Freeway Deficiency Plan Final Central Interstate 5 Corridor Study December 2003 Prepared for: San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Prepared by: 1615 Murray Canyon Road Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92108
Table of Contents Executive Summary... 1 E.1 Introduction... 1 E.2 Background and Purpose... 2 E.3 FDP Methodology and Standards... 3 E.4 Causes of Freeway Deficiencies... 4 E.5 FDP Freeway Improvements... 6 E.6 FDP Operational and Non-Highway Improvements... 11 E.7 Summary of Identified Improvements... 12 E.8 FDP Phasing Plan and Implementation Strategy... 12 1.0 Introduction and Setting... 21 1.1 Basis for Freeway Deficiency Plan... 21 1.2 Multi-Jurisdictional Participation... 25 1.3 Report Organization... 26 2.0 Deficiency Analysis... 26 2.1 Freeway Segment Level of Service Definition... 26 2.2 Significance Criteria... 28 2.3 Summary of Identified Deficiencies and Impacts... 29 2.4 Causes of Freeway Deficiencies... 43 3.0 Screening of Actions... 45 3.1 Summary of Improvement Alternatives from 2030 RTP... 46 3.2 Summary of Improvement Alternatives from I-5 Corridor Study... 48 4.0 Evaluation of Suitable Impacts... 58 4.1 Summary of 2030 RTP Improvements... 58 4.2 Summary of I-5 Corridor Study Improvements... 58 4.3 Summary of Other Improvements to Achieve Minimum LOS E... 59 4.4 Summary of FDP Operational and Non-Highway Improvements... 66 5.0 Action Plan... 67 iii
List of Figures Figure E.1 Freeway Deficiency Plan Identified Improvements.... 15 Figure 1.1 Study Area Map... 23 Figure 2.1 Existing I-5 Corridor Deficiencies AM Peak Hour... 35 Figure 2.2 Existing I-5 Corridor Deficiencies PM Peak Hour... 37 Figure 2.3 Future Year 2020 Conditions, I-5 Freeway Deficiencies AM Peak Hour... 39 Figure 2.4 Future Year 2020 Conditions, I-5 Freeway Deficiencies PM Peak Hour... 41 Figure 3.1 Freeway Enhancement Alternative... 51 v
List of Tables Table E.1 Summary of Existing and Future LOS Conditions... 4 Table E.2 Summary of Freeway Deficiency Plan Analysis by Segment Proposed Improvements From 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario... 8 Table E.3 Summary of Freeway Deficiency Plan Analysis by Segment Proposed Improvements From Central I-5 Corridor Study... 9 Table E.4 Summary of Freeway Deficiency Plan Analysis for Remaining LOS F Segments After 2030 RTP and Central I-5 Corridor Study Improvement... 10 Table E.5 Summary of Freeway Segment Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements... 17 Table E.6 Freeway Deficiency Plan Recommended Improvement Phasing Plan... 19 Table 2.1 Caltrans District 11 Freeway Segment Level of Service Definitions... 27 Table 2.2 Summary of Existing and Future LOS Conditions... 29 Table 2.3 Summary of Year 2002 Freeway Analyses (Non-Event) Ballpark and Ancillary Development Project Focused Study Area... 31 Table 2.4 Summary of Cumulative Buildout Conditions Freeway Analyses (Non-Event), Ballpark and Ancillary Development Project Focused Study Area... 32 Table 2.5 Summary of Expanded Analysis of CMP Impact on the Regional Freeway System, Near-Term (2002) and Cumulative Buildout Conditions (Non-Event), Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects... 33 Table 2.6 Regional and Central I-5 Corridor Population and Employment Projections... 43 Table 2.7 Centre City Growth Projections... 43 Table 2.8 Daily Person Trips Central I-5 Corridor... 44 Table 3.1 Central I-5 Corridor Study Summary of Recommended Plan... 53 Table 4.1 Summary of Freeway Segment Deficiencies and Recommended Improvements... 60 Table 4.2 Summary of Freeway Deficiency Plan Analysis by Segment Proposed Improvements Based Upon 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario... 62 vii
Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 5.1 Summary of Freeway Deficiency Plan Analysis by Segment Proposed Improvements Based Upon Central I-5 Corridor... 63 Summary of Freeway Deficiency Plan Analysis for Remaining LOS F Segments, After 2030 RTP and Central I-5 Corridor Study Improvement... 65 Freeway Deficiency Plan Recommended Improvement Phasing Plan... 68 viii
Central I-5 Corridor Study Freeway Deficiency Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E.1 Introduction The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects and Associated Plan Amendments, dated October 26, 1999, required the development of a Freeway Deficiency Plan (FDP). As described in this mitigation measure, this FDP shall be prepared for the freeway systems serving Centre City. Mitigation Measures 13.1-5 and 13.1-6 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects and Associated Plan Amendments require the following: 13.1-5 Caltrans, San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and the City of San Diego shall prepare a FDP which identifies both near-term and long-term capacity improvements and programs to improve the freeway system serving Centre City. Possible improvements may include: Enhanced alternate mode service and facilities (e.g., trolley, express bus, bicycle, and pedestrian); Enhanced Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce peak hour congestion, such as carpooling, vanpooling, parking restrictions, staggered work hours, and telecommuting; Increased carrying capacity on I-5, SR-94, and I-15; Improved/reconfigured freeway on-ramps and off-ramps; and Modifying peak hour flow rates at freeway ramp meters, in conjunction with increased mainline capacity, to maximize egress from surface streets connecting to freeway on-ramps. 13.1-6 Improvements and programs identified in the FDP shall be carried out in accordance with the implementation program included as part of the Plan. In addition to this mitigation requirement from the SEIR, this FDP satisfies another requirement imposed by the State of California Congestion Management Program (CMP). In the San Diego region, the CMP established LOS E as the standard for the freeways in the CMP roadway system, except for segments that were at LOS F in 1991 CMP base year. In those cases, LOS F would be the standard for those segments. For new segments added after the 1991 base year LOS was established, the standard shall be LOS E. The LOS is measured as the highest peak hour (AM or PM) in the heaviest travel direction. 1
In the CMP, a deficiency plan is required whenever a freeway segment on the CMP system fails to meet the CMP Level of Service (LOS) standard and is designated as a deficient segment after allowing for certain statutory exclusions. Further, roadway segments designated as deficient segments should be grouped into common sub-areas or corridors based upon the following criteria: The segments are contiguous or share a common CMP route The segments are grouped near intersecting CMP routes The segments are included in a previously defined study area. In conjunction with Caltrans and SANDAG, the City of San Diego identified the facilities to be included in this FDP. While the detailed deficiency analysis conducted in the Traffic Analysis for the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects considered both local roadways and freeway facilities, the portions of the analysis summarized in the FDP relate only to the major CMP freeway routes. The segments analyzed in conjunction with the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects and included within this FDP are I-5 between Sea World Drive and SR-54, SR-163 between Genesee Avenue and I-5, SR-94 between 17 th Street and Massachusetts Avenue, and I-15 between I-805 and SR-94. E.2 Background and Purpose As stated above, the primary factor which required the preparation of this FDP was the mitigation requirement from the SEIR for the San Diego Ballpark Project. The discussion below provides background on this project and describes the linkage between the Ballpark Project and the Central I-5 Corridor Study. The planned Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects are located in the East Village area of downtown San Diego. The proposed activities are to be located in an area roughly bounded by Sixth Avenue, Market Street, Interstate 5, and Commercial Avenue/Harbor Drive. The proposed construction consists of two basic components. The first, the Ballpark Project, is composed of a new ballpark and related retail, entertainment center, and parking facilities. The second component, the Ancillary Development Projects, consist of facilities around the Ballpark Project, including hotels, office, research and development, residential, and retail. For the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects traffic analysis, both non-event and event conditions were analyzed to determine resulting impacts. This FDP focuses on the non-event condition because event conditions would not occur on a regular daily basis, and the City of San Diego is developing a formal Event Traffic Management Plan (ETMP) to address the traffic generated by special events. To accomplish the SEIR mitigation requirement to prepare an FDP, SANDAG and the City of San Diego included the development of this plan as a scope element within the Work Program established for the Central I-5 Corridor Study. The Central I-5 Corridor Study was conducted under the direction of SANDAG and Caltrans, with participation by the Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC), the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), the San Diego Unified Port District, and the cities of San 2
