MTS' 2012 Title VI Triennial Program Update (May 2013 Revision)

TITLE VI
TRIENNIAL PROGRAM UPDATE FOR

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT
AND
NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
AUGUST 2012 REVISED MAY 2013

401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101-4231 (619) 699-1900

The
SANDAG b
resou
CHAIR
Hon. Ja

C
H
(
(
C
H
(
(
C
H
(
(
C
H
(
(
C
H
(
C
H
(
(
C
H
(
(
C
H
(
(
C
H
(
(
C
H
(
(
C
H
(
(
C
H
(
(
C
H
(
(
C
H
(
(
H
(
(
C
H
(
(
18 cities and c
builds consens
urces; and prov
ck Dale
CITY OF CARLSB
Hon. Matt Hall, Ma
(A) Hon. Farrah Do
(A) Hon. Lorraine W
CITY OF CHULA
Hon. Cheryl Cox, M
(A) Hon. Pamela Be
(A) Hon. Rudy Ram
CITY OF CORONA
Hon. Michael Woiw
(A) Hon. Al Ovrom,
(A) Hon. Casey Tan
CITY OF DEL MA
Hon. Terry Sinnott,
(A) Hon. Lee Haydu
(A) Hon. Al Corti, C
CITY OF EL CAJO
Hon. Mark Lewis, M
(A) Hon. Bill Wells,
CITY OF ENCINIT
Hon. Lisa Shaffer, D
(A) Hon. Teresa Bar
(A) Hon. Tony Kran
CITY OF ESCOND
Hon. Sam Abed, M
(A) Hon. Ed Gallo,
(A) Hon. John Mass
CITY OF IMPERIA
Hon. Jim Janney, M
(A) Hon. Robert Pat
(A) Hon. Brian Bilbr
CITY OF LA MES
Hon. Art Madrid, M
(A) Hon. Ruth Sterl
(A) Hon. Kristine A
CITY OF LEMON
Hon. Mary Teresa S
(A) Hon. Jerry Jone
(A) Hon. George G
CITY OF NATION
Hon. Ron Morrison
(A) Hon. Luis Nativi
(A) Hon. Alejandra
CITY OF OCEANS
Hon. Jack Feller, Co
(A) Hon. Gary Felie
(A) Hon. Jerry Kern
CITY OF POWAY
Hon. Don Higginso
(A) Hon. Jim Cunni
(A) Hon. John Mull
CITY OF SAN DIE
Hon. Bob Filner, M
(A) Hon. Marti Eme
(A) Vacant
Hon. Todd Gloria, C
(A) Hon. David Alva
(A) Hon. Sherri Ligh
CITY OF SAN MA
Hon. Chris Orlando
(A) Jim Desmond, M
(A) Hon. Rebecca Jo
BOA
county govern
us; plans, engi
vides informat
FIRST V
Hon. Jim
BAD
ayor
uglas, Councilmem
Wood, Councilmem
VISTA
Mayor
ensoussan, Council
mirez, Deputy Mayo
ADO
wode, Councilmem
, Councilmember
naka, Mayor
AR
Mayor
u, Deputy Mayor
Councilmember
ON
Mayor
Councilmember
TAS
Deputy Mayor
rth, Mayor
nz, Councilmember
DIDO
Mayor
Councilmember
son, Councilmemb
AL BEACH
Mayor
tton, Councilmemb
ray, Councilmembe
SA
Mayor
ing, Councilmemb
lessio, Councilmem
GROVE
Sessom, Mayor
s, Councilmember
astil, Councilmemb
NAL CITY
n, Mayor
idad, Vice Mayor
Sotelo-Solis, Coun
SIDE
ouncilmember
n, Councilmember
, Councilmember
Y
on, Mayor
ngham, Councilme
in, Deputy Mayor
EGO
ayor
erald, Councilmem
Council President
arez, Councilmemb
htner, Councilmem
ARCOS
o, Councilmember
Mayor
ones, Vice Mayor
ARD O

ment are SAND
neers, and bui
tion on a broad
VICE CHAIR
m Janney
mber
mber
member
or
mber
r
ber
ber
er
er
mber
ber
cilmember
r
ember
ber
ber
mber
OF DIRE

DAG serving a
ilds public tran
d range of top

SECOND
Hon. Don
CITY OF S
Hon. Jack D
(A) Hon. Jo
(A) Hon. Ro
CITY OF S
Hon. Lesa
(A) Hon. M
(A) Hon. D
CITY OF V
Hon. Judy
(A) Hon. D
(A) Hon. Jo
COUNTY
Hon. Greg
(A) Hon. Ro
(A) Hon. D
Hon. Bill H
(A) Hon. D

ADVISOR

IMPERIAL
Hon. John
(A) Hon. Bi
CALIFORN
Malcolm D
(A) Laurie B
METROPO
Harry Math
(A) Hon. Ro
NORTH C
Hon. Mark
(A) Hon. Ed
(A) Hon. M
U.S. DEPA
CAPT Cliffo
Southwest
(A) CAPT A
Southwest
SAN DIEG
Hon. Ann M
(A) Hon. Bo
SAN DIEG
Tom Worn
(A) David B
SOUTHER
CHAIRME
Hon. Allen
San Pasqua
Hon. Robe
Pala Band o
MEXICO
Hon. Reme
Cnsul Ge
(A) Hon. Fr
Deputy C
Hon. Alber
ECTOR
s the forum fo
nsit; makes stra
pics pertinent t
VICE CHAIR
Higginson
SANTEE
Dale, Councilmemb
ohn Minto, Vice Ma
ob McNelis, Counc
SOLANA BEACH
Heebner, Councilm
Mike Nichols, Mayor
avid A. Zito, Counc
VISTA
Ritter, Mayor
avid Cowles, Depu
ohn Aguilera, Coun
OF SAN DIEGO
Cox, Chairman
on Roberts, Superv
ave Roberts, Super
orn, Supervisor
ianne Jacob, Vice C
RY MEMBERS
L COUNTY
Renison, Superviso
ill Hodge, Mayor, C
NIA DEPARTMEN
Dougherty, Director
Berman, District 11
OLITAN TRANSIT
his, Chairman
on Roberts
COUNTY TRANSI
k Packard, Vice Cha
d Gallo
Mike Nichols
ARTMENT OF DE
ord Maurer, USN, C
t Division Naval Fac
Allan Stratman, USN
t Division Naval Fac
GO UNIFIED POR
Moore, Chair
ob Nelson
GO COUNTY WA
nham, Chairman
Barnum, Director
RN CALIFORNIA
EN S ASSOCIATI
Lawson, Chairman
al Band of Diegue
ert Smith, Chairman
of Mission Indians

edios Gmez-Arnau
neral of Mexico
rancisco J. Olivarra
nsul General of Me
rto Diaz
RS
or regional dec
ategic plans; o
to the regions
EXECUT
Gary L. G
ber
ayor
cilmember
H
member
r
cilmember
uty Mayor
ncilmember

