Preserving Paradise

50 %
50 %
Information about Preserving Paradise

Published on November 17, 2016

Author: TheMissionGroup

Source: slideshare.net

1. THE PARADISE PROJECT IMPLEMENTING “TEMPORARY PARADISE?” DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Preserving Paradise Alan S. Hoffman Lecturer in City Planning San Diego State University “Leadership Starts Here” THE CENTER FOR ADVANCED URBAN VISIONING

2. Preserving Paradise How a Better Connected San Diego Can Serve Residents, Reduce Traffic, and Save Taxpayers Money © 2016 by The Center for Advanced Urban Visioning 3802 Rosecrans Street, Suite 108 • San Diego, California 92110 (619) 232-1776 • urbanvisioning@outlook.com

3. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 iii Foreword This Discussion Paper is intended to stimulate a conversation among San Diegans about an opportunity we have to shape regional growth so that we solve problems, not make them worse. San Diegans are less concerned with growth per se than they are with the negative impacts of growth, such as increasing traffic congestion and traffic-related delays, parking shortages at popular destinations, higher housing costs, and an eroding quality of life. They are also concerned about the impacts of climate change and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. This paper argues that the single most important thing we as a region can do to ensure that the future is better than the present, not worse, is to create a truly effective transit system. That is our great opportunity. A truly effective transit system is one that would:  Attract significant numbers of riders from all income groups;  Be competitive with—or even faster than—driving;  Take people to most of the places they’re likely to go;  Make it easy to get to and from places with parking shortages;  Do so quickly, conveniently, and with minimal waiting; and  Attract a significant amount of new development in appropriate locations. Worldwide and across the US, many people want to live and work by such effective transit systems, ones that attract not thousands but many hundreds of thousands of trips that would otherwise jam our freeways, roads, and parking lots. Some people might scoff at the notion that public transit could be so transformative of a city and a region. They see transit as something used by others. Most people drive, after all. And nothing beats the convenience of a car, right? And yet, city after city has demonstrated the role that transit can potentially play in boosting economic development, enhancing quality of life, shifting development patterns, and promoting long-term sustainability. Transit systems that are well-located, time-competitive with driving, and that offer customers convenience and protection create tremendous value—many people want to live or work within easy access of such a system, attracting private-sector development around stations and shifting trips off of roadways. The more effective your system, the more your region will grow around it. If this hasn’t happened locally, it’s not because of something unique in the make-up of San Diegans; it’s that we haven’t yet created—nor will we be creating—a truly effective transit system. This paper explains why, and what we can do about it. Cities that recognize what effective transit can do use the opportunity to create public spaces and parks tied into the transit system so that new development has greenery and recreational opportunities that further enhance livability and value. They rebalance streets in urbanized zones to optimize the performance of all modes, be they bicycle, walking, transit, or automobile. And they

4. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 iv attract and retain young creative people, the entrepreneurs who create jobs and new economic activity, people who are looking to live in the kinds of places transit helps create and support. This paper argues that it is in the interests of our region to make the creation of a truly effective transit network—significantly faster, better located, more pervasive, more convenient, and more user-friendly—our number one infrastructure priority. The better the transit system, the more it can anchor and shape regional growth, minimizing impacts on freeways, streets, and parking resources. This paper shows how we as a region can accomplish this goal by getting smarter about aligning our plans with the things that San Diegans actually value, all while saving potentially billions of dollars, meeting ambitious climate change goals, and creating some amazing new amenities for residents and visitors alike. This paper is not a criticism of any organization or entity nor of the hard work of many planners and public officials in the region to devise policies, strategies, and projects aimed at preparing for the future and ameliorating the problems of the present. In some cases, officials and advocates may see an opportunity to make piecemeal improvements, but given the nature of competing demands on their time, are unable to consider how to create synergies or take a more systematic approach to ensure that an improvement in one aspect doesn’t preclude other desirable improvements. In other cases, planners have to work within political, institutional, or budgetary constraints that limit their ability to think outside the box. Private citizens are freed of these constraints, and may as a result suggest new or novel ways of solving our problems, and engage their fellow citizens in thoughtful dialogue about these solutions. It is my hope that this paper be viewed in that light. The overarching theme of this paper is that we need to and can significantly improve the return on our investments in transit infrastructure and operations. What if we can get more bang for our invested dollar? What if we can improve the return on our investment—measured in terms of ridership growth, amount of development within ¼ mile of transit stations, reduction in per passenger subsidy, and the value of the amenities transit can help create (public spaces, for example)—by 10%? 20%? What about 50%? At what point should our region’s elected leadership begin to insist that we get more for our dollars? At what point should our region’s elected leadership act? Your suggestions, reactions, questions, and feedback are welcome and taken seriously. Please email them to me at urbanvisioning@outlook.com. I’ll do my best to incorporate your thoughts into future discussion papers. This paper is the first in The Paradise Project discussion series. Future papers will describe how the right transit network creates opportunities for creating amazing urban amenities and places, as well as how we as a region can overcome current barriers to realizing the vision of a better future. Alan Hoffman Lecturer in City Planning School of Public Affairs San Diego State University “Leadership Starts Here”

5. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 v Acknowledgments Special thanks to Craig Jones of the Scripps Ranch/Miramar Ranch North Traffic Reduction Project, who spearheaded the search for a better solution to the transportation challenges facing his community, as well as to Carolyn Chase of San Diego Earth Media who worked tirelessly to help move this region toward a path that would lead to greater future prosperity and environmental stewardship. Special thanks as well to my colleagues in the School of Public Affairs at San Diego State University, without whose intelligence, feedback, and moral support this work would not have been possible. This work is dedicated to five individuals, all of whom understood why, given the realities of funding and project development, planning is less for the present and more for the future. Their concern for the region and understanding of the challenges of the future helped make this a better place for us today:  Kevin Lynch and Donald Appleyard, the authors of Temporary Paradise? A Look at the Special Landscape of the San Diego Region, among the most influential studies I know of that looked at a place and showed how to build on its strengths and shore up its weaknesses (as well as to the Marston Family that funded their work);  Former State Senator James Mills, whose vision of bringing rapid transit in San Diego literally changed American cities in ways that are still evolving;  Leon Williams, former chairman of the MTDB, whose gentleness of manner belied his overwhelming dedication and passion to improving the lives of all San Diegans; and  Michael Stepner, former City Architect for the City of San Diego and former dean of the New School of Architecture, who showed San Diego that it could create urban environments as compelling and desirable as its highly-prized suburban neighborhoods.

6. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 vi The Center for Advanced Urban Visioning is dedicated to helping neighborhoods, cities, and regions become more prosperous and inclusive through a better understanding of the long-range implications of transportation and development strategies. It builds on a community’s strengths, character, and diversity to devise plans and projects designed to maximize the return on that community’s investments in infrastructure. THE CENTER FOR ADVANCED URBAN VISIONING

7. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 vii Table of Contents Foreword .............................................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................v Table of Contents...................................................................................................................vii Table of Figures.......................................................................................................................x Executive Summary................................................................................................................ xv Preface.............................................................................................................................. xxiii A Note on Terminology........................................................................................................................xxiii Chapter 1 Introduction: The Challenges of the Future................................................................................1 Sidebar: What Are Market Forces? ....................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2 Goals for Transportation and Land Use Planning........................................................................ 5 Chapter 3 Understanding Our Current Plans for Transportation and Land Use Development ..........................7 The RTP Scenario: Transportation and Land Use................................................................................. 7 Accomplishments of Our Current Strategies ........................................................................................ 9 Shortcomings of Our Current Strategies............................................................................................. 10 Sidebar: Signal Priority......................................................................................................................... 10 Conclusions: Will Our Current Strategies Accomplish Our Goals?..................................................... 15 Chapter 4 A Better Strategy: Harnessing Market Forces and Matching Urban Form.................................... 17 Evolving a Better Rail System.............................................................................................................. 17 Sidebar: Building on Success… or Just Building?............................................................................... 18 Steps Toward Evolving a More Effective System................................................................................ 22 Sidebar: What Is a Quickway? ............................................................................................................. 24 Evolving a More Effective Land Use Strategy ..................................................................................... 29 Chapter 5 The Quickway Proposal: A Better Transit Plan .......................................................................... 30 Station Location ................................................................................................................................... 34 Station Design ...................................................................................................................................... 37 MetroXpress Network........................................................................................................................... 42 Rapid Infrastructure............................................................................................................................. 44 Integrated by Design............................................................................................................................ 48 Migration to Right Rail ......................................................................................................................... 50

8. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 viii Chapter 6 Comparative Results: RTP vs. the Quickway Proposal................................................................ 53 The Match to Urban Form.................................................................................................................... 53 Travel Time ........................................................................................................................................... 58 Frequency ............................................................................................................................................. 62 Shelter................................................................................................................................................... 63 Costs ..................................................................................................................................................... 63 Conclusions: A Better Match to San Diego and San Diegans............................................................ 63 Chapter 7 Evolving a Quickway Network ................................................................................................. 65 Stage One – The Mid-Coast Supportive Projects................................................................................ 65 The Uptown Quickway................................................................................................................... 65 The North Park SuperStation ....................................................................................................... 66 The Friars Road Projects............................................................................................................... 67 The Morena Quickway and Related Projects............................................................................... 69 The Point Loma Projects............................................................................................................... 70 Network Benefits........................................................................................................................... 71 Stage Two – Job Centers, Suburban Access, and Urban “Structural Corridors” .............................. 85 First Step in Detail: Uptown 2025....................................................................................................... 85 Chapter 8 Potential Objections to the Quickway Proposal ........................................................................ 92 1. “The Quickway proposal relies too much on buses and not enough on trains.”....................... 92 2. “We can’t afford all those buses.” ............................................................................................... 94 3. “We can’t afford to build all those tunnels, bridges, and rights-of-way.”................................... 94 4. “Developers want to build around rail.”....................................................................................... 96 5. “Southern Californians are too in love with their cars to ride transit.” ...................................... 96 6. “If we use buses we’ll dumb it down too much.” ........................................................................ 96 7. “We’re already committed to and building on an adopted plan; it would be politically too difficult to change horses mid-course.” ................................................................ 97 8. “What relevance do foreign cities have to San Diego?” ............................................................. 97 9. “Why not just operate express trolleys?”..................................................................................... 97 10. “Between automated vehicles and Uber, there will be no need for tunnels and Quickways and transit.”......................................................................................................... 99 11. “But doesn’t San Diego have the best light rail in the United States?”...................................101 12. “Doesn’t it cost less to move someone by Trolley than by bus?”.............................................101 Appendix A Is Transit Responsible for Downtown’s Residential Building Boom? .......................................... A-1 Appendix B Comparative Travel Time.......................................................................................................B-1 Appendix C Mid-Coast Supportive Projects Project Profiles.......................................................................C-1 Uptown Quickway ................................................................................................................................ C-1 North Park SuperStation..................................................................................................................... C-3 Friars Road Projects............................................................................................................................ C-4 Point Loma ........................................................................................................................................ C-5 Linda Vista/Morena Super Station..................................................................................................... C-6 Old Town ........................................................................................................................................ C-7

9. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 ix Morena Quickway................................................................................................................................ C-8 Pacific Beach Underpass.................................................................................................................... C-8 Appendix D Quickway Design Standards..................................................................................................D-1 Quickways............................................................................................................................................D-2 Stations ...............................................................................................................................................D-2 Routes ...............................................................................................................................................D-3 Appendix E Tourist Transit: The Fun’n’Sun Line ........................................................................................ E-1 Appendix F Integrated Plans: Sails to Trails............................................................................................. F-1 Appendix G Capital Cost Model..............................................................................................................G-1 Guideway Costs...................................................................................................................................G-1 Station Costs .......................................................................................................................................G-1 Contingency and LEA Costs ................................................................................................................G-2 Appendix H Quickway Proposal Draft Service Maps ..................................................................................H-1 Appendix I Quickway Proposal Infrastructure Maps..................................................................................I-1 Central San Diego ................................................................................................................................ I-2 South Bay ............................................................................................................................................. I-4 East County ......................................................................................................................................... I-7 North Central ........................................................................................................................................ I-8 North County....................................................................................................................................... I-11 The Sprinter and North County................................................................................................... I-13 I-15 North Corridor ............................................................................................................................. I-16 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................BIB-1

10. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 x Table of Figures, Charts, and Graphs 2.1 Casa Mira View.................................................................................................................................................................5 3.1 The 2050 Revenue Constrained Transit Network..........................................................................................................8 3.2 Rapid Bus Station, North Park ........................................................................................................................................9 3.3 Choice Riders on the Trolley..........................................................................................................................................11 3.4 Means of Travel to Work in San Diego for Workers 16 and Over ...............................................................................11 3.5 Household Income of Transit Riders, by Mode.............................................................................................................12 3.6 Transit Travel Time, RTP Compared to Current Transit................................................................................................13 3.7 RTP Transit Travel Time Relative to Uncongested Drive..............................................................................................14 4.1 Transit Concept for Curitiba, Brazil ...............................................................................................................................18 4.2 Seattle’s Downtown Transit Tunnel...............................................................................................................................20 4.3 San Diego vs. New York City..........................................................................................................................................21 4.4 Australian Quickway.......................................................................................................................................................23 4.5 Rubber-Tired Metro (Subway) in Montreal, Paris, and Mexico City. ............................................................................24 4.6 Phased Development of Regional Rail Using Quickways.............................................................................................25 4.7 Staging to Minimize Future Disruption .........................................................................................................................26 4.8 First Stage Uptown Quickway........................................................................................................................................27 4.9 North Park Superstation & Quickway Segment............................................................................................................28 5.1 North Park to Mesa College via Transit.........................................................................................................................30 5.2 I-15 Transit Station by University Avenue.....................................................................................................................31 5.3 Planned Station for Executive Drive..............................................................................................................................32 5.4 Waiting for Transit in the Rain.......................................................................................................................................33 5.5 Light Rail Station Locations in Mission Valley ..............................................................................................................35 5.6 Light Rail Stations and Major Office Buildings in Mission Valley.................................................................................35 5.7 Rapid Bus Station in North Park ...................................................................................................................................36 5.8 Rea Vaya BRT Station, Johannesburg...........................................................................................................................37 5.9 Interior of Rea Vaya BRT Station, Johannesburg..........................................................................................................38 5.10 BRT Stations around the World.....................................................................................................................................39 5.11 Brisbane Busway Station (Australia).............................................................................................................................40 5.12 Underground Quickway Station in Australia (Brisbane)...............................................................................................40 5.13 Modular BRT Station in Curitiba, Brazil.........................................................................................................................41 5.14 Enlarged BRT Station in Curitiba, Brazil........................................................................................................................41 5.15 Proposed Station Configuration and Operations..........................................................................................................42 5.16 How MetroXpress Routes Work.....................................................................................................................................43 5.17 MetroXpress Route Names............................................................................................................................................43 5.18 Schematic of MetroXpress Airport Routes (A & Z)........................................................................................................44 5.19 Quickway in Australia (Surface-Running)......................................................................................................................45 5.20 Quickway in Australia (Tunnel Segment) ......................................................................................................................46 5.21 Quickway in Australia (Elevated) ...................................................................................................................................47 5.22 T-Way in Australia (At-Grade Transitway) ......................................................................................................................47 5.23 Congestion in HOV Lanes ..............................................................................................................................................49 5.24 Quickway Proposal Draft Infrastructure Map.......................................................................................................... 50-51

11. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xi 6.1 SANDAG’s RTP 2050 Transit Network for Central Zone ..............................................................................................53 6.2 Actual Rapid Transit in the Central Zone in the 2050 RTP..........................................................................................54 6.3 Quickway Proposal Proposed Rapid Transit Infrastructure in the Central Zone.........................................................55 6.4 Automated Shuttle.........................................................................................................................................................55 6.5 RTP Vs Quickway Proposal Rapid Transit Stations in Central Zone ............................................................................56 6.6 Quickway Proposal Full Network for Central Zone .......................................................................................................57 6.7 Proposed Route Structure for Central Zone in the Quickway Proposal.......................................................................58 6.8 Projected Travel Time from Hillcrest Center.................................................................................................................59 6.9 Projected Transit Travel Times from the Center of North Park....................................................................................59 6.10 Projected Transit Travel Times from the Boulevard Station ........................................................................................60 6.11 Projected Transit Travel Times from Fashion Valley.....................................................................................................60 6.12 Projected Quickway Proposal Travel Times: South Bay ...............................................................................................61 6.13 Projected Quickway Proposal Travel Times: Central ....................................................................................................61 6.14 Projected Quickway Proposal Travel Times: North.......................................................................................................62 7.1 Transit Passenger Flows, 2005.....................................................................................................................................66 7.2 The North Park Superstation and Associated Rapid Bus Lines...................................................................................67 7.3 Friars/163 Flyover with Rapid Bus Routes...................................................................................................................68 7.4 Friars Road T-Way ..........................................................................................................................................................68 7.5 Morena Quickway and Related Projects.......................................................................................................................69 7.6 Point Loma Projects and Proposed Rapid Bus Lines...................................................................................................70 7.7 Mid-Coast Supportive Projects ......................................................................................................................................72 7.8 Transit Infrastructure and Rapid Bus Services in Central Zone ..................................................................................73 7.9 Mid-Coast Supportive Projects—Schematic View .........................................................................................................74 7.10 Mid-Coast Supportive Projects, with Rapid Bus Routes...............................................................................................75 7.11 Evolution of the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects ...........................................................................................................76 7.12 Travel Time Measuring Points.......................................................................................................................................77 7.13 Travel Time to UTC with the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects........................................................................................79 7.14 Travel Time from Fashion Valley with the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects ..................................................................80 7.15 Travel Time to Hillcrest with the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects.................................................................................81 7.16 Routes Serving Fashion Valley ......................................................................................................................................82 7.17 Routes Connecting to the Mid-Coast Light Rail............................................................................................................83 7.18 Routes Serving Hillcrest Center.....................................................................................................................................84 7.19 The Uptown Quickway....................................................................................................................................................86 7.20 Routes Using the Uptown Quickway..............................................................................................................................87 7.21 Traffic Tunnels in the Uptown 2025 Proposal..............................................................................................................87 7.22 Parking Rambla in Lancaster, California ......................................................................................................................88 7.23 Parking Rambla Proposed for 6th Ave between University & Robinson Avenues .......................................................88 7.24 Proposed Uptown Bikeway ............................................................................................................................................89 7.25 Washington Street Bikeway Concept ............................................................................................................................89 7.26 Concepts for a Washington Canyon Bikeway ...............................................................................................................90 7.27 Proposed “Rainbow Bridge” for Hillcrest ......................................................................................................................91 8.1 Proposed Transit Underground Segments....................................................................................................................95 8.2 First Generation “Trains on Tires”.................................................................................................................................98 8.3 Van Hool’s ExquiCity Vehicle .........................................................................................................................................98 8.4 Wright Streetcar (Las Vegas).........................................................................................................................................99 8.5 Mercedes CapaCity Vehicle ...........................................................................................................................................99

12. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xii 8.6 Automated Shuttles in Action..................................................................................................................................... 100 A.1 Boardings at Trolley Stations Downtown 2003-2013.................................................................................................A-1 B.1 Trip Pairs within the “Competitive Zone”.....................................................................................................................B-2 B.2 Travel Time from Hillcrest Center.................................................................................................................................B-3 B.3 Travel Time from North Park ........................................................................................................................................B-4 B.4 Travel Time from Boulevard Station.............................................................................................................................B-5 B.5 Travel Time from Fashion Valley ..................................................................................................................................B-6 C.1 Uptown Quickway..........................................................................................................................................................C-1 C.2 Hillcrest Tunnels............................................................................................................................................................C-2 C.3 North Park Projects.......................................................................................................................................................C-3 C.4 Friars Road T-Way and Fashion Valley Link.................................................................................................................C-4 C.5 Friars/163 Flyover ........................................................................................................................................................C-5 C.6 Point Loma Projects......................................................................................................................................................C-6 C.7 Linda Vista/Morena Superstation................................................................................................................................C-7 C.8 Old Town Superstation..................................................................................................................................................C-7 C.9 Morena Quickway..........................................................................................................................................................C-8 C.10 Pacific Beach Underpass..............................................................................................................................................C-9 D.1 Miramar College Transit Station...................................................................................................................................D-1 D.2 Woolloongabba Busway Station, Brisbane, Australia..................................................................................................D-1 E.1 Tourist Transit Stop in Kissimmee (Orlando)...............................................................................................................E-1 E.2 Tourist Transit Stop in Anaheim...................................................................................................................................E-1 E.3 Proposed Route of Fun’n’Sun Line ..............................................................................................................................E-2 E.4 Proposed Stops along Fun’n’Sun Line.........................................................................................................................E-3 F.1 Pearl District of Portland...............................................................................................................................................F-1 F.2 Trinary Road System of Curitiba’s “Structural Corridors” ...........................................................................................F-2 F.3 Arlington County, Virginia..............................................................................................................................................F-3 F.4 Density in Mid-City San Diego.......................................................................................................................................F-3 F.5 Arlington County, Virginia (Left), and Mid-City San Diego (Right)................................................................................F-4 F.6 Linear Park in Berlin .....................................................................................................................................................F-5 F.7 Linear Park in Copenhagen (Sønder Boulevard), Aerial View.....................................................................................F-5 F.8 Linear Park in Copenhagen (Sønder Boulevard), Street View ....................................................................................F-5 F.9 Projected Changes in Automotive Travel Time, Mid-City.............................................................................................F-6 G.1 Guideway Costs per Linear Foot...................................................................................................................................G-1 G.2 Station Costs.................................................................................................................................................................G-1 G.3 Additional Capital Costs................................................................................................................................................G-2 G.4 Sample Project Costs....................................................................................................................................................G-2 G.5 Fully Allocated Capital Costs per Mile..........................................................................................................................G-2 H.1 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: North County Coastal......................................................................................H-2 H.2 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: North County Inland ........................................................................................H-3 H.3 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: Mid-Coast.........................................................................................................H-4 H.4 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: Kearny Mesa....................................................................................................H-5 H.5 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: Beach Communities........................................................................................H-6 H.6 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: Downtown, Uptown, and Mission Valley.........................................................H-7 H.7 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: East County......................................................................................................H-8 H.8 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: South Bay Coastal...........................................................................................H-9 H.9 Quickway Proposal Draft Route Map: South Bay Inland.......................................................................................... H-10

13. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xiii H.10 Master Route Map ..................................................................................................................................................... H-11 I.1 Proposed Infrastructure Map—Central San Diego........................................................................................................ I-2 I.2 Projected Ridership........................................................................................................................................................ I-2 I.3 “Trackless Trolley” Streetcar in the UK.........................................................................................................................I-4 I.4 Proposed Infrastructure Map—South Bay..................................................................................................................... I-5 I.5 Downtown Chula Vista................................................................................................................................................... I-6 I.6 Proposed Infrastructure Map—East County..................................................................................................................I-7 I.7 Proposed Infrastructure Map—North Central ............................................................................................................... I-8 I.8 One-Seat-Ride Routes to Convoy SuperStation..........................................................................................................I-10 I-9 Proposed Infrastructure Map—North County..............................................................................................................I-12 I.10 Urban Grade Separations and Transit Infrastructure.................................................................................................I-13 I.11 Proposed Infrastructure Map—I-15 North Corridor.....................................................................................................I-15

14. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xiv This page intentionally left blank

