escondido transit center access study technical report – final€¦ · escondido creek flood...

Submitted to SANDAG

by IBI Group

with CH2M HILL | KTU+A

November 2008

Escondido Transit Center Access Study

Technical Report – Final

Escondido Transit Center Access Study Final Technical Report

i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 2.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS..........................................................................2

2.1 Overview of Options ...........................................................................................................2 2.2 Traffic Analysis ...................................................................................................................2 2.3 Escondido Transit Center Redevelopment Plans.............................................................13 2.4 Bicycle Facilities ...............................................................................................................13 2.5 Flood Channel ..................................................................................................................16 2.6 Summary of Issues and Opportunities .............................................................................16

3.0 ROUTING OPTIONS AND ANALYSIS ...........................................................................18 3.1 Initial Set of Options .........................................................................................................18 3.2 Analysis of Shortlisted Options.........................................................................................24 3.3 Other Considerations .......................................................................................................32

4.0 BRIDGE OPTIONS AND ISSUES ..................................................................................34 4.1 Methodology.....................................................................................................................34 4.2 Existing Conditions...........................................................................................................34 4.3 Proposed North Spruce Street Bridge..............................................................................39 4.4 Environmental Analysis and Permits................................................................................41

5.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND NEXT STEPS .....................46 APPENDIX A – TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DATA ..............................................................................47 APPENDIX B – RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE ALIGNMENT OPTIONS...............................86


ii

List of Figures

Figure 1 Study Area .....................................................................................................................3 Figure 2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................4 Figure 3 Existing Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................8 Figure 4 2030 Near Term Traffic Volumes.................................................................................10 Figure 5 2030 Ultimate Condition Traffic Volumes ....................................................................11 Figure 6 Escondido Transit Center Development Scenario.......................................................14 Figure 7 Escondido Transit Center Development Pedestrian & Traffic Circulation....................15 Figure 8 Bicycle Facilities in Vicinity of Escondido Transit Center.............................................17 Figure 9 Option T1 .....................................................................................................................20 Figure 10 Option T4 ...................................................................................................................21 Figure 11 Option S2...................................................................................................................22 Figure 12 Option Q1 ..................................................................................................................23 Figure 13 Potential Park and Ride Lots .....................................................................................24 Figure 14 Spruce Street Bridge Location Map...........................................................................35 Figure 15 Spruce Street & Norlak Avenue Intersection .............................................................37 Figure 16 Escondido Community Sobering Services.................................................................37 Figure 17 Escondido Creek Looking East..................................................................................38 Figure 18 Escondido Creek Looking West.................................................................................38 Figure 19 Spruce Street Bridge General Plan ...........................................................................40

List of Tables

Table 1 Level Of Service Thresholds for Signalized Intersections...............................................5 Table 2 Level Of Service Thresholds For Unsignalized Intersections .........................................6 Table 3 Existing Intersection Operations .....................................................................................7 Table 4 Year 2030 Intersection Operations ...............................................................................11 Table 5 Initial Set of Routing Options ........................................................................................18 Table 6 Travel Time Checks ......................................................................................................26 Table 7 2012 and 2030 BRT Travel Time Comparisons............................................................27 Table 8 2012 Option Screening Matrix ......................................................................................29 Table 9 2030 On-Street Stop Option Screening Matrix .............................................................30 Table 10 2030 Transit Center Stop Option Screening Matrix ....................................................31 Table 11 Potential Park-and-Ride Lots ......................................................................................33 Table 12 Riverside County Service Travel Times......................................................................33 Table 13 Preliminary Development Costs for Spruce Street Bridge ..........................................45


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION A direct access ramp (DAR) is being developed by SANDAG at the Hale Drive undercrossing of I-15 in Escondido to facilitate Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) connections between I-15 and the Escondido Transit Center (ETC. The BRT service is scheduled to begin operation in 2012. An analysis of the travel distance, travel time, congestion risk, priority opportunities, traffic operations impacts, and costs estimates associated with routing alternatives was conducted to help determine the optimal routing and supporting facilities for the connection. An analysis of a potential routing along Spruce Street with a new bridge over the Escondido Creek flood channel was also conducted. The study process included field work, traffic counts, travel time checks, analysis of existing and future traffic conditions, workshops with the consultant team, discussions with NCTD staff, and meetings with SANDAG staff. The results of this effort are documented in this report. Following this introduction, the report includes the following sections: 2.0 Existing and Future Conditions, including descriptions of the existing transit center, traffic

conditions on the streets connecting the planned DAR to the transit center, and a description of the study process.

3.0 Routing Options and Analysis, including a description of the routing options considered,

the screening and evaluation process, and discussion of potential sites along the routes for auxiliary park-and-ride lots.

4.0 Bridge Options and Issues, discussing the physical and environmental issues related to

a new roadway bridge over Escondido Creek. 5.0 Summary of Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps, describing the recommended

options and phasing approaches. The Traffic Analysis Data is provided in Appendix A and the Riverside County alignment options are provided in Appendix B.


2

2.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

2.1 Overview of Options The options for connecting the planned Hale Avenue DAR generally ran along three north-south streets: Tulip Street, Spruce Street, and Quince Street. East-west segments ran along Washington Avenue, Valley Parkway, and Grand Avenue. Variations in BRT stop location at the ETC included on Valley Parkway near the existing taxi/drop off area; on Valley Parkway just east of the railroad crossing; within the transit center near the Sprinter platform; and within the transit center among the existing bus bays. See Figure 1 for an overview of the study area. Screening of these initial options focused primarily on phasing options related to future redevelopment of the transit center site. In addition to the routings and stops, the analysis also identified potential park-and-ride locations along the routings. An initial review focused on size, times of use, and proximity to potential BRT stops. With these potential alignments, stops, and parking locations in mind, an analysis of existing and future conditions was conducted, as documented in this chapter.

2.2 Traffic Analysis IBI Group conducted an analysis of existing conditions to assess any potential traffic impacts that could be associated with the future redevelopment of the ETC Project.

Existing Conditions The roadways in the project study area are described briefly below. Figure 2 depicts the existing conditions diagram for study area intersection geometrics, basic lane configurations, and intersection traffic controls. Washington Avenue/Hale Avenue is classified as a Collector in the City of Escondido Circulation Element. It is currently a four-lane undivided roadway with a center two-way left turn lane in the project vicinity. The posted speed limit is 35 to 40 mph. Bike lanes and curbside parking are not provided. West Valley Parkway is classified as a Collector east of Tulip Street and Prime Arterial west of Tulip Street in the City of Escondido Circulation Element. It is currently a three lane one-way roadway east of Grand Avenue and a four-lane roadway west of Grand Avenue. Bike lanes and curbside parking are not provided. West Valley Parkway currently provides direct access to the Escondido Transit Center. Grand Avenue is classified as a Collector in the City of Escondido Circulation Element. It is currently a four-lane one-way roadway within the project vicinity. Bike lanes and curbside parking are not provided.