visor
rvisor
Chair
or, District 1
City of Calexico
NT OF TRANSPORT
r
Director
T SYSTEM
IT DISTRICT
air
EFENSE
CEC,
cilities Engineering C
N, CEC,
cilities Engineering C
RT DISTRICT
ATER AUTHORITY
TRIBAL
ION
n,
o Indians
n,
u,
,
exico
Rev.
cision-making.
btains and allo
quality of life
IVE DIRECTOR
allegos
TATION
Command
Command
Y
032713

ocates
e.
May 27, 2013 File Number 3320100
Mr. Derrin Jourdan
Civil Rights Officer
Federal Transit Administration, Region IX
201 Mission Street, Suite 2210
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Mr. Jourdan:
SUBJECT: Title VI Program Update (revised May 27, 2013, from August 3, 2012,
submission)
Enclosed is the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and North County Transit
District (NCTD) Title VI Program Update for the 2011 Fiscal Year. The report
includes the triennial Title VI Program requirements for the MTS and NCTD. The
report is also consistent with the FTA Circular Title VI and Title VI-Dependent
Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients (FTA C 4702.1A) dated
May 13, 2007.
This report has been revised to include changes recommended during the
March 2013 Program Review. In response to a letter entitled Title VI Program in
Review addressed from the FTA, SANDAG has worked with both operators to
respond to the four program components that were asked to be addressed. The
four components include the operators to 1) submit Limited English Proficiency
four factor analysis and language assistance plan, 2) submit a statement
regarding whether any construction projects have been undertaken by the
recipient during the reporting period, 3) submit a copy of the recipients Title VI
complaint form, and, 4) submit a list of any active investigations conducted by the
entities other than FTA, lawsuits, or complaints naming the recipient and/or
subrecipient that allege discrimination on the base of race, color, or national
origin.
The following pages have been amended to address all four of the components
outlined above, respectively:
Page 3: Requirement to Develop Title VI Complaint Procedures
Page 3: Requirement to Record Title VI Investigations, Complaints, and
Lawsuits
Page 11: Requirement to Prepare and Submit a Title VI Program
Page 12: Guidance on Conducting an Analysis of Construction Projects

iii
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter I General Requirements and Guidelines..................................................................... 1
1. Overview .............................................................................................................. 2
2. Required Components of the Program Update ................................................ 2
3. General Requirements ........................................................................................ 2
Chapter II Program-Specific Requirements and Guidelines
for Recipients Serving Large Urbanized Areas ........................................................ 13
1. Overview .............................................................................................................. 14
2. Program-Specific Requirements ......................................................................... 14
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 MTS Inventory of Transit Stops within Low-Income Areas ............................................ 46
Table 2-2 MTS Inventory of Transit Stops within Minority Areas ................................................... 46
Table 2-3 MTS Inventory of Transit Stops within LIM Areas ........................................................... 46
Table 2-4 NCTD Inventory of Transit Stops within Low-Income Areas........................................... 47
Table 2-5 NCTD Inventory of Transit Stops within Minority Areas ................................................. 47
Table 2-6 NCTD Inventory of Transit Stops within LIM Areas ......................................................... 47
Table 2-7 MTS SDTI Vehicles .............................................................................................................. 48
Table 2-8 MTS Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations
Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ..................................................................................... 53
Table 2-9 MTS Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations
Table 2-10 NCTD Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations
Table 2-11 NCTD Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations
Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes) ............................................................................. 57
Number of Transfers.......................................................................................................... 61

vi
LIST OF TABLES (CONT D)
Total Cost of Trip ($).......................................................................................................... 65
Total Cost per Mile of Trip ($) .......................................................................................... 69
Total Cost per Mile of Trip ($) .......................................................................................... 70
Distance of Trip (miles)...................................................................................................... 71
Cost per Mile of Trip ($) .................................................................................................... 73
Table 2-29 NCTD Non-Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations
Table 2-32 MTS Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations
Table 2-33 MTS Non-Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations
Table 2-34 NCTD Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations
Table 2-35 NCTD Non-Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations
vii
LIST OF TABLES (CONT D)
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 MTS Low-Income Population ......................................................................................... 16
Figure 2-2 MTS/NCTD Low-Income Population ............................................................................... 17
Figure 2-3 NCTD/MTS Low-Income Population ............................................................................... 18
Figure 2-4 MTS Minority Population ............................................................................................... 19
Figure 2-5 MTS/NCTD Minority Population ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 2-6 NCTD/MTS Minority Population .................................................................................... 21
Figure 2-7 MTS LIM Population........................................................................................................ 22
Figure 2-8 MTS/NCTD LIM Population ............................................................................................. 23
Figure 2-9 NCTD/MTS LIM Population ............................................................................................. 24
Figure 2-10 San Diego Region Census Tracts .................................................................................... 25
Figure 2-11 MTS Census Tracts ........................................................................................................... 26
Figure 2-12 MTS/NCTD Census Tracts ................................................................................................ 27
Figure 2-13 NCTD/MTS Census Tracts ................................................................................................ 28
Figure 2-14 MTS Transit Service ......................................................................................................... 29
Figure 2-15 MTS/NCTD Transit Service ............................................................................................... 30
Figure 2-16 NCTD/MTS Transit Service ............................................................................................... 31
Figure 2-17 MTS Low-Income Transit Access ..................................................................................... 36
Figure 2-18 MTS/NCTD Low-Income Transit Access .......................................................................... 37
Figure 2-19 NCTD/MTS Low-Income Transit Access .......................................................................... 38
Figure 2-20 MTS Minority Transit Access ........................................................................................... 39
Figure 2-21 MTS/NCTD Minority Transit Access ................................................................................ 40
Figure 2-22 NCTD Minority Transit Access ........................................................................................ 41
Figure 2-23 MTS LIM Transit Access ................................................................................................... 42
Figure 2-24 MTS/NCTD LIM Transit Access ........................................................................................ 43
Figure 2-25 NCTD/MTS LIM Transit Access ........................................................................................ 44
ix
APPENDIX
Appendix A Rider Alert and Notice of Public Hearing Samples .................................................... A-1
Appendix B MTS/NCTD Title VI Complaint Procedures .................................................................. B-1
Appendix C MTS/NCTD Information Request Policies .................................................................... C-1
Appendix D Population by Census Tract ......................................................................................... D-1
Appendix E MTS/NCTD Title VI Studies ........................................................................................... E-1
Appendix F Coordinated Plan Performance Monitoring Chapter ................................................ F-1
Appendix G MTS Bus Stop Location Process .................................................................................... G-1
Appendix H NCTD Service Standards Final Report.......................................................................... H-1
Appendix I MTS Bus Maintenance Plan ......................................................................................... I-1
Appendix J MTS/NCTD Transit Security Policies ............................................................................. J-1
Appendix K MTS/NCTD Language Assistance Plans ........................................................................ K-1