Diego, National City, and Chula Vista. The primary issues that led to initiation of the Central I-5 Corridor Study were related to access and mobility and the desire to enhance the economic vitality of the Corridor and the region as a whole. The purpose of the study was to identify shortrange and long-range actions to reduce traffic congestion on freeways, interchanges, and arterials that provide regional access to Centre City and other corridor activity centers, including San Diego International Airport (Lindbergh Field), the San Diego Unified Port District marine terminals at 10 th Avenue in San Diego and Bay Marina Drive in National City, and the Old Town Transit Center. As a component of the Central I-5 Corridor Study work program, this FDP was prepared under the direction of Caltrans, the City of San Diego, and SANDAG. The FDP is based in large part on the analysis in the Central I-5 Corridor Study. A Policy Committee, composed of staff and elected officials from local agencies and jurisdictions, met at key points during the Central I-5 Corridor study process to provide direction and guidance. Meetings with technical staff from the agencies and jurisdictions were also convened at periodic points in the study process to review analysis findings at a more technical level of detail. As part of the review process, the cities of San Diego and National City must approve the contents and recommendations of the FDP. Ultimately, this FDP must be accepted by SANDAG, acting as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for the San Diego region. The SEIR has stipulated that the FDP be accepted prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit by the City of San Diego for any ballpark-related development. E.3 FDP Methodology and Standards For the purpose of this FDP, the Ballpark Project SEIR Large Project traffic analysis provided a general guide in determining the extent of the influence area and the resulting freeway facilities to be included in this FDP analysis. Table E.1 lists each individual deficient freeway segment included in the FDP study area. This table also identifies the jurisdictional location of each FDP study segment. Inclusion in the FDP as a deficient freeway segment is triggered by either of two conditions: a. The segment has an existing LOS deficiency - i.e., LOS F. SANDAG has identified any freeway segments that currently operate at LOS F, and these segments are shaded in the column titled Year 1999 CMP LOS. b. The segment has been identified in a Large Project Traffic Analysis (i.e., San Diego Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects and Associated Plan Amendments SEIR dated October 26, 1999) as experiencing a significant impact (future LOS F) due to the project. For the purposes of this FDP, this means that the traffic analysis for the Ballpark Project SEIR found the segment to be impacted by the project under either opening year (2002) or buildout non-event conditions. As shown in Table E.1, every freeway segment included in this FDP is projected to operate at LOS F in either the near term or buildout time frames. The table also indicates that a number of segments are triggered separately by each of the two criteria. 3
Table E.1 Summary of Existing and Future LOS Conditions Route Limits Jurisdiction Year 1999 Opening Year Non-Event Buildout Non-Event CMP LOS (1) Projected LOS (2) Projected LOS (2) I-5 Sea World Drive to I-8 City of San Diego E F F I-8 to Washington City of San Diego E F F Washington to Laurel City of San Diego E F F Laurel to SR-163 City of San Diego F F F SR-163 to SR-94 City of San Diego F E F SR-94 to Imperial City of San Diego F F F Imperial to Crosby City of San Diego F E F Crosby to 28 th Street City of San Diego E D F 28 th Street to I-15 City of San Diego F F F I-15 to 16 th Street City of San Diego/ National City F F F 16 th Street to SR-54 National City F F F SR-163 Genesee Avenue to Friars Road City of San Diego F F F SR-94 Friars Road to I-8 City of San Diego E F F I-8 to Washington City of San Diego F F F Washington to I-5 City of San Diego F F F 17 th Street to 28 th Street City of San Diego E F F 28 th Street to I-15 City of San Diego E F F I-15 to I-805 City of San Diego F F F I-805 to Euclid Avenue City of San Diego F F F Euclid Avenue to College Avenue City of San Diego/ Lemon Grove College Avenue to Massachusetts Avenue F F F Lemon Grove/La Mesa F F F I-15 I-805 to SR-94 City of San Diego C E F Notes: (1) (2) Source: URS, March 2003. Existing LOS conditions established by the SANDAG 1999 Congestion Management Program Update and based upon Year 1998 traffic data. Future LOS conditions derived from the Downtown San Diego Ballpark Traffic and Parking Studies, Project Traffic Study, Final Technical Report dated May 1999. E.4 Causes of Freeway Deficiencies As documented in the Central I-5 Corridor Study, existing and future year freeway deficiencies are a function of high levels of travel demand coupled with limited freeway capacity and outdated and/or substandard freeway geometrics. Corridor Travel Demands Travel demands are a result of population and employment growth both within the corridor and throughout the region. The following table displays existing year 2000 and forecast year 2020 population and employment projections for the study corridor and the region as a whole. 4
Regional and Central I-5 Corridor Population and Employment Projections Existing 2020 % Increase Over Existing Corridor Region Corridor Region Corridor Region Population 274,560 2,946,550 363,600 3,853,300 32.4% 30.8% Employment 236,510 1,171,000 266,070 1,485,400 12.5% 26.8% Source: SANDAG, Series 9, September 2001. As shown, population in the study corridor is projected to increase over existing levels by 32.4 percent by the year 2020. In addition, corridor employment is projected to increase 12.5 percent over existing levels by the year 2020. The following table displays the growth of office, retail, and housing within the Centre City, one of the primary focal points of growth in the Central I-5 Corridor. Centre City Growth Projections 2000 2020 Development Type Amount Amount % Increase Over Existing Office (square feet) 11.8 million 18.1 million 52.8% Retail (square feet) 4.4 million 4.7 million 6.8% Housing Units 6,600 28,600 333.3% Source: SANDAG, CCDC, September 2001. As shown, Centre City office space is projected to increase by 52.8 percent by the year 2020, with projected retail space in the Centre City increasing by 6.8 percent. The projected increase in Centre City housing units is very significant, from 6,600 units to 28,600 units by 2020, representing over a three-fold increase over the 20-year timeframe. This increase in Centre City housing units will be beneficial by reducing trip lengths and the number of work trips commuting from outside the corridor. The following table displays the projected number of person trips (work and non-work purposes) for the existing year 2000 and the forecast year 2020, along with the percentage growth over existing year 2000 levels. Purpose Daily Person Trips Central I-5 Corridor Existing 2000 2020 Daily Corridor Person Trips Daily Corridor Person Trips % Increase 2000-2020 Work 351,800 409,200 16.4% Non-Work 2,625,500 3,147,200 20.0% Total 2,977,300 3,556,400 19.5% Source: SANDAG, August 2001. 5
As shown, approximately 3.0 million trips currently take place in the corridor on a daily basis. By the year 2020, the number of trips will increase by 20 percent to 3.6 million. As expected, the vast majority of these trips have either an origin or destination within the corridor, with approximately 25 percent of the trips focused on the Centre City area. Less than 10 percent of the corridor s trips are through trips, or trips just passing through the corridor, between SR-54 and I-8. The I-5 freeway provides the primary regional access to the corridor s major activity centers, including Centre City, the airport, Old Town, and the marine terminals at Tenth Avenue and National City. The I-5 freeway also is a major connecting route to regional freeways, including SR-54, I-15, SR-94, SR-163, and I-8. Freeway Congestion In addition to the impacts associated with the population, employment, and development growth discussed above, congestion along the various freeway segments within the study area is generally a factor of the following: 1. Areas of capacity constraint wherein traffic flows exceed the carrying capacity of the freeway, as depicted by volume/capacity (v/c) relationships. The resulting high traffic densities restrict traffic flows, limit the ability to change lanes, and result in degraded travel speeds. Locations where capacity is reduced due to lane drops and termination of auxiliary lanes can be particular problems. 2. Merge and diverge conflicts at ramp junctions. At ramps, heavy volumes of merging vehicles entering the freeway traffic flows can create turbulence in the traffic flows. Approaching freeway vehicles must often shift lanes to the left to avoid this turbulence. Diverging vehicles at exit ramps also create turbulence, as exiting vehicles move right and through vehicles move left to avoid potential turbulence. 3. Deficient spacing between entry and exit ramps and corresponding poor weave section operations. The various weave merge and diverge movements cause turbulence which constrain traffic flow. Overall PM peak hour traffic flows on the I-5 freeway facility are constrained in the southbound direction generally between Pacific Highway in the north and SR-54 to the south. Major bottlenecks in the S curve through the downtown area occur due to merging and diverging traffic and heavy traffic flows to the South Bay. In a similar manner during the AM peak hour, northbound congestion occurs due to heavy traffic flows out of the South Bay and various conflicts with merging and weaving traffic. E.5 FDP Freeway Improvements Once the FDP deficient freeway segments were identified, it was necessary to identify a freeway improvement concept to mitigate the capacity deficiency of each segment. The improvement concept for the deficient freeway segments was derived from one of three sources: a. Improvements contained in the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario. b. Additional improvement projects recommended in the Central I-5 Corridor Study. 6
