**Mid-Coast LRT Extension**

**San Diego, California**

(November 2004)

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is proposing to
construct and operate a 3.4-mile extension of the Blue Line on its
existing light rail transit (LRT) system from the Old Town Transit
Center (OTTC) to Balboa Avenue in the Claremont/Mission Bay area of
northwest San Diego. The Mid-Coast LRT Extension project would be built
primarily within an existing rail right-of-way currently accommodating
commuter and intercity rail. Three new stations are proposed, each with
small park-and-ride and bus transfer facilities. The project scope
includes the purchase of seven new LRT vehicles. The project would
operate at 7.5-minute peak period frequencies.

The Mid-Coast LRT alignment parallels Interstate 5 (I-5), the only
continuous major north-south spine between the northwest San Diego area
and downtown. Topographic constraints in the corridor (canyons and mesas
to the west, Mission Bay to the east) have limited options for
transportation improvements, resulting in increased pressure on I-5 to
serve both long- and short-distance trips. This, in turn, has resulted
in congested conditions during and beyond peak travel hours, with more
congestion projected for the future. In addition, I-5 is largely
disconnected from the OTTC, which serves as the regional transit access
point for both the Blue and Orange LRT lines, as well as commuter rail
and local bus. Consequently, bus and vehicular access from the north
must travel on circuitous local streets to reach the OTTC. By extending
the Blue Line north to Balboa Avenue, the Mid-Coast LRT Extension
project is intended to improve access to the regional rail system, while
providing a fixed guideway transportation alternative within the
congested I-5 travel shed.

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Summary Description**            |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Proposed Project:**              | Light Rail Transit              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| ** **                              | 3.4 Miles                       |
|                                    |                                 |
|                                    | 3 Stations                      |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Total Capital Cost (\$YOE):**    | \$131.6 Million                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Section 5309 New Starts Share    | \$65.8 Million (50.0%)          |
| (\$YOE):**                         |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Annual Forecast Year Operating   | \$3.9 Million                   |
| Cost:**                            |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Ridership Forecast (2025):**     | 10,500 Average Weekday          |
|                                    | Boardings                       |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| ** **                              | 4,500 Daily New Riders          |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Opening Year Ridership Forecast  | 9,900 Average Weekday Boardings |
| (2008):**                          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **FY 2006 Finance Rating:**        | # Medium                        |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **FY 2006 Project Justification    | **Medium-High**                 |
| Rating:**                          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **FY 2006 Overall Project          | **Recommended**                 |
| Rating:**                          |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

SANDAG anticipates requesting final design approval for the Mid-Coast
LRT Extension in early 2005. While the information submitted for the
project is considered reliable, SANDAG is in the process of updating its
mode choice model, capital cost estimate, and implementation schedule
for the project, and each of these efforts must be completed and
reviewed by FTA before consideration of the final design request. In
addition, the project's financial plan must be updated to more
accurately reflect operating expenses associated with the growth in
systemwide service required to meet projected population and employment
increases; ensure that fare policy and ridership growth assumptions are
consistent with those in the travel forecasts; and isolate and report
the operating costs of the project from the system as a whole.

**Project Development History and Current Status**

SANDAG completed an alternatives analysis on the Mid-Coast corridor in
1995, resulting in the selection of a 10.7-mile Mid-Coast LRT Extension
project as the locally preferred alternative. FTA approved SANDAG's
request to enter preliminary engineering (PE) for the 3.4-mile initial
minimum operable segment between the OTTC and Balboa Avenue in September
1996. A Record of Decision on the project was issued in August 2001.
SANDAG has done little work on the Mid-Coast LRT project since then, as
it has its focused attention primarily on the construction of the Orange
Line extension in Mission Valley. However, it is expected to request FTA
approval to advance the project into final design in early 2005.

**Significant Changes Since Last Evaluation (November 2003**)

There have been no significant changes to the project since its last
evaluation. SANDAG's estimate of the project's annualized cost has been
corrected (previous costs were calculated in year-of-expenditure
dollars, rather than current year dollars), and travel forecasts have
been adjusted to reflect a 2025 horizon year. In November 2004, San
Diego County voters approved a reauthorization of SANDAG's TransNet
sales tax, which secured local funding for the project.