3

Figure 1 Study Area


4

Figure 2 Existing Conditions


5

Tulip Street is classified as a Collector between Washington Avenue and West Valley Parkway in the City of Escondido Circulation Element. It is currently a four-lane undivided roadway with a center two-way left turn lane. The posted speed limit is 40 mph north of West Valley Parkway. Bike lanes and curbside parking are not provided. Quince Street is classified as a Collector in the City of Escondido Circulation Element within the project study area. It is currently a four-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph within the project vicinity. Curbside parking is intermittently provided, but there are no existing bike lanes. Quince Street also serves the traffic that exits the Escondido Transit Center. Spruce Street is an unclassified roadway in the City of Escondido Circulation Element. It is currently a two-lane undivided roadway with no posted speed limit. Bike lanes are not provided, but curbside parking is allowed. A copy of the Escondido Circulation Element map is included in Appendix A.

Analysis Methodology Level of service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating conditions which occur on a given roadway segment under various traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure used to describe a quantitative analysis taking into account factors such as roadway geometries, signal phasing, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. Level of service provides an index to the operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection. Level of service designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. Level of service designation is reported differently for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Signalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay was determined utilizing the methodology found in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), with the assistance of the Synchro (version 6.0) computer software. The delay values (represented in seconds) were qualified with a corresponding intersection Level of Service (LOS). Table 1 summarizes the delay thresholds for signalized intersections.

Table 1 Level Of Service Thresholds for Signalized Intersections

Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Level Of Service

0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 21.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E > 80.0 F

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.


6

Unsignalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay and Levels of Service (LOS) was determined based upon the procedures found in Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), with the assistance of the Synchro (version 6.0) computer software. Table 2 summarizes the delay thresholds for unsignalized intersections.

Table 2 Level Of Service Thresholds For Unsignalized Intersections

Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle)` Level Of Service

0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 15.0 B 15.1 to 25.0 C 25.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 50.0 E > 50.1 F

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.

Analysis of Existing Conditions Within the City of Escondido, all intersections are expected to have a minimum performance standard of LOS D during peak periods. Table 3 shows that all the study area intersections are calculated to currently operate at LOS D or better under existing conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the Grand Avenue/Quince Street intersection which operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour. All existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volume counts were conducted on September 17, 2008 with the exception of the West Valley Parkway/Quince Street intersection which was conducted in January 2008. Figure 3 illustrates the existing traffic volumes for the study area intersections. The existing traffic volumes are included in Section B of Appendix A, and the Synchro intersection calculation sheets are included in Section C.


7

Table 3 Existing Intersection Operations

Existing Intersection Control

Peak Hour Delay LOSa

1. Hale Ave/Tulip St Signal AM 15.7 B PM 19.7 B

2. Washington Ave/Spruce St OWSCb AM 15.4 C PM 24.8 C

3. Washington Ave/Quince St Signal AM 11.3 B PM 11.5 B

4. West Valley Pkwy/Tulip St Signal AM 26.0 C PM 36.2 D

5. West Valley Pkwy/Police Dwy OWSC AM 9.6 A PM 9.8 A

6. Grand Ave/Police Dwy OWSC AM – – PM 12.4 B

7. West Valley Pkwy/Quince St Signal AM 16.1 B PM 17.7 B

8. Grand Ave/Quince St TWSCc AM 33.4 D PM >50.0 F Footnotes:

a. LOS – Level of Service b. OWSC – One-way stop controlled intersection. The minor street left-turn delay and LOS is reported. c. TWSC – Two-way stop controlled intersection. The minor street left-turn delay and LOS is reported.


8

Figure 3 Existing Traffic Volumes


9

Analysis of Year 2030 Conditions The SANDAG Series 11 2030 Traffic Volume Forecast was used to calculate the Year 2030 peak hour traffic volumes. The existing 2008 traffic volumes were compared to the Series 11 Year 2030 volumes to calculate a growth factor percentage for each intersection. This growth was applied to the existing peak hour intersection volumes to obtain Year 2030 peak hour volumes. Figure 4 shows the Year 2030 Near Term peak hour traffic volumes for the study area intersections. Table 4 shows that all the study area intersections are calculated to currently operate at LOS D or better for Year 2030 near term conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours except for the following: • Washington Avenue/Spruce Street (LOS E during the PM peak hour) • Grand Avenue/Quince Street (LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours) The Year 2030 Ultimate Condition assumes that the Washington Avenue/Spruce Street intersection would be signalized. Table 4 shows the signalized intersection of Washington Avenue/Spruce Street would operate at LOS B during both the AM and PM peak hours for the Year 2030 Ultimate conditions. Figure 5 shows the Year 2030 peak hour traffic volumes and LOS for the Year 2030 Ultimate Condition. The Synchro intersection calculation sheets for Year 2030 are included in Section C of Appendix A.


10

Figure 4 2030 Near Term Traffic Volumes


11

Table 4 Year 2030 Intersection Operations

2030

Intersection Control Peak Hour Delay LOSa

1. Hale Ave/Tulip St Signal AM 36.4 D PM 39.7 D

AM 20.3 C OWSCb,c PM 40.3 E AM 11.2 B

2. Washington Ave/Spruce St Signal d

PM 11.1 B 3. Washington Ave/Quince St Signal AM 11.9 B PM 11.5 B 4. West Valley Pkwy/Tulip St Signal AM 34.8 C PM 38.0 D 5. West Valley Pkwy/Police Dwy OWSC AM 10.2 B PM 10.7 B 6. Grand Ave/Police Dwy OWSC AM – – PM 13.7 B 7. West Valley Pkwy/Quince St Signal AM 21.3 C PM 26.3 C 8. Grand Ave/Quince St TWSCe AM >50.0 F PM >50.0 F Footnotes:

a. LOS – Level of Service b. OWSC – One-way stop controlled intersection. The minor street left-turn delay and LOS is reported. c. Intersection traffic control for Year 2030 Near-Term Conditions. d. Intersection traffic control for Year 2030 Ultimate Conditions. e. TWSC – Two-way stop controlled intersection. The minor street left-turn delay and LOS is reported.


