Implementing Effective Transit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xxi
with supportive infrastructure (bicycling,
roads, parking, and pedestrian) and new
development. The Uptown Quickway, in
addition to being the central element of the
Mid-Coast Supportive Projects, is also the
centerpiece of the Uptown 2025 Proposal, an
integrated infrastructure plan developed in
consultation with residents and stakeholders
in the Uptown communities and endorsed as a
strategy by the Hillcrest Town Council and the
Bankers Hill Community Group.
The Uptown 2025 Proposal demonstrates how
an innovative approach to developing world-
class bikeways, environmental restoration and
landscaping of a damaged canyon, road
tunnels to deal with traffic, new parking
resources to support businesses, and the right
set of transit projects can together help an
urban community get on top of its problems
and mitigate the effects of unsupported
growth. It also creates permanent rapid transit
in the core of Uptown, forever changing the
role and functioning of transit in that
community, and is designed to meet the City
of San Diego’s Climate Change goals.
The improvements suggested in the Uptown
2025 Proposal, including the transit
infrastructure, may be expected to cost about
½ -¾% of the RTP, for a community that today
houses about 1.3% of the region’s population.
The issue is not whether we can afford to
devote our resources to improving our
communities, but whether we choose to make
that a regional priority.
Potential Objections
to the Quickway Proposal
Any proposal that suggests anything new or
different is likely to arouse objections. In some
cases, these reflect legitimate concerns about
feasibility, cost, impacts, and political realities.
In other cases, objections may be driven by
the fear of change. In still other cases, it might
be motivated by more base motives. In any
case, it is worthwhile to compare the
Quickway Proposal, not just to today, but to
what the region would look like instead if the
RTP program is pursued to its conclusion.
1. “The Quickway proposal relies too much on
buses and not enough on trains.” Actually, the
Quickway Proposal recommends considerable
rail development for the region, and much of
its infrastructure is designed to be upgraded to
rail or some other form of guided, automated
transit technology once the pieces are built
out and connected.
2. “We can’t afford all those buses.” Because
of the dramatic reductions in travel time, a
single vehicle can make 2-3 roundtrips in the
time previously needed for a single roundtrip,
dramatically improving productivity and
reducing the number of vehicles required.
3. “We can’t afford to build all those tunnels,
bridges, and rights-of-way.” While the
Quickway Proposal does make extensive use of
tunnels, especially in the central zone, the
total system cost is still projected to be
significantly less than the RTP’s transit plan. It
will save taxpayers billions of dollars. It is also
worth noting that the RTP would require
extensive tunneling as well.
4. “Developers want to build around rail.”
Research in the US and world-wide found that
developers want to build around fixed
infrastructure. Higher-end BRT (Bus Rapid
Transit) systems were found to be as effective
as light rail in driving new development.
5. “Southern Californians are too in love with
their cars to ride transit.” Some people will
never ride transit, but multiple studies in San
Diego show that the majority of residents use
transit when it is convenient for them to do so.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xxii
6. “If we use buses we’ll dumb it down too
much.” This has been the case for many US
cities, where BRT projects become glorified
city bus routes. The means of avoiding this is
to develop a set of design standards that
reflect the possibilities of future conversion to
some form of rail/guided technology. A draft
set of standards is included in the appendices.
7. “We’re already committed to an adopted
plan; it would be politically too difficult to
change horses mid-course.” If the adopted
plan does not produce the results we as a
region need, then pursuing it because of
political or institutional convenience would be
a disservice to taxpayers and residents.
8. “What relevance do foreign cities have to
San Diego?” The San Diego Trolley was itself
inspired by European examples. We can
always learn from smart innovation elsewhere.
9. “Why not just operate express trolleys?”
Express trolleys require additional tracks and
would be prohibitively expensive to operate.
10.“Between automated vehicles and Uber,
there will be no need for tunnels and
Quickways and transit.” There is no question
that automated vehicles will profoundly
reshape transit and shared ride services. But
they don’t eliminate the need for right of way,
and when deployed in Quickways, the end
user costs will be considerably lower than
other operating alternatives.
11.“But doesn’t San Diego have one of the best
light rail lines in the country?” San Diego’s Blue
Line may have a high farebox recovery ratio,
the share of operating costs paid for out of
farebox revenues, but there is little
relationship between this measure and other
performance measures (such as customer
satisfaction, traffic reduction, or ridership). A
high ratio implies an efficient system, but we
still struggle to attract daily riders from among
middle-income and auto-owning residents.
Appendices
The appendices deal in depth with related
themes. These include:
A. Trolley-driven development. Whether
downtown development could be said to
be driven by the Trolley;
B. Projected travel times. Detailed
comparative travel times by transit today,
under the RTP, under the Quickway
Proposal, and by driving in freeflow and
rush hour conditions;
C. Project maps. Project profiles for the Mid-
Coast Supportive Projects, with detailed
maps;
D. Design standards. Draft Quickway design
standards;
E. Tourist transit. An introduction to the
“Fun’n’Sun” tourist transit line that the
Quickway Proposal makes possible.
F. Integrated plans. An introduction to the
Sails to Trails concept for the kinds of land
use opportunities that the Quickway
Proposal opens up in the Mid-City zone;
G. Capital cost model. Information on the
capital cost model used to project the costs
of building the Quickway Proposal;
H. Route maps. Draft service (route) maps for
the Quickway Proposal; and
I. Infrastructure maps. Draft infrastructure
maps, showing where infrastructure is
proposed.
Your comments and thoughts are welcome. Please email them to urbanvisioning@outlook.com.
Visit us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/QuickwayProposal
© 2016 BY THE CENTER FOR ADVANCED URBAN VISIONING