**[Project Justification Rating: Medium-High]{.underline}**

The *Medium-High* project justification rating is based upon a
*Medium-High* rating for cost effectiveness and a *Medium* rating for
transit-supportive land use.

####### *Cost Effectiveness Rating: Medium-High* 

The *Medium-High* rating is based upon the excellent level of
travel-time benefits (2,800 weekday hours) generated by the project
relative to its annualized costs. SANDAG's estimate of travel-time
benefits may change upon completion of improvements to its travel
forecasting procedures. In addition, project costs are expected to
increase following the completion of a comprehensive cost update. These
expected changes to the project's estimated costs and benefits are not
expected to threaten the sufficiency of its cost effectiveness rating.

+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| **Cost Effectiveness**                   |                           |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+
| Cost per Hour of Transportation System   | **[New Start vs.          |
| User Benefit                             | Baseline]{.underline}**   |
|                                          |                           |
| Incremental Cost per Incremental Trip    | \$12.85\*                 |
|                                          |                           |
|                                          | \$7.61                    |
+------------------------------------------+---------------------------+

####### \* Indicates that measure is a component of Cost Effectiveness rating.

Current travel forecasts for the Mid-Coast project demonstrate travel
time benefits to three primary markets. The first is downtown-bound
commuters who would board the extended Blue Line. These riders generate
approximately 40 percent of travel-time benefits because rail travel
times are competitive with direct express bus on I-5, and LRT provides
circulation downtown beyond the express bus termini. The second market
includes transit riders from the north and west taking advantage of
improved access to the OTTC for trips throughout the regional rail and
bus system. Approximately 35 percent of benefits are attributable to
this market. Finally, over 15 percent of benefits accrue to
trips destined for the three stations proposed within the Mid-Coast
corridor.

The Mid-Coast LRT Extension's current cost is based on a six year-old
estimate, which has been adjusted annually to reflect inflation. FTA
believes that this cost is likely low, based on construction costs
recently incurred on the Mission Valley East LRT extension currently. In
addition, the project implementation schedule needs to be updated.

***Transit-Supportive Land Use Rating: Medium***

The *Medium* rating is based upon *Medium* ratings for transit
supportive policies and the performance of policies, and a *Medium-Low*
rating for existing land use.

**Existing Land Use: Medium-Low**

-   Total population in the station areas is estimated at 8,900. Total
    station area employment is estimated at 18,000 employees. Existing
    population and employment densities are approximately 3,400 persons
    and 6,800 employees per square mile, respectively.

-   The project provides direct access to downtown San Diego, which
    contains over 77,000 jobs.

-   The three proposed station areas (Tecolote, Claremont, and Balboa)
    are bounded by I-5 and recreational facilities at Mission Bay on the
    west. The area east of the corridor is dominated by single-family
    homes with some commercial, multi-family and small-scale industrial
    development.

-   Sidewalks follow most streets in a grid pattern in a primarily
    residential area on the east side of the proposed alignment.
    Pedestrians must cross arterial bridges to reach Mission Bay and
    other developments west of the freeway. Needed improvements to
    existing pedestrian facilities are planned as part of the project.

**Transit-Supportive Plans and Policies: Medium**

-   Regional growth management plans, including the *County of San Diego
    General Plan* and the city of San Diego\'s *City of Villages
    Strategic Framework* have been revised to include more specific
    references to land preservation and promotion of more intense
    development in existing urban areas. The recent reorganization of
    functions into SANDAG unites planning entities for regional growth
    management with transit planning.

-   Several city and county documents call for increasing transit
    accessibility for both pedestrians and bicyclists, improvements in
    street design, and increased density of development. These documents
    include the *Mission Bay Master Plan* and the *Pacific Beach
    Community Plan*. Parking maximum ratios have been introduced
    citywide with no specific timetable to reduce the ratios in the
    Mid-Coast Corridor. SANDAG's Transit/Land Use Policy encourages
    high-density development and coordination of land use and
    transportation planning.

-   Special \"zones\" have specifically supported increased density
    development including Townhouse, Small Lot Single Dwelling, and
    Shared Parking zones. Zoning in the areas around the three proposed
    stations has not been revised specifically to support
    transit-oriented development

-   SANDAG's predecessor agency, MTDB, implemented a successful joint
    development program with major development projects including
    transit-supportive housing, commercial, and public uses. The
    Claremont Project Advisory Committee was formed to provide input on
    issues during the preliminary engineering phase of the Mid-Coast
    project. SANDAG has conducted preliminary workshops with the
    community around the proposed Claremont station to develop a
    possible concept plan.