c. Other Improvements to Achieve Minimum LOS E. Unlike Reasonably Expected improvements, these long-term projects are not included in the 2030 RTP and are unfunded at the present time. The FDP also includes operational and non-highway improvements which are discussed in a following section. Table E.2 summarizes the deficiencies which would be addressed by improvements contained in the 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario. This table also repeats the columns contained in Table E.1, and adds four new columns under the heading, 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario. The first column under this heading, Description of Improvement, summarizes the improvement concept, if any, proposed in the RTP. The next column provides an estimated cost to implement the identified improvement. The next two columns show the resulting AM and PM peak hour LOS by direction for the year 2030 (the time horizon of the SANDAG RTP). For seven of the segments with proposed improvements, the 2030 AM and PM peak LOS is acceptable in both directions. Eight segments on I-5, however, would still experience a directional LOS F during at least one peak period. Four segments of SR-163 (for which no improvements are listed in this table) also operate at LOS F. Each of the 12 failing segments is shaded in the appropriate columns. To achieve LOS E or better, these 12 segments on both I-5 and SR-163 would require additional improvement actions beyond those included in the 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario. Table E.3 summarizes the LOS results based upon implementation of the Central I-5 Corridor Study recommended improvements between Sea World Drive and SR-54, in addition to the 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario (Table E.2). The exception is on Interstate 5 itself, where the RTP and the Central I-5 Corridor Study both recommend adding two lanes, but with different functions. The Central I-5 Corridor Study recommended two general purpose lanes, while the RTP recommends two HOV lanes. SANDAG will conduct further analysis of the feasibility and costs of HOVs in this particular corridor. In either case, the additional two lanes on I-5 shown in Table E.2 are not repeated in Table E.3. Table E.3 also shows the estimated cost of each improvement project. As shown, all freeway segment deficiencies except those on SR-163 would be mitigated by improvement projects in a combination of the 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario and the Central I-5 Corridor Study. Table E.4 addresses the additional long-term improvements on SR-163. This table contains the same information found in the corresponding columns of Table E.1, with identification of other improvements which would result in a long-term LOS of E or better. As shown, widening of SR-163 would be necessary to address the existing and projected deficiencies. It is important to note that earlier studies determined that no widening of SR-163 will occur through Balboa Park due to environmental constraints and community concerns, and there is no recommendation to widen SR-163 between I-5 and Genesee Avenue at this time. 7
Route Limits Jurisdiction I-5 Table E.2 Summary of Freeway Deficiency Plan Analysis by Segment Proposed Improvements From 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario Year 1999 CMP LOS (1) Opening Year Non-Event Buildout Non- Event Sea World Drive to I-8 City of San Diego E F F 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario (3) Projected LOS (2) Projected LOS (2) Description of Improvement Cost ($M) New east-north and south-west freeway connectors at I-8 Construct 2 HOV Lanes $200 Resulting Level of Service AM LOS NB/SB or EB/WB C/C PM LOS NB/SB or EB/WB D/D I-8 to Washington City of San Diego E F F Construct 2 HOV Lanes E/C E/D SR-163 Washington to Laurel City of San Diego E F F Construct 2 HOV Lanes E/C E/D Laurel to SR-163 City of San Diego F F F Construct 2 HOV Lanes E/C E/F SR-163 to SR-94 City of San Diego F E F Construct 2 HOV Lanes F/B D/E SR-94 to Imperial City of San Diego F F F Construct 2 HOV Lanes F/D E/F Imperial to Crosby City of San Diego F E F Construct 2 HOV Lanes F/D C/F Crosby to 28 th Street City of San Diego E D F Construct 2 HOV Lanes F/C C/E 28 th Street to I-15 City of San Diego F F F Construct 2 HOV Lanes F/B C/F I-15 to 16 th Street City of San Diego/National City F F F Construct 2 HOV Lanes F/B D/F 16 th Street to SR-54 National City F F F Construct 2 HOV Lanes Genesee Avenue to Friars Road City of San Diego F F F n/a UNK (4) F/B C/E E/F D/F Friars Road to I-8 City of San Diego E F F n/a A/D B/F I-8 to Washington City of San Diego F F F n/a D/E E/F Washington to I-5 City of San Diego F F F n/a F/F F/F SR-94 17 th Street to 28 th Street City of San Diego E F F Construct 2 HOV Lanes A/C D/B 28 th Street to I-15 City of San Diego E F F Construct 2 HOV Lanes A/C D/B I-15 to I-805 City of San Diego F F F Construct 2 HOV Lanes A/E C/C I-805 to Euclid Avenue City of San Diego F F F Construct 2 HOV Lanes $500 A/E E/C Euclid Avenue to City of San Diego/Lemon Grove F F F Construct 2 HOV Lanes College Avenue B/E D/C College Avenue to Lemon Grove/La Mesa F F F Construct 2 HOV Lanes Massachusetts Avenue B/D D/C I-15 I-805 to SR-94 City of San Diego C E F Construct 2 HOV Lanes $200 Construct new south-west and $150 east-north HOV connectors at B/B C/B SR 94 Source: SANDAG, March 2003. Notes: (1) Existing LOS conditions established by the SANDAG 1999 Congestion Management Program Update and based upon Year 1998 traffic data. (2) Future LOS conditions derived from the Downtown San Diego Ballpark Traffic and Parking Studies, Project Traffic Study, Final Technical Report dated May 1999. (3) Future recommended improvements and resulting LOS conditions derived from the 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario, Spring 2003. Gray shading highlights the segments that are anticipated to remain impacted after the implementation of the 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario. (4) UNK: Unknown at this time. Cost estimates for constructing the I-5 HOV lanes are not currently available.
Route Limits Jurisdiction I-5 Sea World Drive to I-8 City of San Diego I-8 to Washington City of San Diego Year 1999 CMP LOS (1) Table E.3 Summary of Freeway Deficiency Plan Analysis by Segment Proposed Improvements From Central I-5 Corridor Study Opening Year Non- Event Projected LOS (2) Buildout Non-Event Projected LOS (2) Central I-5Corridor Study Recommended Improvements (3) Resulting Year 2020 Level of Cost Service Description of Improvements $M AM LOS PM LOS NB/SB NB/SB Reconfigure Sea World Drive Interchange $5 E F F New SB-WB and EB-NB connectors at I-5/I-8, widen ramps at I-5/I-8 E F F $200 Reconfigure Old Town Ave and Washington St interchange $12 Old Towne Transit Center Access Improvements $30 Washington to Laurel City of San Diego E F F Airport Access Improvements $125 C/C D/D Laurel to SR-163 City of San Diego F F F Reconfigure First Ave/Hawthorne St interchange $10 D/C E/D SR-163 to SR-94 City of San Diego F E F Centre City Collector-Distributor System $177 E/B C/C B/C C/C C/C D/D SR-94 to Imperial Imperial to Crosby City of San Diego City of San Diego Centre City Collector-Distributor System $173 F F F D/B D/C Tenth Ave. Marine Terminal Access Improvements $160* F E F Tenth Ave. Marine Terminal Access Improvements $160* D/B D/C SR-163 Crosby to 28 th Street City of San Diego F D F Tenth Ave Marine Terminal Access Improvements $160* D/B D/C 28 th Street to I-15 City of San Diego E F F I-15 to 16 th Street City of San Diego/ National City F F F 16 th Street to SR-54 National City Genesee Avenue to Friars Road F F F New NB auxiliary lanes from SB-15 to National Ave and SB auxiliary lanes from 8 th St to Cleveland Ave New NB auxiliary lanes from 7 th /8 th Street to Division Street $30* Add 2 General Purpose Lanes (4) $60 New NB & SB auxiliary lanes between Bay Marina Drive and Harbor Drive City of San Diego F F F n/a $30* E/A B/E $30* Add 2 General Purpose Lanes (4) $70 Friars Road to I-8 City of San Diego E F F n/a A/D B/F I-8 to Washington City of San Diego F F F n/a D/E E/F Washington to I-5 City of San Diego F F F n/a F/F F/F Notes: (1) Existing LOS conditions established by the SANDAG 1999 Congestion Management Program Update and based upon Year 1998 traffic data. (2) Future LOS conditions derived from the Downtown San Diego Ballpark Traffic and Parking Studies, Project Traffic Study, Final Technical Report, dated May 1999. (3) Future recommended improvements and resulting LOS conditions derived from the Central I-5 Corridor Study, dated November 2002. (4) The Central I-5 Corridor Study recommends widening to accommodate two additional lanes on these segments, for a total of 12 lanes. * Costs provided are for entire corridor, not specific to the subject section. E/A E/A C/E B/D B/D D/F Source: URS, March 6, 2003.
Route Limits Jurisdiction Table E.4 Summary of Freeway Deficiency Plan Analysis for Remaining LOS F Segments After 2030 RTP and Central I-5 Corridor Study Improvement Opening Year Non-Event Buildout Non- Event Year 1999 CMP LOS (1) Projected LOS (2) Projected LOS (2) Description of Improvement Concept Improvements to Achieve Minimum LOS E (3) Resulting Ultimate Level of Service PM AM SR-163 I-5 to Washington City of San Diego F F F Widen to 6 lanes E or better E or better Washington to I-8 City of San Diego F F F Widen to 6 lanes (4) E or better E or better I-8 to Friars Road City of San Diego F F F Widen to 10 lanes E or better E or better Friars Road to City of San Diego F F F Genesee Avenue Widen to 10 lanes E or better E or better Source: URS, March 6, 2003. Notes: (1) Existing LOS conditions established by the SANDAG 1999 Congestion Management Program Update and based upon Year 1998 traffic data. (2) Future LOS conditions derived from the Downtown San Diego Ballpark Traffic and Parking Studies, Project Traffic Study, Final Technical Report dated May 1999. (3) Future concept improvements and resulting LOS conditions based upon requirements to achieve operating conditions of LOS E or better. No facility improvement cost estimate has been prepared nor is any widening planned. (4) Due to environmental and community concerns, the San Diego City Council removed any recommended improvements to SR-163 in the Ballpark Final SEIR.
