**Mid-Coast Extension**

**San Diego, California**

(November 2003)

# Description 

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is proposing to
implement the 3.4-mile, three-station Mid-Coast Corridor light rail
transit (LRT) extension from the Old Town Transit Center (OTTC) to
Balboa Avenue. The proposed project is intended to provide a travel
alternative to congested conditions on Interstate 5 (I-5) by extending
light rail service north from downtown San Diego to Balboa Avenue and
the Clairemont area of northwest San Diego. I-5 is the primary highway
corridor to access downtown San Diego from the north and is heavily
congested during peak hour travel periods. Currently, local bus travel
times are slow and express bus services are delayed by traffic
conditions on I-5. The proposed light rail extension would improve
transit access from the residential areas north of downtown San Diego
and broaden accessibility to the region's light rail, bus, and commuter
rail system.

The Mid-Coast Extension project is forecast to provide 2,800 hours of
weekday travel-time benefits in 2030 for transit riders, as compared to
improved bus service in the corridor. These benefits include improved
access to the OTTC, a major regional transportation facility which, due
to its location, currently provides for poor bus access. Approximately
50 percent of travel-time benefits accrue to riders destined for
downtown San Diego, with the remainder of benefits distributed to trips
to other areas of the region served by the LRT system. Approximately
1,600 hours (60 percent) of the travel-time benefits are for work trips.

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Summary Description**            |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Proposed Project:**              | Light Rail Transit              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| ** **                              | 3.4 Miles, 4 Stations           |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Total Capital Cost (\$YOE):**    | \$131.6 Million                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Section 5309 New Starts Share    | \$65.8 Million (50%)            |
| (\$YOE):**                         |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Annual Operating Cost (2009      | \$3.7 Million                   |
| \$YOE):**                          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Ridership Forecast (2030):**     | 8,500 Average Weekday Boardings |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| ** **                              | 4,900 Daily New Riders          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Opening Year Ridership Forecast  | 3,000 Average Weekday Boardings |
| (2008):**                          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Finance Rating:**        | # Medium                        |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Project Justification    | **Medium**                      |
| Rating:**                          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **FY 2005 Overall Project          | **Recommended**                 |
| Rating:**                          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

The overall project rating of ***Recommended*** is based upon the
project's good cost effectiveness and adequate financial plans. The
overall project rating applies to this *Annual Report on New Starts* and
reflects conditions as of November 2003. Project cost estimates and
proposed New Starts share are developed by local project sponsors and
are not FTA assumptions. Project evaluation is an ongoing process. As
New Starts projects proceed through project development, estimates of
cost, benefits, schedules and impacts are refined. FTA's ratings and
recommendation will be updated annually to reflect new information,
changing conditions, and refined financing plans.

FTA has some questions regarding this project's travel forecasts and
intends to work closely with SANDAG over the next several months to more
accurately portray the benefits of the Mid-Coast Corridor Extension.

##### Status

FTA approved SANDAG's request to enter preliminary engineering for the
3.4-mile initial phase of the LRT extension in September 1996. A Record
of Decision on the project was issued in August of 2001. SANDAG is
currently updating its capital cost estimate to reflect current project
scope and escalation, and is expected to request entry into final design
in 2004. The Mid-Coast Extension is the first phase of a proposed
10.7-mile, nine-station light rail transit (LRT) line that would extend
light rail service north to the vicinity of the University of California
at San Diego and the growing University City and Carmel Valley areas.
SANDAG is currently completing an alternatives analysis on alignment
options in this portion of the corridor.

The Mission Valley East LRT Extension remains the agency's priority. It
is the intent of SANDAG to complete the Mission Valley East project
prior to constructing the Mid-Coast Extension.

TEA-21 Section 3030(a)(75) authorized the Mid-Coast Corridor for final
design and construction. Through FY 2003, Congress has appropriated
\$12.32 million in Section 5309 New Starts funds for the project.

####### Evaluation 

The following criteria have been estimated in conformance with FTA\'s
*Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria*,
updated in June 2003. The project will be re-evaluated when it is ready
to advance into final design and in next year's *Annual Report on New
Starts*.