**Performance and Impacts of Policies:** **Medium**

-   The Bayview Plaza development near the Claremont station features
    locally-oriented shops and a supermarket with links to the new light
    rail station.

-   Progress on transit-supportive development is region-wide, although
    specific application to the Mid-Coast corridor is limited. Corridor
    topographic conditions and the heavily developed nature of the
    station areas to the east of the corridor, as well as the location
    of I-5 and Mission Bay to the west, limit the potential for
    significant new development.

####### Other Project Justification Criteria 

+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **Mobility Improvements Rating: Medium** |              |            |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **[Within ½-mile radius of boarding      | 18,000       |            |
| areas]{.underline}:**                    |              |            |
|                                          | 20,500       |            |
| Existing Employment                      |              |            |
|                                          | 200 (7%)     |            |
| Projected Employment (2025)              |              |            |
|                                          | 6,000\*      |            |
| Low Income Households (% of total HH)    |              |            |
|                                          | 67\*         |            |
| **[Average Per Station]{.underline}:**   |              |            |
|                                          | **[New Start |            |
| Employment                               | vs.          |            |
|                                          | Baseline]{.  |            |
| Low Income Households                    | underline}** |            |
|                                          |              |            |
| **Transportation System User Benefit Per | 5.98\*       |            |
| Project Passenger Mile (Minutes)**       |              |            |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **Environmental Benefits Rating: High**  |              |            |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **[Criteria Pollutant (Reduction in      | **[New Start |            |
| tons)]{.underline}**                     | vs.          |            |
|                                          | Baseline]{.  |            |
| > Carbon Monoxide (CO)                   | underline}** |            |
| >                                        |              |            |
| > Nitrogen Oxide (NO~x~)                 | 66           |            |
| >                                        |              |            |
| > Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)       | 9            |            |
| >                                        |              |            |
| > Particulate Matter (PM~10~)            | 6            |            |
| >                                        |              |            |
| > Carbon Dioxide (CO~2~)                 | 1            |            |
|                                          |              |            |
| **[Criteria Pollutant                    | 3,717        |            |
| Status]{.underline}**                    |              |            |
|                                          | **[EPA       |            |
| > Carbon Monoxide                        | De           |            |
| >                                        | signation]{. |            |
| > 1-Hour Ozone (O~3~)                    | underline}** |            |
| >                                        |              |            |
| > 8-Hour Ozone                           | Serious      |            |
| >                                        | No           |            |
| > Nitrogen Oxide                         | n-Attainment |            |
| >                                        | Area\*       |            |
| > Particulate Matter                     |              |            |
|                                          | Extreme      |            |
| **Annual Energy Savings (million British | No           |            |
| Thermal Units)**                         | n-Attainment |            |
|                                          | Area\*       |            |
|                                          |              |            |
|                                          | Severe       |            |
|                                          | No           |            |
|                                          | n-Attainment |            |
|                                          | Area\*       |            |
|                                          |              |            |
|                                          | Maintenance  |            |
|                                          | Area\*       |            |
|                                          |              |            |
|                                          | Serious      |            |
|                                          | No           |            |
|                                          | n-Attainment |            |
|                                          | Area\*       |            |
|                                          |              |            |
|                                          | 46,225       |            |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **Operating Efficiencies Rating:         |              |            |
| Medium**                                 |              |            |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+
| **System Operating Cost per**            | > **         | **[New     |
|                                          | [Baseline]{. | Start]{.un |
| **Passenger Mile (current year           | underline}** | derline}** |
| dollars)**                               | >            |            |
|                                          | > \$0.296\*  | \$0.297\*  |
+------------------------------------------+--------------+------------+

\* Indicates that measure is a component of rating for each criterion.

N/A indicates information was not available for this entry.

# [Local Financial Commitment Rating: Medium]{.underline}

The *Medium* rating for local financial commitment is based on *Medium*
ratings for the New Starts share of project costs and for both the
capital and operating finance plans.