E.6 FDP Operational and Non-Highway Improvements In addition to the highway capital improvements noted on Tables E.2 and E.3, the improvements derived from both the 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario and the Central I-5 Corridor Study also included a comprehensive set of freeway operational improvements, in addition to an expanded focus on alternative modes and travel demand management (TDM) strategies as follows: Mobility 2030 Regional Transit Vision (RTV) - The RTV, as a significant component of Mobility 2030, calls for a network of fast, flexible, reliable, and convenient transit services connecting the region s major employment and activity centers. The Mobility 2030 Plan includes an extensive network of managed/hov lanes on the highway system designed to accommodate transit services as well as carpools and vanpools. The plan also includes an emphasis on demand management strategies to reduce peak period travel and to change when and how people travel. New and/or improved transit routes as identified in the RTV within the FDP study area include: a. Increase in existing Coaster service b. Increase in existing and planned Blue Line Trolley service c. Mid-Coast from Old Town to Sorrento Mesa d. Old Town to Kearny Mesa via Mission Boulevard/Balboa Avenue e. Old Town to Kearny Mesa via Linda Vista f. Coronado and Centre City to Sorrento Mesa via Hillcrest/Genesee. Central I-5 Corridor Study In addition to improvements on I-5, the recommended plan includes a comprehensive set of corridor improvements incorporating a variety of multimodal options focused on improving access to key activity centers and enhancing mobility throughout the corridor, including: a. An extensive set of transit system improvements consistent with the Mobility 2030 RTV. b. Improvements to adjacent parallel arterials to facilitate more efficient utilization, including intersection enhancements and signal coordination. c. An extensive set of operational improvements including metering of freeway on-ramps, additional auxiliary lanes, and ramp interchange enhancements to improve freeway merge and diverge movements. d. Travel demand management (TDM) strategies, including implementing a Centre City TDM program for promotion of transit, rideshare, flextime, and telecommuting. 11
E.7 Summary of Identified Improvements The freeway projects identified to achieve acceptable levels of service are shown in Figure E-1. The legend indicates those projects that have been incorporated into the RTP and those that have not. Only those projects in the RTP are recommended at this time. Table E.5 summarizes the FDP triggers that apply to each freeway segment, identified longrange freeway capital improvements for each segment by source, and the year 2030 LOS that would result from implementation of the improvements, in addition to the operational and nonhighway improvements incorporated within both the Mobility 2030 and Central I-5 Corridor Study. Assuming that the improvements are technically and financially feasible, each identified deficient freeway segment would be improved to an acceptable LOS of E or better. Some of the non-rtp projects, including the Collector/Distributor Ramp System and the I-5/SR- 94 connector ramp, are listed in the plan because technical analysis identified them as means to alleviate congestion. Because of strong community objection based on potentially strong adverse impacts, neither the Collector/Distributor nor the I-5/SR-94 connector is recommended. The community also identified other potential options to relive Interstate 5, such as doubledecked construction, tunnels, vertical retaining walls, and a reverse clover leaf interchange with SR-94. All such alternatives should be considered in the future planning process, where they will be subjected to environmental review, available funding and community input. E.8 FDP Phasing Plan and Implementation Strategy Table E.6 provides an indication of the anticipated schedule for the phased implementation of the improvements recommended in the 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario. The table includes the planned HOV lanes and missing freeway to freeway connector ramps, with the timeframes shown based upon the Final RTP as adopted in March 2003. Details such as the phasing of the individual interchange and ramp proposals were not included in MOBILITY 2030. It is envisioned that future RTP updates will review the additionally recommended concepts from the Central I-5 Corridor Study and recommend projects for implementation based upon results of further environmental review, available funding, and input from the community. Funding and implementation of the recommended Deficiency Plan improvements will be a joint local and regional effort that will require the use of federal, state, regional, local, and private funding sources. Toward this end, National City and the City of San Diego will: Work with SANDAG through the RTP and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) processes to advance and fund the recommended Deficiency Plan improvement projects. To the extent possible and using local or private funds, consider Deficiency Plan recommendations when developing annual and multi-year capital improvement programs. 12
Advocate and, to the extent possible, fund Transportation Demand Management and Transportation System Management strategies to provide interim congestion relief until longer-term Deficiency Plan recommendations can be implemented. Work with SANDAG to identify new funding sources and advocate the allocation of these funds for Deficiency Plan improvements. Work with SANDAG to implement new congestion mitigation strategies resulting from the study currently underway to develop a Toolbox of mitigation strategies to address congestion within the San Diego region. 13
Figure E-1 15
Table E.5 Summary of Freeway Segment Deficiencies and Identified Improvements Route I-5 Limits Year 1999 CMP LOS (1) Opening Year Non- Event Projected Buildout Non-Event Identified 2030 Improvements LOS (2) Projected LOS (2) 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario Sea World Drive to I-8 E F F Construct two HOV lanes; new E-N and S-W freeway connectors at I-8 Central I-5 Corridor Study Reconfigure Sea World Dr interchange; new S-W and E-N connectors at I-5/I-8; widen ramps at I-5/I-8 Resulting Level of Service (based upon implementation of all improvements) AM (NB/SB PM (NB/SB or EB/WB) or EB/WB) B/C C/C I-8 to Washington E F F Construct HOV lanes Reconfigure Old Town Ave & C/C D/D Washington St interchange; Old Town transit center access improvements Washington to Laurel E F F Construct HOV lanes Airport access improvements C/C D/D Laurel to SR-163 F F F Construct HOV lanes Reconfigure First Ave/Hawthorne St interchange SR-163 to SR-94 F E F Construct HOV lanes Centre City Collector-Distributor System SR-94 to Imperial F F F Construct HOV lanes 10 th Ave Marine Terminal access improvements Imperial to Crosby F E F Construct HOV lanes 10 th Ave Marine Terminal access improvements Crosby to 28 th Street E D F Construct HOV lanes 10 th Ave & National City Marine Terminal access improvements 28 th Street to I-15 F F F Construct HOV lanes New NB auxiliary lanes from SR-15 to National Ave & SB aux. lanes from 8 th St to Cleveland Ave I-15 to 16 th Street F F F Construct HOV lanes Add 2 General Purpose lanes; new NB auxiliary lanes from 7 th /8 th St to Division St 16 th Street to SR-54 F F F Construct HOV lanes Add 2 General Purpose lanes; new NB & SB auxiliary lanes between Bay Marina Dr & Harbor Dr D/C E/B D/B D/B D/B E/A E/A E/A E/D C/C D/C D/C D/C B/E B/D B/D
Route SR-163 Limits Year 1999 CMP LOS (1) Table E.5 (continued) Summary of Freeway Segment Deficiencies and Identified Improvements Opening Year Non- Event Projected LOS (2) Buildout Non-Event Projected LOS (2) Genesee Ave to Friars Rd F F F Friars Road to I-8 E F F I-8 to Washington F F F Washington to I-5 F F F 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario Identified 2030 Improvements Central I-5 Corridor Study Resulting Level of Service (based upon implementation of all improvements) AM (NB/SB or EB/WB) PM (NB/SB or EB/WB) No identified improvements No identified improvements n/a n/a SR-94 17 th Street to 28 th Street E F F Construct HOV lanes 2030 Reasonably Expected Improvements 28 th Street to I-15 E F F Construct HOV lanes 2030 Reasonably Expected Improvements I-15 to I-805 F F F Construct HOV lanes 2030 Reasonably Expected Improvements I-805 to Euclid Avenue F F F Construct HOV lanes 2030 Reasonably Expected Improvements Euclid Ave to College F F F Construct HOV lanes 2030 Reasonably Expected Ave Improvements College Avenue to F F F Construct HOV lanes 2030 Reasonably Expected Massachusetts Avenue Improvements I-15 I-805 to SR-94 C E F Construct HOV lanes; construct new 2030 Reasonably Expected S-W & E-N HOV connectors at SR-94 Improvements Notes: (1) (2) Existing LOS conditions established by the SANDAG 1999 Congestion Management Program Update and based upon Year 1998 traffic data. Future LOS conditions derived from the Downtown San Diego Ballpark Traffic and Parking Studies, Project Traffic Study, Final Technical Report dated May 1999. A/C A/C A/E A/E B/E B/D B/B D/B D/B C/C E/C D/C D/C C/B Source: URS, March 6, 2003.