12

Figure 5 2030 Ultimate Condition Traffic Volumes


13

Summary Based on the existing conditions analysis results, all of the study area intersections are operating at acceptable levels of service during both the AM and PM peak hours with the exception of the intersection Grand Avenue/Quince Street. Analysis of Year 2030 conditions show that all intersections are operating at acceptable levels of service for both peak hours with the exception of Washington Avenue/Spruce Street in the PM peak hour and Grand Avenue/Quince Street during the AM and PM peak hours. During the Ultimate Year 2030 conditions, the intersection of Washington Avenue/Spruce Street is signalized and expected to operate at an acceptable level of service for both peak hours. (The analysis of the Ultimate Condition reflects SANDAG's current assumptions for land uses in the TAZ containing the ETC, which does not include redevelopment of the ETC. Additional analysis would be required to address the traffic generated by the redevelopment.) Within the City of Escondido, a significant impact is forecast to occur if project-generated traffic increases the peak hour intersection delay by 2.0 seconds or more for intersections operating at deficient levels of service (LOS E or F). Under this scenario, the project would be responsible for mitigation measures to restore the operations of the intersection to LOS D or better.

2.3 Escondido Transit Center Redevelopment Plans NCTD recently completed a planning analysis for three of its multimodal transit centers: Escondido, Oceanside, and Carlsbad Village. The project goal was to evaluate opportunities and provide recommendations for long-term reuse of the transit centers. The intent was to maximize the types of developments that would be compatible with and supportive of transit use, while providing revenue for NCTD both capital and operating expenses. Supporting specific goals, TOD principles, and economic principles helped guide the analysis. Findings for the Escondido Transit Center included the need to consolidate the bus bays and Sprinter platform to make their operation more efficient, and provide parking to accommodate future BRT services. The bus bays are envisaged to be relocated to be closer to the Sprinter platform, with parking additions provided in structures as part of new developments. Residential and retail uses would also be incorporated into the site. See Figures 6 and 7 for the concept plans.

2.4 Bicycle Facilities The IBI Team contacted both Escondido and SANDAG staff regarding existing and planned bicycle facilities that could be affected by the BRT access improvements. Earlier work on the redevelopment plan planning for the ETC included an at-grade crossing of the existing bike path along the flood channel by the extended Spruce Street. Escondido staff has been supportive of bikes on the sidewalk as part of the Valley Parkway BRT lane expansion currently in design. Escondido staff does not foresee an issue with an at-grade crossing at the bridge with the bike trail. Four-way stop control would be recommended. City staff also noted that if the bikes could come across a new Spruce Street bridge, they would avoid having to use the narrow pedestrian bridge to the east. SANDAG's bikeway coordinator and planner was consulted and he agreed with these recommendations.


14

Figure 6 Escondido Transit Center Development Scenario


15

Figure 7 Escondido Transit Center Development Pedestrian & Traffic Circulation


16

Figure 8 shows the issues and potential solutions for bike connections in and around the station. Most of them can be accommodated and there is no issue with an at-grade crossing at the new bridge.

2.5 Flood Channel Escondido Creek runs along the northern edge of the ETC in a trapezoidal flood channel. The channel would be affected by the Spruce Street option, which would construct a new two-lane bridge to provide direct access to the transit center from Washington Street via Spruce Street. The current channel has a concrete bottom and does not contain sensitive habitats. Existing vegetation consists primarily of trees and shrubs along the edges of the channel. Detailed information on the channel's existing and proposed conditions is provided in Section 4.0 of this report.

2.6 Summary of Issues and Opportunities Based on the information gathered on existing and future conditions at the ETC, the following issues and opportunities were identified. • Long term plans call for redevelopment at the transit center, which would include moving the

bus bays to be adjacent to the Sprinter platform on the western side of the site.

• The circulation pattern of the existing bus bays would be time consuming for BRT and it would be more desirable to have the interim BRT stop on the curb of Valley Parkway.

• Traffic conditions generally do not show high levels of congestion that would influence the selection of the routing between the Hale Ave DAR and the ETC.

These findings were taken into account in developing of options and evaluating them as documented in Chapter 3.


17

Figure 8 Bicycle Facilities in Vicinity of Escondido Transit Center


18

3.0 ROUTING OPTIONS AND ANALYSIS

3.1 Initial Set of Options Starting with the options from earlier work, the IBI Team developed a total of 12 options centered on three north-south corridors: Tulip Street, Spruce Street, and Quince Street. This initial set of options is summarized in the table below.

Table 5 Initial Set of Routing Options

Option Routing/Key Features T1 – Tulip with On-Street Stop • Tulip to Valley Parkway

• Left Turn onto Valley Parkway • Eastbound on Grand Avenue • Quince Street to reach Valley Parkway • Stop on Valley Parkway near taxi area • Valley Parkway to Tulip to Hale to reach

DAR T2 – Tulip with Sprinter Platform Stop • Routing similar to T1

• New circulation in western parking area to reach stop adjacent to Sprinter platform

T3 – Tulip with Stop in ETC • Routing similar to T1 • Stop located within existing transit center,

requiring circulation through the transit center

• Uses Quince to reach Valley Parkway for return to Hale DAR

T4 – Tulip with Parking Lot Shortcut and On-Street Stop

• Similar routing to T1 to reach Grand Avenue

• Shortcut through parking lot south of ETC between Grand and Valley Parkway

• Stop on Valley Parkway close to railroad crossing

T5 – Tulip with Parking Lot Shortcut and Sprinter Platform Stop

• Routing similar to T4 • New circulation in western parking area

of ETC to reach stop adjacent to Sprinter platform

T6 – Tulip with Parking Lot Shortcut and Circulation in Transit Center

• Routing similar to T4 • Stop located within existing transit center,

requiring circulation through the transit center

• Uses Quince to reach Valley Parkway for return to Hale DAR


19

Option Routing/Key Features S1 – Spruce Bridge with On-Street

Stop • Washington Avenue to Spruce Street • South on Spruce Street to reach transit

center via new bridge over flood channel • New circulation on transit center site to

Quince to reach stop on Valley Parkway • Return to Hale DAR via Spruce and

Washington (option to return via Valley Parkway and Tulip)

S2 – Spruce Bridge with Sprinter Platform Stop

• Similar to S1 for routing to transit center • New circulation in western parking lot to

reach stop adjacent to Sprinter platform • Return to Hale DAR via Spruce and


S3 – Spruce Bridge with Circulation in Transit Center

• Similar to S1 for routing to transit center • New circulation in transit center for stop

in existing bus stop area • Quince and Valley Parkway for return

through transit center to Spruce • Return to Hale DAR via Spruce and


Q1 – Quince Street with On-Street Stop

• Washington to Quince to Valley Parkway to reach transit center

• On-street stop on Valley Parkway • Return to Hale DAR via Valley Parkway

and Tulip Q2 – Quince with Stop at Sprinter

Platform • Similar to Q1 for routing to transit center • New circulation in transit center to reach

stop adjacent to Sprinter platform • Return to Hale DAR via Valley Parkway

and Tulip Q3 – Quince with Circulation through

Transit Center • Similar to Q1 for routing to transit center • Circulation through transit center • Return to Hale DAR via Quince and

Washington Based on discussions with SANDAG regarding the expected level of early capital improvements and future plans for the transit center, it was determined that the following options merited further analysis (see Figures 9-12): T1 – Tulip with On-Street Stop T4 – Tulip with Parking Lot Shortcut and On-Street Stop S2 – Spruce Bridge with Sprinter Platform Stop Q1 – Quince Street with On-Street Stop


20

Figure 9 Option T1


21

Figure 10 Option T4


22

Figure 11 Option S2


23

Figure 12 Option Q1


24

Due to the increasing demands for parking at the ETC, potential park and ride lots along the routing options were identified (see Figure 13). Two are located along Washington Avenue, one on Quince Street, and one on Tulip Street.