1
CHAPTER I
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES

2
CHAPTER I
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES
OVERVIEW
The Federal Transit Agency (FTA) requires all transit operators who receive federal funds to conduct
assessments of Title VI, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in order to demonstrate nondiscrimination of
services and facilities for minority communities. In San Diego County, this responsibility was
previously held by two transit agencies: the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and the
North County Transit District (NCTD). Assessments conducted for MTS previously included the
following transit operators/subcontractors: San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC), MTS Contract
Services, and San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI).
With the approval of Senate Bill (SB) 1703 (Peace) in 2002 and the consolidation of planning and
programming functions, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) entered into a
Master Agreement with MTS and NCTD and took responsibility for conducting the triennial Title VI
Program Update on behalf of the transit agencies. This update for Fiscal Year 2011 is consistent with
the Title VI Circular Title VI and Title VI-Dependent Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration
Recipients (May 13, 2007, FTA C 4702.1A, hereinafter referred to as the Circular ) as required.
Operational planning continues to be managed by the individual transit agencies, along with the
responsibility to evaluate major service changes on an incremental basis. SANDAG is responsible for
the evaluation of transit fare changes pursuant to the Master Agreement between the parties.
Additionally, SANDAG reviews major service changes affecting regional transit service. A summary
of these efforts is included in the SANDAG quadrennial program update prepared separately from
this document.
REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM UPDATE
Two chapters of the Circular include instructions for the completion of the Title VI Program Update
as they apply to MTS and NCTD. The following required components in this chapter are consistent
with Section IV of the Circular while Chapter 2 of this update is consistent with the reporting
requirements specified in Section V of the Circular.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The following requirements are imposed on all Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recipients and
subrecipients to ensure that their programs, policies and activities comply with the Department of
Transportation (DOT) Title VI regulations.
3
1. Requi r ement t o Pr ovi de an Annual Ti t l e VI Cer t i f i cat i on and Assur ance
The annual Title VI Certification and Assurances were provided to the FTA via an update in
the FTAs Web-based Grants Management System (TEAM). The MTS certifications and
assurances were updated on November 16, 2011, and the NCTD certifications and assurances
were updated on December 1, 2011.
2. Requi r ement t o Devel op Ti t l e VI Compl ai nt Pr ocedur es
MTS and NCTD have developed procedures for investigating and tracking Title VI complaints
filed against them and have made their procedures for filing a complaint available to
members of the public upon request. Details of the above are included in Section 5 of this
Chapter. Copies of each operators Title VI complaint form (in both English and Spanish) can
be found in Appendix B.
3. Requi r ement t o Recor d Ti t l e VI Invest i gat i ons, Compl ai nt s, and Law sui t s
MTS
MTS has one active Title VI claim from September 2011 alleging that an MTS Code
Compliance Officer and a Transit Security Officer were rude and intimidating to a Mexican
couple who wanted to board the trolley. The husband and wife allege that the officers made
threats and racial slurs towards them about being Mexican and Jewish. The Risk and Claims
Department is working with the Transit System Security Department in investigating this
alleged incident. Officer's reports deny derogatory statements but document resistance and
verbal obstruction from complainant during security contact. A criminal case is still pending.
Complainants also filed a civil lawsuit on November 30, 2012, alleging excessive force, false
arrest and imprisonment, and failure to train and supervise. The civil case is still pending and
no trial date has been set.
NCTD
At the close of Fiscal Year 2012 NCTD has no active Title VI complaints. Additionally, there is
no current legal action, lawsuits, or other claims against NCTD.
4. Requi r ement t o Pr ovi de Meani ngf ul Access t o LEP Per sons
MTS
Most MTS public information documents are published and presented to the public in both
English and Spanish, including vital documents such as Rider Alerts and Notices of Public
Hearings (examples included in Appendix A). Information and warning signs posted along the
Trolley lines and at bus stops are also available to both English and Spanish-speaking
populations.
The Transit Store and the Telephone Information Department provide information on all MTS
transit services and are staffed by Spanish-speaking employees. Bilingual personnel also are
available at all major community events.

4
NCTD
NCTD provides public information materi als (including Rider Guides, Rider Alerts, and Notices
of Public Hearings) in both English and Spanish (examples included in Appendix A). In
addition to providing public information materials in both English and Spanish (including
Rider Guides, Rider alerts, mini guides, and Notices of Public Hearings), North County Transit
District has added an equivalent website in Spanish so NCTD customers have access to all the
tools and benefits English-speaking segments of the population do including information
about promotions, special events, and other notifications.
In addition, during the community outreach phase of the mobility plan of 2011, NCTD added
a language box in our outreach materials that provided instructions about how to obtain
information materials in alternative formats and languages including Vietnamese, Chinese,
and Tagalog. Bilingual outreach staff was hired to conduct outreach at affect transit
locations, transit centers, schools, and service organizations.
A Language Line service has been provided to staff members including customer service
representatives that allows for real time over the phone interpreting services in any language
needed when a customer requests information or needs assistance in alternative languages.
5. Requi r ement t o Not i f y Benef i ci ar i es of Pr ot ect i on Under Ti t l e VI
The requirement to notify beneficiaries of protection under Title VI includes: A) a statement
that the agency operates programs without regard to race, color, and national origin, B) a
description of the procedures that members of the public should follow in order to request
additional information on the recipients nondiscrimination obligations, C) a description of
the procedures that members of the public should follow in order to file a discrimination
complaint. MTS and NCTD compliance with these requirements is outlined below.
(5.a.1) A statement that the agency operates programs without regard to race, color, and
national origin.
MTS and NCTD have displayed posters in the workplace, explaining that they are equal
opportunity employers and summarizing the rights and entitlements of their employees. Web
site and employment application information all contain the equal opportunity label.
MTS
All MTS public outreach materials (Rider Alerts and Public Hearing Notices) include a
statement that MTS operators adhere to a nondiscrimination policy with regard to both
services and facilities.
NCTD
The following is published in NCTDs Customer Guide and NCTDs Website:
Complaints claiming discrimination (Title VI):
NCTD is responsible for civil rights compliance and monitoring, which includes ensuring that
contractors, regardless of tier, and subrecipients, regardless of tier, properly abide by Title VI
5
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, and the
Department of Transportations Guidance to Recipients on Special Language Services to
Limited English Proficient (LEP) Beneficiaries.
In the NCTD complaint investigation process, NCTD analyzes the complainant's allegations for
possible Title VI violations. If violations are identified, they are investigated as provided in the
NCTD Title VI Discrimination Complaint Process.
(5.a.2) A description of the procedures that members of the public should follow in order
to request additional information on the recipients nondiscrimination obligations.
MTS
The MTS procedures that members of the public are advised to follow in order to request
additional information on the recipients nondiscrimination obligations are included in the
MTS Information Request Policy. This document is included in Appendix C.
NCTD
NCTDs Information Request Policy is also included in Appendix C. This document outlines the
procedures that members of the public are advised to follow in order to request additional
information on the recipients nondiscrimination obligations.
(5.a.3) A description of the procedures that members of the public should follow in order
to file a discrimination complaint.
MTS and NCTD compliance with these requirements is outlined below.
MTS
MTS Board Policy (Previously Metropolitan Transportation Development Board [MTDB] Policy)
No. 48 outlines the transit service discrimination complaint procedures. This policy was
approved on May 13, 2004. Policy No. 48 can be found in Appendix B of this Program Update.
NCTD
NCTDs Title VI discrimination complaint procedures were revised on April 9, 2009, and can be
found in Appendix B of this Program Update. Complaints are taken in writing, via e-mail, in
person, and over the phone.
6. Requi r ement t o Pr ovi de Addi t i onal Inf or mat i on Upon Request
Both MTS and NCTD will comply with any requests made by FTA to investigate complaints of
discrimination or to resolve concerns about possible noncompliance with Title VI.