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xxiii
Preface
The title of this Discussion Series deliberately harkens to Temporary Paradise?, the seminal 1974
report prepared for the San Diego region by visionary planners Kevin Lynch and Donald
Appleyard.1 They characterized a region facing choices as to how it would grow, and whether it
would use that growth to enhance and protect the region’s considerable natural and cultural
endowments—or whether it would end up looking more like an auto-choked Los Angeles.
This discussion paper takes some of the ideas shared by Lynch and Appleyard and asks, if we were
to have a truly effective regional rapid transit system, what would it look like? And if we had such a
system, how could we use it to drive growth where it can produce beneficial impacts on our
communities, not just the usual pattern of increased traffic and parking congestion? Hence this
series, The Paradise Project.
The Paradise Project is a challenge and invitation to other San Diegans to imagine how we would
like our region to look, behave, and function into the future, how we could turn growth from a
problem into an opportunity.
The ideas, concepts, strategies, and even detailed plans presented here are not carved in stone or
poured in concrete; they are a product of a design and discovery process, not a traditional
engineering approach which, whatever its merits, seems to fall short at identifying how to truly
solve our most pressing issues. In the evolution of these concepts, individual elements have come
and gone, as new possibilities suggest themselves and unresolved problems clamor for solution.
Virtually everything suggested in this paper may be improved in some way. Likewise, many of the
objections that may be raised apply similarly to existing plans and projects; in most cases, these
objections call attention to areas where additional work would produce a more robust solution. In
other cases, objections may be more an expression of inertia, an unwillingness to consider
alternative approaches to better securing our future as a region. Those who raise such objections
are invited to compare the way San Diego looks like and functions under current plans and under
the alternatives presented here. They may be surprised as to which actually preserves and builds on
what it is we most love about our region and which doesn’t.
A note on terminology
Planning, like any field, relies on the shorthand of abbreviations and technical terms that may not
be readily understood by the general public. In some cases, the use of such terms is unavoidable.
Here is a list of some of these terms and their relevance to this paper.
Alignment. The actual route taken by or proposed for a transit guideway, be it rail line or busway.
In traditional transit planning, a set of potential alignments is developed and analyzed for costs and
performance.
1 Appleyard and Lynch, “Temporary Paradise? A Look at the Special Landscape of the San Diego Region.”