Table E.6 Freeway Deficiency Plan Recommended Improvement Phasing Plan Route Limits Recommended Implementation Recommended 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Timeframe (Year) (2) Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario Improvements (1) 2010-2014 2015-2020 2020-2030 I-5 Sea World Drive to I-8 Construct 2 HOV lanes X Construct new E-N and S-W freeway connectors at I-8 X I-8 to Washington Construct 2 HOV lanes X Washington to Laurel Construct 2 HOV lanes X Laurel to SR-163 Construct 2 HOV lanes X SR-163 to SR-94 Construct 2 HOV lanes X SR-94 to Imperial Construct 2 HOV lanes X Imperial to Crosby Construct 2 HOV lanes X SR-163 SR-94 Crosby to 28 th Street Construct 2 HOV lanes X 28 th Street to I-15 Construct 2 HOV lanes X I-15 to 16 th Street Construct 2 HOV lanes X 16 th Street to SR-54 Construct 2 HOV lanes X Genesee Ave to Friars Rd Friars Road to I-8 I-8 to Washington Washington to I-5 No improvements recommended (3) (3) (3) 17 th Street to 28 th Street Construct 2 HOV lanes X 28 th Street to I-15 Construct 2 HOV lanes X I-15 to I-805 Construct 2 HOV lanes X I-805 to Euclid Avenue Construct 2 HOV lanes X Euclid Ave to College Ave Construct 2 HOV lanes X College Avenue to Massachusetts Avenue Construct 2 HOV lanes X I-15 I-805 to SR-94 Construct 2 HOV lanes X Construct new S-W & E-N HOV connectors at SR-94 X Source: URS, March 6, 2003. Notes: (1) (2) (3) For other recommended improvements listed in Tables E.3 and E.5 and not included in the 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario, Section 6.0 of the Central I-5 Corridor Study Draft Final Report dated November 2002 contains details related to the Implementation Process and Phasing Concept. Recommended implementation timeframe derived from the Final 2030 RTP Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario, March 2003. No implementation timeframe for the improvements to SR-163 has been included and no widening is recommended.
1.0 Introduction and Setting Preparation of this Freeway Deficiency Plan was triggered as a requirement of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects and Associated Plan Amendments, dated October 26, 1999. The planned Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects are located in the East Village area of downtown San Diego. The proposed activities are to be located in an area roughly bounded by Sixth Avenue, Market Street, Interstate 5, and Commercial Avenue/Harbor Drive. The proposed construction consists of two basic components. The first, the Ballpark Project, is composed of a new ballpark and related retail, entertainment center, and parking facilities. The second component, the Ancillary Development Projects, consist of facilities around the Ballpark Project, including hotels, office, research and development, residential, and retail. For the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects traffic analysis, both non-event and event conditions were analyzed to determine resulting impacts. This FDP focuses on the non-event condition because event conditions would not occur on a regular daily basis, and the City of San Diego is developing a formal Event Transportation Management Plan (ETMP) to address the traffic generated by special events. 1.1 Basis for Freeway Deficiency Plan As described in the SEIR, Mitigation Measures 13.1-5 and 13.1-6 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects and Associated Plan Amendments require the following: 13.1-5 Caltrans, San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), and the City of San Diego shall prepare a FDP which identifies both near-term and long-term capacity improvements and programs to improve the freeway system serving Centre City. Possible improvements may include: Enhanced alternate mode service and facilities (e.g., trolley, express bus, bicycle, and pedestrian); Enhanced Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce peak hour congestion, such as carpooling, vanpooling, parking restrictions, staggered work hours, and telecommuting; Increased carrying capacity on I-5, SR-94, and I-15; Improved/reconfigured freeway on-ramps and off-ramps; and Modifying peak hour flow rates at freeway ramp meters, in conjunction with increased mainline capacity, to maximize egress from surface streets connecting to freeway on-ramps. 21
13.1-6 Improvements and programs identified in the FDP shall be carried out in accordance with the implementation program included as part of the Plan. In addition to this mitigation requirement from the SEIR, this FDP satisfies another requirement imposed by the State of California Congestion Management Program (CMP). In the San Diego region, all freeway facilities are included in the identified CMP network. The CMP established LOS E as the standard for freeways in the CMP roadway system, except for segments that were at LOS F in 1991 CMP base year. In those cases, LOS F would be the standard for those segments. For new segments added after the 1991 base year LOS was established, the standard shall be LOS E. The LOS is measured as the highest peak hour (AM or PM) in the heaviest travel direction. In the CMP, a deficiency plan is required whenever a freeway segment on the CMP system fails to meet the CMP Level of Service (LOS) standard and is designated as a deficient segment after allowing for certain statutory exclusions. Further, roadway segments designated as deficient segments should be grouped into common sub-areas or corridors based upon the following criteria: The segments are contiguous or share a common CMP route The segments are grouped near intersecting CMP routes The segments are included in a previously defined study area. In conjunction with Caltrans and SANDAG, the City of San Diego recommended the facilities to be included in this FDP. The detailed impact analysis conducted in the Traffic Analysis for the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects analyzed and recommended necessary mitigation for local roadways, CMP arterial routes, and freeway interchanges. The preparation of a separate FDP was necessary due to the complexity of the process required to analyze freeway operations and develop appropriate improvement strategies. Thus the analysis summarized in this FDP relates only to the major CMP freeway routes. The segments included within this FDP are I-5 between Sea World Drive and SR-54, SR-163 between Genesee Avenue and I-5, SR-94 between 17 th Street and Massachusetts Avenue, and I-15 between I-805 and SR-94. Figure 1.1 highlights the freeway corridors included in this FDP, along with key study area activity centers and adjacent community planning areas. 22
Midway Pacific Hwy. Uptown North Park Golden Hill Southeast San Diego Barrio Logan National City
To accomplish the SEIR mitigation requirement to prepare an FDP, SANDAG and the City of San Diego included the development of this plan as a scope element within the Work Program established for the Central I-5 Corridor Study. The Central I-5 Corridor Study was conducted under the direction of SANDAG and Caltrans, with participation by the Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC), the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB), the San Diego Unified Port District, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, and the cities of San Diego, National City and Chula Vista. The primary issues that led to initiation of the Central I-5 Corridor Study were related to access and mobility and the desire to enhance the economic vitality of the Corridor and the region as a whole. The purpose of this study was to identify shortrange and long-range actions to reduce traffic congestion on freeways, interchanges, and arterials that provide regional access to Centre City and other corridor activity centers, including San Diego International Airport (SDIA), the San Diego Unified Port District marine terminals at 10 th Avenue in San Diego and 24 th Street in National City, and the Old Town Transit Center. As a component of the Central I-5 Corridor Study work program, this FDP was prepared under the direction of Caltrans, the City of San Diego, and SANDAG. The FDP is based in large part upon the analysis in the Central I-15 Corridor Study. It should be noted that sections of SR-94 east of Euclid Avenue were identified as impacted in the Ballpark SEIR. While the Central I-5 Corridor Study did not address these freeway segments, the Mobility 2030 RTP does include new HOV lanes to improve the levels of service in these areas. In addition, SANDAG will prepare deficiency plans for many of the region s freeway corridors, including all of SR-94. The results of the Ballpark and Ancillary Projects impact analysis, as well as applicable results from the Central I-5 Corridor Study, are discussed in the following sections. 1.2 Multi-Jurisdictional Participation The FDP is based in large part upon the analysis in the Central I-15 Corridor Study and was prepared under the direction of SANDAG and Caltrans, with key participation by the cities of San Diego and National City. A Policy Committee, composed of staff and elected officials from local agencies and jurisdictions, met at key points during the Central I-5 Corridor Study process to provide direction and guidance. Meetings with technical staff from the agencies and jurisdictions also were convened at periodic points in the study process to review analysis findings at a more technical level of detail. As part of the FDP review process, the cities of San Diego and National City must approve the contents and recommendations of the plan. Ultimately, this FDP must be accepted by SANDAG, acting as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for the San Diego region. The SEIR has stipulated that the FDP be accepted by the SANDAG Board prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the Ballpark. 25
