The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 22B - Council Procedure Ordinance . - f( ~ AGENDA REPOR'I CITY OF POW A Y TO: HOIlOI'lIbIe Mayor and :r.t'....'-s of the CIty CnnnrD FROM: Sto,plu- M. Edds, CIt7 A~ INlTlATm BY: Stepbell M. EddI, CIty ~ DATE: October 8, ml SUBJECT: C........lIl"rocedure Ordbuu~ -', ie,' "'r\j 'it ,~ DISCUSSION: ,,-. ~:~ -.;' ; ~ ~ At the October 1, 1991 meeting, Councilmember KClntyre raised the question of whether or not the advisory committees should have a certain procedure by which they should conduct their ~eetinqs. The city has never adopted such a procedure except for the City Council. That procedure is codif ied at PowllY Municipal Code Chapter 2.18. , Chapter 2.18 WIlS adopted by the city council eight years Ilqo and is need of some revision in so far as Council procedure is concerned. At the same time it is apparent that it might also be desirable to adopt a procedure for the conduct of advisory committee meetings. The City Attorney, therefore, recommends that the Council direct this office to review Chapter 2.18, propose amendments to the chapter to apply appropriate provisions to advisory committees, and place an amendment of the chapter on the Council Agenda for pUblic hearing and review within 60 day.. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the city Council refer Poway Municipal Code Chapter 2. 18 to the City Attorney for revision and public hearing. III :\. --~ ) " r ACTION, 'l - ,-.....-:: - OCT 8 89l ITEM 22B ~-~---- ----------- f\" i ,- ", ," , , r.">.i ~~. .. C f;a , "~ .- . ~ \0 "';""00. .,~I'\ ~;~~ ~, 0' ~c .. = : ~ :' R. J, Sommerville County of San Diego Air Poilution Control Officer DAlE: October I, 1991 ill Air Pollution Control Board SUBJECT: Transportation Control Measures SUMMARY: The San Diego Association of Governments has ,ubmined a Transportation Control Measure Plan intended to meet the regional Transportation Control Measure Criteria adopted by the Board to meet the California Clean Air Act requirements. This repon Sl1mm.rizes an analysis of the SANDAG Plan for consistency with the Criteria and presents appropriate recommendations for Board consideration, Recommendation(s) AIR POLL1.JTION CONTROL OFFICER: Accept the repon and recommendations. Advisory Statement The Air Quality Strategy Development Comminee has recommended that good points of both the SANDAG TOM program and District Regulation XIV (I.e. employer flexibility in determining trip reduction actions in the SANDAG program, and backup measures in Regulation XIV if employer actions are not successful) should be considered, and that the Air Pollution Concrol Board and SANDAG Board jointly establish a subcommittee to address issues and differences between SANDAG and the District. Fiscal Impact " There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommendation. 10-8-'\[ :tl:J-'-l:B ., , ': -- \- SUBJEcr: Transportation Control Measures On July 5. the San Diego Association of Governments submined a Transponarion Control Measure Plan, The central component is the trip reduction program, It addresses commute travel. college travel, goods movement. and non-commute travel. All other components of the plan. for example, transportation capacity eltpansion and traffic system management. are intended to support the trip reduction program. In addition to these measures, the SANDAG Plan briefly addresses indirect source review and market-based measures, According to state law, upon receipt of the Plan submitted by SANDAG, the Board is to review and approve the Plan if it meets the criteria. If the Plan does not meet the Criteria, the Board is to develop and adopt an alternative plan for transportation control measures. The District's evaluation of the SANDAG Plan is included in the attached repon. A sununary and specific recommendations are in this Board letter. Overall the SANDAG Transportation Control Measure Plan represents a notable effort to help reduce pollution in the region. A substantial portion of the Plan is being recommended for adoption into the Revised Air Quality Strategy. In fact there are only three primary issues: lack of funding to implement the Plan; an inefficient convoluted institutional structure inconsistent with the Criteria that would duplicate and compromise the Air Pollution Control Board's authority and responsibility; and no demonstration that vehicle ridership and trip reduction mandates in the California Oean Air Act, as reflected in the Criteria, will be achieved. 1. FUNDING The annualized cost of implementing the SANDAG plan is $249 milliOo. 592 million of that is unfunded government cost, In short, major portions of the Plan are unfunded. Motor vehicle registration/emission fees and a "polluting fuels" tax are proposed funding sources. The Criteria required an evaluation of the feasibility of redirecting discretionary funds available to the region to help fund transportation control measures, The required evaluation was not accomplished. Recommendation: Find that the required evaluation of discretionary funds is not included in the plan as specified in the criteria. Request SANDAG to evaluate cUITent revenue sources that allow flexibility in local and regional spending, present options. and make recommendations regarding redistributing funds and programming future state and federal transportation monies to help support transportation control measures. by November 22, 1991, so the response can be considered by the Board along with the Revised Air Quality Strategy sched'lJed for final Board consideration in mid December. --- .'. (' Request SANDAG to join with the Air Pollution Controi Board in an effort to gain a t ( ","wide 'OO~M.' 00 "'" _"'" 1.",,,",,".. imp...., """,,,-,,,,. _=. .. increase vehicle registration fees based on emissions, annual travel and congestion for funding transportation control measures. 3 . - - SUBJECT: Transportation ContrOL Measures Off,Peak Truck Travel Targets, with reporting and plan requirements similar to the Commute and College Programs, to shift truck operations out of the peak period to reduce congestion. Contrary to the purpose of the program to shift travel out of the morning peak period. no travel reduction targets for the peak period are specified. Only targets for off-peak are specified which are so low they may not result in shifting any travel out of the peak to off, peak period. The targets range from 2.5% of the total truck travel during off-peak in 1991, to 35% in 2010. Normally, more than 50% of the daily truck travel is already during the off- peak period. Therefore, the targets established for the next twenty years are already being met The District has discussed this concern with SANDAO staff. According to the staff, the program is intended to shift truck travel out of the peak and the specified targets would reduce that much truck traffic out of the peak. The Technical Supplement can be interpreted in different ways. Therefore, a modification of the Technical Supplement would be needed to clarify the intent expressed by SANDAO staff. However. such a modification could pose problems for some industries. For example. construction trucking operations can not be shifted out of the peak to early morning hours due to restrictions on delivery and operational hours imposed by local agencies and Conditional Use/Major Use Permits to minimize noise. To shift them later during the day means all the deliveries have to be accomplished during a shoner period. requiring more trucks and equipment in some cases. Funher, deliveries correspond to construction job schedules which many times are not controlled by the trucking industry. Freight consolidation, a key requirement of the Criteria for reducing trips and emissions, is only mentioned in the SANDAO Plan as an optional action for credit toward the Off-Peak Truck Travel Targets. Idling limitations specified in the Criteria are not even mentioned. This program was developed before the Criteria were released by the Board; it appears that no attempt was made to revisit the program to address the Criteria. 8, TRANSIT TMPROV'F.M'F.NTS AND EXPANSION The Transit Improvement and Expansion measure is intended to attract more trips that would otherwise be made by motor vehicles. A 17% increase is proposed beyond that in the Regional Transponation Plan by the year 2000. Replacing the existing bus fleet with low ,mieion -'" u · port nf "" nnmml floo, ~pl~~' prognnn · ilia prop..... Th< J annualized cost is $23.9 million. Added to this by specific SANDAO Board action are plans to increase transit service in the 1-15 corridor. and a demonstration program to test the feasibility of pricing the use of the 1-15 HOV Lane by single occupant vehicles to raise funds to suppon increased transit in the 1-15 corridor; however. ,no details of the planned transit expansion and the demonstration project are provided. It is unclear if the expanded transit system will have enough capacity to meet the demand created by trip reduction programs, and funds for implementation are not available. 11 - , - SUBJEcr: Transponation Control Measures Recommendation: Find the Transit Improvement and Expansion Measure meets the Criteria and include the MeasW'C in the Regional Air Quality Strategy for future implementation when funded, Request SANDAG to provide by November 22, 1991, details of the planned transit expansion and demonstration project in the I-IS corridor, and additional analyses demonstrating that the proposed transit improvements would meet the demand generated by trip reduction programs being proposed in the region. Discussion: It is claimed, but not demonstrated; that the proposed transit improvements would meet the demand generated by the Transponation Demand Management Program for commute and student traveL Between 70,000 and 80,000 commuters ~ projected to ride transit to and from work by the year 2000. Another 20,000 students ~ projected to ride transit by that year, That amounts to about 180,000 to 200,000 transit trips a day by commuters and students to and from work and schooL However, the proposed expanded transit system is expected to accommodate an additional 206,000 trips which will also include non-commute, non-student trips including shopping and other trips. When these trips ~ counted. the transit system may not have sufficient capacity to meet the commuter and student demand. Also, no demonstration is provided in the Plan that funding will be available for the $23.9 million annual cost of the proposed additional transit service expansion and low emission buses, Th~ I?itigation fee proposed in District Regulation XIV can provide funding to augment eXlsttng revenues. 