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xxiv
At-Grade. Roads or rail lines that operate on the surface and that cross or are crossed by other
roads and/or pedestrians.
Below-Grade. A road or rail line that operates below the surface, either in a trench or tunnel.
BRT. Bus Rapid Transit, the use of buses to emulate traditional rail rapid transit lines. Pioneered by
the Brazilian city of Curitiba in the 1970s-80s, it has become widespread in the past 15 years, with
dozens of projects in cities around the world and a large number of projects in the US (though few
US cities yet match global standards). The New York-based Institute for Transportation and
Development Policy has created a tiered system for rating BRT systems ( gold, silver, or bronze-
level standards). More information on BRT may be found at www.itdp.org/library/standards-and-
guides/the-bus-rapid-transit-standard/what-is-brt/.
Busway. A transitway, or road, exclusively for use by buses. It may be located in the median of an
existing road, parallel to it, or be on its own right-of-way. Busways that cross local roads (such as
the Orange Line busway in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles) may be called T-Ways; grade-
separated busways (such as Ottawa’s Transitway or Brisbane’s Busway systems) may be referred
to as Quickways.
Elevated. A road or rail line that runs above ground-level, such as Chicago’s famed “L” metro
system.
Express. A transit route that either skips intervening stops or that features stops/stations spaced
farther apart (typically, ½-2 miles) than is typical for city bus routes (which may feature 4-8
stops/mile). San Diego’s new arterial-running “Rapid Bus” lines are a form of express bus.
Grade-Separation. Placing one road, trail, walkway, or rail line above or below a crossing one so
that the two no longer intersect, allowing vehicles or people to travel without needing to stop for
cross-traffic. Freeways are a common example of grade-separation.
Guideway. A technical term for any kind of busway/transitway or rail line. A dedicated path for a
transit vehicle.
Land Uses. May include housing, retail, commercial, office, recreation, open space, habitat, parks,
transportation facilities, or anything that represents a purpose to which land is dedicated. Planners
often wrestle with where and how to locate different land uses to minimize negative impacts (such
as exposing children to potentially toxic fumes) and maximize desirable outcomes (such as locating
multifamily housing near a school so that kids can safely walk).
LRT/Trolley. Light Rail Transit, a form of train that typically gets its power from overhead wires.
Often confused with Heavy Rail, which typically uses a third rail for power, and Streetcar, which
tends to be lighter and slower and less likely to be operated in a train set (that is, two or more
vehicles hitched together). The San Diego Trolley is actually a light rail system, not a “trolley.”
Mixed-Use. A term used by planners for buildings, projects, or other developments that place
different and complementary land uses in extremely close proximity to each other. A downtown
residential tower that features ground-level retail is an example of a mixed-use building.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xxv
Modal Shift. A mode is any particular form of transportation: automobile, bus, light rail, streetcar,
bicycle, walking, ferry, aerial tramway, etc. Modal shift is when a person chooses to change the
mode they otherwise would typically use for a particular trip. So when someone who normally
drives to work chooses to ride the Trolley instead, that is an example of modal shift. Most American
cities have ambitious goals to reduce the percent of trips made by solo driving, given the immense
costs involved in providing the road and parking infrastructure necessary to support current levels
of driving.
Plaza. Not a shopping center, a plaza is an urban public space. In San Diego, downtown’s newly-
rebuilt Horton Plaza Park is an example of a plaza.
Quickway. A grade-separated transitway. Quickways are often built to support express bus
operations, then may be converted to carry a rail line (or other guided, automated technology) at
some future point when warranted. In the U.S., Pittsburgh’s busways are the closest example to
Quickways, though Pittsburgh’s busways do not feature complete separation (pedestrian crossings
are often at-grade) and stations/stops do not meet Quickway design standards. The most
prominent global example is that of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, which has over 13 miles of
dedicated Quickways.
Rapid Bus. In San Diego, express buses that operate either on arterials (such as El Cajon
Boulevard) or on freeways (such as on I-15 from Escondido to Kearny Mesa). Not true BRT, Rapid
Bus is generally faster than local bus service.
Redevelopment. When urban land is repurposed for new or additional land uses and/or
intensities. In California, Redevelopment was also, prior to the Great Recession, a legally-defined
process by which cities could lay claim to the increase in property tax triggered by new
construction in designated Redevelopment zones.
Right-of-Way. A transportation corridor, such as a roadway or rail line.
RTP. The Regional Transportation Plan, or RTP, is a long-range planning document produced by
SANDAG which lays out the regional infrastructure projects anticipated through the year 2050. One
component of the RTP, the transit plan, is the subject of this paper.
SANDAG. The San Diego Association of Governments serves as the region’s “MPO” (Metropolitan
Planning Organization), responsible under Federal law for planning freeways and other regional
assets, as well as assisting the cities and the County develop plans in response to projected growth
in population and trip-making. SANDAG is governed by an appointed board made up of
representatives (city councilors and mayors) of each of the 18 cities within San Diego as well as the
County government; other non-voting members represent military, State, and Native American
interests. SANDAG is responsible for developing the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which
projects infrastructure spending through the year 2050.
Stations/Stops. In transit, the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably; at other times, a
“stop” may refer to a bus stop, which may or may not feature a bench and/or shelter; a station
usually refers to a stop with a larger shelter structure and additional amenities/facilities. A transfer
station is a station where passengers may be expected to switch from one route to another.
TOD (Transit-Oriented Development). A term used by planners to refer to land development that
surrounds or is adjacent to a transit station or stop and that capitalizes on that location by the