1.3 Report Organization Section 1, Introduction and Setting, describes the project and related study area. Section 2, Deficiency Analysis, provides a summary of the causes, sources, and magnitude of identified impacts. Section 3, Screening of Actions, discusses improvement alternatives to address the identified impacts and maintain minimum level of service requirements, including strategies to enhance multimodal travel and improve air quality in the study area. An estimate of costs for each action is also provided. Section 4, Evaluation of Suitable Impacts, assesses the effectiveness of the proposed actions to remedy the identified deficiencies and improve both level of service and air quality within the study area. Section 5, Action Plan, provides a detailed action plan and schedule for implementation of improvement alternatives discussed in Sections 3 and 4. 2.0 Deficiency Analysis 2.1 Freeway Segment Level of Service Definition The analysis of freeway segment Level of Service is based upon the procedure developed by Caltrans District 11, which incorporates methods described in the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual. The procedure for calculating freeway level of service involves the estimation of a peak hour volume to capacity (v/c) ratio. Peak hour volumes are estimated based upon the application of peak hour, directional, and truck factors to Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes. The resulting v/c ratio is then compared to accepted ranges of v/c ratio values corresponding to the various levels of service for each facility classification, as shown in Table 2.1. The corresponding level of service represents as an approximation of existing or anticipated future freeway operating conditions in the peak direction of travel during the peak hour. Level of service E or better is considered an acceptable threshold in determining impacts on the regional freeway system. 26
TABLE 2.1 Caltrans District 11 Freeway Segment Level of Service Definitions LOS V/C Congestion/Delay Traffic Description (Used for freeways, expressways, and conventional highways) A <0.41 None Free flow. B 0.42-0.62 None Free to stable flow, light to moderate volumes. C 0.63-0.80 None to minimal Stable flow, moderate volumes, freedom to maneuver noticeably restricted. D 0.81-0.92 Minimal to substantial Approaches unstable flow, heavy volumes, very limited freedom to maneuver. E 0.93-1.00 Significant Extremely unstable flow, maneuverability and psychological comfort extremely poor. (Used for conventional highways) F >1.00 Considerable Forced or breakdown flow. Delay measured in average travel speed (MPH). Signalized segments experience delay >60.0 seconds/vehicle. (Used for freeways and expressways) F(0) 1.01-1.25 Considerable 0-1 hour delay Forced flow, heavy congestion, long queues form behind breakdown points, stop and go. F(1) 1.26-1.35 Severe Very heavy congestion, very long queues. 1-2 hour delay F(2) 1.36-1.45 Very Severe Extremely heavy congestion, longer queues, more 2-3 hour delay F(3) >1.46 Extremely Severe 3+ hours of delay numerous breakdown points, longer stop periods. Gridlock. 27
2.2 Significance Criteria As previously discussed, this FDP is being prepared not only to address Ballpark and Ancillary Development Project impacts, but also to fulfill a requirement of the CMP. Therefore, a deficient freeway segment is included in the FDP because either: 1. The segment has been identified in a Large Project Traffic Analysis (i.e., San Diego Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects and Associated Plan Amendments SEIR dated October 26, 1999) as experiencing a significant impact due to the project. For the purposes of this FDP, this means that the traffic analysis for the Ballpark Project SEIR found the segment to be impacted by the project under either opening year (2002) or buildout non-event conditions; or 2. The segment has an existing LOS deficiency - i.e., LOS F. SANDAG has identified any freeway segments that currently operate at LOS F, and these segments are shaded in the column titled Year 1999 CMP LOS. A separate set of significance criteria was utilized for each condition, as follows. 1. To determine deficiencies related to the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects, two levels of analysis were conducted. The first analysis was on a focused study area consisting of I-5 between I-8 and 28 th Street, SR-163 between I-8 and I-5, and SR-94 between I-15 and 17 th Street. For this focused study area, deficiencies were based upon the City of San Diego s Traffic Impact Study Manual (TISM). For any freeway segment affected by the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects, the impact is considered significant under either near-term 2002 or buildout conditions if the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects would increase the v/c ratio by more than 0.02. A secondary analysis was conducted within an expanded study area of influence to ensure identification of all potential CMP impacts. Using information generated by the regional transportation model, SANDAG provided a supplemental listing of all freeway segments to which the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects contributed to more than 2,400 vehicles per day, as stipulated by the CMP criteria. Any such additional segments would be considered impacted by the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Project. This prompted expansion of the study area to include segments of I-5 between Sea World Drive and I-8, I-5 between 28 th Street and SR-54, SR-163 between Genesee Avenue and I-8, SR-94 between I-15 and Massachusetts Avenue, and I-15 between SR-94 and I-805. These additional segments were considered impacted if operating at LOS F with the addition of project traffic. 2. For the entire FDP study area, deficient segments were those that failed to meet the CMP Level of Service (LOS) standard of E, after allowing for certain statutory exclusions. 28
2.3 Summary of Identified Deficiencies and Impacts Table 2.2 lists each individual deficient freeway segment included in the FDP study area. This table also identifies the jurisdictional location of each FDP study segment. As shown in Table 2.2, every freeway segment included in this FDP is projected to operate at LOS F in either the near term or buildout time frames. The table also indicates that a number of segments are triggered separately by each of the two criteria. The following discussion details the criteria that triggered each impacted segment. TABLE 2.2 Summary of Existing and Future LOS Conditions Route Limits Jurisdiction Opening Year Buildout Non- Year 1999 Non-Event Event CMP LOS (1) Projected LOS (2) Projected LOS (2) I-5 Sea World Drive to I-8 City of San Diego E F F I-8 to Washington City of San Diego E F F Washington to Laurel City of San Diego E F F Laurel to SR-163 City of San Diego F F F SR-163 to SR-94 City of San Diego F E F SR-94 to Imperial City of San Diego F F F Imperial to Crosby City of San Diego F E F Crosby to 28 th Street City of San Diego E D F 28 th Street to I-15 City of San Diego F F F I-15 to 16 th Street City of San Diego/ National City F F F SR-163 SR-94 16 th Street to SR-54 National City F F F Genesee Avenue to Friars Road City of San Diego F F F Friars Road to I-8 City of San Diego E F F I-8 to Washington City of San Diego F F F Washington to I-5 City of San Diego F F F 17 th Street to 28 th Street City of San Diego E F F 28 th Street to I-15 City of San Diego E F F I-15 to I-805 City of San Diego F F F I-805 to Euclid Avenue City of San Diego F F F Euclid Avenue to College Avenue College Avenue to Massachusetts Avenue City of San Diego/ Lemon Grove Lemon Grove/ La Mesa F F F F F F I-15 I-805 to SR-94 City of San Diego C E F Notes: (1) (2) Source: URS, March 6, 2003. Existing LOS conditions established by the SANDAG 1999 Congestion Management Program Update and based upon Year 1998 traffic data. Future LOS conditions derived from the Downtown San Diego Ballpark Traffic and Parking Studies, Project Traffic Study, Final Technical Report dated May 1999. 29
Ballpark and Ancillary Development Project Segment Impacts For the focused study area, comparison of traffic conditions under both with and without Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects scenarios for both near-term and cumulative buildout conditions provided the basis for identification of both direct and cumulative impacts. As indicated in Table 2.3, the following freeway segments would operate at unacceptable Level of Service F under 2002 without Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects conditions: I-5 between I-8 and Washington Street; I-5 between Washington Street and Laurel Street; I-5 between Laurel Street and SR-163; I-5 between SR-94 and Imperial; SR-163 between I-8 and Washington Street; SR-163 between Washington Street and I-5; SR-94 between I-15 and 28 th Street; and SR-94 between 28 th Street and 17 th Street. 30
As indicated in Table 2.3, the addition of traffic generated by the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects would not result in any additional freeway segments degrading to Level of Service F in 2002. However, the following freeway segments would experience an increase in v/c ratio in excess of the 0.02 standard established by the City of San Diego and Caltrans: SR-163 between Washington Street and I-5; SR-94 between I-15 and 28 th Street; and SR-94 between 28 th Street and 17 th Street. Based upon the significance criteria, these segments would experience a significant direct impact as a result of implementation of the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects. Route Limits TABLE 2.3 Summary of Year 2002 Freeway Analyses (Non-Event) Ballpark and Ancillary Development Project Focused Study Area # Lanes by Direction 2002 Without Projects 2002 With Projects ADT V/C [LOS] ADT V/C [LOS] Significant Project Impact (1) Type of Impact (1) I-5 I-8 to Washington 5 190,800 1.08[F(0)] 192,900 1.09[F(0)] No N/A Washington to 5 198,000 1.08[F(0)] 206,600 1.10[F(0)] No N/A Laurel Laurel to SR-163 5 203,000 1.11[F(0)] 206,400 1.13[F(0)] No N/A SR-163 to SR-94 6 194,200 0.98[E] 195,900 0.99[E] No N/A SR-94 to Imperial 5 194,200 1.09[F(0)] 195,600 1.10[F(0)] No N/A Imperial to Crosby 5 181,200 0.95[E] 184,100 0.96[E] No N/A Crosby to 5 167,700 0.88[D] 169,800 0.89[D] No N/A 28 th Street SR-163 I-8 to Washington 4 178,800 1.36[F(2)] 181,300 1.38[F(2)] No N/A Washington to I-5 2 110,200 1.25[F(0)] 113,500 1.28[F(1)] Yes (2) Direct SR-94 I-15 to 28 th Street 4 139,600 1.02[F(0)] 148,100 1.08[F(0)] Yes (2) Direct Notes: 28 th Street to 17 th Street 4 127,100 1.16[F(0)] 136,100 1.25[F(0)] Yes (2) Direct Source: BRW, Inc., April 1999. N/A Not Applicable. (1) Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects Significance Criteria presented in Section 2.2. (2) Yes indicates that the addition of traffic generated by the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects would result in a significant direct impact related to the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects under the near-term 2002 timeframe. 31