6
7. Requi r ement t o Pr epar e and Submi t a Ti t l e VI Pr ogr am
The Title VI guidelines also require submission of the following information:
(7.a.1) A summary of public outreach and involvement activities undertaken since the last
submission and a description of states taken to ensure that minority and low-income
people had meaningful access to these activities.
MTS
Public outreach and involvement activities undertaken for FY09-FY11 include:
June 14, 2009, services changes and July 1, 2009, fare increases:
Outreach H Street Trolley Station, February 18, 2009
Outreach UTC Transit Center, February 18, 2009
Outreach America Plaza, February 19, 2009
Outreach Mira Mesa Market Center, February 19, 2009
Outreach Poway Road & Midland Road, February 20, 2009
Outreach Fashion Valley Transit Center, February 21, 2009
Outreach Euclid Trolley Station, February 21, 2009
Outreach Old Town Transit Center, February 21, 2009
Outreach El Cajon Transit Center, February 22, 2009
Outreach Iris Avenue Trolley Station, February 22, 2009
Public Hearing MTS Board Room, March 12, 2009
Advance notification of these meetings was provided in written form in both Spanish and
English on all vehicles operating throughout the MTS system. Spanish speaking personnel
were available at all meetings. The notifications also informed readers in English and Spanish
that the information would be made available in alternative formats upon request and that
the MTS system operators adhere to a nondiscrimi nation policy with regard to both services
and facilities. Additionally, the above outreach efforts were conducted at major transit hubs
on weekdays and weekends during both daytime and evening hours in order to maximize
accessibility by low-income and minority populations. The transit centers were ideal locations
readily accessible to low-income and minority populations via MTS services.

7
February 28, 2010, service changes:
Outreach - Plaza Bonita, November 21, 2009
Outreach - Bayfront/E Street, November 21, 2009
Outreach - Fashion Valley, November 21, 2009
Outreach - Santee Town Center, November 21, 2009
Outreach - Fashion Valley, November 22, 2009
Outreach - 24th Street, November 22, 2009
Outreach - Old Town, November 22, 2009
Outreach - Rancho Bernardo, November 22, 2009
Public Hearing - MTS Board Room, December 10, 2009
Broadway bus stops (Downtown San Diego) - February 28, 2010
City College Trolley Station - February 28, 2010
Fashion Valley Transit Center - February 28, 2010
Old Town Transit Center - February 28, 2010
El Cajon Transit Center - February 28, 2010
Chula Vista Trolley Stations - February 28, 2010
Euclid Trolley Station - February 28, 2010
Iris Trolley Station - February 28, 2010
University City Stations - February 28, 2010
Fashion Valley Transit Center - March 7, 2010
Old Town Transit Center - March 7, 2010
The above outreach efforts were conducted on weekends because the weekend service was
most impacted by the service change proposals. They were held at major transit hubs, readily
accessible via MTS services, in order to maximize accessibility by low-income and minority
populations. English and Spanish speaking personnel were available at all of the outreach
sessions. In addition to the outreach listed above, MTS Operations and Contract management
staff had significant informal presence at major transit hubs during the changes, interacting
8
with passengers in English and Spanish. Advance notification of the Public Hearing was
provided in written form in both Spanish and English on all vehicles operating throughout
the MTS system. The notifications also informed readers in English and Spanish that the
information would be made available in alternative formats upon request and that the MTS
system operators adhere to a nondiscrimination policy with regard to both services and
facilities.
Low Floor Trolley Ramps
Public Hearing - MTS Board Room, August 19, 2010
NCTD
Public outreach and involvement activities undertaken since the last Program Update
submission include:
An extensive outreach effort was conducted for this major service restructuring, consisting of
the following workshops, presentations, and open houses:
DATE VENUE /ACTIVITY
2/14/2011 Encinitas Senior/Community Center Open House
2/15/2011 Escondido Senior Center Workshop
2/15/2011 Carlsbad Learning Center Open House
2/16/2011 Carlsbad Learning Center Open House
Oceanside Transit Center Open House
2/16/2011 Vista Transit Center Open House
Escondido Transit Center Open House
Westfield Mall Transit Center Open House
Oceanside - Crown Heights Resource Center Workshop
Vista Townsite Community Partnership Workshop
2/16/2011 Oceanside Transit Center Open House
Vista Community Partnership - Presentation