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 xxvi
orientation of entrances and pathways to focus on the transit station. A large apartment complex
built by a transit center that is designed to ease walking between the two is an example of TOD.
T-Way. A T-Way is an at-grade transitway, unlike a Quickway, which is grade-separated. The term
derives from Sydney, Australia’s, Liverpool-Parramatta T-Way, an at-grade transitway. T-Ways are
chosen when bus flows don’t justify the high cost of creating grade separations. The short busway
segment on Park Boulevard between El Cajon Boulevard and University Avenue is a local example
of a T-Way.

DISCUSSION PAPER • PRESERVING PARADISE • NOVEMBER 2016 1
1. INTRODUCTION:
The Challenges of the Future
What are the principal challenges facing San Diego as it moves into the future? The question is
anything but trivial, and the way we as a region address these challenges—or ignore them—will
have an enormous impact on our quality of life, our economy, and our natural environment.
San Diegans are often presented with two different schools of thought regarding how we should
face the future. For several decades at least, these two poles have shaped much of our thought
about how to accommodate future growth. In practice, our current plans reflect a compromise
between the two, though some have noted that our public plans and language have tended to reflect
more the second school of thought (our current regional plan calls for the vast majority of new
growth to be located within the existing urban footprint), while the realities of our development
patterns reflect a bit more of the first:
1. Keep doing what we’re doing. One set of opinions sees little that is “wrong” with our current
development patterns, and so continues to favor housing development in what are today rural
lands, continued expansion of our freeways (“rack ‘em and stack ‘em”), and moderate
investments in transit and multifamily housing. For some, our primarily suburban lifestyle is
seen as not just desirable but even morally superior to denser, more urban environments, and
certainly of higher value in terms of what people are willing to pay and the financial benefits or
costs that flow to the relevant municipalities. For example, the Lilac Hills development
proposed for a rural zone north of Escondido has been backed by some local leaders who
highlight the region’s need for housing and the location of the project near a freeway, even
though it represents a further expansion of the region’s urbanized footprint.
2. Change what we’re doing. A second set of opinions believes that current development patterns
are “unsustainable” and lack “resilience,” terms that refer to the ability of the region to maintain
viability into the future (sustainability) and the ability to deal with the impacts of unanticipated
events such as natural disasters, energy crises, or major economic upheavals (resilience).
People who hold this point of view typically prioritize expansion of our transit system,
widespread increases in “density,” and a major commitment toward “transit-oriented
development” (TOD)2. Some also see a need to limit and charge more for parking and curtail
freeway/roadway expansion so as to “encourage” people to shift from driving to alternative
modes, whereas others prefer to focus on improvements to transit, bicycling, and walking to
drive this change in travel behavior.
2 TOD, or transit-oriented development, is the name given to buildings and public spaces built around transit
stations. Many cities around the world use their investments in transit systems to drive real estate
development, and indeed this is how San Diego grew from the late 1800s through the 1930s. TOD is
sometimes compared with “TAD,” or transit-adjacent development, used to describe development around
transit stations that is auto-oriented or otherwise turns its back on the transit station.