9, VANPOOL PROGRAM A Vanpool Program to purchase 2500 vans, each with a capacity of 7-15 passengers, is proposed to expand vanpools for commuting to work. Transit districts will administer the program, by leasing vans to employers. The annualized cost is $16.5 million which is unfunded. Recommendation: Find there ~ no specific criteria addressing this measure and approve the proposed vanpool measure for inclusion in the Regional Air Quality Strategy for future ~l~nw~nfun~ , " Discussion: There is no specific Criterion addressing vanpools. However, vanpool programs ~ a necessary pan of transponation control measures and must be pursued, SANDAG's Plan does not demonstrate that sufficient funding will be available for $16.5 million annualized cost of the proposed program. The mitigation fee proposed in District Regulation XIV can provide funding to augment existing revenues. 12 -~----_._.._... ------..------ " -. . , \~ E st Cou nty Economic :JJ CGUHd1 nECEIVED John MacDo d. Chairman APCD Bo of Directors OCT 3 1991 1600 ciftc Highway iego, Ca. 92101 CITY 01' POWAY CITY MANAGERS OFFICI: Re: Employee Trip and Traffic Reduction Programs Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board: The East County Economic Development CouncU (ECEDC) has reviewed and had presentations on both the SANDAG proposed Transportation Control Measure Plan and APCD's proposed Regulation XIV. We have also sponsored a workshop for East County business owners to provide us with their input regarding these programs. The purpose of ECEDC is to stimulate economic development in the East County area and our comments reflect that goal. The trip reduction programs when viewed from the perspective of improving air quality appear appropriate and effective. When viewed from an economic perspective. they are an additional block in a wall being built that discourages businesses from locating in California. Unfortunately, the wall that is effectively keeping business out, is not retaining businesses already here. Businesses are leaving California in unprecedented numbers and our economy is becoming increasingly unstable, Any additional regulatory program being considered must be viewed and analyzed with this reality in mind. On behalf of the ECEDC Board of Directors and the East County business community we take the following positions for your consideration in your decision, making role: A. ECEDC opposes the adoption and implementation of a trip reduction program that unfairly places the total cost of the program on the backs of local businesspeople. We support funding the adopted program in such a way that equitably distributes financial responsibility. B. ECEDC expresses concern. regardless of who pays, with adopting a trip reduction program with projected costs exceeding l50 million per year. We support streamlining the program to reduce cost. One possibility is to raise the threshold of businesses included to those with 50 or more employees. 7777 ALVARADO ROAD, SUITE 406,8. LA MESA. CALIFORNIA 91941,3648. (619) 462,3312. FAX 462,3338 " <' . Employee Trip and Traffic Reduction Programs - Page 2 C. ECEDC supports a broad-based governing body for hnplementation of whatever trip reduction program is selected. We also support the involvement of employers and employees in the decision-making process. D. ECEDC expresses concern with how the trip reduction program adopted will interface with other mandated programs such as afflnnative action, hiring the physically challenged etc. As proposed these programs appear to be counter-productive. E. ECEDC expresses concern regarding the assumption of greater liability of an employer when providing van pools, controlled parking permits, etc. From an insurance perspective is the employer now culpable in case of an accident, theft, personal assault? F. ECEDC opposes a trip reduction program that requires the same attainment goal for ridership for all areas of San Diego County. East County does not have the same access to mass transit or parking fees as central San Diego. We also reduce traffic congestion because we provide counter flow on major transportation routes. Additionally, businesses in East County have smaller employee pools to draw from, work multi-shifts, and have less amentities within walking distance of employment. For these reasons we support appropriate attainment goals designed for the subareas within San Diego County based on factors as listed above. G. ECEDC supports the concept of returning a portion of any dollars saved, or not spent, because of reduced air pollution to businesses who go above and beyond to reduce solo drivers. Basically. the programs as proposed have no carrots (incentives) only sticks. ECEDC is sensitive to the problem of air pollution and understands the mandates of the Clean Air Act. but we also must be sensitive to market realities. ECEDC would like to work with you in any way we can to help resolve the air pollution problem without creating additional economic problems which also negatively impact everyone's quality of life. Sincerely. ~~ Deanna Weeks Chief Administrative Officer DW/TMC/ds cc: Members of APCD Board ~Ck Doyle.Chairman SANDAG embers of SANDAG Board ~-------- _____n --- -- ------ -----------..------ ------..---- u_ ...____________ .- J j t 'TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION . J LONG RANGE I TRANSIT ELEMENT I I I JUNE 1984 I San Diego J ~ ] ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 1200 Third Avenue ) Suite 524 . Security Pacific Plaza San Diego, California 92101 J (619) 236-5300 D 1 This report was financed with federal funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation, .... Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMT A). U.S. Oepartmant of Transportation, Fedaral Highway Administration, -, stata funds from the California Department of Transportation, end local funds from SANDAG membe, jurisdictions. ,.... The contents of this report reflect the views of the San Diego Association of Govlmmenu -, which is responsibla fo, the facts and tha eccuracy of the data presanted herein, The contants do not necessarily reflect the official viaws or policy of the .. U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a ~ standard, specification, or regulation. - - .. ::MBE A AGENCIES- Cities of Carlsbad. Chu!a Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, EI Cajon, Escondida. Imperial Beach, La Mesa Lemon Grove. National City. Oceans-j", ...- Si:lfl 01t'90. Sail MarcuS, SaHlt:e ana V,sTa ADVISORY /LlAISON MEMBERS Calif. Dept. of Transportatlon/u,S. Deel. of Defense and Tijuana/BaJa Ca;,t !\,ortE' '" i ' - require careful design, and potentially high construction costs in order to avoid adverse impacts on the environmentally sensitive coastal area. There is also a potential for conflict with the proposed bullet train, which would use the Santa Fe right-of-way for most of this coastal route. If the bullet train is built, other rights-of-way for the coastal corridor, such as 1-5 or EI Camino Real, should be investigated. JJ North County Corridor. The east-west corridor between Escondido and Oceanside is the primary transit corridor in North County today, and this segment receives I the highest Light Rail ridership per capital expenditure in North County. It is the l tI sixth light rail implementation priority. I-IS Corridor. Interstate 15, from Mission Valley to Escondido, is projected to I ~ experience the highest population, employment and travel growth in the region. For most of its length, the freeway facility has been constructed with the pro- vision for either high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or a light rail facility in the :0 median. The first section of HOV lanes is scheduled for construction with Inter- state Highway funding in 1985. Express bus service operating on this HOV facility will provide the high level of transit service needed in this corridor, at least , through the end of this century. The long-range plan, therefore, recommends the U development of the North San Diego-Escondido area as an express bus corridor throughout the remainder of the century. However, there would be an eventual I need for Light Rail service as this area continues to grow. Initial projections U indicate that there would also be a continuing need for the highway capacity provided by the HOV lanes. In addition, light rail service in the freeway median is not ideal because of the walking distance which would be involved in accessing the stations. As in the 1-5 corridor, altemative LRT rights-of-way should be identi- tl fied and preserved wherever appropriate. I The Mid-City segment included in the test network serves the heavily used El I' Cajon Blvd./University Avenue transit corridor. Light Rail in this corridor, how- ever, has severe constraints since it would operate on arterial streets, often in the same lanes as automobile traffic because of right-of-way constraints. Speeds in ~' this corridor are therefore slow; disruption of automobile traffic, particularly on north-south streets, would be significant. In addition, transit trip lengths in the corridor are short, and are therefore better served by buses (which can stop more frequently), than by Light Rail. This segment is not included in the ultimate sys- I tem at this time. However, because of the existing high level of transit ridership and the potential for growth as the Mid-City area redevelops, transit improve- ments may be needed in this corridor in the near-term. This corridor was not , adopted as part of the long-range Light Rail System, but will be the subject of a I transit improvement study to be undertaken during 1985-86. ..., ] Land Use Impacts Based on experience from the South Bay Trolley Line and studies in other metro- J politan areas, the implementation of fixed transit facilities is normally not suf- ficient to precipitate major land uses changes without significant support from land use policies. However, the fixed facilities do improve access to the station areas, and therfore present a major opportunity for local jurisdictions to en- ] courage the intensification of development. The benefits to local