+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Project Justification Quantitative |               |               |
| Criteria**                           |               |               |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Mobility Improvements Rating:      |               |               |
| Low**                                |               |               |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Average Employment Per Station**   | **[New Start  |               |
|                                      | vs.           |               |
| **Average Low Income Households Per  | Baseline]{    |               |
| Station**                            | .underline}** |               |
|                                      |               |               |
| **Transportation System User Benefit | 2100          |               |
| Per Project Passenger Mile           |               |               |
| (Minutes)**                          | 59            |               |
|                                      |               |               |
|                                      | 0.07          |               |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Environmental Benefits Rating:     |               |               |
| Medium**                             |               |               |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **[Criteria Pollutant                | **[New Start  |               |
| Reduced]{.underline} (Tons)**        | vs.           |               |
|                                      | Baseline]{    |               |
| **Carbon Monoxide (CO)**             | .underline}** |               |
|                                      |               |               |
| **Nitrogen Oxide (NO~x~)**           | 56            |               |
|                                      |               |               |
| **Volatile Organic Compounds**       | 8             |               |
|                                      |               |               |
| **Particulate Matter (PM~10~)**      | 5             |               |
|                                      |               |               |
| **Carbon Dioxide (CO~2~)**           | 3             |               |
|                                      |               |               |
| **[Annual Energy                     | 2,996         |               |
| Savings]{.underline} (million of     |               |               |
| BTU)**                               | 37,060        |               |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Cost Effectiveness Rating:         |               |               |
| Medium-High**                        |               |               |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Cost per Transportation System     | **[New Start  |               |
| User Benefit (current year           | vs.           |               |
| dollars/hour)**                      | Baseline]{    |               |
|                                      | .underline}** |               |
|                                      |               |               |
|                                      | \$10.39       |               |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Operating Efficiencies Rating:     |               |               |
| Medium**                             |               |               |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+
| **System Operating Cost per**        | >             | **[New        |
|                                      | **[Baseline]{ | Start]{       |
| **Passenger Mile (current year       | .underline}** | .underline}** |
| dollars)**                           | >             |               |
|                                      | > \$0.28      | \$0.28        |
+--------------------------------------+---------------+---------------+

# Project Justification 

# [Rating: Medium]{.underline} 

The *Medium* project justification rating reflects the very good cost
effectiveness of the project, tempered by only moderately
transit-supportive land uses in the corridor. Based upon 2000 Census
data, there are 233 low-income households within ½ mile of the station
areas, which comprise seven percent of the 3,310 households within ½
mile of the station areas. The 8,417 employees within ½ mile of the
station areas comprise 45 percent of the 18,468 employees in the
corridor. The San Diego area is an attainment area for ozone and
nitrogen oxides. The incremental cost per incremental trip for this
project is \$6.42.

####### Transit-Supportive Existing Land Use and Future Patterns

**[Rating: Medium]{.underline}**

The *Medium* rating reflects the moderate existing residential,
commercial, and recreational uses within and near station areas. While
the city of San Diego maintains a strong and comprehensive general
policy supportive of transit-oriented development, specific plans do not
suggest significant land use and design changes in the Mid-Coast
Corridor station areas.

**Existing Conditions:** The three proposed station areas (Tecolote,
Clairemont, and Balboa) are bounded by Interstate 5 and Mission Bay Park
on the west and low- to medium-density residential, industrial, and
commercial land uses to the east. The area east of the corridor is
dominated by single-family homes with some commercial, multi-family, and
small-scale industrial development. The west side consists primarily of
the recreational facilities of Mission Bay, with some commercial
development. The Mission Bay development is only accessible through a
few crossings over the freeway. Employment and population within ½ mile
of station areas total 18,000 and 9,200, respectively. The proposed
project would serve a central business district of 77,000 employees.

Future Plans, Policies and Performance: The city of San Diego has
developed and adopted a rich and comprehensive set of policies to
promote transit-oriented development within the city. San Diego
continues to make significant progress in promoting transit-oriented
development in general, but specific application to the Mid-Coast
Corridor station areas is limited. The city of San Diego has proceeded
with an aggressive update of its general plan, known as *The* *City of
Villages Strategic Framework*, in coordination with a transit policy
strategy called TransitWorks. This framework articulates design
standards and standards for minimum intensity in select areas throughout
the metropolitan region. The Bayview shopping center near the proposed
Clairemont Drive station is finalizing a redesigned plan that orients
retail space toward the light rail station. Currently, there are no
other plans to significantly increase the amount of development in the
station areas or to redirect site planning in a way that would enhance
the pedestrian environment and access to the proposed transit stations.

#### 

#### Local Financial Commitment 

**[Rating: Medium]{.underline}**

The *Medium* rating for local financial commitment was determined by the
completeness of the financial plan, tempered by the complete dependence
of the plan on voter renewal of a dedicated source of funding in
November 2004.

**Proposed Non-Section 5309 New Starts Share of Total Project Costs:
50%**

**[Rating: Medium]{.underline}**

SANDAG proposes to use Section 5309 New Starts funds to cover 50 percent
of project costs, with TransNet local dedicated sales tax revenues being
used to fund the balance of capital requirements.