Both points of view express legitimate concerns and interests. Both also have their shortcomings
and limitations when taken alone. There is clearly a large group of people who favor a more
suburban lifestyle, and many suburban neighborhoods in our region are highly valued and
obviously well-tended. But the quality of life for many people in these communities is degraded by
crushing traffic and difficulties parking in many desirable destinations. A well-conceived transit
network could improve these communities both indirectly (by shifting many trips from cars,
reducing parking demand) and directly (a well-located “feeder station” with express connections to
key destinations could give many residents easy access to destinations in the otherwise more
congested zones that feature many job, retail, and entertainment opportunities).3
We have also seen the emergence of a large group of people, many of them Millennials, which is
looking to live in more urban environments. This group is attracted to neighborhoods which are
easily walkable (even “fun” to walk around), with street-level retail, active transportation built-in,
and options to get around quickly, safely, and reliably without the need to own a car.
On the other hand, those who point to issues of sustainability and climate change also have several
important contributions to make toward our understanding of future challenges. We know that our
region is running out of developable land, and we’ve seen some residents move to Riverside County,
the Imperial Valley, or Tijuana, and then commute to jobs in San Diego County. A smarter strategy
that makes it easier and more desirable to build more housing locally would pay real dividends.
The challenge lies in blending these two perspectives in a way that meets the challenges of the
future while preserving the achievements of the past, that seizes the opportunities growth and
change will bring to the region without sacrificing the very qualities that have made San Diego such
an enviable place to live. As a result, this discussion paper stakes out a balanced approach:
preserving and enhancing the livability of our suburban neighborhoods and communities while
better focusing and supporting urban infill development so as to minimize the impacts of growth,
reduce the pressure to develop more rural land, and enhance the quality of urban life.
The difference between the more “balanced” approach and the first school of thought is one of
focus: rather than “filling in” whenever and wherever it is politically easiest to do so (yet not
enough to counter development pressures to continue sprawling into rural zones, such as with Lilac
Hills), and building light rail lines where it is “easiest” to build (and then try to “force” high densities
3Some people cite research that suggests that transit system development does not affect traffic levels in US
cities in refuting this argument, though much of the research that established this perspective was conducted
over a quarter century ago, and in the years since, there has been a strong uptick in new transit development
in US cities. Ultimately, the big issue is growth in ridership; well-conceived transit networks that attract
significant new ridership due to network effects (that is, bringing many more destinations within reach of
people) measurably reduce congestion. One such study, of a proposed transit network for the greater Atlanta
region similar to the network proposed in this paper for San Diego, projected a 12% reduction in driving time
among the 11 most congested trip pairs examined (source: Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, et. al.,
“Atlanta’s Transit Future: Market Research Results,” p. 17). Other evidence comes from Brazil, where the
prosperous city of Curitiba, famed for its transit system, has high rates of auto ownership but produces half
the VKT (Vehicle Kilometers Traveled) per capita of Brasilia, with its similar sized population but auto-
oriented sprawled urban form (source: Santos, Pioneer in BRT and Urban Planning).

