
of December. I will have more speCifics on dates and locations at the PAC meetings.
. Community groups. Letters will go out within the next week or so to all the community planning
groups, civic organizations, and business groups on our mailing list with a copy of the Executive
Summary report and an offer to speak to their group should they desire. I think we have a fairly
complete listing of interested groups thanks to your helpl
10_ '-"-..Ltc.
Wl-\~"""
Member AgenCIp.s:
City 01 Chula VIsta. CIIVOl Coronado. Cllyol El Calon. CIty ollmpenal Beach. Cllyolla Mesa. City 01 lemon Grove. City at NatIonal City. CIty 01 Po.....ay. City 01 San DIego. Cllyel
Sante., County ot San OUJgo. Slate of California
Metropolitan Transll Development Board 1$ Coordinator olthe Metropohtan TranSit System and.S Regulatory Authority tor ~ParatranSII AdministratIon
Suosld';lf'I Corporations ;;' San Diego TranSit Corporation ;- San DIego Trolley. Inc and .. San Diego & Aflzon~ E~stern Flallway Company
We are also willing to meet with any neighborhood groups that may wish to know more about the
study. Please let me know if any groups in your area maybe interested. As an example, we will be
meeting with a group of residents along the Park Boulevard area of North Park in mid-November.
The PAC meeting dates and locations are as follows:
Rancho Bemardo/
North Poway
Rancho Penasquitosl
Carmel Ranchl
Sabre Springs/Poway
Mira Mesal
Scripps Ranch
Keamy Mesa
Tierrasantal
Serra Mesa/
Linda Vista
Mission Valley
Hillcrest/North Park
City Heights/
Normal Heightsl
Kensington/Talmadge
Golden HiII/Stocktonl
Mt. Hope/Mountain View/
MemoriallSouthcrest
Wednesday, October 30, at 7:00 p.m.
Rancho Bernardo Swim and Tennis Club, Castille Room
16955 Bemardo Oaks Drive
Thursday, November 21, at 7:00 p.m.
Momingcreek Elementary School, Multipurpose Room
10925 Momingcreek Drive South in Sabre Springs
Tuesday, October 29, at 7:00 p.m.
Mira Mesa Public Library, Meeting Room
8405 New Salem Street
Wednesday, October 23, at 12 noon
As part of the monthly Keamy Mesa Community Planning
Group meeting, National University, 3580 Aero Court
Thursday, November 14, at 7:00 p.m.
Serra Mesa Community Connection
9166 Gramercy Drive lin Thrifty Drug shopping center)
Wednesday, November 13, at 12 noon
Rio Vista Building, Suite 100 (lower level)
8885 Rio San Diego Drive
Thursday, November 7, at 6:30 p.m.
North Park Recreation Center. Social Room
4044 Idaho Street
Tuesday, November 12, at 6:30 p.m.
Neighborhood Service Center
3902 EI Cajon Boulevard lenter through rear doorl
Wednesday, November 6, at 6:30 p.m.
Community Economic Development Association
720 Gateway Center Drive, Suite B lin Gateway Centerl
Your input into this study is important, and we do want to hear from you. Should you not be able to
attend a PAC meeting, feel free to write or call me with your comments. I can be reached at
557-4565. I look forward to seeing you soonl
DES:des:jy
M-115REP.DOC
Attachment: Draft Phase 1 Report Executive Summary
-2-
~~ /D-;;;'1-9~
REI SED MAT E R I A L
" Jlution No. p.
Page 2
4. That granting the variance or its modification will not be materially
de,nmp-,tal to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property
or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located
because there will be sufficient landscaping and earth mounding installed
and maintained so as to lessen adverse visual impacts.
5. That the granting of this variance does not constitute a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone
in that the City has constructed similar, and in some cases taller walls to
protect other similarly affected neighborhoods from the adverse affects of
roadway noise.
6. That the granting of this variance does not allow the use or activity which is
not otherwise expressly authorized by zoning development regulations
governing the parcel or property.
Section 3: City Council Decision:
The City Council hereby approves Variance 96-08, subject to the following conditions:
WitRiFl 30 e8)'3 ef apl'reJval tRE 81'1'Iie8Rt(3) sRell submit iR 'A-ritiR!:) tRet all eeReitioR3 ef
81'I'fevel Reve bCER feee aRe uReEF3teee.; aRe (2) tRe I'fel'EFty eWRcr(3} 31gell cxeeutc a
CeVCRBFlt OR neal rrol5crty.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS REQUIRED. COMPLIANCE
SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
1, Sound attenuation walls on the subject properties shall not exceed the height
required to reduce exterior noise levels to a level of 60 CNEL (as determined either
by the sound study submitted in conjunction with DR 89-01 or by another study
prepared by a qualified sound engineer) or 13' as measured from the pad elevation
adjacent to the wall, which ever is less.
2. Earthen mounding shall be reinstalled along the exterior of the base of the structure
to the extent possible to help conceal the total height of the wall when viewed from
the Poway Road corridor immediately adjacent.
3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of building
permit issuance,
4, Any damage which may occur to plants or structures, including irrigation equipment
and/or drainage structures which may be located in the planter area between the
back of sidewalk along Poway Road and the new wall shall be repaired and/or
replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services and the Director of
Public Services.
5 of 14
OCT 22 1996 ITEM 1
solution No. P-
Page 3
5. Tl'ii3 a~~fG'~al 5 1'1 a II !lc;coffiC Rull aRe ..aie if eOR3trl:JetioR of tl'le wall i3 Rot !lCgUR
witl'liR two ycafS fl'Cffi tl'lc eate of ~rf7jcet 6~~l'CvaL
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Poway, State of
California, this 22nd day of October, 1996.
Don Higginson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
}SS,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO }
I, Marjorie K. Wahlsten, City Clerk of the City of Poway, do hereby certify, under the
penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Resolution, No. , was duly adopted by the
City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on the day of
, 1996, and that it was so adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
e:\city\plan ning\report\var9608, rso
Marjorie K, Wahlsten, City Clerk
City of Poway
6 of 14
OCT 22 1996 ITEM 1