3.2 Analysis of Shortlisted Options The four shortlisted options were analyzed further to identify the ones that would provide the highest level of service and operational performance. The analysis approach and the results are reported in this section. Criteria and Scoring The four options were evaluated using the criteria listed below. A scoring system of -2 to +2 was used to rate the options relative to each other for the criteria, using the following ratings.

2 = Major Improvement 1 = Minor Improvement 0 = Neutral or No Effect

-1 = Minor Negative Effect -2 = Major Negative Effect

• Distance – Full trip from the Hale DAR to the ETC and back. Distances were estimated

using GIS and field checked during the travel time checks.

• Travel Time – Round trip time based on field checks during the afternoon peak period. Vehicle dwell time was not included.

• Capital Cost – Potential cost based on the level of capital facilities required.

• Operating Cost –Based on travel times as a surrogate for revenue hours.

• Traffic Impacts – Based on the number of intersections on the alignment and their level of service.

• Environmental Impacts – Related to the level of capital improvements. Affects primarily Option S2, which includes the bridge over Escondido Creek.

• Effect on Transit Center Facility – The need for physical changes.

• Effect on Transit Center Operation – Based on BRT stop placement and the effect of circulating through the transit center. Affects primarily Option S2, with its stop adjacent to the Sprinter Platform.

• Travel Demand/Convenience of Transfers – The proximity of the BRT stop to the Sprinter platform and existing bus bays.


25

Figure 13 Potential Park and Ride Lots


26

• Effect on Bicycle Facilities – Impact to bike path on bank of Escondido Creek. Relates primarily to Option S2.

• Park and Ride Lot Availability – Proximity of routing options to the potential offsite park and ride lots.

Two time frames were considered in the analysis. The options were rated for 2012 conditions to reflect the scheduled implementation of the Hale DAR and BRT service. The options were also rated for 2030 to reflect the ultimate condition where the Escondido Transit Center is redeveloped with the extension of Spruce Street on the new bridge over Escondido Creek and the relocation of the bus bays to be adjacent to the Sprinter platform. Travel Times The field checks of travel time for each option are reported in Table 6. They range from 5:25 minutes (min) for Q1 to 8:52 min for T1. These times were used as the basis for rating the options in both the 2012 and 2030 condition.

Table 6 Travel Time Checks

Date/Option/Segment Finish StartDistance

(mi)Time(min)

GIS Dist(ft)

GIS Dist(mi)

Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2008Time of Day: 400 - 500 pmT1 - Tulip via Quince

DAR to TC via Tulip 35.5 34.3 1.2 05:55 6,740 1.3Proposed Stop to Sprinter Stop on VP 35.5 35.5 0.0 00:25 0.7Sprinter Stop to DAR 36.3 35.5 0.8 02:32 3,820

2.0 08:52 10,560 2.0T4 - Tulip via Parking Lot Cut Through

DAR to TC 37.4 36.4 1.0 04:42 5,500 1.0Proposed Stop to Sprinter Stop on VP 37.4 37.4 0.0 00:21 3,840 0.7Sprinter Stop to DAR 38.2 37.4 0.8 02:18

1.8 07:21 9,340 1.8S2 - Spruce with Stop at Sprinter Platform

DAR to Channel 39.0 38.3 0.7 02:05Channel to DAR 39.8 39.0 0.8 02:26Channel to Sprinter Platform 32.2 32.1 0.1 00:35 5,000 0.9Platform to Valley Parkway 32.4 32.3 0.1 00:31 5,260 1.0Sprinter Platform back to Channel 32.7 32.6 0.1 00:40

1.8 06:17 10,260 1.9Q1- Quince via Washington

DAR to Proposed Stop 41.1 40.0 1.1 03:05 6,600 1.3Proposed Stop to DAR via Tulip 41.9 41.1 0.8 02:20 3,840 0.7

1.9 05:25 10,440 2.0 For the 2030 time frame, the travel times were adjusted to reflect the redevelopment concept shown in Figures 6 and 7. If the BRT stop for Options T1, T4, and Q1 remains on Valley Parkway, the travel times are expected to be similar those in the 2012 condition. If the BRT stop for these options is moved into the transit center, approximately 1:30 min in additional travel time would be required to circulate through the relocated bus platform near the Sprinter platform. Option S2 would have approximately the same travel time as the 2012 condition to circulate from the bridge over Escondido Creek to the new bus platform and back. Its travel time would remain 6:17 min. Option S2 would have the best travel time if all of the options stop


27

in the bus bays, 6:17 min compared to 6:55 min for Q1. The travel time estimates for the 2012 condition and the two alternatives for 2030 are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 2012 and 2030 BRT Travel Time Comparisons

Option 2012 (min)

2030 w/On Street Stop (min)

2030 w/Transit Center Stop (min)

T1 8:52* 8:52* 10:22** T4 7:21* 7:21* 8:51** S2 6:17** 6:17** 6:17** Q1 5:25* 5:25* 6:55**

*On Street Stop **Stop within transit center

Results The scoring for the options for the three time periods is reported in Tables 8-10. The results for 2012 and the 2030 alternatives are discussed below. 2012. In this time frame, three of the options stop on Valley Parkway and the transit center remains in its existing configuration. The rankings and key findings are summarized below. • Option Q1 has the highest score of 8. Its advantages include the fastest travel time, low

operating cost, and proximity to all of the potential park-and-ride lots. Only one left turn would be required for its round trip.

• Option T4 ranked second with a score of 3. It has a longer travel time than Option Q1 in

large part to delays in turning left at the Tulip/Valley Parkway intersection. This option would require four left turns.

• Option T1 ranked third with a score of 0. It has a longer travel time than Q1 because it

would run through the Tulip/Valley Parkway and Grand/Quince intersections. This option would require four left turns.