15. THE CENTER FOR ADVANCED URBAN VISIONING Preserving Paradise How a Better Connected San Diego Can Serve Residents, Reduce Traffic, and Save Taxpayers Money Executive Summary DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xv The Challenges of the Future When it comes to dealing with the pressures of growth, San Diegans seem torn between those who believe that we need to focus on expanding freeways, and those who argue we need to prioritize transit projects and build multifamily by transit. Our regional plans seem to favor the second group, but what actually gets built looks more like the first. The truth is, both sides make valid points. But if we’re to preserve the quality of life for those who choose an auto-oriented suburban lifestyle, we have to build the right transit in the right place, so as to make the more urbanized parts of our community highly desirable in their own right, alleviate some of the intense pressure on our roadways and open spaces, and deal with the major challenges we face as a region, including:  Growth, taking into account the urban- oriented values of the Millennial generation;  Greenhouse Gas Emissions (including the City of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan);  Infrastructure, including water and sewer mains and park space;  Public Health, particularly the health benefits of walkable communities; and  Transportation, including parking and road congestion. Goals for Transportation and Land Use Planning If we want to minimize the problems and maximize the opportunities that come with regional growth, then we need to achieve a set of goals: 1. Modal Shift. Making it desirable for people to walk, bike, or use transit; 2. Environmental Justice. Making it easier and faster for low-income residents to get to jobs; 3. Housing. Better matching transit with areas of intensive housing demand; 4. Bicycling. Creating effective bicycle infrastructure built to global standards; 5. Infrastructure Renewal. Rebuilding our water and sewage lines; and 6. Parks and open spaces. Dealing with the shortage of parks in our most populous communities. This discussion paper outlines an approach to meeting these goals by a thoughtful and integrated strategy. Understanding Our Current Plans for Transportation and Land Use Development SANDAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) anticipates a massive expansion of our transit system, with several new light rail lines stretching across the region and many new “Rapid Bus” routes intersecting these lines. How to Grow Transit Ridership A recent study by the New York-based TransitCenter concluded that cities interested in expanding transit ridership need to focus on three things: 1. Concentrate development around transit corridors, and make the walk to transit safe, easy, and pleasant. 2. Concentrate transit improvements in walkable places with large numbers of residents and destinations. 3. Pay special attention to increasing frequency and reducing transit travel times. Source: transitcenter.org

16. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xvi While this expansion will certainly improve our transit system, the issue is whether the improvement is enough to produce the desired outcomes of modal shift and transit- oriented development (let alone meet climate change goals) on the necessary scale—or if the results are underwhelming. Our current transit strategies have a number of successes, including  Efficiency. A high farebox recovery rate (the share of expenses paid for by riders);  Ridership. Relatively high light rail ridership;  Recognition. A good global reputation; and  Popularity. Popular support. Our strategies also have real shortcomings:  Choice riders. The trolley does not attract appreciable numbers of middle-income or choice riders—those who otherwise could have driven (see graphic);  Transit-oriented development. The Trolley has attracted far less development than would be expected; and  Travel times. Even with the full RTP program, transit trips take too long. There is also a mismatch between current and planned transit infrastructure and many of our urbanized centers that remain unserved in the plan, contributing to traffic congestion and parking shortages. Seen in this light, the RTP transit plan faces real challenges: 1. Ineffective locations. Too many rail lines will be built in areas with limited ability to maximize development around transit; 2. Areas served. Too many existing walkable neighborhoods will not be effectively served by rapid transit; and 3. Travel time. Transit travel times and frequencies on core corridors will still be excessive, with too many transfers for too many people. A Better Strategy: Harnessing Market Forces and Matching Urban Form Instead of merely expanding our trolley network, it makes sense to stage our way to a more effective regional rail system. This was the approach undertaken by the famous transit-oriented city of Curitiba, Brazil: 1. Vision. They designed their “ideal” metro system, without concern (at first) for cost or feasibility, in order to define their goal and measure how close they come to it. 2. Commitment. They then located their stations. 3. Action. They rapidly implemented their ideal network, on the surface, using buses. 4. Design. They matched the attributes of a metro system (raised platforms, pay to Household income of transit riders (2009) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Below $15k $15k - <$25k $25k - <$50k $50k - <$75k $75k - <$100k $100k and Up Household Income Below $15k $15k – <$25k $25k – <$50k $50k – <$75k $75k – <$100k $100k and Up MTS Bus Trolley Commuter Rail Freeway Bus Source: SANDAG

17. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xvii enter the station, multiple doors on vehicles, dedicated rights of way, etc.). 5. Innovate. They innovated to solve problems and create new opportunities. 6. Upgrade. Only then did they begin looking at how to upgrade segments to rail. San Diego faces a unique set of challenges that point in the direction of a staging strategy: • Dispersion. We’re geographically dispersed; • Topography. We’re hilly; and • Space. We have limited right of way opportunities. What would a staging strategy look like for San Diego? Here’s what we need to do: 1. Locate access points (stations) where they should be. 2. Connect the stations as directly and quickly as possible. 3. Build “Quickway” infrastructure (grade- separated transitways, meaning that they avoid cross-traffic) in phases, to be used initially by rapid buses and/or “trackless trolleys.” 4. Upgrade Quickways to rail or some other form of guided, automated transit, once the pieces are connected. This phased approach has several advantages: • Immediacy. It creates a more effective network from the beginning; • Relief. It provides immediate relief from the effects of congestion and parking shortages at key destinations; • Location. It places stations in optimal locations where they’ll attract the greatest ridership and, in appropriate locations, market-driven new development; and • Fit. It matches San Diego as it is today, allowing it to better shape future growth. The Quickway Proposal: A Transit Plan Matched to San Diego Why has our current strategy of transit development not attracted the middle-income market? Market research tells us it’s because: 1. Network structure. Too many transit trips involve out-of-direction travel to and from stations that often are not well-located. 2. System performance. Trips by transit still take 2-4 times as long as driving, or worse. 3. Customer experience. Stations, even those yet to be built, leave people exposed to the elements as well as moving vehicles. These factors suggest a simple maxim by which to understand the challenge: On a cold, windy, rainy day, would you tell your mother to use the rapid transit system? The solution to attracting a broader market builds off the Quickway strategy: 1. Station location. Locate stations where they can do the most good, in the heart of destinations. “Quickway” in Australia

18. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xviii 2. Station design. Protect passengers from sun, wind, and the occasional rain, as well as from moving vehicles. 3. MetroXpress network. Implement a regional network of true express routes that leapfrog the region and crisscross at a set of “SuperStations,” so people can get quickly from most places to most places. 4. Rapid infrastructure. Focus infrastructure investments where they reduce transit travel times, making the system as fast as possible. 5. Integrated by design. Jointly plan bicycle, pedestrian, road, and parking improvements along with transit to attract appropriate development and be able to manage its impacts. 6. Migration to right rail. When the Quickways are all connected, migrate to an appropriate guided, automated technology, be it light rail, heavy rail, or other form of automated vehicles. Comparative Results: RTP vs. the Quickway Proposal The effectiveness of a transit strategy at generating ridership may be measured by looking at several factors. Just within the urban core alone: 1. Match to urban form. The Quickway Proposal places stations by most urban nodes, and increases the number of rapid transit stations from 10 in the RTP to 24, in addition to innovations such as “satellite entrances” that place many more people within a 5 minute walk of a station. 2. Travel time to key destinations. Transit travel times were calculated between four major nodes (Fashion Valley, Hillcrest, North Park, and the Boulevard station at I- 15 and El Cajon Boulevard) and other key points, including Old Town, Mesa College, Children’s Hospital, Horton Plaza, the City Heights Village, Normal Heights, SDSU, USD, and University Heights. On average, the Quickway Proposal reduced travel time by 2-3 times the savings of the RTP: Station Quickway RTP Fashion Valley -57% -23% Hillcrest -54% -16% North Park -50% -18% Boulevard -65% -34% On a regional level, for 54 likely trip pairs, the Quickway Proposal was found to reduce transit travel times by an average of 65%, essentially turning what today is a one hour transit trip into a 21 minute trip, attracting many new riders and reducing operating costs significantly. 3. Frequency of service. Given the design of the Quickway network, stations along principal corridors will see higher frequencies than by the RTP, meaning less wait time, and most trips will require fewer transfers, further reducing wait time. 4. Shelter, the degree to which stations meet full customer needs. By adopting a more customer-friendly station design, people will be better protected from the elements as well as from moving vehicles, improving safety, comfort, and convenience. A robust and tested capital cost model was used to estimate construction costs of the Quickway network. It found that the Quickway Proposal would cost significantly less than the RTP transit plan. In addition, three different operating cost models projected significantly lower operating subsidies. Overall, the Quickway Proposal accomplishes several important regional goals: 1. Speed. It makes transit a lot faster. 2. Experience. It offers users a better experience.

19. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xix 3. Location. It places stations where they can do the most good and attract the highest ridership. 4. Fit. It better matches to our urban form. 5. Subsidies. It systematically reduces operating costs. 6. Savings. It would be cheaper to build and make some road projects unnecessary within our current planning horizon of the year 2050. 7. Health. It supports more walkable neighborhoods and improves emergency response times. All told, these accomplishments show that the Quickway Proposal scores significantly better on the measures most important to San Diegans, as well as on measures related to Climate Change goals. It better preserves what people love about San Diego. Evolving a Quickway Network A Quickway network begins with disconnected pieces built where they will produce the greatest bang-for-the-buck. These pieces are then connected over time to form a complete system. The first “pieces” are suggested for zones that meet these conditions: 1. Trolley connections. They can feed and support existing transit (particularly the Trolley and Rapid Bus lines); 2. Desirable locations. They serve areas with intense market demand for new development; 3. Underserved. They are underserved by infrastructure in the current RTP plan; and 4. Latent demand. Market conditions suggest strong latent demand for improved transit. A three stage evolutionary process shows how a Quickway network may be implemented. Stage 1: The Mid-Coast Supportive Projects. The first set of projects is designed to support the Mid-Coast Light Rail Trolley line currently under development. It aims to reduce the time and improve the experience of those who might wish to use the new or existing Trolley lines from the central urbanized zone as well as the beach communities. These projects are expected, together, to cost about what the Mid-Coast line itself costs; they are expected to generate significant ridership and redevelopment activity, amplifying the value of the Trolley investment. The components of the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects are: The Uptown Quickway, a 2.4 mile long facility linking Hillcrest with Fashion Valley, featuring underground stations by the Uptown District, Hillcrest Center, and the Hillcrest hospitals; an elevated station over I-8 serving Hotel Circle (with 2,300 hotel rooms within a five-minute walk); a station on Camino del Rio South; and a new Rapid Bus facility at Fashion Valley. The North Park SuperStation, including a 2200’ long tunnel beneath University Avenue (about half the length of the Trolley tunnel by SDSU) and a shorter tunnel segment on 30th Street to support a future streetcar line. The Friars Road Projects, including the Friars/163 Flyover linking the Fashion Valley Station directly with the Friars Mission Center and Highway 163, and the Friars Road T-Way linking Fashion Valley with a new Linda Vista/Morena SuperStation. The Morena Quickway, including the new SuperStation and the Pacific Highway Connector. These projects serve the community-proposed Bay Park Boardwalk and link surrounding areas to the new Mid-Coast Light Rail line under development.

20. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xx The Pacific Beach Underpass, linking the Morena Quickway with Pacific Beach, avoiding a major traffic knot. The Point Loma Projects, including the Rosecrans Quickway and the Sports Arena T- Way, facilities that avoid the traffic congestion of this zone. These infrastructure projects, in turn, support 18 proposed Rapid Bus routes (which are expected to evolve into the MetroXpress network) that enjoy real travel time savings and improve the experience of transit for many new riders. So in addition to the 9 new rapid transit stations being developed as part of the Mid-Coast Light Rail, we add 18 new Quickway stations and over 100 Rapid Bus stations, along with 12 miles of dedicated right of way. Travel time calculations suggest that these projects can reduce travel time to UTC by an additional 10% over the light rail alone; for trips to or from Fashion Valley or Hillcrest, travel time reductions are about 45%, enough to produce significant new ridership gains on both Rapid Bus and Trolley. Stage 2: Job Centers, Suburban Access, and Urban “Structural Corridors.” Building on the Stage One projects, Stage Two involves building recommended infrastructure in major employment sites, in suburban feeder facilities, and in “structural corridors,” areas planned for intensive new development. Stage 3: Connecting Pieces. The third stage focuses on connecting the different pieces together to set the stage for migration to some form of automated, guided technology. Though the Quickway Proposal is focused on creating a world-class transit infrastructure, the best transit plans integrate seamlessly Hazard Ctr Mission VlyCtr Rio Vista FentonPkwy Qualcomm Stadium Rancho Mission Mesa College Boulevard ADAMS EL CAJON BLVD City Hts UNIVERSITY AVE FAIRMOUNTAVE 30thST Beech PSA City Hts Village Esteban Bahena CMNO DEL RIO SOUTH Howard Ave North Park Plazade Panama Laurel Childrens Park & Market 12th & Imperial Gaslamp Central Gaslamp/ Convention Ctr Convention Ctr East Seaport Village JusticeAmerica Plaza CivicCtr C St 5th Ave Horton Plaza Hillcrest Center Mercy UCSD Hillcrest Hotel Circle Fashion Valley Bay Park Boardwalk SportsArena EastDr Hancock CountyHealth Midway Loma Submarine Del Mar Ave ROSECRANS Sea World Belmont Park Washington St Middletown County Ctr / Little Italy Santa Fe Depot YMCA Las Cumbres Franciscan Ulric CLAIREMONTDR Crystal Pier GRAND AVE Morena / Linda Vista Old Town Tecolote Clairemont Drive PB Gateway LINDAVISTARD ULRICST LEGEND Trolley (Light Rail) Future “SuperStation” (Direct Express Stops) Bus Infrastructure (Quickway, T-Way, Bus Lanes) Freeway- Running Arterial Rapid Bus “Trolley or Bus Station/Stop Transfer Point Route Terminus TURQUOISE Mission Blvd City College Uptown District “Mid-Coast Supportive Projects” in blue, along with proposed Rapid Bus routes, CORRIDORS, stations (terminus and main line), and SuperStations.

21. DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xxi with supportive infrastructure (bicycling, roads, parking, and pedestrian) and new development. The Uptown Quickway, in addition to being the central element of the Mid-Coast Supportive Projects, is also the centerpiece of the Uptown 2025 Proposal, an integrated infrastructure plan developed in consultation with residents and stakeholders in the Uptown communities and endorsed as a strategy by the Hillcrest Town Council and the Bankers Hill Community Group. The Uptown 2025 Proposal demonstrates how an innovative approach to developing world- class bikeways, environmental restoration and landscaping of a damaged canyon, road tunnels to deal with traffic, new parking resources to support businesses, and the right set of transit projects can together help an urban community get on top of its problems and mitigate the effects of unsupported growth. It also creates permanent rapid transit in the core of Uptown, forever changing the role and functioning of transit in that community, and is designed to meet the City of San Diego’s Climate Change goals. The improvements suggested in the Uptown 2025 Proposal, including the transit infrastructure, may be expected to cost about ½ -¾% of the RTP, for a community that today houses about 1.3% of the region’s population. The issue is not whether we can afford to devote our resources to improving our communities, but whether we choose

Add a comment