As shown in Table 2.4, each of the analyzed freeway segments would operate at unacceptable Level of Service F in the cumulative buildout timeframe, both without and with the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects. The section of SR-94 between 28 th Street and 17 th Street would experience an increase in v/c ratio of 0.04 with the addition of trips related to the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects. This exceeds the threshold (0.02) established by the City of San Diego and Caltrans, and is categorized as a significant cumulative impact since it is not expected to occur until the cumulative buildout timeframe. No additional freeway segments would experience significant impacts in the cumulative buildout timeframe. Route TABLE 2.4 Summary of Cumulative Buildout Conditions Freeway Analyses (Non-Event) Ballpark and Ancillary Development Project Focused Study Area Limits # Lanes by Direction Buildout Without Projects ADT V/C [LOS] ADT Buildout With Projects V/C [LOS] Significant Project Impact (1) Type of Impact (1) I-5 I-8 to Washington 5 235,900 134[F(1)] 236,000 1.34[F(1)] No N/A Washington to 5 238,000 1.30[F(1)] 238,000 1.30[F(1)] No N/A Laurel Laurel to SR-163 5 248,000 1.36F[(2)] 248,000 1.36[F(2)] No N/A SR-163 to SR-94 6 227,200 1.15[F(0)] 228,200 1.15[F(0)] No N/A SR-94 to Imperial 5 227,100 1.28[F(1)] 228,500 1.29[F(1)] No N/A Imperial to Crosby 5 217,000 1.14[F(0)] 217,000 1.14[F(0)] No N/A Crosby to 5 202,100 1.06[F(0)] 203,300 1.06[F(0)] No N/A 28 th Street SR-163 I-8 to Washington 4 225,200 1.71[F(3)] 226,500 1.72[F(3)] No N/A Washington to I-5 2 152,000 1.72[F(3)] 153,900 1.74[F(3)] No N/A SR-94 I-15 to 28 th Street 4 183,800 1.35[F(1)] 187,200 1.37[F(2)] No N/A Notes: 28 th Street to 17 th Street 4 168,200 1.54[F(3)] 172,200 1.58[F(3)] Yes (2) Cumulative Source: BRW, Inc., April 1999. N/A Not Applicable. (1) Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects Significance Criteria presented in Section 2.2. (2) Yes indicates that the addition of traffic generated by the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects would result in a significant cumulative impact under the long-term, cumulative buildout conditions. 32
Table 2.5 indicates the additional freeway segments in the secondary study area that would exceed the CMP threshold, along with a summary of the significance and type of impact based upon significance criteria discussed in section 2.2. Route TABLE 2.5 Summary of Expanded Analysis of CMP Impact on the Regional Freeway System Near-Term (2002) and Cumulative Buildout Conditions (Non-Event) Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects Limits 2002 Project Traffic Exceeds CMP Criteria (1) Cumulative Project Traffic Exceeds CMP Criteria (1) Significant Project Impact (2) Type of Impact (2) I-5 I-8 to Sea World Drive Yes No Yes Direct 28 th Street to I-15 Yes No Yes Direct I-15 to 16 th Street Yes No Yes Direct 16 th Street to SR-54 Yes No Yes Direct SR-163 I-8 to Friars Road Yes No Yes Direct Friars Rd to Genesee Ave Yes No Yes Direct SR-94 I-15 to I-805 Yes Yes Yes Both I-805 to Euclid Ave Yes Yes Yes Both Euclid Ave to College Ave Yes Yes Yes Both College to Massachusetts Yes No Yes Direct I-15 I-805 to SR-94 Yes Yes Yes Both Notes: (1) (2) Direct Both Source: BRW, Inc., May 1999. Based upon SANDAG 1996-2000 Regional Transportation Plan. Daily project traffic exceeds CMP threshold of 2,400 two-way daily trips. Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects Significance Criteria presented in Section 2.2. Indicates that the addition of traffic generated by the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects would result in a significant direct impact under the 2002 conditions. Indicates that the addition of traffic generated by the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects would result in both a significant direct impact under the 2002 conditions and a significant cumulative impact under the cumulative buildout conditions. 33
Non-Event Conditions, Comparison of Identified Deficiencies The deficiencies identified for near-term 2002 and long-term cumulative buildout conditions are further supported by findings of the Central Interstate 5 Corridor Study. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 illustrate existing deficiencies (year 2000) identified by the Central I-5 Corridor Study for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. As illustrated in these figures, areas of existing peak hour moderate and severe congestion are comparable to those cited by the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects analysis of 2002 conditions. Year 2020 conditions also were analyzed in the Central I-5 Corridor Study. Figures 2.3 and 2.4 illustrate the findings of the deficiency analysis. These findings also are consistent with those of the analysis for the Ballpark and Ancillary Development Projects. 34
FIGURE 2-4 FUTURE YEAR 2020 CONDITIONS I-5 FREEWAY DEFICIENCIES PM PEAK HOUR
2.4 Causes of Freeway Deficiencies As documented in the Central I-5 Corridor Study, existing and future year freeway deficiencies are a function of high levels of travel demand coupled with limited freeway capacity and outdated and/or substandard freeway geometrics. Corridor Travel Demands Travel demands are a result of population and employment growth, both within the corridor and throughout the region. Table 2.6 displays existing year 2000 and forecast year 2020 population and employment projections for the study corridor and the region as a whole. Table 2.6 Regional and Central I-5 Corridor Population and Employment Projections Existing 2020 Corrido % Increase Over Existing Region Corridor Region r Corridor Region Population 274,560 2,946,550 363,600 3,853,300 32.4% 30.8% Employment 236,510 1,171,000 266,070 1,485,400 12.5% 26.8% Source: SANDAG, Series 9, September 2001. As shown, population in the study corridor is projected to increase over existing levels by 32.4 percent by the year 2020. In addition, corridor employment is projected to increase 12.5 percent over existing levels by the year 2020. Table 2.7 displays the growth of office, retail, and housing within the Centre City, one of the primary focal points of growth in the Central I-5 Corridor. Table 2.7 Centre City Growth Projections 2000 2020 Development Type Amount Amount % Increase Over Existing Office (square feet) 11.8 million 18.1 million 52.8% Retail (square feet) 4.4 million 4.7 million 6.8% Housing Units 6,600 28,600 333.3% Source: SANDAG, CCDC, September 2001. 43
As shown, Centre City office space is projected to increase by 52.8 percent by the year 2020, with projected retail space in the Centre City increasing by 6.8 percent. The projected increase in Centre City housing units is very significant, from 6,600 units to 28,600 units by 2020, representing over a three-fold increase over the 20-year timeframe. This increase in Centre City housing units will be beneficial by reducing trip lengths and the number of work trips commuting from outside the corridor. Table 2.8 displays the projected number of person trips (work and non-work purposes) for the existing year 2000 and the forecast year 2020, along with the percentage growth over existing year 2000 levels. Purpose Table 2.8 Daily Person Trips Central I-5 Corridor Existing 2000 2020 Daily Corridor Person Trips Daily Corridor Person Trips % Increase 2000-2020 Work 351,800 409,200 16.4% Non-Work 2,625,500 3,147,200 20.0% Total 2,977,300 3,556,400 19.5% Source: SANDAG, August 2001. As shown, approximately 3.0 million trips currently take place in the corridor on a daily basis. By the year 2020, the number of trips will increase by 20 percent to 3.6 million. As expected, the vast majority of these trips have either an origin or destination within the corridor, with approximately 25 percent of the trips focused on the Centre City area. Less than 10 percent of the corridor s trips are through trips or trips just passing through the corridor between SR-54 and I-8. The I-5 freeway provides the primary regional access to the corridor s major activity centers, including Centre City, the airport, Old Town, and the marine terminals at Tenth Avenue and National City. The I-5 freeway also is a major connecting route to regional freeways, including SR-54, I-15, SR-94, SR-163, and I-8. 44