jurisdictions which accrue from more intense development include lower per capita service costs and increased tax revenues. The benefit to transit lies primarily in increas- 1 ing the potential transit market. Local jurisdictions should specifically evaluate d 9 -1 e' - - ~ ~ , .' mental impacts in this predominantly commercial-industrial area. The north ~ terminus provides easy interface with bus routes serving Mission Valley, Claire- j mont and the beach areas. Potential conflict with the American High-Speed Rail proposal has not been determined but should be minimal since initial studies of the bullet train indicate an aerial structure over the existing Santa Fe tracks between ] Old Town and downtown San Diego. < Mission Valley (Se~ment 6) ] The Mission Valley segment produces high patronage and offers congestion relief t on the heavily congested portion of Interstate 8 in the valley. The area served is expected to experience a high growth rate, primarily in employment, but is proj- ] ected to include a major population concentration as well. The preferred route on the proposed flood control channel levee would have minor environmental impacts, assuming the impacts of the channel are mitigated as part of that project. How- "'" ever, if the flood control channel is not constructed, or if an at-grade alignment is .' not available for some other reason, an elevated alignment was also costed. The high cost of the elevated structure would significantly lower the productivity of ~ this segment (in terms of riders per unit of capital cost). The need for an elevated - structure in ~ission Valley would lower its priority significantly. Subsequent MTDB studies have identified a preferred, primarily-at-grade alignment in the - Valley. - Point Loma (Se~ment 4) i , -- Although an expensive segment to build, the Point Loma Line is also productive, ,,",' primarily because it connects the region's commercial airport to Centre City as I well as serving several major employment sites. It would provide congestion relief I . to the only arterial street providing access to the airport. Minor environmental impacts are anticipated to wetland areas, and little employment or population r growth is forecast for its service area outside of downtown San Diego. This segment is a terminal line, with little opportunity to extend service further from Centre City. Mission Bay (Segment 7) and Miramar (Se~ment 12.) These two segments are the first northern segments which provide service to established residential areas (rather than employment centers). Both provide relatively high ridership, with no significant environmental problems. Both serve middle and upper income areas. North City (Se~ment 11) Because it serves the I-IS corridor, which is forecasted to experience severe congestion problems in the 1990's, this corridor could receive a higher priority than its ridership alone would indicate. It serves a .rapidly growing area and, because the assumed aligment is in the median of an existing freeway, its environ- mental impacts are minor. North County (Se~ment 10) This segment from Oceanside to Escondido is the most productive segment in the North County area, and parallels existing express bus service between the two 72. - - cities. It serves lower-income, minority areas at each end of the segment and several employment centers. Built on an existing rail line, it would have minimal environmental impacts. Mid-Coast (SeRment 8) This segment has relatively low ridership per capital cost, primarily because of high construction and right-of-way and construction costs north of University City and relatively few stations. The segment needs careful design because it crosses two coastal lagoons and the bluffs south of the Del Mar Fairgrounds. It serves an area of projected severe highway congestion. Alvarado Canyon (SeRment 13) The Alvarado segment is one of the most expensive segments evaluated, because of topographic and right-of-way problems. While the segment could provide significant congestion relief on 1-8, its effectiveness is reduced because it closely parallels the East Urban Line. It would also serve San Diego State University, a 30,OOO-student primarily-commuter university. I Mid-City (SeJ;1ment 14) The Mid-City segment serves an existing high volume transit corridor. As can be i I seen from Table 13, the line has moderate ridership, provides congestion relief to J 1-8 and SR94, and serves a lower income area. This segment, however, has severe environmental impacts. These impacts include a potential safety hazard because . of mixed light rail and automobile operation on congested EI Cajon Boulevard east I of Fairmont Avenue and on College Avenue. Mitigation of this hazard would be extremely costly and disruptive, including the potential purchase of commercial i and residential property and elimination of on-street parking. In order to achieve 11 adequate travel speeds, north-south crossing of El Cajon Boulevard would be pre- cluded except at infrequent intervals. Left turns from and onto EI Cajon Boule- vard would be precluded at most intersections. In addition, many of the existing , and projected transit trips in the corridor are extremely short. These shorter trips 1 are better served by buses than by a light rail system which would stop less fre- quen tly. I J PHASING ALTERNATIVES / Based on the above segment evaluation, seven phasing alternatives were selected 1 by the Steering Committee for further simulation and evaluation. Because of its importance in providing east-west congestion relief and the probability of early i implementation, the East Urban Line was included in all phasing alternatives. The South and East lines, alone, were tested as Alternative A, and used as a base of 1 comparison for all other alternatives. Three options tested competing usable segments running north and west from Centre City. These were the Point Loma I Alternative (B), the Pacific Beach Alternative (C), and the Mission Valley Alter- ~, native (E). These alternatives are shown on Table 18. r A fourth phasing alternative (G) tested a longer system stretching into North ~I County. The inland corridor (1-15) was selected primarily because of the availa- bility of existing publicly-owned right-of-way in the median of I-IS. The inland route also would avoid potential environmental problems identified along the I 73 1 FIGURE 5 [ LIGHT RAIL PHASING OPTIONS C (OPTION 1) (OPTION 2) (2005) (2005) [u .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\1lV, .I\\U\,,\\\\\\\\\\'\\\I/~, ~ Oceanside ~~ \OCeanSide ~kt~ ~~ ~_ Escondido ~ ?~~ Escondido ~ ~ ~ ~ ;a, ~ '" [_u '" ~ ~ ;0 ;a, 'f! '" ~ '" I ~ ~- '" '" 11.15 1 ~ Clairemont .- Mesa " L Santee Santee 'I , . - --" {......' , 111111 POST 1995 111I11 POST 1995 . , ~ (OPTION 3) (ULTIMATE SYSTEM) ] (2005) (BEYOND 2005) j 1 .,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\I\\\III/ql.'q,l, ~ Oceanside ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. Escondida '" '" ~ ;a, ~ '" ~ ~ '" ;a, ~ '" '" '" '" '" ~ ~ Santee 1I1111POST 1995 -- . . _._-. +---.. --- .. ---- -----. -- ____.._u 76 -------. Option 1: Option 1 focuses light rail service on the inland (I-15) corridor, with improved bus service, and potentially the Bullet Train, providing service in the coastal corridor. Option Z: The second options focuses on light rail service in the coastal corridor. It assumes that buses operating on the programmed High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes would provide a high level of transit service in the 1-15 corridor, and that the HOV lane would be extended ~o Escondido. Option 3: The additional option is similar to Option Z in that it places emphasis on the coastal corridor in the post-1995 period. However, Option 3 deletes the LRT segment from the stadium north to Clairmont Mesa Boulevard, and substitutes a '. route east along 1-8 to San Diego State University and the Grossmont LRT Station. Similarly, the Point Loma Line is truncated at the Airport, and extended south and east to serve the proposed Convention Center and connecting with the South and East Urban Lines at the Mills (Imperial) Transfer Center. In Option 3, I. the South Line was routed to the Airport via the Convention Center. Evaluation of Implementation Options I Option 3 has been compared with the results of a computer simulation of Option . 1. Option I was chosen for comparison to directly compare the ridership in the coastal (1-5) and the inland (1-15) corridors. Ridership data was not generated for I Option Z because of time constraints and because it was similar to Option 3. Both options were simulated using final Series 6 Population and Employment Fore- casts. I Total Regional Transit Ridership: Total transit ridership, as shown in Table 19, increases slightly in Option 3, as does total mode split. In the I-IS Corridor, express bus service is able to attract nearly the same level of ridership as light I rail. LRT service increases total transit ridership in the 1-5 and 1-8 corridors. However, in the 1995 system, the total rail ridership declines in Option 3, indi- cating higher ridership on the Murphy Canyon LRT link than the Alvarado Canyon link, as discussed below. In the year ZOOS, total rail ridership increases with I Option 3, indicating greater rail ridership in the Coastal Corridor than in the 1-15 corridor. TABLE 19 I OPTION 1/0PTION 3 COMPARISON REGIONAL TRANSIT RIDERSHIP I 1995 ZOOS I Option 1 Option 3 Option 1 Option 3 Rail 10Z,700 97,900 163,300 112.,000 Total (Bus and Rail) 188,500 189,700 Z65,600 Z66,100 I ) ~ 77 I ---. ------.---..