9
Catholic Senior Services-Escondido Apts. Open House
Ramona Senior and Community Center Open House
2/17/2011 Escondido City Hall Open House
2/17/2011 Oceanside Library Mission Rd. Branch Community Room Open House
2/17/2011 Oceanside Transit Center Open House
Vista Transit Center Open House
2/18/2011 Escondido Transit Center Open House
EMASS - Escondido Open House Open House
2/21/2011 Pacifica Senior Community Open House
2/22/2011 SD Center for the Blind Open House
2/22/2011 Casa Escondida - Presentation
2/22/2011 NCTD Administrative Offices Presentation
Vista Senior Center Open House
Silvercrest Senior Apartments Open House
10
2/24/2011 Westfield Mall Transit Center Open House
SD Center for the Blind Presentation
3/1/2011 San Marcos Senior Center Open House
3/2/2011 Fallbrook Senior Center Open House
3/3/2011 Palomar College Quad Open House
Solana Beach Senior Center Open House
Vista Public Library, Escondido Blvd. Branch Open House
Woodland Village Senior Community - Presentation
3/7/2011 Veterans Administration Hospital Open House
3/8/2011 Escondido Library, Kalmia St. Branch Open House
3/9/2011 El Corazon Senior Center Open House
3/10/2011 Presentation MP Transitions Program - Escondido
3/15/2011 Presentation City of Solana Beach Senior Commission
3/16/2011 Open House Mira Costa College San Elijo Campus
Solana Beach Senior Center Open House
11
3/17/2011 Escondido Senior Apartments - Mobility Plan Presentation
4/5/2011 Cape Cod Senior Apartments Open House
4/6/2011 Carlsbad Senior Center Open House
These outreach events were widely promoted via radio spots in Spanish, ads in the local
newspapers, Spanish newspapers, and Customer Alerts listing the open houses and workshops
available to the public. Most of these events had bilingual personnel available to answer
questions and gather feedback, and the rest had an English speaking staff member aided by a
Spanish speaking certified interpreter and translator.
The open houses were conducted during the day, in the evenings, and on the weekends to
maximize accessibility by low-income and minority populations. Libraries, schools, community
centers, and transit centers were all selected to allow for wide participation from low-income
and minority populations. These locations were all accessible via NCTD services.
In addition, NCTD continues to participate in events that attract Spanish-speaking
populations.
(7.a.2) A copy of the agencys plan for providing language assistance for persons with
limited English proficiency that was based on the DOTLEP Guidance or a copy of the
agencys alternative framework for providing language assistance.
SANDAG recently developed a regional Language Assistance Plan (April, 2012) that is
available to the transit operators and will be included separately in the SANDAG Quadrennial
Title VI Program Update. The Language Assistance Plan outlines the five federal guidelines:
identifying limited English proficient (LEP) individuals who need language assistance,
providing language assistance measures, training staff, providing notice to LEP persons, and
monitoring and updating the Plan. The Plans Vital Documents Guidelines determined that
Spanish is SANDAGs language threshold for document and oral presentation translation
where appropriate. The SANDAG Language Assistance Plan was completed with the
assistance and support of the transit operators who will be using the information included in
the plan to determine their approach to language assistance in the coming months.
Additionally, and as stated previously in Section 4, both MTS and NCTD publish and present
information to the public in both Spanish and English.
See Appendix K for both MTSs and NCTDs draft LEP Plans. The MTS and NCTD Board of
Directors will approve the respective LEP Plans in the summer of 2013.
(7.a.3) A copy of the agency procedures for tracking and investigating Title VI complaints.
See Appendix B for both MTSs and NCTDs procedures.
12
(7.a.4) A list of any Title VI investigations, complaints, or lawsuits filed with the agency
since the time of the last submission. This list should include only those
investigations, complaints, or lawsuits that pertain to the agency submitting the
report, bot necessarily the larger agency or department of which the agency is a
part.
The fulfillment of this requirement is found in Section 3 of this Chapter, which lists the
current claims.
(7.a.5) A copy of the agencys notice to the public that it complies with Title VI and
instructions to the public on how to file a discrimination complaint.
The fulfillment of this requirement is found in the above Section 5 (Title VI complaint
procedures and instructions to the public regarding how to file a complaint).
8. Gui dance on Conduct i ng an Anal ysi s of Const r uct i on Pr oj ect s
Since the passing of SB 1703 in 2002, construction/infrastructural Title VI analyses for public
transit projects are conducted by SANDAG. SB 1703 consolidated all of the roles and
responsibilities of SANDAG with many of the transit functions of the Metropolitan Transit
Development Board and the North San Diego County Transit Development Board. The
consolidation allows SANDAG to assume transi t planning, funding allocation, project
development, and eventually construction in the San Diego region, in addition to its ongoing
transportation responsibilities and other regional roles. SANDAG will include guidance on
conducting an analysis of construction projects in SANDAGs next Triennial Title VI program
update, slated for submittal in October 2015.
9. Gui dance on Pr omot i ng Incl usi ve Publ i c Par t i ci pat i on
The fulfillment of this requirement is found in the above Sections 4 and 7.
As stated in Sections 4 and 7, MTS and NCTD use a wide array of techniques to promote inclusive
public participation. Some of these strategies include vital document and meeting presentation
material translation into Spanish; using locations, facilities and meeting times that are convenient
and accessible to low-income and minority communities; and placing public notices at all stations
and in all vehicles, and measures targeted to overcome linguistic, institutional , cultural, economic,
historical, or other barriers that may prevent minority and low-income people and populations from
effectively participating in the decision-making process.

13
CHAPTER II
PROGRAM-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND
GUIDELINES FOR RECIPIENTS SERVING LARGE
URBANIZED AREAS

14
CHAPTER II
PROGRAM-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES
FOR RECIPIENTS SERVING LARGE URBANIZED AREAS
OVERVIEW
This chapter provides the requested information as specified under the program-specific guidance
(Chapter V) of the Title VI Circular (FTA C 4702.1A). The guidance applies to the Metropolitan
Transit System (MTS) and the North County Transit District (NCTD) since they are recipients of FTA
funds and provide service to geographic areas with populations of 200,000 people or greater under
49 U.S.C. 5307.
PROGRAM-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
The following requirements are provided in the order of the revised Title VI Circular (Chapter V).
1. REQUIREMENT TO COLLECT DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
The FTA recommends that recipients implement one or more of the following three options
to fulfill the requirement to collect demographic data: A) The preparation of demographic
and service profile maps and charts, B) The collection of survey information on customer
demographics and travel patterns, or C) The implementation of a locally developed
alternative to collect and analyze demographic data on their beneficiaries.
On behalf of the transit agencies, SANDAG prepares demographic and service profile maps
(Option A) for the evaluation of low-income and minority population groups. This
information is updated every three years in the Program Update and also used by the transit
agencies to evaluate the Title VI impacts of major services changes as necessary. Additionally,
SANDAG collects survey data on customer demographics and travel patterns (Option B) which
are used in the evaluation of transit service changes and fare proposals. Given SANDAGs
development of Options A and B, no locally developed alternative was created (Option C).
Information collected under Options A and B are discussed in the following section.
Option A: Demographic and Service Profile Maps and Charts
(1) A base map of the agencys service area that includes each Census tract,
major streets and highways, transit facilities and major activity centers; and
(2) A demographic map that plots the Census tracts where the percentage of the
total minority and low-income population residing in these areas exceeds the
average minority and low-income population for the service area as a whole.
To fulfill the requirements for Part 1 and 2 of Option A, SANDAG used 2010 Census data and
2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS) data to develop Low-Income, Minority, and
15
Low-Income and Minority (LIM) maps. SANDAG identified the regions most vulnerabl e
communities as the following:
Low Income: Any Census tracts where the percentage of the total low-income population
1

(percentage of the population living at or below 100% of the federal poverty level ) residing
in these areas exceeds the average low-income population for the service area as a whole.
The MTS service area is 12.9% low income, while NCTDs service area is 10.8% low income.
Mi nor i t y: Any Census tracts where the percentage of the total minority
2
(non-White)
population residing in these areas exceeds the average minority population for the service
area as a whole. The MTS service area is 54.7% minority, while NCTDs service area is 44.0%
minority.
LIM: A LIM Census Tract is defined as any census tract in which the residents were considered
either Low Income or Minority.
Using the established criteria above, the region was broken up into three smaller areas to
produce sub-regional maps that are easier to read. Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 illustrate the
Low-Income Census Tracts in the MTS and NCTD service areas, while Figures 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6
illustrate the Minority Census Tracts. Figures 2-7, 2-8, and 2-9 illustrate the LIM Census Tracts
in the MTS and NCTD service areas.
In addition, Figures 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, and 2-13 include the number and location of Census
Tracts in the MTS and NCTD service areas. Figures 2-14, 2-15, and 2-16 show the transit
facilities, rail/Premium Express stations, activity centers, and the distribution of transit services,
including, fixed route, light rail, and heavy rail services located in each service area. Activity
centers note the location of colleges and universities, government centers, hospitals, large
private employers, school sites, and tourist attractions.