####### *Section 5309 New Starts Share of Total Project Costs: 50%* 

####### *Rating: Medium*

SANDAG is requesting a 50 percent New Starts share of total project
costs, which results in a *Medium* rating for this measure.

+-------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| **Locally Proposed      |                       |                    |
| Financial Plan**        |                       |                    |
+-------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| **[Source of            | **[Total Funds        | **[Percent of      |
| Funds]{.underline}**    | (\$mi                 | To                 |
|                         | llion)]{.underline}** | tal]{.underline}** |
+-------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| **Federal:**            | \$65.8                | 50.0%              |
|                         |                       |                    |
| Section 5309 New Starts | \$9.3                 | 7.1%               |
|                         |                       |                    |
| STIP Funds\*            |                       |                    |
+-------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| **State:**              | \$10.0                | 7.6%               |
|                         |                       |                    |
| Traffic Congestion      |                       |                    |
| Relief Funds            |                       |                    |
+-------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| **Local:**              | \$46.6                | 35.4%              |
|                         |                       |                    |
| TransNet Sales Tax      |                       |                    |
+-------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+
| **Total:**              | **\$131.6**           | 100.0%             |
+-------------------------+-----------------------+--------------------+

**NOTE**: The financial plan reflected in this table has been developed
by the project sponsor and does not reflect a commitment by DOT or FTA.
The sum of the figures may differ from the total as listed due to
rounding.

\*STIP funds are state-administered Federal flexible funds augmented by
state gas tax and other revenues. These funds are passed from the state
to local transportation agencies as STIP funds, but all Federal
requirements apply.

# *Capital Finance Plan Rating: Medium* 

The capital finance plan is rated *Medium*, based upon the average of
the ratings assigned to each of the subfactors listed below. The
commitment of capital funds subfactor is rated *High*; capital condition
and plan completeness are rated *Medium*; the capital cost estimate and
planning assumptions subfactor is rated *Medium-Low*; and capital
funding capacity is rated *Low*.

#### Agency Capital Condition: Medium

-   SANDAG'S bus fleet has an average age of 6.9 years, which is in line
    with the industry average.

-   SANDAG does not have bond ratings.

#### Completeness of Capital Plan: Medium

-   The plan is generally complete, but several pieces, including the
    fleet management plan and the sensitivity analysis, are outdated.

#### Commitment of Capital Funds: High

-   All non-New Starts funding is committed or budgeted. Funding sources
    include local sales tax revenues, State Transportation Improvement
    Program (STIP) funds and State Traffic Congestion Relief funds.

#### Capital Funding Capacity: Low

-   SANDAG does not have the financial capacity to cover any project
    cost increases or funding shortfalls, and a deficit is projected in
    the existing capital program.

#### Capital Cost Estimate and Planning Assumptions: Medium-Low

### The capital plan includes somewhat optimistic assumptions regarding Federal and State funding.

-   An updated capital cost estimate will be available for next year's
    assessment rather than this year's, because the transfer of
    responsibilities from MDTB to SANDAG has caused some delay.

#### *Operating Finance Plan Rating: Medium*

The operating finance plan is rated *Medium*, based upon the average of
the ratings of the five subfactors listed below. Commitment of operating
funds received a *High* rating. The operating financial capacity and
operating cost estimates and planning assumptions subfactors received
*Medium-Low* ratings. All other subfactors received *Medium* ratings.

#### Agency Operating Condition: Medium

-   SANDAG is in fair operating condition. Minor service cutbacks have
    been made in recent years.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   SANDAG's current ratio of assets to liabilities as reported in its
    most recent audited financial statement is 1.3.

#### Completeness of Operating Plan: Medium

-   Comprehensive information was provided for systemwide operation;
    however, project-specific information was lacking and no sensitivity
    analysis was provided.

#### Commitment of Operating Funds: High

-   All operating funding is committed, including fare revenues, local
    sales tax revenues, and State transit assistance.

#### Operating Funding Capacity: Medium-Low

-   The project's financial plan shows projected cash balances of zero,
    with reserve accounts and/or access to credit less than four percent
    of annual operating expenses.

#### Operating Cost Estimates and Planning Assumptions: Medium-Low

-   The plan contains optimistic assumptions regarding future operating
    expense growth and ridership when compared with historical
    experience.

####  

Map

###