-- ----------------- . Airport/Seaside Line The MTDB proposed changes to the Point Loma Extension are estimated to have a minimal impact on total regional transit ridership and LRT trips destined for Centre City, as shown in Table ZI. The elimination of the Rosecrans Station would decrease the total hoardings and alightings on the line by Z,700 per day; while service to the Convention Center would increase ridership by approximately I,ZOO trips each day. This Convention Center ridership is understated since that facility is unique, and travel characteristics to the center are largely unknown. The total boardings/alightings on the line reflect the elimination of the Rosecrans Station and intra-Centre City trips which are made on the other two LRT routes which continue to serve the lZth and C Street Stations. Overall, trips to and from Centre City are nearly equal for Options 1 and 3. Because Option 3 assumes that the existing South Line is routed directly to the Airport via the Seaside Line, nearly 7,000 passengers destined for stations on lZth and C Streets are required to transfer at the Mills Umperial) Station. '. TABLE ZI AIRPORT/SOUTH LINE PATRONAGE LRT BOARDINGS AND ALIGHTINGS I 1995 , I - Option 1 Option 3 I Total South/Airport Line 77 ,500 66,600 Rosecrans Z,700 - ! Airport 6,ZOO 6,100 I Harbor Drive/Santa Fe Depot 7,900 7000 · lZth and C Streets 15,900 - Convention Centre - I,ZOO I Imperial (Mills Station) 5,000 11,900 · TOT AL CENTRE CITY LRT TRIPS 71,586 77 ,500 · I . Includes 7,000 transfers from the South/Airport Line to lZth and C Street stations. I CONCLUSIONS I Light rail extension to the coastal corridor should take priority over the 1-15 corridor. This conclusion is based on the higher projected rail ridership in the I coastal corridor, the high projected express bus ridership in the 1-15 corridor, and the potential availability of Interstate Funding for an I-IS HOV facility. Expan- sion of freeway and north-south arterial capacity in the coastal corridor is signifi- cantly more constrained than in the 1-15 corridor, and light rail appears to offer 1 the most feasible means to significantly increase capacity. '~ ~ 79 I - - PROPOSITION A: SAN DIEGO TRANSPORT A TION L IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM " "'1, J) 1.1 JULY 31, 1987 lJ San Diego 1) ~ I' ASSOCIATIOX OF GOYER."'MEl\TS 1J . 1200 Third Avenue Suite 524 . Security Pacific Plaza 1) San Diego, California 92101 (619) 236-5300 1) 1 Prepared by The San Diego Association of Governments Serving as the 1 San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission J -J MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad. Chula Vista. Coronado. Del Mar, EI Cajon, Encinitas. Escondido. Imperisl Beach. La Mess. Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside. Poway, San Diego. San Marcos. Santee. Solana Beach. Vista snd County of Ssn Diego. 1 ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: California Department of Trsnsportstion. U.S. Department of Defense and Tijusns/Bsjs Cslifornis Norte. r --- 1 FIGURE 1 Proposition A Major I Highway and Transit Improvements 1 Funded by ... Proposition A .. ... .. Vllta 1 .......... .. .. Local street and road, .. ee San Mercol local bus and bicycle e. .... Improvements not shown [ e. e. Escondida ( [ [ [ Del Mer [ [ [ Hlgh..ey. [ ...... Trolley Extena/ona ~ ......... Commute, R.1I DOODDooaD Commute, Expt'... Bua ~ ......... ~v/ce Improvement. on Ed.tlng/Under ( Construction Nlltonal City Trolley Ed.tlng/Under I Construction C Hlgh..ey. Chuls Vlsls ~ I Imperlsl [ Beach NORTH i 8 [ -- J - ] I TABLE 3 PROPOSITION A EXPENDITURE PLAN ) PUBLIC TRANSIT PROJECTS (Costs in Millions of 1987 $) ) Project Miles Total Cost Old Town Line (Downtown to Old Town! 2.8 $55 ) Santee Extension (EI Cajon to Santee) 3.3 $35 Coastal Corridor Commuter Rail Service (Oceanside 43.0 $70 ] to Downtown! Mission Valley Line (Old Town to Stadium) 5.6 $150 ) Mid-Coast Line (Old Town to N. University City) 12.1 $130 ) North County Commuter Rail Service (Oceanside 22.3 $60 to Escondido) Mission Valley Line-East Extension (Stadium to La Mesal 6.0 $150 J North Coast Line (N. University City to North City West) 3.8 $100 J Project Reserve Fund (Right-of-Way Protection, - $40 Project Studies, Environmental Work) I Public Transit Service Improvements (Senior/ - $150 Disabled/Student Pass, New 8< Expanded Trolley, Commuter Express Bus, Local Bus and Dial-A-Ride Services) ) TOTAL COST: $940 ) Proposition A Funding: $750 Federal/State/LocalfPrivate Funding:. $190 I . An annual average of $9.5 million over the 20-year period is expected to be avail- able from federal, state, local and private developer sources. This is a conservative J assumption of future fund availability from these sources. Since 1980, an annual average of over $20 million has been available for major capital projects from these sources. I 1 ) 13 -.- I I sector funding and other revenues would be combined with funding from the measure for completion of this project. I 0 Project Reserve Fund - a contingency fund of roughly 5% of the funds available for transit purposes through the measure would be set aside for future uncer- J tainties. These funds could be used for right-of-way protection for future facilities, project studies, and environmental studies, assessments, and related work. Up to $1 million of these funds will be used to conduct a two-phase J study of trolley extensions in the South Bay, with the first phase being a feasi- bility analysis of alternative extensions followed by a more detailed environ- mental evaluation and alternatives analysis of the extensions found feasible. These funds also could be used to provide local matching funds to maximize I other available funding. Specific projects or programs would require Commis- sion approval through the Expenditure Plan update procedures. I 0 Senior/Disabled/Student Passes - a reduced price monthly transit pass program will be established for seniors (60 years of age and older) and the disabled at Z5% of the regular monthly pass price and for students (18 years of age and ~I under) at 50% of the regular monthly pass price. 0 Commuter Express Bus Services - a network of new or expanded commuter I express bus services will be developed to provide high quality transit services I in those corridors where trolley or commuter rail extensions are not planned. These services will be designed to provide the same high speed, reliable, and comfortable service offered by the San Diego Trolley. These services will I include a significant expansion of express services in the 1-15 corridor between Escondido and downtown San Diego to utilize the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes now under construction, as well as new express services betwen the South Bay and the North University City area along the I-80S corridor and between I East County and North University City along the Route 5Z corridor. These and other express bus services will be developed and refined by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) and the North County Transit District I (NCTD) through the short-range transit plan process. Other Transit Service Improvements - additional rail and bus services will be 0 I provided including new and expanded service, such as route extensions and more frequent operation of heavily patronized routes. Such improvements will include frequency improvements and other service enhancements on the exist- ing South and Euclid Lines of the San Diego Trolley, as well as on the extension I to EI Cajon currently under construction. These services will be developed by MTDB and NCTD in their short-range transit plans. I 0 Dial-A-Ride Services - an amount equal to 1% of the funds made available for transit purposes by Proposition A will be used to expand the dial-a-ride pro- grams providing services to seniors and the disabled throughout the urbanized portion of the region. These funds would be used to augment the Transporta- I tion Development Act (TDA) Article 4.5 funds currently being used to support these systems. Additional funding is urgently needed by the dial-a-ride operators in order to meet growing demand for these services. I Implementation Process and Responsibilities: As specified by SB 361 and the Ordinance, the revenues made available for public transit purposes will be allocated J to the Metropolitan Transit Development Board and the North San Diego County -I 15 !f ",' --. RC-35 SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION September 27, 1991 DRAFr 1992-99 TRANSNET PROGRAM OF PROJECTS Introduction On November 3, 1987, the voters of San Diego County approved Proposition A -- the San Diego County Transportation Improvement Program. One of SANDAG's roles, acting as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, is to annually approve a five-year Transportation Sales Tax Program of Projects. To be consistent with new State guidelines for the development of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and to qualify for potential new State funding, the Program of Projects has evolved into a seven-year program adopted every two years. Following its approval, the TransNet Program of Projects is included as an element of SANDAG's Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). No major projects (over $250,000) can be funded with TransNet revenues unless they are included in the approved Program of Projects. Attached to this item is the draft 1992-99 TransNet Program of Projects. The draft list includes all the proposed TransNet projects that have been submitted by local agencies, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (M1DB), the North San Diego County Transit Development Board (NSDClDB), and CALTRANS as described further in this agenda report. It is my RECOMMENDATION that the Board of Directors, acting as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, accept the draft 1992-99 TransNet Program of Projects for distribution and comment, and schedule a public hearing and action for the November 22, 1991 meeting. Discussion The Transportation Sales Tax Ordinance and Expenditure Plan describes the Commission's project programming approval role. It requires the Commission to annually approve a five-year project list to be funded with all categories of TransNet revenues. The Commission may also amend or revise the Program of Projects at any time if revisions in the Program are necessary. f'o' I} , -, Under the provisions of the "1989 State Transportation Funding and Refonn Legislation," the Regional Transportation Improyement Program (RTIP) is now a seven-year programming document adopted every two years. To be consistent with the new legislation and to be eligible for new State funding made available ,under Propositions 111 and 108, the TransNet Program of Projects has evolved into a seven-year programming document adopted every two years consistent with the adoption of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. It is the responsibility of the Commission and each recipient of TransNet funds to assure that all proposed projects are consistent with the requirements of the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. Each agency was provided with the appropriate program requirements. Prop;;~ lists oiTransNet~fu~d'oo icciI projects have been developed and approved (or are pending approval as noted) by each city council and the Board of SupeIVisors. Table 1 shows . that the draft local street and road list includes 182 projects totalling approximately $313 million 'fo~~e.seven-year period FY 1993-99. The local street and road list contains numerous projects in each, of the priority _categories identified in the Expenditure Plan including repair and reha~ilita~<?n_of.llXisting:.'i!?!l~w.ay~,(7Qpiojects), congestion reduction and improved safety (89 ,projects), and the construction of'new needed facilities (29 projects). . __ . _,~ ._.' t ,,"'. 