1
SOURCE: 2006-2010 American Community Survey (ACS)
2
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010
16
Fi gur e 2-1
MTS Low -Income Popul at i on

17
Fi gur e 2-2
MTS/NCTD Low Income Popul at i on

18
Fi gur e 2-3
NCTD/MTS Low -Income Popul at i on

19
Fi gur e 2-4
MTS Mi nor i t y Popul at i on

20
Fi gur e 2-5
MTS/NCTD Mi nor i t y Popul at i on

21
Fi gur e 2-6
NCTD/MTS Mi nor i t y Popul at i on

22
Fi gur e 2-7
MTS LIM Popul at i on

23
Fi gur e 2-8
MTS/NCTD LIM Popul at i on

24
Fi gur e 2-9
NCTD/MTS LIM Popul at i on

25
Fi gur e 2-10
San Di ego Regi on Census Tr act s

26
Fi gur e 2-11
MTS Census Tr act s

27
Fi gur e 2-12
MTS/NCTD Census Tr act s

28
Fi gur e 2-13
NCTD/MTS Census Tr act s

29
Fi gur e 2-14
MTS Tr ansi t Ser vi ce

30
Fi gur e 2-15
MTS/NCTD Tr ansi t Ser vi ce

31
Fi gur e 2-16
NCTD/MTS Tr ansi t Ser vi ce

32
(3) A chart for each Census tract that shows the actual numbers and percentages
for each minority group within the tract and the total population for each
tract.
Appendix D provides a complete breakdown of all populations that comprise
each of the 627 census tracts in San Diego County (MTS and NCTD service
areas). Tracts where low-income and minority percentages exceed the
regional average have been highlighted, as well as those that are considered
LIM.
Option B: Survey Information on Customer Demographics and Travel Patterns
SANDAG collects information on the race, income, travel patterns and household
characteristics of transit riders in the two transit districts, MTS and NCTD. Onboard transit
ridership surveys are conducted approximately every five years, or as funding is available.
Additionally, public opinion surveys are conducted by telephone to collect information that
will support and provide direction to future planning and marketing efforts related to transit
use and operations in the San Diego region. The most recent complete onboard ridership
survey effort took place in 2009. Beginning with the 2009 survey effort, the following
information is currently being collected as recommended by the FTA in the May 2007 Title VI
Circular (FTA C 4702.1A):
(1) Information on riders race, color, and national origin
(2) Whether the rider speaks or understands English not well or not at all
(3) Information on riders income or income range
(4) The frequency of transit use
(5) The typical number of transfers made
(6) The fare payment type and media most frequentl y used
(7) Riders auto availability
(8) Riders opinion of the quality of service they receive
The above information will be used to evaluate service and fare changes consistent with
Chapter V Section 4 of the FTA Title VI Circular (FTA C 4702.1A). Studies conducted by the
transit agencies utilizing the information currently available are included in Appendix E.
Studies conducted by SANDAG will be available in the SANDAG quadrennial program update
prepared separately from this document.

33
2. REQUIREMENT TO SET SYSTEMWIDE SERVICE STANDARDS
A comprehensive performance monitoring program was developed by SANDAG to ensure
that public transit in San Diego County is provided in an efficient, effective, and equitable
manner. The goals and objectives of regional transit planning and development are provided
in Chapter 3 of the FY 2012 2016 Coordinated Public Transit Human Services
Transportation Plan (Appendix F).
Service standards are defined by indicators where quantitative data is available.
3
SANDAG
developed a comprehensive evaluation program to monitor transit service which includes the
annual analysis of 26 transit indicators. Of those indicators, the four service standards
monitored by SANDAG, as recommended by the FTA for Title VI purposes, include:
(1) Vehi cl e Load
The evaluation of vehicle load is included in the Coordinated Plan under the analysis of
both productivity and comfort performance measures. The analysis of productivity
involves the determination of desired minimum loads to understand the need for
potential service adjustments for under-performing routes. The comfort analysis is geared
toward providing the appropriate service for the markets being served and is the basis for
the vehicle load analysis suggested by the FTA. The comfort indicator, rather than the
productivity one, enables SANDAG to understand if the vehicle load on a certain route is
consistently exceeding its service standard.
The standard used by SANDAG to evaluate comfort based on load factor is standee
density. The measurement of standee density takes into account vehicle size and the
available floor room of each vehicle and also takes into account the type of service
provided.
Guideline - Regional and Community Service No Standees.
Guideline All Other Services No more than 20 percent of revenue hours
exceeding one standee per four square foot on local street
operation.
(2) Vehi cl e Headw ay
SANDAG sets minimum headway goals by time of day (peak or off-peak), route class
(Regional Rail, Regional Bus, Corridor Service, Local Bus Service, Community Bus, and
Rural Service) and by population density (Urban, Suburban or Rural areas).
Peak Guideline - Minimum headways of 30 minutes for Urban/Suburban
Regional Rail, 20 minutes for Urban/Suburban Regional and
Corridor Bus, 30 minutes for Urban Local Bus/60 minutes for
Suburban Local Bus, and 60 minutes for Urban/Suburban
Community Bus.