around transit stations, even in inappropriate locations4), this third approach seeks to create the
necessary infrastructure to support real urbanization in those areas experiencing significant market
demand for urban housing (to use an example, parts of North Park); conversely, it also seeks to
undo some of the damage done in existing single-family neighborhoods by inconsiderate and
inappropriate infill projects in the 70s and 80s, improve automotive circulation and parking, and
make transit time-competitive with driving, particularly for commuters. So, unlike the first school
of thought, this approach pays more attention to market forces when it comes to locating both new
development and transportation infrastructure; unlike the second school of thought, it seeks to
enhance and better serve suburban neighborhoods and improve parking and auto circulation. If
anything, the creation of a time-competitive transit system and better-focused urban development
could have the paradoxical benefit of improving automobile circulation for those people for whom
transit would not be a realistic option, by siphoning off hundreds of thousands of trips that
otherwise would clog our roadways.5
It would be all too easy to take the path of least resistance—the first option—but the challenges we
face—if nothing else, road congestion and parking shortfalls (let alone climate change issues)—will
only grow worse if we do so, with big cost implications for residents and taxpayers. Here’s why:
Growth. San Diego is expected to continue
increasing in population, with close to one
million new residents by the year 2050.
After 2050, though, growth may slow but it
doesn’t stop. There is wide agreement that
much of future growth will need to be
accommodated within the existing urban
footprint of the region; the question is how
to do so. Many areas that are experiencing
high market demand, particularly by
Millennials, lack the infrastructure to accept
much new development without triggering
community opposition due to worsening
traffic and parking and the deficit of parks
and people space. The One Paseo project in
Carmel Valley is an example of this dynamic,
though it has also been seen at work in
neighborhoods such as Hillcrest and Pacific
Beach.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In addition to
California-mandated reductions in
4 Examples of inappropriate locations are places with little market demand, inadequate road networks,
alongside freeways or freight railroads, or established neighborhoods where out-of-scale development could
detract from community character. Some Trolley lines, for example, run parallel to railroads and freeways,
generally undesirable residential locations that have attracted little private sector development.
5 Ridership modelling of the proposals discussed later in this paper show a shift of that scale.
What Are Market Forces?
“Market forces” refer to what people in San Diego
choose when it comes to their decisions as to where
to live and how to get around. If, for example, a
developer builds an apartment building in what the
market considers an undesirable location, the
developer might have to lower the rent to attract
enough people to fill the building, because there is
weak market demand to live in that location. If that
developer manages to build a new apartment
building in an area like downtown San Diego’s East
Village, areas with strong market demand, people
will want to live in that building and will pay a
premium to do so. Smart development strategies
understand and work with market forces to direct
infrastructure investments into areas where market
demand is strong. San Diego has mostly placed light
rail stations in areas with generally weak market
demand, since many people would prefer not to live
by freight railroads or adjacent to freeways with
their air quality and noise issues.

greenhouse gas emissions, the mayor of San Diego has proposed an ambitious Climate Action Plan
which calls for major shifts in how residents of San Diego are expected to get around. In contrast, it
isn’t clear if our adopted regional plans will truly achieve legislated 2030 targets, but even if they
do, they fail to maintain those targets in subsequent years (let alone more stringent targets), and
they don’t come close to meeting the goals of the Climate Action Plan.
Infrastructure. Many highly urbanized areas of the City of San Diego suffer from decades of deferred
maintenance and the need to renew major water and sewer infrastructure. In addition, there is an
acute shortage of park space in many densely populated neighborhoods in the City—a shortage that
will only grow worse with increased population. Might it be possible to direct transportation
investments so that they help with water and sewer improvements at the same time? This paper
argues that this is not only desirable, it is possible, significantly reducing costs to taxpayers.
Public Health. Research has increasingly shown that compact, mixed-use environments lead
residents to walk more, reducing obesity levels and contributing to a decrease in chronic diseases
such as diabetes which are linked to sedentary lifestyles.6
Transportation. Parking shortages are growing acute in many parts of the region, and roadway
congestion continually worsens. The nearly $204 billion Regional Transportation Plan aims to
reduce congestion levels by 2030, but congestion worsens afterward. The problem is not just with
freeways, but increasingly with arterials. There is also some recognition of the need to provide
appropriate infrastructure for bicycling, walking, and transit, but much of the current planning for
these alternative modes seeks to shoehorn such infrastructure around existing and planned auto
infrastructure, producing plans and projects that are underwhelming and not likely to lead to
significant “modal shift” (people choosing to use transit, bicycle, walk, or carpool instead of driving
solo). And without significant modal shift, the region will be expected to add 37 square miles of new
parking,7 a massive expense (estimated to cost tens of billions of dollars) not accounted for in the
Regional Transportation Plan.
An additional, related challenge, is that the Millennials—the generation born in the period of 1982-
20048—appear to hold different values than previous generations when it comes to living
environments (they are more urban-focused) and transportation choices (they are less auto-
centric, more open to transit, shared ride, and active transportation modes); planning and
modelling frameworks have yet to catch up to the values of this generation or to create the kinds of
neighborhoods that would attract this entrepreneurial group.
6 Carlson, “America’s Health Threat: Poor Urban Design.”. See also Litman, “Integrating Public Health
Objectives in Transportation Decision-Making.”
7 City of San Diego, Strategic Framework Element.
8 Bump, “Here Is When Each Generation Begins and Ends, According to Facts.”