1" ~.: :-::i.:' " ."- d. ...'-. Staff bas wcirked with cAi..l:RANs to develop the draftllst of highway projects, Approximately $837 million of TransNet funds have been programmed over the next seven years for the development of the voter-approved highway projects. Within the next seven years, construction will continue or begin within all TransNet funded highway corridors. Within the Biennial Element, FY93 and FY94, construction on SRS2, from 1-15 to Mission Gorge Road, and on SRS,6, both the westerly and easterly segments, are scheduled for completion. Also within the ~iep# E1l;lii1en~, '~~~wt6~~~ '~WpeW o~.S~~ an,d pomolls of SR}6. ~~luded in tpe draft Program of'ProJectns a propoSal by the CIty of Poway to transfer remammg Poway Grade 1'ransNet- highway funds to a South Poway Expressway project. The programming of these funds is contingent on Board review and approval of.;l change in the TransNet Ordinance discnsse.d ,in Agen~ item .RC-37. , . t':". . l-~- ~ "'_' . . r:' '.....0 - ,--- - Within the SR78 corridor, approximately $79 million in TransNet funds have been programmed to implement 25 construction projects within the jurisdictions of Carlsbad, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Vista, the County of San Diego, and CALTRANS for needed improvements to relieve congestion and improve capacity within the corridor. The TransNet funds will be leveraged by an additional $51 million in state and local funds. The major transit projects in the draft Program of Projects were developed by M1DB and NSDClDB. M1DB's seven-year list of rail capital projects totals $451 million in TransNet revenues and provides significant TransNet funding to continue or begin construction on the Santee, Old Town, Mission Valley West, Mid-Coast, and Mission Valley East rail extensions. Funding is also provided for light rail vehicle acquisition, expansion of the trolley yard, and for miscellaneous major and minor light rail projects. An additional $42 million in TransNet,funds ~ has been ~PTammedQ2r expanded b~lu1d light ~(rContinlled subsidy of monthly-~ (~~ _ . [ lllY'- vv.uJ t~,s M' -et'/11A CloJ>.l-\L '\ '> h ( , R. 2 tr\ ",t' ~,~IG 0'7 iJ -- - -----...------------------------- .~ __ n_ _ _ __ __ _ __ ___ .f#" i." NSDCTBD has programmed $163 million in TransNet funds for continued commuter rail development for both the Oceanside-San Diego and Oceanside-Escondido rail lines. Major categoJ:\es of expenditures include $36 million for station and facility development, $73 million foqiUtt"of~way~~uis~ppn_ aJ1d ir!1provement,~ million for rail vehicles, and $5.4 million for projeq.,development."An additional $28 million in TransNet funds has been programmed for .'_ . W"_ '. _ . ~ " . - .'. . . _ . ~~ ,bus. and.rail serviceancL~ntinuedsubsidyof monthly transit passes. Actual expenditure of construction funds for commuter rail development is dependent on the ultimate acquisition-of the railroadright,~f-way from Santa Fe, and the progJllmming schedule may need i~~~jlis[ed;ip th~ tpture~~ ,;.';:, '.,. ,: ,:<. '.:...:, co' . ::_!~- .~ ..c..:: :- .._ '.:..: ~ .... - '. .-. - _'- .- ~ .',. An initial fmancial analysis has been conducted regarding the major TransNet funded rail capital proj~.based on the updated costs and schedules as submiJ+ed by M'fDB and NSDClDB. This aruUy~~ iIldi<;ates that, the MlDB and NSpCTI)Bprograms.have exceeded the bonding capacity oqh~,TransNetprogram..:During thereyiew period, SANDAg stafLwillbeworking with the staff.~f the two transit boards to develop revised project schedules and funding assumptions in order~!to present a fmancially-balancedprogram to the Commission for consideration in ~oyeffiger,:. ,,;. . ..,., ro .. . >-. .. .-...'>..... . ~~,... ...', .'_ '" J, _ , The TransNet Ordinance also provides that 1 % of transit sales tax revenues be made available for specialized transportation services for the elderly and disabled. For FY's 1993-99, $4.2 million has been programmed for six transit operators providing specia1i7ffl services for the elderly and disabled. .llor thes~ven-year period, it is projected that these operators will carry over .:'P. million passt:nge~. _ .: .. ...... One million dollars in TransNet funds are available annually for bicycle projects. The 121 mp~~~3 .lJfu!1~aY:',PJOjc;qt~ ciIlqJ,l,lded:,j.Il.j~;dra~tJ99i-~ .Regio~~. Transpo~tion hnprovementProgram.(RTIP),a,s discussectin Agenda ReportR~58, will be candidates for both Transportation Development Act,(fDA) and TransNet bicycle funding. These projects will be reviewed by the SANDAG Bicycle Facilities-Committee, which will develop a recommended priority: list of projects to be submitted to the SANDAG Board of Directors/Commission for consideration in June, 1992. Attachment 3 - ,. .., ... on CD ... ., '" ..,... on CD ... ., '" ..,... on CD ... ., '" "'..,"'.iDt-....'" m 0') Q) CD en CD en en Cb Q) en m Q) en CD m (J) m Q) CD CD G):,::c~<:0::_I2lA:Jr:::0::OJ Ii....)))I; ~ 19 t; }:;~::~:. :0:: - .......... .. ..J "":-:;:"-'::'_:" :::,::'::_""<->,'","",:,""':" t;i!ii ~~88888 l1?~~:8lQl8g: 88g8888 1!~!!~Il~~ ~I~ ~~~a~ ~~~~~~~ ~;)i~fifififi~I:II~II~~~ E ~ ! '~.!;':;ii;IIi ~ ffi ~I f ..J --~ 0 < 1=:. - CIl till) ~ z .0 - ~ o u~ B F ',:~ _ < t~ 0 ~ ~~ - o 3w ~ ~ ~o ~ CIl ~~ C z .,.. I- ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '" .., ., CD on CD '" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d>...,.!.!..ii>.cD.~.<D '2 .. ';;;,;, tit 4$ 0 0 0 0 0 ,......... "l:t co C\I (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ""):"""'::,. ':"_ >:C\I:>:CD:::::N, 0 I ;-)) -< "":. ~ "!. ~ t":!. ~ t;. t; t; ~ ~ f4 ~ cr.:t O't ~ "": "": "": _:~-}Il'>_,-,__ ..:}'~,::::~;.\: ~. ,~ ~ ::;,. I- ~ ~ '" '" CD '" '" '" '" '" .., '" ..,"'on"'..".....}::, .~. () < :':::::'0 t9 W W tit W ..,. .. .. .. 0 toI) .. .::::.::::.::::~::::.~::;:.::::,....,: :~ 2 a: ;.,::::'..... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::':::::::;:~::::::::::':::::::::::::::::::::::::~: .''--- 1ii 8 . 5 ~ ~ ~ U ~ 0000000 0000000 0000000 ~ ~ ~ W I > 1 I I 0 o I I I I a: I I I _ ~ ~ ::; - - .. ~ z ili;; o ~.. j:::: < "6) c( G) I:D c: ~ ".' Ctl ~ c: a:: ..::>;:,:,0') C e o ',:::: n:s ~ ~i i cD~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ .~.....~. CD. ~ ~ ) :::::: -:::::: ~ ~ 1-l:S ~ <- ~ ~ . _ W ~ ..J ' C".' Ctl 0 '> _ ~ G) <0<1 Ul I- '- <:: [lj c Z ~....z ~ al:2::: ~ t ~ > g. Q 00 I ..,0 2: V\ 0 W ffi IEs: f!! lii,;; ~ ~ t' r- g: w ~ t::/f z e-.. \' CIl V"I .::; .. '" CIl.U W W <3 VI al .,.,. * 0 iij ffi Q') Z,rj)2UJ'."C n:s~ (.) UJ ~ :S.::w w 5 B ~ ~ ~ u._l> s: c( m ~c > Ui::E _ a. - _ V"( a: ~ ~ t; 0 i~"", ill -- ~ ~ lJ5 t: ....W II: >< ,. ;;; ~ l'! - ..J <,a ~ w,. c ...r-. I- ~ < ~ ::0: ~ =iij ~ '"3 ~ ..: r.J ~ + 6 ..'Q. UJ a: ~ u) -r t- .g \- 1i::"J t- (.) 1:>512 g,'E .., \..-. - Ole-I" Ctlo Ctl > ~~~. CU g ffi ~~2 c~ al w z~~ ~~ a: d. . . z...... C\l CO) 46 . .. - SJ~Ch~ ~~~Ch MC")MC')CI)Ll)CO"" mmQ)c:n cncnm ~~iHl 0000 888 N C\I co <:) .,.coC?o 000 ... ~ . .. ... - - o;ow ~~;;; ~N ...... ...~... ... Ii; :; ~ l!l~8 oooao lI)ol!lolilo~o U)COl.tl<O r!C;co~r--..~ (b ..."'... "'....0')0 ~li tit .. .. .. c\i~~u5a)cr;riLli i ~ "'...'" ... ~... w..;..;~~; ... U a.. :;: ~ CD ~ i> ~:2 II) 0 ~OOON ~OOO8800 > 0 - wl!l ..~~8~.-~g~oo8~ * w ~ >tl2cxiN 0.......0.............. -I - ~OOct N~NLl)U').... " < t;lij N'" 11: .......... .. .............. .!? 0 ... 0....... tit.,. e z 8 CD 0 C. ~ !:)s Q. ti: w~ 0 ~ 0 ~@ .. a.. ~ 0 Z "..', I.k < t- a: t- ~gg8 0000 LO~~ggg~o 'C:' en co ..... 0 I -;;;;J ,... C")...... 0 ~~~"t (I;"'...~..."''''(I; .!? ::; < ... .. .. .. ~a)a)a5Mcr5o.n t; b l!lCJ)~ '" CJ) 0 ~ ......... ~NN ......~...~~CO~ 2 t- ......... ... ...... u; 8 " 0 a: e- o.. >llj 0 !z ',,"'< wooo a:>oo wa:>ooooo ~ w i~ ~ as , > II) co 0 0 0 ..; ..; cO a: . , a.. :E ~ <:> t;. Z .... c:: a: 0 ~ ~ " a c: m o . g t- _ Ul " . . '" ;0- llj.!!! C 'ii0 5 0.2 - u " 0 t-.<: ::;:;: .. a.. iffi U5 " CD CD o CD ii: 0 i8l CD > .<: > z ","'::; a: - - u= oil ".. < < CD- '" ~ " '" <:> ~i~ ~ u '" ~ a: li)~ 0- a::E .5 t- eD .<: ~ CD .ESP o CI li; -I ~!: WM - = CD < :;~ ,,~ " z a~ ~ <:'" ;o~ 0. 0 I t-_ CD " 0", " ffi l!:,E: 0'<: o '" t- " W tJ) -f;p _ Ul ",,, ~ a: ~a: t- j; 'in s o ~ w l) ,,- iri 8l ~-g '" - , 0 z~ w ~ '" , "" W I f~ ..., ~ .. t-u; CD.!!! 0 N 0 '" Ul " ;0 " Ul < CJ) 'i 5 .!?CD ::; ;0 :I: CJ) a: - 5 RI " _ CD a.. t: Il. 0"" 0", ill " W RI ...J 1- ii:i Ul ::~ < a < 0; I Ul CD a: t- " ti: ~ '''' ,.,'" c \.a: 0 I " "'''' '>0.. c:: iii -I " t-u = " < 55 ,,'" a: " RI- l) S ;0 Ul -1- > g o '" '" ..: ,,- ...J t-'g '" '" 0 -'0 < &: "'- Ct: llj RI _ U RI '" - 0 a: -I 0.5 0U ::;a: d ,..: N ..; z 47 ____n__ _ _____ - -----------..---------- . , .- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i.~ ggl:Q::e~~ _en N 0..... co .,'<lt~~~..c? ... ... ... ti ",,-,:U: ::; .'lti 000 o '')In g 00 i!l15:g~lSlOlOgg~g b ~:8;b ~~~~ ~;b ..,.'P'"........-CJ;~_\o(7)M w ,i ,il; "'cO" "'''': .,. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. i -'" .....NMC\I.....\OC")CC,....CO a ... ...... ... .,.....49.,.....:..,.~ sz u ~ sg :c 0.. X :5: ," ~ ~ u;;-'-" CD.-. i!o~~~g~2g~&l)~~~~~g i!~g~~~~~gg~1S > Ul ~.~ * W I~~""'N&l)'<ltco<O(,,)-~M""'~o"'o i ~ "':.C!."':.q"'t...,._ot"":.<<!.~~ 5~ri"~Nri"''''~N'''~ cO ~ e:: ...J ct5~~~~~.N~~~Je .2 < u.,..,. .,..... .,............... Ul ~lii ~ ... ... a: .,. flit .... 10 z oi " ~ .~ "- CD 0 ~ ~ 58 ~IOOOO&l)&l)~&l)O&l)OOO&l)&l)&l)&l)&l)O .0(7).....,....\0,.... ~cn.....COON<OM(7)Ocn..... 0 Ii: w~ M~M~~~~ ..~~~~"':.<<!.~q"':.q~ ~ 0 8w . ~~ ~~~~ ~~.~~~M~ Cii 0.. ,~..~ .,..,..,. .,. ..... ..... ~ Ul ... ... Z < I- ~ g~o~~gggg~~~~~~~~8g tSg~~~~~:g)!!og~tS '"' l- e:: I ~ COO~&l)Ocn<O&l).....NM...,.cn...,.CO<OCOMN C?..,.cn,....cncn,...I/)ll)~....CDCO .2 :; g "'O"'~~"'~~~~;cOcON~N~~m .,. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. u ~ .... .,..... .,.,....N.,..,..,..,..,.....49I;").,.N ;:.~:.1i~~~~~~~ " .,. .,..,..,. .... .... .... .,. .....,. .,. ~ \1- ... ... ... 8 e:: 0 ~ 8 0.. U I- w~uw>uw~>uw~uwuwuwu wuw~uwu>u>u>u .;: z w ~ :; w . > 0 0 0 0 ci u; . ~ '" E 0.. 0 ;;!1 ~ Z ~ ~ 0 E S ~ ..; g e:: Ii: " CD .... c ii~ "'- 0" 0.\1 e:: 0 ~.c:: - c '" 0.. " '" 0:: Ul .,\iw .!! ~ '" Ul o e:: olS z ii:; .c:: = ~ 0 ~ i\~ 0'" cO:: 0 - ~ e:: CD_ 0'" ~ :I:.c:: -1ij ...J ~.'..oa ~ 0 ~ ;t < ",= e:: Z :;- :; CD 0. 0 8~ -'" o e:: e:: CD" .c::lO \!:!. fa ~!i: C e:: " 0 o '" e:: _ W "'C? ~ t::- - Ul ~ " ill '" Ul~ e:: e:: ;t.2 . CD w '" zl1l 0- ." Ul . ~..~ I-~ CD.:! '" < '" " " e:: " :I: '" - ;t - e:: 0.. - b o CD ...J_ t . e:: 1ij .: W '", '" CD < a CD- w- e:: ~ ..~ e:: 0 >'CD C .0.. ::;- ~(.)ui 1ij~ "'-CD >e::_ '" " o " o CD ce:c u" .9 ~ ~ I " " - ~~= .- " :;E. ::E"~ ci .. on z 48 , , - ~~~:g~s;~ ~~ '" '" ~ '" ... '" '" '" '" ~~lll '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ?~ Iii -:-,;:":::.;.:.a :J ~~8g~~tQ lil~ 0 0 '" '" 0 '" '" '" '" ~ ...........It '" '" '" "'0 .... '" ~ '" WNCO..... N"lt CO- t; ~ '" -'" :g :g '" 7~ ...;"" cD.....-..,. C'i N'''': ... ...... ... ... 1n' a ,.... W4I')> ..... ...... Ol ~! ... ... u a: :E n. ::J 5 Ol x ~ ~ .... i ~OOOOOOO III 0 CD ~I&l gig 8 ~I~ ~!(l gj885l > 1Il ~ i...."'O'i"'~"'- ""gm .;; UJ ,,(\I (C 4o!t\t) .....M it) co ....- ...J - .....oJ ~ M'" w .... ..,..... ":a;~ e < - ... ... .. ...... 52 1Il Iii Iii It ... ;;; z 15 0 8 S g ~ ~ ml'" o '" 0 ~ ,!... <:5- 0 ~ ~ Cd n. ~ 1Il Z ~ ~ ~g~gg~~ 00 0 0 0 "'0 0 0 '" '" 000 '2 :J '" '" '" '" '" '" 0 '" '" ~ '" 000 52 , ... .................,.(")0) ...- .... ~ :g '" CD - - '" ....'f:'"CI) ~ g Wer5":a5...:fIt,..: cON ... ...... - - ... ... ":a;~ U < N tit w.... ,.... ...... ... ... ...... 2 a: ~ ... ... 10 8 e 0 a: 8 n. <<Ill U !z UJUUJa:uwu uu u u u uu &l u u u >>> ~ < ww w w w ww UJ w <iE ~ ~ w 11.1 . > I , I I , I I , I I . 0 0 I , , I I , I , , I , I I I I , , I , I I , I a: 1:: n. 01 ~ !; z E a: 0 ., .. Cd a g Cd cO - ~ III e cO e 01 :::; Ol 0 e U e cO E C. C .<0; :E 10 :::; e cO Ol- e 0 ffi Cd 10 :::; e 1; Ol Cd n. Ol w :::; c:: > Cd _Z 1Il I W 10 cO 1(j c." '" Z .)~ OJ Ol cO Cd e E e ~ ........~ . ~ I W :::; W - Cd 01 e_ 01 e c: ,..~ e o.r::. " cO :::; I 1(j I UJ 1ii~ ~ Ol gs 15 ~..e e c: e ...J e - cO :::; .r::. E Ol W 0 Ol"" Ol < CdO ... e '5 Ol E 'in ::J U e Z a~ 0. 0 '" :::; 10 S U I g-Cd 0. 0 lll"'cO Cd Ol e e e Ol 01 a: 10 Cd i u 0 Cd "'~ !!!. a ~(ii: J!j 1Il w , Cd 0. ,,-Cd Cd 'in III ~ Cd w ~ Cd ~ e '" W I c: a: Ci e sn. w a: ~- Cd '8 0 Ol 01 Ol Ol Ol Cd ~EE! 01 I a: 0. 01 e . cii E e E 01 e 52 III '" z~ e 01 :;;; III w '" taEta ~ C Ol " Ol :;;; e e u u ~ 01 '"' e 1Il I ~<~ a: 0 ~ Ol :;;; .. ., - '" Cd Cd 32 01 c: :;...J < c.i ~ ~ S 1:: lil ~ e n. '" ~ Ci "" .Ii :;;; 0 c-.r::. :I: '" Ol n. - .b co:> .!ii ~ ~ '" Ol Ol .. e U u- a: Ol "" 0 < 5 t -. - E :0 (j '" n. Ol ...w ,.." E OJ Iii Ol :> Ol Ol ;;; " OllIl ~ .8 ~ ~ 0 ~ :0 0 01 ,.. (j e Iii 'in ~~ '0 >- 0 '" :> C " ~ 52 ,.. . .... a: ~ - Ol Cd ~ 0 ~ ., ;;; CD ~ ~ Cd C ... n. ~ 0 E u :> C '" OJ Cd >- 01 > Iii ~ o e 0 ~ U '" " 15 '0 . ., 010., ni Ol '" .r::. Iii 0 = Cd .Ii > e CdW .!!U)V) ...J ., 32 a: ., u 0 01 .... a: '" o fa cu ~ '" .Ii '0 ... I .g ::; '" ,.. Cd .r::. e e - .r::. c:: Q. = 0 ~ U 'iii .r::._ ~Ill~ Cd CD CD .. .. 0 a. ~e .. (5 [j ~ ::; ...J .!. .!. n. z 1Il ...J 0 0 <ci ,..: <Xi cri ci - cO co; oi .,; <ci z - - - - - - - 49 . , ... lOCO "'...IOCO...."'''' en 0)Cl') cnCf)cnO')cncncn ~.'?~.i~.'.'."".'.~>?~.'.'."/b.Vl Sl ..'u .. / .... / /llJ~' ...........g ..~...~....$i!.i...:l$i!....~i. .........-. .....-......................-.- . ......."" ..",ew.. 7...""""... .'//0':w ...... Iii ..... ..i;:.;.......:..:...;:. :..::; ~ :::'.'.': 08 g 8 8 8 8 g 8 g 8$!ii!JGIa282.'" o Woo U') Q) t") (0 .... It) en o-::a:,;a:J:;-:.~.:.r6.>:II):.;~ .i1i w iZ .0 cD", .: .: '" N' .; .; .; !id'gNi-:\i;,;.... ~ a ..' CIl N .. ~ .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ~.........N.Q.~:.. ~. le ~ l~ .. ..I~Ii~".~ ...... i ~ .!Ii...... o~ Q ~ 0 0 1:10 0 8 0 0 8 0 ..!!l........<').. ...........i;;l.............~...........8...................<::>...:....<>'" > en ,"';::-- ~ cs - 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 '(&fN:;::;S:~':i!I'f:. _ ,:::;,,"';'::'tQ Q) ;..::: ~ 8 I!! .0 cD ~ ~ ~ ri ri "t "l. "l~. ..:::.:,..~.::.:.:.;.:,-~.:..:....:.:.:.:;n.::.::n.::.:ff5-~ ~ "i l!.< It N ... ~ I- ... .. .. ~ ~ :g ... ~'i~:!..!..l!l.....81 ,g z .~. ..~. .. ......;;~ .it ; ~ 55 ~18 8 8 ~g~~~~i~ t!! ~ a: .w~ .: .: .: ':N;i;#iKa' -';C' 'j- e o 8 .. .. .. ... .........~.. iOe. .. a. " ::)}).M:_._.}}lt..-.:::J...,,.,)::..._../'-""'}:--. - 0 '" f.... ~ ...".................................... ........- ..-... c- o . ........,..................""'JI'"__._ ~ ...... ........ ..................................... . .... a:.... ...... 8 00 08008 0 oN...6..lil........6............~..............i....8.. N ;.:: .":'" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : .:::Il):::"""::I""i;;;::' :::. '/ - Q) C I )). -~ . ~ ~ ~ q qq. q q :~(Lq:.:a:}~'t::.;}._.:):q _."':. .g :;.. :"i co N ... 10 co .... '" '" 0 ~ co. .............. ............ ..............................m...........:I: 0 < ..;.... 5 Ll) .... N .,. .,. .,. .,. .,. ..-,.... CO:::CO:::,:"lt:,:::O'>.'5(r,: \:'llltM' 2 a: ..... 4I't 4I't t.') .. .. "":;'::';'::;>;.:',:::,;,,.. u; 8 .............................................................. ~ c .'..,.".",.",."",--,..-- ',',',','--,'" . '....... .. ... .. . ~ 0 a: 8 c.. c..> .... > c..>c..> ............................ ~ z ww > w ~ ~ ..!. > I I I 0 o I I I I a:: I I I _ c.. a :; ... a: Z . .. i ~ ct o en.5. a:: .. ~ 'E E"i < a <.... CD <D c: m .5 0: . ::,,::.:. E a; E ~ ~ o ,:,,:,'d1) CD C <D ~ c...x.1; is.. CD c.. en :'::::':,w Q.. m C I ~i~ f i ~ ~ i ..J ~.... .. = I a l!! < 1d,:,~ ::I "' a: _ z az i g J!! c.. co o : _ c: c: - a:'o - ...J t~ q)...J W 0....1: ~ I :l E < ~ W CL.J1..: ,g fI) c: CD t:: w a: I--...~ c g ~is c.. cii (7) CiS 0 - f- < W (7) Z, E. to 5 ~ (.) cn ~ :$,:~ ~ g ~ - ~ == ~ (7) 1=,.:'...... ff "in CD n:l -< 0- ..... ::::0 < c: cn ~ c: t: > "'.. Q. ..J .W ~x ~"' < <8 0 "'.. c..> .... 0: .....~ ~~ ~ "' ~ 0 o '>::0.. ~ 5 ~ (,) 0 ..... =G) a:: b: ~ "' _...J ...J"' 0:.2 CD _ = -::I - 0 Q) ..t: -.2 c: ~ a C::::I ._ 0- ::;0 u. :;:; d .. . Z .... '" '" ~ ~ ~ 50 ., . - ~t&1lll!lS;:ll81 ~~~~s;~m M~ll)<D""CI)O'I en cnQ)Q)(7)Q) ..........~. ;c,._:_."...._,.:..:....'...... '::'-':-:':-::':':':':':-:':'::' ',""" .... -..... :':'r:' ,::..;:.,.:.,.,.;-'......:.:.:.:...:::: ....... .... .... ..'.,........- ._--. :c:',::,'-:':"-"":':';':"':':';': c.,.,.... ..... ",.,. ,.......'-.......-..... ':'-':': .-...... ,-.,. .;............................ ::\'"U :-.;:;:;::::::::::: ,,:::;:::: .._..~-.~ ........... ..... ti w . ...... .-.-..,...",.:.,-,.,.:.:...:.......:....-....:...........................:-;-:.;-,. ...,.....................,................. ;.;.:..:.".,.;.,-:.'.:.,.:.;.:.;.:-:<.:-:.;.;"-,:.;.:.:.:-::,.:.:.,.... :::; ".-,.' ','-'. a~~~~l;(J~ l!!J~~~HlgtB 111111I .~. ~ ? Iii ON~llllll"'<D 1.1).... .....N "11:."":. -~t;~~ W.....II).....CO..,. 9"" 9"" 9"" 9"" 9"" 9"" 9"" ...........~ "':NNNNN ..,............... 'i a 9"" _ _ 9"" ......... ... .............. !~ ....................................................... tt u """"':':""""':':':':':':';':"':';"':"""'.',.;.:"..-:.:.:.:.:.:.;,:.,.::: II: ','''' ........,.,......................'..... :.::0.:'::':':"':"':"':-:':":"':"':"';':"';'":.:.,.",.,.:.:.:.,. :E a.. .:> ,:,t:) /tttr:: :',,;:::\i,i,;,:,):,:,:.... '5 '" x c:. i:5 1,&;;.."" ., c,. > '" l~ iif W ...J c ~ .2 tit; 1ii z ;;; 0 8 Cl. g Q. t.:J 0 II is 12 ... '" ~ z ~ I- ON~<Cll.n""<Cl ~f::~~re~re t!l~~Sl:gf6111 lllRlg!:egf~ .I!l '2 , Il')_ mm.....C\l .2 ". ~ ..,...... l.l)"""WCJ) co,..... Il')""" co..,. 9""..... _ _ 9"" _..- ~I~~ii~ .~ ::E .....g ...:.,.:.,.:.....,.:... "':NNNNN .................. U < ......... ... .....,.....,... " II: I- ......,.....,.,......,...,.,..,............'.". 1ii . ... ..... ..... ..... 8 c 0 II: g. a.. 0 I- 0000000 0000000 0000000 ~ z W ... ::E ;: W , > , , , 0 0 , , , , I , I II: 1: a.. Ol ~ tIl ~ Z II: 0 II: g < < '8i w .,; '" c c ~ C \~ a: .,; 0 c 0 < c 7ij ... a.. III .2 ;;; il: '" 1ii z .\::E 0 Cl. '" o<l < I- ;;; 0 z Ol I!' >>~ (.) 8 <;; , c ~od ~ " 0 II: '" ...J en '" '" < Z '5 ;;; c z a~ 0 '5 W '6> 0 I II: al c a B:~ al E W en E ~ ~ W l- x 0 W II: ~a: z u: 0 .,; en '" w , . '" a.. '" ~M ., W I :=; '" '" ... ~ '" N W " " a.. < '" > 2: 2: - W :I: '" u; 0 a.. ~ >t 0 '" '" '" CIl c ~ t;: .W a: ... < a a. Vi .;;; ~ W :=; e: c '" CIl II: ... ... O. II: - ~ ~ " ...J a.. W it < (.) al al al b :> '0 '0 l- e: e: " a: ... ... " w Cl. Cl. al en ill ill II: ~ oJ ..; 51 -- --- --- ---- n_______ ___n____ ------ - _n_ _______ ___________n_._ . , '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" .N.... 8 BI~ iB "'l ~ .... .. .. t; .:X,:'U. ::; ilii lQ 0 0 co lQ 0 lQ '" 8 '" l:l .... '" t> ~ 0 0 8 .... ~ '" 0 "'l '" ..... :g :g ~ '" co co "1- w ...........ij ~ ~ oJ' ~ ::i ~ ..; ::i ::i ..; ;; i a .. .. .. .. .. .. 'e"~ u a: ,:~ :E :5':....: lL ~ X ~ ';: ;:;.:.;.; '"'0 &:1'" &:1.... ~~ ~~ ~'" ~o ~'" ~o ul~ > I~ '"lQ ~ '" <Il il.. ~ N -' CD - .... - <p"'" - C':l ~ .;;: w ~ ..- "': '" '" .... ...J .. .. D:~a.~ '":: 11:': a;c? .: N c 0 ~ '" .. .. .. 'iii t;!9 .. .. z :;; 0 8......... ~ ~ ~@ 0 Ii: ~ 0 ~m ftj lL 0 <Il ~. t:. z g l- I!:? 0 lQ '" '" 0 lQ 8 0 co '" '" '" co '" c ::i:::{ ':i ~ .... '" 0 0 '" ... co '" ! .2 I "t CD "t :g 0 :g 0 0 '" ~ '" CD :ii ;; .. .. ;; ,,; ..; cO cO ,.: ..; .. 13 ~ ii.~ .. .. .. ;; .. ;; .. .. .. :> .. Tii 8 c 0 a: 8 lL t) ~ t) t) t) t) t) t) t) t) t) t) t) 0 0 0 s w w w w w a: w w w w w w w w w w .. :ii ~ w > I I I , I I I I , '" 0 '" ~ 0 (5 0 I I I , I , I I I .,; ..; ... '" '" I a: I I I I I I I I , E lL co ;;!1 !5. z II: 0 e; ~ ~ Cl i'5 c. c Ii: c: .s c .\<Il a: c 0 \15 .2 ~ .. lL < ftj ~ 0:: <Il aI ~ us :> ... Z ...::li g u g \~ r= ftj ~ :;; co .. ~ 1ii .r= c to (,) II: c: LL ,0 ~ ...J C us :;; .2 ftj in CI> < w...e Ul ftj c: :; c: c: ftj c C !l... C c 0 ftj 0 E c CI> C. z a~ z c a: E .2 ftj us ,.:. CI> CI> .: E 0 E ftj ~ E E CI> c I :;; E ftj us ftj CI> i'i c w iB f!i: ~ us c: ~ co ~ l!! ~ :; 0 us 0 a: U e !!l .!i1i w t) .. a: i~ ftj E ftj ftj :;; LL CI> c CI> ... ~ ,ftj ~ en (,) a: E " a: c.~ CI> ~ '" a: us :; ftj E E u w '" W III :;; .. ~ E CI> c 0 .0 CI> E c .. - >- CI> ~ <Il , ~...l!l a .2 :; ~ III :;; ftj :; E ...J ~ "., .. ,;. < '" E um i'i G '" ftj -;:: :; a: E CD u :r '" a: E CI> .. E 0 :;; 0 ll! c a... .. <l. ~ t> 65 E in 8 :;; E t) I- ~ 1-.2 ~ D- E I E"., ,;. t 0 c :; 0 :;; c us II: c ill .;, W ...J I t) .. .. 