3
On the other hand, service policies are not necessarily based on a quantitative threshold and are discussed separately in the
next section as recommended by the FTA.
34
Off-Peak Guideline - Minimum headways of 120 minutes for Urban/Suburban
Regional Rail, 30 minutes for Urban/Suburban Regional Bus,
20 minutes for Urban Corridor Bus/150 minutes for Suburban
Corridor Bus, 60 minutes for Urban/Suburban Local Bus, and 60
minutes for Urban Community Bus/120 minutes for Suburban
Community Bus.
(3) On-Ti me Per f or mance
This service standard measures the reliability of the transportation system to ensure that
the service is consistent with published timetables. This indicator helps maintain
passenger ridership and provides a link between the published timetables (promised
service) and actual service operated on the road.
Guideline Regional Service - 92 percent of all services shall depart and arrive
within five minutes of scheduled times (none early).
Guideline Corridor Service 90 percent of all services shall depart and arrive
within five minutes of scheduled times (none early).
Guideline Local and Community Service 80 percent of all services shall depart
and arrive within five minutes of scheduled times (none early).
(4) Di st r i but i on of Tr ansi t Ameni t i es
The fourth transit service indicator recommended in the FTA Circular is the distribution of
transit amenities. However, this process is individually monitored by the transit agencies. In
the future, SANDAG will monitor transit amenities for its TransNet funding projects along
major transportation corridors. MTS and NCTD distribute transit amenities in the following
manner.
MTS
Transit amenities for the MTS service area are distributed according to route type and
depending upon the passenger demand of each stop. Benches and stops are added with
increased amounts of boardings and alightings. The process that MTS uses in locating bus
stops and distributing amenities is outlined in Appendix G.
NCTD
COASTER/SPRINTER: One of the essential passenger amenities is the provision of current route
maps and timetables at ALL Coaster and Sprinter stations. Future improvements include
updates to the way finding signing system and possible additional amenities as part of joint
development projects at stations. (Appendix H: NCTD Service Standards Final Report
November 2010, Sec. 3.3 pp.4)
BREEZE: Installation of passenger amenities at bus stops such as shelters, benches, passive and
real-time schedule information displays is generally guided by passenger volumes
supplemented by considerations of equity, safety and comfort. Street furniture such as
benches can be provided at bus stops as appropriate when shelters are not provided. Priority
35
should be given to those stop locations, which are frequented by a significant number of
senior citizens or persons with disabilities. Accurate and complete information concerning
NCTD transit routes and services, bus stop and fare information should be made available to
all service area residents. Current route maps and timetables are available at Coaster and
Sprinter stations, bus transit centers, selected community locations, and aboard all NCTD
buses. Route information is available by telephone during NCTD operating hours. (Appendix
H: NCTD Service Standards Final Report November 2010, Sec. 4.3 pp.14)
SANDAG
Obj ect i ve To ensure that transit service and amenities provided in minority and low-
income census tracts are on average comparable to the level of service and
amenities provided in nonminority and non-low-income census tracts.
Tar get Percentage of minority and low-income census tracts with transit service
must not be disparately impacted when compared to the average level of
service and amenities provided in nonminority and non-low-income census
tracts.
Figures 2-17 through 2-25 maps the distribution of transit services and amenities within Low-
Income, Minority, and LIM census tracts, for each transit district.

36
Fi gur e 2-17
MTS Low -Income Tr ansi t Access

37
Fi gur e 2-18
MTS/NCTD Low -Income Tr ansi t Access

38
Fi gur e 2-19
NCTD/MTS Low -Income Tr ansi t Access

39
Fi gur e 2-20
MTS Mi nor i t y Tr ansi t Access

40
Fi gur e 2-21
MTS/NCTD Mi nor i t y Tr ansi t Access

41
Fi gur e 2-22
NCTD/MTS Mi nor i t y Tr ansi t Access

42
Fi gur e 2-23
MTS LIM Tr ansi t Access
.
43
Fi gur e 2-24
MTS/NCTD LIM Tr ansi t Access

44
Fi gur e 2-25
NCTD/MTS LIM Tr ansi t Access

45
(This page intentionally left blank)

46
Tables 2-1 through 2-6 include an analysis of transit amenities, for both the MTS and NCTD
service areas, by stop. These tables show the number of amenities (benches, shelters, or
neither) within the Low-Income, Minority, and LIM census tracts with an additional one-
quarter mile buffer added to each tract to capture those within the traditional transit
walking distance.
Tabl e 2-1. MTS INVENTORY OF TRANSIT STOPS WITHIN LOW-INCOME AREAS
Stops
Total
Within Quarter Mile
Buffer
Not Within Quarter Mile
Number
Of Low-Income Census
Tract

Tract
# % # %
Bench 2028

1286 63.4%

742 36.6%
Shelter 572

429 75.0%

143 25.0%
No Shelter Nor
Bench
2,180 1410 64.7% 770 35.3%
Total # of Stops: 4,780

3,125

1,655

Total % of Stops: 100% 65.4% 34.6%
Tabl e 2-2. MTS INVENTORY OF TRANSIT STOPS WITHIN MINORITY AREAS
Stops
Total
Within Quarter Mile
Buffer

Buffer
Number Of Minority Census Tract Of Minority Census Tract
# % # %
Bench 2028

1104 54.4%

924 45.6%
Shelter 572

299 52.3%

273 47.7%
No Shelter Nor
Bench
2,180 1232 56.5% 948 43.5%

2,635

2,145

Total % of Stops: 100% 55.1% 44.9%
Tabl e 2-3. MTS INVENTORY OF TRANSIT STOPS WITHIN LIM AREAS
Stops
Total
Within Quarter Mile
Buffer
Number Of LIM Census Tract Of LIM Census Tract
# % # %
Bench 2028

1493 73.6%

535 26.4%
Shelter 572

468 81.8%

104 18.2%
No Shelter Nor
Bench
2,180 1653 75.8% 527 24.2%

3,614

1,166

Total % of Stops: 100% 75.6% 24.4%

47
Tabl e 2-4. NCTD INVENTORY OF TRANSIT STOPS WITHIN LOW-INCOME AREAS
Stops
Total
Within Quarter Mile
Buffer
Number
Tract

Tract
# % # %
Bench 529

317 59.9%

212 40.1%
Shelter 145

77 53.1%

68 46.9%
No Shelter Nor
Bench
1,197 619 51.7% 578 48.3%

1,013

858

Total % of Stops: 100% 54.1% 45.9%
Tabl e 2-5. NCTD INVENTORY OF TRANSIT STOPS WITHIN MINORITY AREAS
Stops
Total
Within Quarter Mile
Buffer

Buffer
Number Of Minority Census Tract Of Minority Census Tract
# % # %
Bench 529

308 58.2%

221 41.8%
Shelter 145

94 64.8%

51 35.2%
No Shelter Nor
Bench
1,197 734 61.3% 463 38.7%

1,136

735

Total % of Stops: 100% 60.7% 39.3%
Tabl e 2-6. NCTD INVENTORY OF TRANSIT STOPS WITHIN LIM AREAS
Stops
Total
Within Quarter Mile
Buffer
Number Of LIM Census Tract Of LIM Census Tract
# % # %
Bench 529