• Option S2 has the lowest score of -2. It has the highest capital cost because of the new

bridge over Escondido Creek and would affect the operation of the transit center near the Sprinter platform. It would require one left turn.

2030 with On-Street BRT Stops. This alternative assumes the ETC is developed with three of the options stopping on Valley Parkway. Option S2 would use the bridge over Escondido Creek to access the relocated bus bays near the Sprinter platform. The rankings and key findings are summarized below. • Option Q1 is still the highest ranked option with a score of 7. It would still have the fastest

travel time and would have a neutral effect on the relocated bus bays.

• Option S2 is a close second with a score of 6. While it would have a somewhat slower travel time than Option Q1, the capital cost and other impacts of the bridge over Escondido Creek would not be incurred as they would be part of the ETC redevelopment.


28

• Option T4 is ranked third with a score of 1. Its longer travel time, greater traffic impacts, and higher operating cost lower its rating.

• Option T1 is ranked fourth with a score of -3. It has the longest travel time, highest traffic impacts, and highest operating cost resulting in the lowest score.

2030 with Transit Center BRT Stops. In this alternative, the ETC is developed and all of the options stop in the relocated bus bays. Travel times for the three options that would stop on Valley Parkway in the other alternatives would increase an estimated 1:30 min. The rankings and key findings are presented below. • Option S2 is the highest ranked option with a score of 8. It has the fastest travel time and

the shortest distance.

• Option Q1 is ranked second with a score of 6. Coming into the transit center results in it having the second best travel time.

• Option T4 is ranked third with a score of 0 due to its travel time increase.

• Option T1 is ranked fourth with a score of -4 due to having the longest travel time and the most traffic impacts.


29

Table 8 2012 Option Screening Matrix

A B C D E F G H I J K

Option No. Description Score DistanceTravel Time

Capital Cost

Operating Cost

Traffic Impacts

Environ-mental Impacts

Effect on Transit Center Facility

Effect on Transit Center

Operation

Travel Demand/Conveni-ence of

Transfers

Effect on Bicycle

Facilities

Park & Ride Lot

Avail-ability

T1 Tulip/Quince 0 0 -1 0 -1 -1 0 1 0 1 0 1T4 Tulip/Parking Lot 3 1 0 0 0 -1 0 1 0 1 0 1S2 Spruce Bridge -2 0 1 -2 1 0 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1Q1 Washington/Quince 8 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 2

Scoring System Measurements/Amounts 2 = Major Improvement T1 10,560 8:52 1 = Minor Improvement T4 9,340 7:21 0 = Neutral or No Effect S2 10,260 6:17-1 = Minor Negative Effect Q1 10,440 5:25-2 = Major Negative Effect

Criteria


30

Table 9 2030 On-Street Stop Option Screening Matrix



Capital Cost

Operating Cost

Traffic Impacts




Operation


Transfers

Effect on Bicycle

Facilities

Park & Ride Lot

Avail-ability

T1 Tulip/Quince -3 0 -1 0 -2 -2 0 0 0 1 0 1T4 Tulip/Parking Lot 1 1 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 1 0 1S2 Spruce Bridge 6 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1Q1 Washington/Quince 7 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2


Criteria


31

Table 10 2030 Transit Center Stop Option Screening Matrix



Capital Cost

Operating Cost

Traffic Impacts




Operation


Transfers

Effect on Bicycle

Facilities

Park & Ride Lot

Avail-ability

T1 Tulip/Quince -4 0 -2 0 -2 -2 0 0 0 1 0 1T4 Tulip/Parking Lot 0 1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 1 0 1S2 Spruce Bridge 8 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1Q1 Washington/Quince 6 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2


Criteria


32

3.3 Other Considerations

BRT Stop Locations Field checks indicate approximately 150 feet of curb space is available for the proposed stop on Valley Parkway near the taxi/drop off area, sufficient space for two articulated buses. Between the railroad crossing near the Sprinter Platform and the entrance to the parking lot, 190 feet of curb is available. Discussions with NCTD staff indicate that buses should be no closer than 200 feet from the crossing for safety and sight distance considerations. As a result, the on-street stop should be located near the existing drop off area. The 2012 condition assumed the BRT stop would be on-street. The location of the stop for the 2030 condition is still to be determined. The current design concept for the ETC redevelopment provides for an on-street BRT stop on Valley Parkway. A stop in this location would provide the fastest BRT travel time. It may be desirable to have the BRT stop in one of the relocated bus bays to facilitate transfers by minimizing walking distances between connecting services. Additional analysis would be desirable as the design for the redevelopment takes shape.

Priority Treatments Two types of transit priority treatments could be provided along the routings to reduce travel time. Traffic signal priority could be provided at key intersections where the average delay is long. At this point, the Washington/Spruce intersection is the only one with LOS E or worse in 2030. Another approach would be to provide queue jumps or right turn lanes at key intersections where queue lengths are expected to be long. For the 2012 condition, new right turn lanes could be beneficial at the following intersections along Option Q1. Washington/Quince – a right turn lane for the eastbound approach lane could be provided by acquiring land from the adjacent property and moving the sidewalk back 15 feet. The spaces in the existing parking lot would have to be reconfigured or removed. Quince/Valley Pkwy – The sidewalk would be moved back about 17 feet on the southbound approach side. The area is currently landscaped and the transit center building is too far to the west to be affected. Additional analysis would be needed to identify the treatments required for 2030 based on the BRT alignment option to be used.

Sprinter Crossings of Washington Avenue The Sprinter crosses Washington Avenue at-grade for both revenue service and yard moves. Most of the yard move crossings occur early in the morning and in the evening. The Sprinter currently provides 30-minute service throughout its operating day and it is possible that frequency could increase over time as ridership grows. If that does occur, there will be more crossings of Washington Avenue and the travel time for Options Q1 and S2 could be adversely affected. In such a situation, it would be appropriate to reconsider the Tulip Avenue options T1 and T4. Their travel times could be improved if traffic signal priority is provided at the intersections on their alignments, especially at Tulip/Valley Parkway and Grand/Quince.


33

NCTD Bus Facility Access NCTD staff indicated Spruce Street access to the ETC would work best with the relocated bus bays in the 2030 condition. A connection via an extended Spruce Street over Escondido Creek would enhance bus operations and improve access to the bus bays and the Sprinter platform. Providing new circulation in the existing ETC for the BRT would not be efficient and would not improve bus access from the maintenance facility.

Park and Ride Lots Mode of access information received from SANDAG modeling staff indicated that approximately 60 percent of the BRT riders are expected to park-and-ride in using the service. It will be important to provide sufficient parking to serve this demand. The consultant team identified four potential locations along the option alignments for parking as listed in Table 11.