Freeway Congestion In addition to the impacts associated with the population, employment, and development growth discussed above, congestion along the various freeway segments within the study area is generally a factor of the following: 1. Areas of capacity constraint wherein traffic flows exceed the carrying capacity of the freeway, as depicted by volume/capacity (v/c) relationships. The resulting high traffic densities restrict traffic flows, limit the ability to change lanes, and result in degraded travel speeds. Locations where capacity is reduced due to lane drops and termination of auxiliary lanes can be particular problems. 2. Merge and diverge conflicts at ramp junctions. At ramps, heavy volumes of merging vehicles entering the freeway traffic flows can create turbulence in the traffic flows. Approaching freeway vehicles must often shift lanes to the left to avoid this turbulence. Diverging vehicles at exit ramps also create turbulence, as exiting vehicles move right and through vehicles move left to avoid potential turbulence. 3. Deficient spacing between entry and exit ramps and corresponding poor weave section operations. The various weave merge and diverge movements cause turbulence, which constrain traffic flow. Overall PM peak hour traffic flows on the I-5 freeway facility are constrained in the southbound direction generally between Pacific Highway in the north and SR-54 to the south. Major bottlenecks in the S curve through the downtown area occur due to merging and diverging traffic and heavy traffic flows to the South Bay. In a similar manner during the AM peak hour, northbound congestion occurs due to heavy traffic flows out of the South Bay and various conflicts with merging and weaving traffic. 3.0 Screening of Actions Once the FDP deficient freeway segments were identified, it was necessary to identify a freeway improvement concept to mitigate the capacity and operational deficiencies of each segment. The improvement concept for the deficient freeway segments was derived from one of three sources: 1. Improvements contained in the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Reasonably Expected Revenue (MOBILITY) Scenario. 2. Additional improvement projects recommended in the Central I-5 Corridor Study. 3. Other Improvements to Achieve Minimum LOS E. Unlike Reasonably Expected improvements, these long-term projects are not included in the 2030 RTP and are unfunded at the present time. The FDP also includes operational and non-highway improvements which are discussed in a following section. 45
3.1 Summary of Improvement Alternatives from 2030 RTP The San Diego Association of Governments 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) was reviewed to identify improvement options for the deficiencies identified on I-5, I-15, SR-163, and SR-94. Various transportation network scenarios were evaluated in conjunction with the 2030 RTP. The first consisted of a Baseline Network that included only projects that are currently fully funded or have environmental clearance. None of these projects fall within the limits of the FDP study area. A second scenario, the $30 billion Revenue Constrained Network, also included the implementation of some of the planned Managed/HOV lanes and corridor widening projects. This plan includes the following revenue constrained improvement projects within the FDP study area: Facility Limits Existing Improvements I-15 SR-94 to 6F/8F 8F + 2HOV SR-163 I-15 At SR-94 n/a New south-to-west and eastto-north HOV connectors SR-94 I-5 to I-15 8F 8F + 2HOV I-5 SR-54 to I-8 8F Operational A third $42 billion Reasonably Expected Revenue (Mobility) scenario includes full implementation of the entire planned Managed/HOV Lane network. This network includes the following reasonably expected revenue improvement projects in the FDP study area: Facility Limits Existing Improvements I-5 SR-54 to I-8 8F 8F + 2HOV I-15 SR-94 to 6F/8F 8F + 2HOV SR-163 SR-94 I-5 to I-15 6F/8F 8F + 2HOV I-15 At SR-94 n/a New south-to-west and eastto-north HOV connectors I-5 At I-8 n/a New east-to-north and southto-west freeway connectors 46
Finally, a $66 billion Unconstrained Revenue scenario identifies the funding needed to fully implement all of the services, programs, and projects envisioned by 2030. This network includes the following improvement projects in the FDP study area: Facility Limits Existing Improvements I-5 SR-54 to I-15 8F 10F + 2HOV I-5 I-15 to I-8 8F 8F + 2HOV I-5 I-8 to I-805 8F 10F + 2HOV I-15 I-5 to SR-163 6F/8F 8F + 2HOV SR-94 I-5 to I-805 6F/8F 8F + 2HOV I-5 At SR-54 n/a New west-to-south, northeast, south-to-east, and westto-north HOV connectors I-5 At SR-94 n/a New west-to-south, northeast, south-to-east, and westto-north HOV connectors I-15 At I-805 n/a New north-to-north and south-to-south HOV connectors I-15 At SR-94 n/a New south-to-west and eastto-north HOV connectors I-5 At SR-94 n/a New north-to-east freeway connectors I-5 At I-8 n/a New east-to-north and southto-west freeway connectors Improvements included in the Reasonably Expected Revenue (Mobility) network scenario were carried forward for purposes of this FDP analysis, based upon direction from SANDAG. 47
3.2 Summary of Improvement Alternatives from I-5 Corridor Study The Central Interstate 5 Corridor Study evaluated a series of Corridor System Improvement concepts that would be applicable in alleviating the identified deficiencies, as discussed in Section 2.3. These improvement concepts consisted of both access and mobility components. The access component focused on ground access improvements to the San Diego International Airport (Lindbergh Field), the Old Town Transit Center, and the Port of San Diego marine terminals at 10 th Avenue and National City. The mobility component was comprised of a range of options including Transit/TSM/TDM alternatives, enhanced parallel arterials, and increased freeway capacity. The following provides a summary of the various improvement alternatives. A detailed discussion of each of the alternatives is provided in the Final Report for the Central Interstate 5 Corridor Study. Airport Ground Access Improvements Five improvement concept alternatives were included for analysis in the Central I-5 Corridor Study. These alternatives included new interchanges and/or ramps at (A) Laurel Street, (B) Pacific Highway viaduct, (C) Old Town/Barnett, (D) I-5/I-8 to Pacific Highway, and (E) North Pacific Highway. A detailed screening and evaluation process was conducted for each of the alternatives. As a result of this analysis, the following airport access improvement scheme was recommended for consideration: Provide new ramps from I-5 to Pacific Highway to improve access to the north side of the airport to/from the north; Provide on- and off-ramps to/from the south using the Pacific Highway viaducts to improve north side access to/from the south. Details of the analysis are provided in the Central Interstate 5 Corridor Study Final Report (June 2003), as well as the Airport Ground Access Study Final Report (July 2003). 10 th Avenue Marine Terminal Ground Access Improvements Five improvement concepts were considered, each addressing the specific need for grade separation of Caesar Chavez Parkway (Crosby Street) over the freight tracks. These alternatives included (A) Freeway Connector Ramps, (B1) Caesar Chaves Parkway Flyover, (B2) Elevated Harbor Drive/Caesar Chavez Parkway Intersection, (C1) 28 th Street Grade Separation, and (C2) Trolley over 28 th Street. A detailed screening and evaluation process was conducted for each of the alternatives. As a result of this analysis, the following 10 th Avenue Marine Terminal access improvement scheme was recommended for consideration: 48
Provide new ramps to northbound I-5 and from southbound I-5 at Sigsbee Street; Construct an elevated Harbor Drive/Caesar Chavez Parkway intersection; Provide grade separation of 28 th Street over the trolley and railroad tracks. Details of the analysis are provided in the Central Interstate 5 Corridor Study Final Report (June 2003), as well as the Marine Terminal Ground Access Study Final Report (July 2003). National City Marine Terminal Ground Access Improvements Two improvement concepts were considered to increase the capacity for trucks going north on I-5. These alternatives included (A) Civic Center Drive Improvements and (B) 24 th Street Improvements. A detailed screening and evaluation process was conducted for each of the alternatives. As a result of this analysis, it was recommended that both alternatives be forwarded for further consideration. Details of the analysis are provided in the Central Interstate 5 Corridor Study Final Report (June 2003), as well as the Marine Terminal Ground Access Study Final Report (July 2003). Old Town Transit Center Ground Access Improvements Two improvement concepts were considered to improve regional freeway access to the facility. These alternatives included (A) HOV/Busway Improvements and (B) I-8 Slip Ramps to Rosecrans. A detailed screening and evaluation process was conducted for each of the alternatives. As a result of this analysis, it was recommended that both alternatives be forwarded for further consideration. Details of the analysis are provided in the Central Interstate 5 Corridor Study Final Report (June 2003). Corridor Mobility Improvement Alternatives for I-5 In the I-5 Corridor Study, several corridor mobility improvement options were identified to facilitate the separate evaluation of a number of individual improvement concepts and modes for combination into an overall corridor mobility improvement program. They ranged from low-cost signal enhancements and related TSM and TDM applications to high-cost freeway ramp modifications and widenings, as follows: 1. No-Build/Baseline Includes all planned regional and corridor transportation improvements identified in the SANDAG 2020 Revenue Constrained RTP. 2. Baseline with Focused Access Improvements Includes the improvements identified above in section 3.1. 49
3. Transit/TSM/TDM Includes low cost roadway improvements, extensive transit improvements, and programs such as ridesharing, telecommuting, and flex-time. 4. Parallel Arterials Includes enhanced arterial connections, improved geometrics, and improved signal operations to encourage surface street utilization. Focused on key connections to Pacific Highway and Harbor Drive, Kettner Boulevard and India Street, Center City/National Avenue/Main Street/National City Boulevard, and Market Street or Imperial Avenue. 5. Freeway Capacity Enhancements Includes interchange enhancements, new freeway-to-freeway connectors, a Centre City collector-distributor system, freeway mainline widening, and new auxiliary lanes. The locations of the freeway capacity enhancements are depicted in Figure 3.1. Details of these corridor mobility improvement options are provided in the Central Interstate 5 Corridor Study Final Report (June 2003). Each of these mobility alternatives was modeled using the SANDAG Regional Transportation Model, the results of which allowed identification of a Composite Improvement Alternative which incorporated the preferred components. A summary of the components of the Central I-5 Corridor Study recommendations is provided in Table 3.1. 50
FIGURE 3-1