+------------------------+------------------------+--------------------+
| **Locally Proposed     |                        |                    |
| Financial Plan**       |                        |                    |
+------------------------+------------------------+--------------------+
| **[Proposed Source of  | **[Total Funding       | **[Percent of      |
| Funds]{.underline}**   | (\$m                   | To                 |
|                        | illion)]{.underline}** | tal]{.underline}** |
+------------------------+------------------------+--------------------+
| **Federal:**           | \$65.8                 | 50.0 %             |
|                        |                        |                    |
| Section 5309 New       |                        |                    |
| Starts                 |                        |                    |
+------------------------+------------------------+--------------------+
| **Local:**             | \$65.8                 | 50.0 %             |
|                        |                        |                    |
| Transnet               |                        |                    |
+------------------------+------------------------+--------------------+
| **Total:**             | **\$131.6**            | 100.0 %            |
+------------------------+------------------------+--------------------+

**NOTE:** Funding statements reflected in this table have been made by
project sponsors and are not DOT or FTA assumptions. Sum of figures may
differ from total as listed due to rounding.

####### Stability and Reliability of Capital Financing Plan

**[Rating: Medium]{.underline}**

The capital financial plan is rated *Medium*. The plan is complete, but
the rating acknowledges that funding for the non-Section 5309 New Starts
share of project costs is dependent on voter renewal of a dedicated
source of funding scheduled for November 2004, which will require a
two-thirds majority affirmative vote.

**Agency Capital Financial Condition:** The agency financial condition
has deteriorated somewhat due to economic conditions, declining
ridership, and rising costs of operation. For the upcoming fiscal year
SANDAG has proposed to transfer Federal formula capital funds from its
rehabilitation and replacement program to fund preventative maintenance
activities in the operating budget. This approach is not recommended for
the long-term as it will eventually affect SANDAG's ability to meet its
bus and rail capital requirements. The current average age of the bus
fleet is 6.7 years, which is fair.

### Capital Cost Estimate and Contingencies: There has been a very small (\$3 million) decrease in the estimated cost of the Mid-Coast Extension project since last year. The cost estimate is anticipated to be updated prior to a request to initiate final design. Current financial forecasts indicate that sufficient cash balances will not be available to address any substantial budget increases for this project.

Existing and Committed Funding: The entire non-New Starts share consists
of TransNet sales tax revenues. TransNet is a voter-approved ½ cent
sales tax dedicated to transportation projects, with one third of
revenues dedicated to transit. This revenue source will sunset in 2008.
A vote to extend the current ½ cent sales tax is being proposed for
November 2004, and requires a voter majority of two thirds to pass.

New and Proposed Funding Sources: No new funding for the project is
proposed.

# Stability and Reliability of Operating Finance Plan 

**[Rating: Medium]{.underline}**

The Mid-Coast Extension received a rating of *Medium* based upon the
small impact of the project on the overall operating budget of the
Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), the region's merged bus and rail
operation, and the ability of the MTS to operate the proposed extension.

### Agency Operating Financial Condition: Continued growth in costs and decline in revenues are contributing to the need to reduce reserves, to increase the use of federal formula capital grants to fund current operations, and to consider service reductions. The current 20-year cash flow indicates that no year-end cash balances will accrue over the forecast period and assumes voter approval of an extension of the TransNet dedicated sales tax. This is a change from prior forecasts, which had shown growing year-end balances and did not rely on the TransNet sales tax subsequent to its scheduled sunset in 2008. Increases in passenger revenue are based on the assumption that fares will increase every other year based on current Board policy. Many actions to address structural budget shortfalls are currently being taken, including service reductions and increased use of Federal capital formula funds for operations (preventative maintenance). 

### Operating Cost Estimates and Contingencies: The projected annual operating cost for the Mid-Coast Extension project is \$3.7 million in 2030. This is slightly more than one percent of the MTS' total projected operating budget. The Mid-Coast project is not expected to significantly impact MTS' ability to fund and operate its transit services. 

Existing and Committed Funding: All funds shown by SANDAG in its 20-year
forecast for bus and rail operations are existing. Current revenue
sources for operations include State Transit Assistance (funds from a
statewide gasoline tax), State Transportation Development Act revenues
(statewide sales tax), TransNet funds, and other miscellaneous revenue
sources.

New and Proposed Funding Sources: No new funding sources for operations
are proposed, although extension of the existing TransNet local sales
tax will require voter reauthorization.

MAP