Table 11 Potential Park-and-Ride Lots

Location Current

Business/Use Ownership Est. No. of

Spaces Observations Washington & Metcalf

Fenced Parking Lot

Donald R Mason

30 May be used by adjacent business

Washington & Quince (NW Corner)

Escondido Swap Meet

Escondido Drive-Inn LP

490 Daytime weekday use may conflict

Washington & Quince (SE Corner)

Sickels Upholstery

Gilbert Frances RE LLC

20 May be used by adjacent business

West Tulip North of Escondido Creek

Iceoplex Escondido

Goal Line 205 Good potential due to limited daytime use

Additional research would be required to determine the status of these properties and/or their availability for BRT rider parking.

Riverside County Services Alternative routings for buses operating between Riverside County and San Diego were identified by time of day (see Appendix B) and their travel times were checked. The results are summarized in Table 12.

Table 12 Riverside County Service Travel Times

Time of Day Alignment Travel Time (min) AM SR 78/Centre City Parkway 9:59

Valley Parkway 8:33

PM Hale DAR/Quince Avenue 5:13 Valley Parkway 7:12

In the am, the Valley Parkway alignment was found to be the fastest by almost 1:30 min. In the pm, the Hale DAR/Quince Avenue alignment was found to be almost 2:00 min faster.


34

4.0 BRIDGE OPTIONS AND ISSUES As part of the IBI Team, CH2M HILL evaluated the physical requirements and impacts of the bridge across the Escondido Creek Flood Control Channel required for Option S2. The bridge would span Escondido Creek beginning from North Spruce Street to the north, extending 65 feet towards the Escondido Transit Center to the south. This crossing would be required for a connection between Washington Avenue and the Sprinter platform via Spruce Street.

4.1 Methodology This section provides a description of existing conditions within the bridge's project study area, a description of the proposed configuration of the North Spruce Street Bridge, and an assessment of potential constraints associated with the new bridge. The project study area for the proposed bridge includes Norlak Avenue to the north, Quince Street to the east, the NCTD parking lot to the south and the NCTD platform and tracks to the west. The analysis was based upon existing information from as-built plans, current parcel maps, field observations and photo documentation from a site visit dated September 19, 2008.

4.2 Existing Conditions

Land Uses The proposed North Spruce Street Bridge crossing would be located in the north central portion of the City of Escondido. The channelized portion of Escondido Creek extends through the site in an east-west direction. The creek is void of sensitive habitat; vegetation consists of a few eucalyptus trees and ornamental plantings located upslope of the creek on the south and north sides. Surrounding land uses within the project area are generally light industrial, commercial, and public use/transportation related uses. Existing land uses along North Spruce Street include the City of Escondido Public Works storage yard on the west side of the street and the NCTD bus maintenance yard and parking lot to the south and north of Norlak Avenue. An alcohol abuse rehabilitation facility is also located adjacent to Escondido Creek Flood Control Channel. A location map of the site is shown in Figure 14.


35

Figure 14 Spruce Street Bridge Location Map


36

Access North Spruce Street intersects Washington Avenue at its northern end and meets Norlak Ave at a knuckle turn approximately 400-yards to the south. Norlak Avenue has an east-west alignment and intersects with Quince Street to the east. Current parcel maps and as-built plans for North Spruce Street show that the street has an 80-foot wide easement which crosses the Escondido Creek Flood Control Channel and terminates at the boundary of the NCTD property line for the ETC. North Spruce Street is an unclassified street per the City of Escondido’s current Circulation Element Map. There are two driveways at the North Spruce Street and Norlak Avenue intersection (see Figure 15). The driveway on the west side provides exit-only access from the City‘s Public Works Maintenance and Storage Yard. The other driveway leads into an alley and public parking lot within the North Spruce Street road easement. This driveway provides access to the Community Sobering Center at 401 North Spruce (see Figure 16 ). The Sobering Center is a 22-bed privately managed facility which is listed by the City of Escondido Community Services as an alcohol abuse help center. The Center is a short-term stay facility which opens 24-hours for admissions and is operated by 13 staff, most of whom are present during normal business hours from Monday to Friday. According to current parcel maps, it is located on city property. The adjacent parking lot contains 18 spaces and a trash receptacle which are primarily used by the Center. Two existing road bridges currently span the Escondido Creek Flood Control Channel in the vicinity of the proposed Spruce Street Bridge. Quince Street and Tulip Street bridges are located approximately 300 yards and 400 yards to the east and west of the proposed new bridge crossing, respectively. These structures were constructed as part of the Escondido Creek Watershed project in 1967. The existing bridge types are pre-cast reinforced concrete box girder with pre-cast and cast-in-place concrete composite slab construction. They are supported by 24-inch diameter Cast-in-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) piles. The Quince Street Bridge is a single span structure with a total length of 60 feet. The Tulip Street Bridge is a two span structure with a total length of 110 feet and a central pier support in the middle of the channel. Both bridges are assigned Caltrans structure numbers and they are included in Caltrans Structure, Maintenance and Investigations program. Pedestrian and bicycle access is available along a Class I bicycle path which runs for approximately 150 feet along the south side of Escondido Creek Flood Control Channel from Quince Street to the west before it crosses the channel via an existing wooden truss pedestrian bridge to continue west along the north side of the channel to Hale Avenue. The wooden bridge was observed to be used frequently by small NCTD maintenance vehicles (carts) for access between the bus yard and ETC.

Drainage and Utilities Existing drainage features in the vicinity are characterized by the Escondido Creek Flood Control Channel and storm drain systems in North Spruce Street and Norlak Avenue. A portion of Norlak Avenue drains into an alley gutter which flows south to discharge into the Escondido Creek Flood Control Channel through a drainage inlet located approximately 40 yards to the west in the bicycle path. Figures 17 and 18 show views of the proposed bridge site from Escondido Creek Flood Control Channel.


37

Figure 15 Spruce Street & Norlak Avenue Intersection

Figure 16 Escondido Community Sobering Services


38

Figure 17 Escondido Creek Looking East

Figure 18 Escondido Creek Looking West


39

Existing underground utilities in North Spruce Street and Norlak Avenue include telecommunication trenches, underground electric cables, an 8-inch sewer gravity main and 8-inch potable water line including a fire hydrant located in the North East corner of the parking lot. There are street lights located between the City of Escondido yard and the Community Sobering facility. Bicycle path luminaries are located long the bicycle path on the north side of the channel, with one light post centered on the southern end of the parking lot. Overhead electric and communication lines run along the western side of North Spruce Street. A telecommunications manhole was observed to be located in the bicycle path landscape area in the south eastern corner of the parking lot.