2. GOALS FOR TRANSPORTATION
AND LAND USE PLANNING
If we are to mitigate the negatives and accentuate the positives that regional growth and changes
are bringing to the region, then the following goals must be achieved.
1. Modal shift. It will be necessary to shift large numbers of travelers from single-occupancy
automobiles to other modes. The question is, can this be done primarily through the provision
of attractive alternatives, or does it require coercive measures (such as increasing parking costs
and limiting parking supply)?
2. Environmental justice. While it will be necessary to attract a much larger number of middle-
income riders to transit, it will also be necessary to provide lower-income residents better
connectivity to jobs, shopping, and recreational opportunities, and to do so in less time, so that
such residents can spend less time commuting (often to multiple jobs) and more time with their
families—a huge benefit not just to the affected families but to society as a whole.9
3. Housing. While some housing has been built as “transit-oriented” or “transit-adjacent”
development, too much multi-family housing is being built too far from rapid transit stations
(Figure 2.1). At the same time, too much transit infrastructure has been developed or is planned
for locations with relatively weak market demand for housing (or limited ability to build much
additional housing). An effective transit network should provide the backbone for significant
development of market-rate housing.
FIGURE 2.1 – CASA MIRA VIEW
The Casa Mira View development in Mira Mesa will have well over 2000 residential units upon completion,
all of which are beyond a ½ mile (10 minute) walk of the new Miramar College transit center.
4. Bicycling. As our experience to date should make clear, it is not enough to provide bike lanes on
roads, however extensive (such as along the major arterials in eastern Chula Vista), as such
9 For every 5 minutes we can save someone on their one-way commute, we hand back to them a work week’s
worth of time every year (5 minutes each way = 10 minutes/day = 50 minutes/week; at 48 work weeks a
year, that equals 40 hours a year).

lanes do not provide adequate safety to riders and must still contend with grades that exceed
what many would consider comfortable or even feasible. The San Diego region should commit
to developing a core greenway (grade-appropriate separated bicycle facilities integrated with
appropriate landscaping) infrastructure designed to move significant numbers of bicyclists at
free-flowing speeds over reasonably long distances with minimal conflicts with other vehicles
or pedestrians, connecting major residential concentrations with major employment nodes.10
5. Infrastructure renewal. Given that San Diego must renew water and sewer lines, it makes sense
to group these projects with transit projects, especially if digging is involved, as there are both
cost-savings involved as well as opportunities to leverage additional state and federal funds. In
essence, the transit project can help pay for the water and sewer project, and vice versa,
potentially saving the region millions and possibly billions of dollars.
6. Parks and open space. To meet the shortage of park space in many older communities, as well as
increase the market attractiveness of new residential development, new parklands will need to
be developed. If at least some of these parks and people spaces can be created and paid for by
transportation projects, the region can score another big win. If some of this new parkland is in
the form of linear parks, more residents would be within 750 feet of park space, other park and
open space assets could be connected, and active recreation facilitated (with notable
environmental and public health benefits).
This discussion paper outlines a strategy as to how all of these goals may be met by a thoughtful
and integrated approach to developing transit.
10 It is worth noting that the new commuting bikeway facility being built along I-15 between Adams Avenue
and Camino del Rio South in Mission Valley maintains an average grade of 4.8%, more than 50% outside of
global bikeway standards, which call for sustained slopes not to exceed 3% (The California Highway Design
Manual recommends sustained grades not to exceed 2%). While the use of electric and electric-assist bikes
may make such facilities easier to use, such bikes are still expensive and are no substitute for bike paths that
people can bicycle under their own power.

Implementing Effective Transit

Implementing Effective Transit

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (7)

Similar to Implementing Effective Transit

Similar to Implementing Effective Transit (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Implementing Effective Transit