0 t) - u co l;l ~ ~ ~ :> 0 E C .2 ~ ~- c .. c c < ~ 0 >- c 0 13 " 0 ~ :ii. 0= 'Bi I- '5 II: :g CI> .. " E .. c " >-.. e III > .. 0 c. t) c '" -;:: ,,"" .. us i[ ftj :> .. :> '" c_ .. :c ~ < 0 t) ~ ".0 8 m e c -, 8 _ u lL III < > ~ II: 0 0 0" t) :> :> .. 0 III C .. "., co " 0 .. 0 co (,) .. .. ~ c 0 .. 0- '5 c ftj C CD LL 0 ftj - .. .." :;- ...J ~ .. 'c III E I- .. CI> a i5 ~ ..- i'iij .. 0 <l. > ~.o u C < ~ u c ll! C c c - :> :> III 0 15 c '0 :i " .. 0 ftj .. ~ 0 'Ow .. 0 .. a: 0 <Il W lL 6 <Il 0 LL <Il we <Il.E ...J lL ...J d .: '" ..; ... .,; <D ,..; cD cD c:i .: '" ..; ... z - ~ ~ ~ ~ 52 --- , " ~ - a; a; <D ... ... co '" '" a; ... ... III CD III III '" '" '" '" Cl> Cl> '" Cl> Cl> .. '" :~ ;;; ... co ~ .,; '" t; .,',.,.... ::::; '" co 0 0 '" Cl> 0 0 0 8 8 8 t "'.""!ii co 0 0 N 0 0 co !\l 8 '" CD ;; ... CD 0 ~ ;; N '" ~ W ..,.' ~ '" ..; ..; 0 ~ ~ '~ ~ 0 ~ g i g .. .. N '" '" ;; ~ $'2 '" .. .. '0 ~,~ :E 0.. '" X ~ ~ .... i~ IlIO~co~Oi'" ~O ~~ ~~ ~O > UJ t-S -~ -~:sz;D -8 ~8 iif w a a a'l:l. ~<5 ~<5 c:: -' ~ ~q;;~ro ~;;~12 .2 ~ N ~ t;lii 0:'" '" '" i! z " 8. ~ '" 0 Q: ~ t:J 0 wffi C- O ~~ .. 0.. ~ tJ) Z ~ t- '" 0 0 0 0 0 '" Cl> 8 0 0 8 0 0 {f t- CO 0 ... '" CO Cl> 0 0 ., 0 !\l 8 0 I .;;;J CO ~ 0 CO Cl> .. 0 ~ ~ '" 0 '" ~ .2 ::li g .. .. ,.; N "" .,; <5 ;; .. N <5 on <5 ;;; ..; u < .. ;; .. '" ~ .. ~ .. ;; N ::> a: t- .. .. '" .. ~ 8 c:: 8 a: 0.. 0 t- O 0 0 0 0 0 > t- t- > > 0 0 t- O S z w w w w w w w w w w .. ::li :r w ~ ~ I Cl> ~ 0 I , I I I I I I '" 0 0 ci I -i -i o.i , , , I I I , I ..; I I I I I I I , I ;;; I a: E 0.. CO ~ E5. z ~ a: 0 "" ~ Cl ~ c:: t;: ."'0 c ~ c c:: 0 ffi '" OJ .. 0.. E -. c:: a:: tJ) :0 ~ oil z '::li .. :; 6' Cl ~ i",~ c ... ~ c {!. oS tL", '" '" lii E ~ ... E oil ,,:. -' '" CI) c '" < ~ 0. c:: OJ c:: Z W 1; 0 CI) :; 0 '0 .. i .. 0. az a ! /if 7i c:: c:: 0 " c ,,; .. 0 c fO u. E w iB E Co c:: " CI) > .. CiS 1;; CI) ~ ~.'~ - < c:: E ... 15 CI) ~ E Cl c:: .. ~ :;; , u TO w a: 0; ill 0. E c:: CI) c:: c:: ., :; 0 ~ .. c:: 1; iJj Cl> ]j 0 ,. ., '0 CI) I 0 'f! w Cl> z~ 0; u 0 ~ /if 0 g n; ~ c:: .5 0 a I 0 .. U :E 0 CI) F:" 0; tJ) ~<~ ,. c:: -' a: ,~ C c:: E < N U '" ~ CI) Cl I 8 :r Cl> u ,. CI) > E CI) n; ~ CI) - :r: Cl> .. Jl :;l CI) " 0 c:: u c:: c:: ~ Jl :>< 0.. ~ '" '0 c:: 0 0 ::li c:: - " :0 .. n; g .. 0; 0; " 0 (J ~ i5 c:: .. c:: CI) .. ti: w a; .. i!! ::> a: :::.~ CI) c:: c:: c:: .. a; CI) , ~ ~ i5 0 > CI) .. .. i!! C a: n; < a :>< (; CI) c '" ~ !B-2 0. 0. C g :0 C CI) ~ u. ~ a: ., c:: u. ~ C1)~ CI) III III - CiS IE ::> ~ n; ~ ... C 0.. ::> 0 0 (J .. > CI) :;; c ~ c ~ g c .. C ~ ;;::: > u. ::li ~ '" c:: ., '" Cl 0 ::> 0 ~ ::> ~ " c: c:: CI) .. 0 CI) lii CI) CI) CI) CI) 8 C> u 8 0 0; .. '0 " CD CIl ., - ., ., ., ., 2 0 0 .. .. n; .. ::> .. .. .. .. c:: c:: OJ iii J:> ., :E " -" c:: .. ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1ij ~ .. &l !!! .. E ~ E (J ~ (J (J 5 ., c:: c:: t: c:: CI) c:: :;; :; :; :; .. .. .. 8 ~ .. "0 0 ::> 0 ::> ?: 0 :5 0 :5 tJ) 0 CIl -' 0 0.. (J "- "- "- "- z 0 z 0 .; cO ,..: o:i ai ci ;;; o.i ..; ~ .; cO ,..: o:i ai z ~ - ~ - - N N N N N N N N 53 . , ., . . ,.",......."-",..,,,.,-.,,, ,.. '..-,....",.,...".,..........-.'---.... .,.....-.-.-....-....-,....,..........".. .,..:-...:'................-...-.._'..,.........-.................,......,............................ Ml 1il 1il <?i Ml <?i~lilill.~ ,..------ -....,.-.-.-.." ". ii ~ lilillla t5 :.\::;: u i:;:;;~:I::i:ii:i;i:i:ii:i:i:i:~;:J:I::::;:~:;:~:::;;::t,;:;;:::;:::::';* ::; .......... '"' g ~:5 :5:5 ~ .~....ib8'glg~..~ ... .. w _ _ _ _ _ . ..._..In....lll.......~............._ ~ jl ;> t 000 Ii 1Iii'! I < .. > ~ Ie ~~ f ~~. ~ I ~ 8s ~ F= "":",':::':'.: _ < tl~ 0 Ii: w:S ~ o ~w - ~ go ~ '" fw C ~ s~ ... ~ :)\. .:.:,::,,: 0 Q) 0 0 ('\I" "> "\'0:/ ..-:::: -".,:>-.'t:.. - ",' , ~ ........... C> ",:5 c> c> '" g.l!l."'~...~i.~ lQ lS I . '::,0,; :i ~ '"l "': r:. -r:. r:. Lq:>n::/~'t:::~'l>.-,<i...e:::/:::::::_~ -;;:; ::;. I-' ~ '" ~ ~ ~ '" fll....~"'2.111...! c.> < \::) :0 ~ ~ 4Il) .. .. "\-/\!!:r~);;tii$\"\F\W:. 2 8 :::::::::~ 4lt:.,.:::::::::::::::.,:,::.,,:,,::::)::;:::?;:::::::::::::::::::::::::..... ~ a: ~ ~ (.) ~ > ~ www w ~ W ~ ~ ~ > I C I I 0 o I CD I I I a: I I I _ 0....... '& ::; - - .. oc z ~ ~ ~ a: ~ ~ < 0 < m ~ Ii: ~..~ ~ ~ o :<~}: - B .!! ~..t; Iii.. ~ '" ..10 E _ '" ~ z ~ 0 _ ~< c: Z 0 ... ~.......~ .. 9.i ~ ~ i -' Ei:<. ~GS nlu CD < W:';-~ On Ew .E Z ~.:;e " - "" o 0)0 qj'E~ r.ia ~ a !E~'li!1;j8"2.. l\ia: ~ W:_::h. 0< en .s:: .g E 0.. Q. W a: b~-OllSo;;;.!!! ..-' u; 0) 0: ~um"3"3 u<t: W 0) z::: ~ C 0" en c: en ~ :S::'~i~~~8 i~ ~ a> 1=... I- > ;: t; ,., E (.) ~ ..... ,.,..0 - Ill' ~ ; -g Cii::! t\.w tP. ~ e 1< .E < <8 .. ~ '0 "" lS" a: ~ ':;:::>::a::S:a 0 ..!. c. = c: ..J C ..,-.:. '0 nI i2. .r:. nI nI < Q. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~en ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ li) :os ~ nI - 0 _ 0= -g .r:. ~ :2 ~ ~~ nI ~ ~ :: 0' = Ql - :) - 0... nIC- S ~ ::; (.) ~ a:o oz' ci _ N ~ M M CO') M 54 , '. " San Diego Auociation of Governments BOARD OF DIRECTORS September 27, 1991 AGENDA REPORT No,: R -60 DRAFT 1992-99 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP) Introduction State and federal regulations require that SANDAG adopt a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (Regional TIP, RTIP), The Regional TIP is a seven-year program of major freeway and expressway, arterial, transit, bikeway, and aviation projects. The 1992-99 Regional TIP will cover the period July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1999, and must be submitted to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and CALTRANS by December 1, 1991. Adoption of the RTIP is necessary to insure the continued receipt of state and federal transportation project funding. A key issue in the 1992-99 RTIP will be the development of a priority list of candidate transportation projf'.Cts eligible for up to $136 million of new state and federal transportation funds in FY98 anj FY99. The draft RTIP includes a list of candidate projects for these funds totalling about $432 million. The Draft 1992-99 Regional TIP project tables will be circulated for comment with a public hearing and action scheduled at the November 22, 1991 Board meeting. The CTC is scheduled to adopt the 1992 State TIP at its March, 1992 meeting. It is my RECOMMENDATION that the Draft 1992-99 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) project tables be accepted for distribution to all affected and interested organizations. Discussion The attached Tables I through 7 are the summary tables from the draft 1992-99 Regional TIP. The Regional TIP is based upon an estimate of funds reasonably expected to be available for transportation purposes over the next seven years. The seven-year transportation program (including the draft TransNet Program of Projects) totals approximately $5.6 billion, as shown in the following table: - - .' .' FY 1992-99 Percent of TranllPOrtation Mode Total Cost Total Prolm.Itl State Highway Program $1,921.0 million 34.0% Local Streets & Roads 534.9 9.5% Transit - Operating 1,235.0 21.9% Transit - Capital 1,893.2 33.5% Bicycle Program 42.5 0.7% Allport Program 23.6 0.4% TOTAL $5,650.2 million 100.0% Maior Hi2hway Proiects: The attached Table 1 is a summary of the major San Diego region federal, state, TransNet, and locally funded highway projects for the FY93-99 period. The table includes $278.7 million of previously approved projects from the ,1990 State TIP and CALTRANS' rehabilitation, safety, and traffic systems management programs. Table l' also includes $450.3 million of locally funded projects including the proposed SR125 San Diego Expressway and seven freeway interchange improvements. The table identifies the $228.3 million of non-TransNet state highway candidate projects that CALTRANS has submitted for state Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) program funding. Lastly, the table summarizes the $963.7 million TransNet lIighway program ,for FY93-99 that is further described in the Agenda Report RC-35. The combined state highway and TransNet highway program during the next seven , years totals about $1.58 billion. _)_...\'~~ :'. .C'; 'J:"":'. ~-'....:no..s C'~Z_...i:'rl~' (: ',)..__ ',-.". .. ":"",_ ,,- - - -. -.-- The final RTIP will include a priority listing of candidate projects submitted to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for new additional funding from the state Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) program, SANDAG may submit to the CTC a priority list of FCR candidate projects totalling $136.3 million for funding in FY98 and FY99. The FCR program is the major state transportation funding program for new projects increasing state highway capacity. Rail transit and major street projects are also eligible for FCR program funding, Attachment A is a listing of the new projects that have been submitted to SANDAG as candidates for FCR program funds. The candidate projects listed on Attachment A total $432.4 million. Staff will be working with CALTRANS, the two transit districts, and the TransNet Highway Subcommittee to prepare a recommended priority list of FCR candidate projects for consideration at the November 22nd Board meeting. Local Street & Road Proiects: The local street and road projects in the draft RTIP total $535 million. Included are $111 million of federally funded Combined Road Plan (CRP) projects as summarized on Table 2. Also included are TransNet funded local agency projects which are discussed separately under Agenda Report RC-35. Transit Proe-ram Proiects: Tables 3 and 4 summarize the fixed-route and community transitldia1- a-ride operating programs, Over the next seven years, public transit operators are projected to carry approximately 540 million revenue passengers with an operating cost of about $1.235 billion, lable 5 lists the major transit ~rojects in the draft RTIP which total appro~ 2 - - . .lDately $1.9 billion. Nearly $1.6 billion or 87% of the transit capital prcgram is for light rail , trolle and commuter rail improvements. The bus and van a uisitton ro totals $168 ,--million'or 9% and the transit center program $18 million or 1 %. Additional minor proJects to an additional $67 million. Tables 3 through 5 include the TransNet funded projects recom- m~ded by MTDB and NSDCTDB. The detailed listing of these nmiects is included in Agenda Report RC-35. ' -- The transit capital projects submitted by MTDB and NSDCTDB assume $519 million of federal and $569 million of state funding support during the FY93-99 period. The federal support is ~dent on the passage of the Surface T~sportation Act of 1991 and additional state funding is largely dependent on the passage of two remaining rail bond measures scheduled for 1992 and 1994. Bicycle and Airport Proiects: The proposed major bikeway and airport projects are summarized on~T.ables6 and? . The proposed bikeway projects list, prepared by the SANDAG Bicycle Facilities Committee, total $42.5 million over the next seven years. The bikeway projects will be ~~dates' for both Transportation Devdopment Act (1DA) and TransNet bikeway funds. In June-<>f each fiScal yw;theBOlird approves a fmallistofTDAand TransNet funded bikeway projeCts for the upcoming fiscal year.'''