4.3 Proposed North Spruce Street Bridge The proposed bridge cross-section shall conform to a City of Escondido standard 2-lane undivided residential street with a roadway width of 36 feet with a 5.5- foot pedestrian sidewalk on each side. The bridge will have two four-way stop controlled crossings, one at the maintenance path and another at the bicycle path on the south and north sides of the channel respectively. A conceptual layout, profile and cross-section of the proposed bridge is shown in Figure 19. For preliminary cost estimate purposes, the bridge is assumed to be a single span cast-in-place reinforced concrete box girder, which is the most conventional type of bridge construction in the region. In the absence of detailed geotechnical information, the bridge foundations is assumed to be 24-inch CIDH piles, similar to that of the existing Quince Street and Tulip Street bridges. The profile of the bridge will be set to meet the following criteria: 1. Provide sufficient clearance to 50-year flood elevations in the flood control channel with a

minimum of 2 ft freeboard and/or to provide the ability to pass 100 year storm event, whichever the greatest;

2. Match the existing platform elevations of the proposed bridge approaches from North Spruce Street and the NCTD Parking Lot at ETC to minimize the need for major cuts or fills in these areas.

The existing North Spruce Street turn knuckle will need to be modified to accommodate street improvements at the southern driveway to allow smooth and safe access for bus movements. Based on the available road right of way, a 90º parking configuration may be accommodated with loss of some existing spaces. The following types of activities will be associated with the construction of the North Spruce Street Bridge: 1. Clearing and grubbing including the removal of two eucalyptus trees and approximately 150-

feet of ornamental plantings 2. Partial demolition of the existing Escondido Creek Flood Control Channel side walls 3. Pile drilling for bridge foundations 4. Falsework construction inside the channel to support construction of the bridge deck 5. Steel and concrete work, and backfill for the construction of bridge abutments 6. Construction of minor structures such as low retaining walls and drainage structures 7. Saw-cutting, grinding and paving operations for street improvements


40

Figure 19 Spruce Street Bridge General Plan


41

Some examples of construction equipment which would be used are excavators, jack hammers, loaders, paving equipment, concrete trucks and truck mounted pump equipment, truck mounted cranes and pile drilling machines. Based on the current layout of access from Valley Parkway to the ETC parking lot, the most frequent construction access will be from North Spruce Street or Norlak Avenue with possible staging areas in the ETC and the Sobering Center parking lots. Construction activities are anticipated to displace nearly all parking for the Center. Construction will also result in temporary closure of the bicycle and maintenance paths adjacent to Escondido Creek Flood Control Channel.

4.4 Environmental Analysis and Permits

Environmental Constraints The following environmental constraints analysis provides a preliminary evaluation of potential environmental impacts to the natural and built environment surrounding the proposed study area. No formal studies or technical data have been performed to date at this preliminary planning stage. Should the North Spruce Street Bridge option be considered for further design, additional studies may be warranted as described below. During construction, short-term noise and air quality impacts may occur during excavation, grading and pile-driving activities. Sensitive receptors are located in close proximity to the proposed bridge crossing and may be affected during project construction. The sensitive receptors are associated with the residents temporarily residing at the Community Sobering Center. Traffic access and parking for nearby businesses, the rehabilitation center, and the public works facility may be temporarily disrupted. Use of the bike lanes on both sides of the flood control channel would also be affected. Detours, signage and alternate parking areas would be required to address these short-term impacts. Use of proper Best Management Practices (BMPs) and adherence to the City’s Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan (JURMP) would be required to address stormwater runoff and discharges during construction. Preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) would address construction-related water quality impacts. The portion of Escondido Creek where construction would occur is characterized as a concrete, unvegetated channel. As such, it is considered jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and is subject to the requirements for permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) for impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. Additional studies are required to determine loss or impacts to waters of the U.S. (see discussion regarding regulatory permitting requirements below).

Regulatory Permitting Requirements Because the project may impact surface water drainages, an evaluation of the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 404 of the federal CWA, and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code, is required.


42

Clean Water Act Section 404. Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC §§1344) regulate activities that have the potential to discharge fill materials into “waters of the United States” including wetlands, as administered by the USACE. Traditionally, the USACE has interpreted CWA regulations to define “waters of the U.S.” within non-tidal waters, in the absence of adjacent wetlands, as defined by the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), or the “line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or the presence of litter and debris.” Based on a preliminary field visit, the portion of the Escondido Creek channel where bridge construction is proposed has minimal to no habitat onsite. Therefore, impacts to the onsite jurisdictional drainage features are expected to be nominal. Fill activities within waters of the U.S. including wetlands may be permitted by a Nationwide or Individual Permit. The Nationwide Permit (NWP) Program involves certain activities that have been pre-authorized by USACE. Individual Permit applications are required where a NWP does not apply, and generally take up to six months for permit issuance. NWP No. 14 provides pre-authorization for activities required for the construction, expansion, modification, or improvement of linear transportation projects (e.g., roads, highways, railways, trails, airport runways, and taxiways) in waters of the United States. For linear transportation projects in non-tidal waters, the discharge cannot cause the loss of greater than 1/2-acre of waters of the United States. Any stream channel modification, including bank stabilization, is limited to the minimum necessary to construct or protect the linear transportation project; such modifications must be in the immediate vicinity of the project. The permittee must submit a pre-construction notification to the USACE if: (1) the loss of waters of the United States exceeds 1/10 acre; or (2) there is a discharge in a special aquatic site, including wetlands. Based on the limited area of impact associated with bridge construction (2989 square feet/0.068 acre), the project would meet the conditions for a NWP No. 14 since it does not exceed the half acre threshold. The following steps would be required to determine/secure permitting for the Spruce Street Bridge option under Section 404 of the CWA: 1. A qualified biologist should conduct a site delineation for Waters of the U.S. including

wetlands or Waters of the State. The survey will include the project area and adjacent areas to identify the limits of surface stream and drainage channels. The USACE defines “loss” of waters of the U.S. including wetlands to be areas permanently adversely affected by filling (e.g. bridge piers), flooding, excavation, or drainage because of the regulated activity. Waters of the U. S. temporarily filled, flooded, excavated, or drained, but restored to pre-construction contours and elevations after construction, are not included in the measurement of loss of waters of the United States.

2. Based on results of (1) above, the activity may be permitted (pre-authorized) under NWP No. 14 if loss is less than 0.5 acres, or an Individual Permit if loss is greater. If the loss of waters of the U.S. is greater than 0.1 acres, or the loss affects a special aquatic site, including wetlands, it will require a Preconstruction Notification (PCN) submitted to the USACE.

3. If no PCN is determined to be necessary, then the Project may be considered pre-authorized under Section 404 CWA, and may conditionally proceed (see next item).