-- .. TabkTsuirimarizes 32 airport projects totalling $23.6 million located at eight publicly owned and operated general aviation airports. Table 7 also includes a request for state aviation funding support fur SANDAG to prepare and update Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUP) at five general aviation airports. _.. Air Ouality ProI!TllIll Conformity: Federal regulations require that the 1992-99 RTIP be found to conform to the current 1982 State IIIlplementation Plan (SIP) for air quality prior to its submittal to the federal transportation funding agencies. The conformity determination for any transportation plan'oi-program approved after November 15, 1991 must be made in accordance with new EPA/DOT federal conformity procedures. Those new conformity procedures have not been released; 'therefore, the Conformity analysis of the 1992-99 RTIP including a quantitative emissions analysis lias not been prepared. Staff will prepare the air quality analysis of the RTIP as soon as the new EPA/DOT conformity procedures are issued. Attachments 3 - ~ .. TABLE 3 DRAFT 1992-99 REGIONAL TIP -- FIXED-ROUTE PUBLIC TRANSIT SUMMARY CHULA VISTA TRANSIT (SCOOT) Revenue Miles (OOO's) 1,080 1,130 1,190 1,250 1,250 1,350 1,350 8,600 Revenue Pass, (OOO'S) 1.464 1,580 1,688 1,704 1,870 1,940 2,130 12,376 Operating Cost (SOOO'S) $3,062 $3,447 $3,865 $4,300 $4,550 $5,225 $5 ,400 $29,849 COUNTY TRANSIT SYSTEM (Express Bus, E. County Suburban, Poway Suburban, Rural Bus, & Spring Valley Dlal-A-RIde) Revenue Miles (OOO's) 2,866 2,933 3,044 3,099 3,243 3,461 4,043 22,689 Revenue Pass. (OOO's) 1,9n 2,059 2,162 2,271 2,373 2,474 2,597 15,913 Operating Cost (SOOO's) $7,395 $8,024 $8.508 $8,982 $9,538 $10,288 $11,094 $63,829 NATIONAL CITY TRANSIT Revenue Miles (OOO's) 423 423 423 423 423 423 434 2,972 Revenue Fass, (OOO's) 656 899 944 991 1,041 1,093 1,147 6,971 Operating Cost ($ooo's) $1,146 $1,192 $1,240 $1,289 $1,341 $1,394 $1,450 $9,052 NORTI-I COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (Bus) Revenue Miles (ooo's) 9,090 9,281 9,326 9,365 9,410 9,450 9,494 65.416 Revenue Pass, (ooo's) 10,665 11,235 11,684 12,152 12,638 13,143 13,669 85,186 Operating Cost ($ooo's) $27,800 $30,253 $32,400 $34,600 $37,000 $39,500 $42,500 $244,053 NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (Commuter Rail) Revenue Miles (ooo's) 0 41 123 123 123 123 123 658 Revenue Pass, (ooo's) 0 950 998 1,050 1,100 1,148 1,200 6,446 Operating Cost ($ooo's) $0 $3,615 $5,571 $5,728 $6,190 $6,627 $6,592 $34,323 SAN DIEGO TROLLEY (South, EI Cajon, Bayside, Old Town & Santee Lines) Revenue Miles (ooo's) 1,851 1,963 2,299 2,622 2,622 3,828 4,207 19,392 Revenue Pass, (ooo's) 12,930 15,388 16,175 18,690 19,661 24,900 27,915 135,659 Operating Cost (SOOO's) $21,578 $24,710 $28,247 $33,233 $35,440 $51,080 $59,254 $253,542 SAN DIEGO TRANSIT CORPORATION I MTDB CONTRACT OPERATIONS Revenue Miles (ooo's) 14.473 14,813 15,598 15,743 15,n3 16,003 16,053 108.456 Revenue Pass, (ooo's) 32,176 34,029 36,930 38,879 40,745 43,021 45,100 270,880 Operating Cost ($000' s) $63,871 $67,872 $73,736 $n,833 $81 ,no $86,380 $90,739 $542,201 ........ ........ ... < ....... i TOTAL FIXED-ROUTE PUBLIC TRANSIT .... Revenue Miles (OOO's) 29,783 30,584 32,003 32,625 32,844 34,638 35,704 228,183 Revenue Pass. (ooo's) 60,068 66,140 70,581 75,737 79.428 87,719 93,758 533,431 ..... Operating Cost ($OOO's) 124,852 139,113 153,567 165,965 175,829 200,494 217,029 $1,176,849 ..... ..... 4 ------------..- ---------------------...-- -- - - ---------- - TABLE 5 DRAFT 1992-99 REGIONAL TIP - TRANSIT CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY - SAN DIEGO REGION ~rBl~~m~< UGHT RAIL TROLLEY PROJECTS 1. MTDB Mid-Coast Une. Old Town Transit Center to Carmel Valley Road. FY93-99 $494.0 2. MTDB Mission Valley West Line. Oid Town Transit Center to Rancho Mission Road. FY93-97 $208.6 3. MTDB Mission Valley East Line. Rancho Mission Road to Grossmont Center. FY93-98 $278.7 4. MTDB Oid Town Une. Cedar Street to Old Town. FY93-95 $46.8 5. MTDB Santee Une. EI Cajon Transit Center to Santee Town Center. FY93-94 $63.9 6. Light Rail Vehicles For Service Expansion. FY94 $56.0 7. San Diego Trolley, Inc. Yard Expansion. FY 93, 96, & 97 $58.3 8. Existing LRT Station Improvements. FY93 $1.4 9. LRT Bridge Improvements. FY 93 &FY 94 $12.4 10. LRT Grade Separations. FY 93, 95, & 96 $38.2 11- LRT Track And Systems Improvements. FY93 $0.4 12. MTDB Miscellaneous LRT Capital Improvements. FY93-99 $56.0 Sub-Total Ught Rail Trolley Projects: .\\FY92 - 99 <<<$J;3) 4;7'" COMMUTER RAIL IMPROVEMENTS 1. NCTD Coastal Corridor Improvements. FY93-98 $157.9 2. NCTD North County Corridor Improvements. FY95&FY96 $59.9 3. NCTD Rail Vehicles. FY 93, 95, & 97 $74.8 4. NCTD Rail Right-Ot-Way. FY93 $28.4 5. NCTD Rail Project Development. FY93-95 $5.4 Sub-Total Commuter Rail Improvements: FY 92 - 99 . ...........$3263.. >:::;<:-:' . 7 ----..- - . TABLE 5 (Cont. ) DRAFT 1992-99 REGIONAL TIP - TRANSIT CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY - SAN DIEGO REGION ............~i.}...........i...}........ .W~~.I~ BUS AND VAN ACQUISITIONS 1. Chula Vista Transit (SCOOT) - (23) 35-loot Buses. FY95-98 $4.9 2. County Transit System East County Suburban Bus - (12) 40-100t buses. FY97&FY98 $4.7 3. County Transit System Rural Bus - (9) 20 to 24-passenger minibuses. FY 92, 93, 96, & 97 $0.6 4. National City Transit - (14) 40-loot Buses FY 94, 98, & 99 $3.5 5. NCTD Ufeline - (28) 16to 20-Passenger Mini-Buses. FY93-99 $2.3 6. NCTD - (89) 40-loot Buses. FY93-99 $30.2 7. MTDB (San Diego Transit & Contract Services) - (234) Standard Buses. FY93-99 $86.2 8. MTDB Bus Lease Payments (FY 92 Bus Purchase - 130 Buses). FY93-99 $35.1 Sub-Total Bus Acquisitions: >i"Y92 -99 . .................$167..7 TRANSIT CENTERS & MAINTENANCE FACILITIES 1. County Transit Center Program - 4 Projects. FY93-99 $11.3 2. Chula Vista Transit (SCOOT) - Maintenance Facility. FY94 $3.5 3. NCTD - Administration Building. FY94&FY95 $2.9 Sub-Total Transit Centers & Maintenance Facilities: >.>FY 92 - MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS 1. MTDB Miscellaneous Operations Capital Projects. FY92-99 $25.2 2. San Diego Trolley, Inc. Miscellaneous Operations Capital Projects. FY92- 99 $9.2 3. San Diego Transit Miscellaneous Operations Capital Projects. FY92-99 $9.2 4. Minor Programs & Projects Under $250,000. FY92-99 $23.2 Sub-Total Miscellaneous Projects: . FY92 -99 <.. .......$66.7 8 -- --- - .. TABLE 7 DRAFT 1992-99 REGIONAL TIP - AIRPORT PROJECT SUMMARY - SAN DIEGO REGION ......~~...~f-!I7~...i.. .i.iFlSCAL YEAR"....' ..1$f>lILUOHS)i.' 1. Agua CaHente Springs Airstrip. 1 project. FY95 SO.1 2. Borrego Valley Airport. 2 projects. FY94 SO.3 3. Brown Field. 8 projects. FY94-97 $15.2 4. Gillespie Field. 3 projects. FY93&FY94 $0.6 5. Jacumba Airport. 1 project. FY95 SO.7 6. Montgomery Field. 6 projects. FY93&FY94 $2.7 7. Oceanside Airport. 2 projects. FY93&FY94 $1.6 8. Ramona Airport. 4 projects. FY94&FY95 $2.3 9. SANDAG Airport Land Use Commission. 5 projects. FY94-98 SO.2 10 . .. Attachment A - - ~ ..- FLEXmLE CONGESTION RELIEF (FCR) PROGRAM CANDIDATE PROJECTS Draft 1992-99 Regional TIP - San Diego Region: Fiscal Future Cost . ~, Location & Description Year ($()()()' s) ***** . TRANSNET mGHWAY PROGRAM ($78,000,000) Var. State Fund Support to TransNet Highway Program FY98 S 27,000 based on adopted 1991 TransNet Plan of Finance. FY99 S 51,000 ***** CALTRANS PROJECTS ($228,320,000) 5/56 STAGE lB. 1-5 from N of 1-805 to 0.3 mi N of FY99 S 8,500 - ~ '. - .. ~ C Del Mar Heights Rd. Construct NB & SB High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. 5/805 STAGE 2A. 1-5 from 0.3 mi S to 1.1 mi N of FY99 R S 15,000 1-805 and 1-805 from 0.2 mi N of Mira Mesa Blvd FY99 C S 33,500 to 1-5. NB Auxiliary lane, direct connectors, __u. . .... - ----.. andgrading;- Private funds: -$4;600,000. _ __'0"__ __ _n___' 5/805 STAGE 2B. 1-5 from 0.7 mi N of Genesee Ave to FY99 S 36,500 -.-- -------------i}.5mi- N-uf-I -805-and I-805-from-o.9' mi- N of Mira --- . _.--- Mesa Blvd to 1-5. SB Direct connector & widen bridges. 5/56/805 STAGE 3. 1-5 from 0.1 mi N of Genesee Ave to FY99 S 31,320 0.9 mi N of Del Mar Heights Rd. Widen freeway, new Carmel Mountain Rd interchange, direct connectors. Private funds: $2,560,000. 1-5 0.3 mi N of Del Mar Heights Rd to N of Manchester FY99 S 22,700 Ave. Construct NB & SB HOV lanes. 1-15 0.5 mi S of North City Parkway (SR56) to Centre FY99 S 62,700 City Parkway. Construct NB & SB HOV lanes. SR76 Route 76 Oceanside Bypass from 1-5 to Foussat Rd. FY93 R S 9,200 Construct 4 lane expressway. 1990 Updated STIP FY98 C S 5,500 FUND SHORTFALL. FY93 M S 1,000 SRl63 STAGE 1. 0.2 mi N of SR274 (Balboa Ave) to 0.8 FY99 S 2,400 mi N of Clairemont Mesa Blvd. Widen to 8 lanes. 11 . ". \. -:' .' /, Attachment A (Continued) FLEXmLE CONGFSTION RELIEF (FCR) PROGRAM CANDIDATE PROJECTS Draft 1992-99 Regional TIP ~ San Diego Region Fiscal Future Cost R2lm: LoCation & Descnption . . .~._-.- - Year ($OOO's) **-*** TRANSIt'PROJECTS ($126;i27,OOO) .-" MTDB Mission Val1ey'l2st LRT Trolley. FY98 $ 81,360 (Total ProjecfCost: $287;200,(00). '. - .'- MTDB Mid-eoastLRt::rrolley. . FY98 $ 8,000 (Total Project Cost: $515,900,(00). FY99 $ 7,150 NCTDB Lomas Santa'Fe Dr Grade Separation.- :.., FY98 $ 29,617 (Total Project Cost: $41,140,(00). ***** GRAND TOTALFCR CANDIDATE PROJECTS: $ 432,447 _c ' " - NOTE: R - Right of Way C - Gonstruction M -'Mitigation . ' WOo -,.- :TC:--~ " '. -- 12