4. Whether or not a PCN is determined necessary, compliance with NWP General and Regional Conditions would be required. This would include acquisition of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the CWA.


43

Clean Water Act Section 401. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has regulatory authority over waters of the United States pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, and waters of the State pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code, Div. 7, §13000 et seq. with additions and amendments effective January 1, 2006) (Porter-Cologne). In addition, isolated wetlands as defined under the Porter-Cologne are also regulated. Per CWA Section 401(a)(1), any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities which may result in any discharge into a “water of the U.S.”, is required to receive the appropriate Water Quality Certification by the RWQCB. Porter-Cologne provides the legislation for the State water quality regulations, including establishing the RWQCB as the permitting agency for issuance of Water Quality Certifications under Section 401, and establishing additional water quality regulations for discharges. The following additional steps would be required to determine/secure permitting for the Spruce Street Bridge option under Section 401 of the CWA: 1. Loss or impacts to waters of the State has not been determined. Site delineation is required

to determine characterization of impacts to categories of wetland, including jurisdictional wetland, streambed (vegetated), streambed (un-vegetated), lake/reservoir, and isolated waters, and the cubic yards of material which will be placed within jurisdictional limits.

2. An application for Water Quality Certification would be required for submittal to the RWQCB. The application requires detailed project information, a description of proposed compensatory mitigation, and proposed Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater management to be implemented as a part of design for operation or construction.

Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. Under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFG asserts jurisdiction over water courses and adjacent riparian vegetation to protect fish and wildlife associated with these resources. CDFG normally asserts jurisdiction to the top of stream banks or to the outside limits of riparian vegetation. Along the project study area, native riparian vegetation is absent. This portion of Escondido Creek is highly altered, having been channelized and graded for flood protection. Stream banks and channel slopes presently do not support any vegetation, except for scattered eucalyptus trees and ornamental landscaping. The project would still be subject to complete a CDFG Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement which is required prior to any alteration of a streambed or riparian habitat. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC 703-712; 50 CFR 10) prohibits the “take” of migratory birds, and protects eggs, nests, and feathers, unless permitted. “Take” is defined in part as “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill” …”any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird…”. This regulation can constrain construction activities that have the potential to affect nesting birds either through vegetation removal and land clearing, or through other construction- or operation-related disturbance. The regulation defines migratory birds based on various treaties, and generally includes only birds “native to the United States or its territories”, meaning “occurring in the United States or its territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes.” Hunting of specific migratory birds is permitted under the regulations. The following steps are required to determine that no impacts to migratory birds occur with project implementation:


44

1. Develop plans with measures to avoid take of migratory birds. Specifically, plans should

identify the following: a. Pre-construction surveys to identify potential for migratory bird nesting prior to

ground disturbing activities, and to provide avoidance if feasible. b. Developing a construction schedule to ensure vegetation removal nest exclusion

during the non-nesting season for birds.

Recommended Studies The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15070 allows preparation of a Negative Declaration (ND) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) when “an initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur and (2) there is not substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.” Should the proposed Escondido Transit Center project require the use of federal funds, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) would also apply. The level of NEPA documentation would be an Environmental Assessment (EA). The following actions are necessary to provide environmental clearance for the North Spruce Street Bridge option: • Completion of the CEQA Initial Study Checklist • Noise technical analysis to determine noise levels during construction and proposed

abatement measures to reduce impacts to below levels of significance • Air quality emissions analysis to determine short-term, construction-related impacts during

construction and potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors (drug rehabilitation facility) • Water quality study to determine construction-related and operational impacts to Escondido

Creek in support of applicable permits from the RWQCB • Biological database searches to confirm presence/absence of recorded nesting sites for

raptors along Escondido Creek channel within the study area (approximate 500 foot buffer) • Wetland delineation study to support preauthorization of activities as allowed by NWP No.

14 • Cultural resources database search to confirm absence/presence of recorded prehistoric

and historic archaeological sites within the study area (1/4 mile radius) If no impacts are identified in the Initial Study checklist and studies, then the appropriate level of environmental documentation would be a Negative Declaration. Should the project result in significant construction and/or operational impacts and the project is able to implement design measures that would mitigate impacts to below levels of significance, then the appropriate level of environmental documentation would be an Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Agency Coordination In addition to the regulatory agencies described above, coordination with the City of Escondido Planning and Engineering Departments, and North County Transit District will be necessary for this project.


45

Cost Estimates A preliminary cost estimates for the development of the Spruce Street Bridge is listed in Table 13 below. The duration for construction of the bridge is estimated to be six months.

Table 13 Preliminary Development Costs for Spruce Street Bridge

Description Cost Total Cost

Bridge Construction Costs:

Spruce Street Bridge @ $300/sq ft $955,500.00

Street Improvement Costs:

Street Improvements including minor structures and utility relocation $100,000.00

Contingencies @ 30% of Construction Costs $30,000.00 $130,000.00

Project Support Services @ 35% of total construction costs $379,925.00

Total Project Cost $1,465,425.00


46

5.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND NEXT STEPS

The analysis of the four options suggests a phased approach would be desirable for the BRT routing. With BRT service scheduled to start in 2012, and with no timeline available for the redevelopment of the ETC, the following phasing is recommended for the BRT connection between the Hale DAR and the ETC. • Early Improvements (2012) – Option Q1 should be implemented with an on-street stop on

Valley Parkway near the existing taxi/drop off area. Arrangements for parking at the auxiliary sites should be investigated, with the one on Tulip Street receiving the highest priority.

• Ultimate Improvements (2030) –With the bridge over Escondido Creek in place as a part of the ETC redevelopment project, Option S2 would perform best. It would take advantage of the relocated bus bays and provide a new access to the ETC from the north. It would provide the fastest travel time if BRT stops in the bus bays, and would facilitate movements between the transit center and the NCTD maintenance facility. It is also likely to provide more reliable travel times than Option Q1 as traffic volumes grow over time.

Next steps in the implementation process include designing and constructing the on-street stop on Valley Parkway, and investigating the park-and-ride lots along the BRT routing. Ongoing coordination with the redevelopment process should also be undertaken to ensure the most efficient improvements for bus and BRT circulation are provided, including the bridge over Escondido Creek.


47

APPENDIX A – TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DATA


86

APPENDIX B – RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE ALIGNMENT OPTIONS

IBI Group is a multi-disciplinary consulting organization offering services in four areas of practice: Urban Land, Facilities, Transportation and Systems.

We provide services from offices located strategically across the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Please visit www.ibigroup.com

IBI Group 701 B Street, Suite 1170 San Diego, CA 92101 tel (619) 234-4110 fax (619) 234-4109

escondido transit center access study technical report – final€¦ · escondido creek flood...

Documents