379 71.6%

150 28.4%
Shelter 145

101 69.7%

44 30.3%
No Shelter Nor
Bench
1,197 852 71.2% 345 28.8%

1,332

539

Total % of Stops: 100% 71.2% 28.8%

48
(5) Ser vi ce Avai l abi l i t y
Service availability is a general measure of the distribution of transit routes within an
agencys service area. The evaluation of service availability in the SANDAG performance
monitoring program takes into account population density but also includes proximity
to park and ride locations for suburban areas. The guideline for the urban areas
includes a walking distance assessment to transit for both residents and jobs.
Accessibility targets have been established for bus stops as the requirements are
federally mandated. In some cases, cities rather than transit operators may be
responsible for bus stops. However, this objective is provided here to be consistent with
the passenger-centered focus of this Coordinated Plan and to ensure that this indicator
is tracked and the appropriate authorities are reminded of their responsibilities.
Obj ect i ve1 In urban areas, transit and land use development should ensure a
comfortable walking distance to transit for residents and jobs.
Gui del i ne 1 80 percent of residents or jobs within one-half mile of a bus stop or rail
station in urban areas.
Obj ect i ve 2 Transit and land use development should attempt to ensure that in
suburban areas, residents are within a reasonable distance of a park-and-ride facility
with access to the transit network, or a bus stop and transit services should be provided
to existing or planned smart growth areas.
Gui del i ne 1 100 percent of suburban residences within five miles of a transit stop
services.
Gui del i ne 2 70 percent of residents and 75 percent of jobs within one mile of a bus
stop or rail station in suburban areas.
Li f el i ne Ser vi ces
The evaluation of lifeline services helps to ensure that at least some level of service is
provided to areas that have been identified as smart growth opportunity areas.
Obj ect i ve Transit should attempt to maintain existing lifeline services to currently
identified rural village smart growth areas.
Gui del i ne One return trip provided at least two days per week to destinations from
rural villages identified on the Smart Growth Concept Map.

49
3. REQUIREMENT TO SET SYSTEMWIDE SERVICE POLICIES
System-wide service policies differ from the above systemwide service standards in that they
are not directly tied to a quantitative threshold. The two policies recommended by the FTA
under this category include Vehicle Assignment and Transit Security. The description of these
policies, which were independently developed by MTS and NCTD, are as follows:
(3.a.1) Vehi cl e Assi gnment
MTS Bus
MTS bus vehicles generally are assigned at random by operating entities. Several MTS fixed-
route vehicles are interlined with one another for efficiency and cost-saving purposes (one
vehicle may be assigned to several routes in a service day). Certain operating conditions
and/or route characteristics, however, may require special assignment, including:
Capacity: Articulated buses are first assigned to routes requiring the greatest amount
of passenger capacity. Routes 7, 20, and 150 are frequently assigned in this manner.
The remaining articulated buses then are assigned to routes with the next highest
passenger load demands. MTS also operates a fleet of smaller cutaway minibuses
that are used on neighborhood routes throughout the system that have lower
ridership demands. These minibuses connect with the standard bus fleet at major
transfer points and transit centers.
Service Needs: The specific mileage and service needs of each block also help
determine vehicle assignment.
Certain services have dedicated fleets. The commuter express routes use over-the-road
coaches, and the SuperLoop project uses branded buses. As MTS introduces rapid
bus services throughout its service area, it is expected that these will also use a
dedicated, branded fleet.
Further information on the bus fleet can be viewed in the MTS Bus Maintenance Plan
(Appendix I). The document was updated and submitted to the FTA in December 2011.
MTS San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI)
All SDTI light rail vehicles (LRVs) are equipped with air-conditioning and have either ramps or
wheelchair lifts. SDTI uses three types of LRV for operations (listed in Table 3):
Siemens U2: These are the oldest vehicles in the fleet and are in the process of being retired
and replaced by new S70 cars. The U2 vehicles are not regularly used on the Orange or Green
Lines, due to their more limited capabilities on these hillier lines. The U2 fleet is being retired
as new S70 vehicles are delivered.
Siemens SD100: The SD100s are more powerful than the U2s and are, therefore, more
equipped to handle the hilly terrain of the Orange Line. The SD100 vehicles, however, may be
used on the Blue Line to help complete train requirements.

50
Siemens S70: The S70s are low-floor, have ramps, and can currently only operate on the Green
Line, where station platforms have been raised. MTS is undergoing a major capital project to
update the Blue and Orange Lines to also be able to also accommodate new S70 low-floor
cars, 65 of which are ordered and in various stages of operation, delivery, or construction.
Anticipated completion date of the capital project to upgrade those lines is 2014.
Table 2-7 lists all vehicles that are included in the SDTI fleet.
Tabl e 2-7. MTS SDTI VEHICLES
Ser i es
Vehi cl e
Type

Number of
Vehi cl es

Age
(i n year s)
1000 U2 60 28-32
2000 SD100 52 20-23
3000 S70 (S) 11 7
4000 S70 (US) 32 (65*) 0-1
Tot al 155
*Total order size; 32 are currently delivered to MTS and in-service or undergoing commissioning.
NCTD BUS (Breeze)
NCTD Bus vehicles are assigned by bus operators and according to the following
vehicle/route characteristics:
Vehicle Age and Type
Fuel Capacity and/or Route Mileage
Length of the Route
Frequency of Service
Passenger Capacity
Operating Conditions (Including turns, dips, speed, and other road conditions)
System-wide service needs
NCTD SPRINTER
Train sets on the SPRINTER light rail consist of one or two low-floor Diesel Multiple Units
(DMUs). There are a total of 12 DMUs in the SPRINTER fleet. Two DMUs are operated during
peak hours each day.
NCTD COASTER
Train sets on the COASTER consist of one locomotive and five passenger cars. The seating
arrangements of the newest cars have been modified to better comply with the latest FRA
Safety Standards. Generally, however, special vehicle assignments are not necessary.
51
(3.a.2) Tr ansi t Secur i t y
MTS
MTS Security and Code Compliance Inspectors (CCI) are deployed throughout the system to
provide safety coverage and ensure proper fare use. CCIs approach all patrons on vehicles
and station platforms for proper fare and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color or
national origin. The Standard Operating Procedures are included in Appendix J.
Additional targeted security deployment is based on known incidents of crime or gang
activity, without regard to race, color, or national origin. For instance, when a station has
experienced significant graffiti or thefts, extra security details will be sent to the area.
Surveillance equipment is placed at transit facilities as funds become available based upon a
ranking criterion that combines incidence of crime with terrorist threat. Each year as funds
become available the location of new equipment is approved by the MTS Board. MTS also
began adding surveillance equipment onboard transit vehicles.
NCTD
NCTD Security has a Departmental Instruction (No. 1.12 Admin) regarding discrimination (see
Appendix J).
4. REQUIREMENT TO EVALUATE SERVICE AND FARE CHANGES
SANDAG, MTS and NCTD comply with the requirement specifications to evaluate service and
fare changes found in Chapter 5, Section 4 of the FTA Title VI Circular (FTA C 4702.1A). The
MTS and NCTD studies conducted under this requirement can be found in Appendix E of this
document. The SANDAG fare studies can be found in the SANDAG quadrennial program
update prepared separately from this report. Since the last Program Update two documents
have been submitted by SANDAG regarding regional Fare Ordinance changes, four by MTS
regarding major service changes and two by NCTD regarding major service changes.
5. REQUIREMENT TO MONITOR TRANSIT SERVICE
Transit Title VI service monitoring is conducted by SANDAG, on behalf of MTS and NCTD,
based on the requirements detailed in Chapter V, Section 5 of the FTA Circular (FTA C
4702.1A). SANDAG conducts a Low-Income and Minority (LIM) analysis by implementing the
Quality of Service methodology found in the Circular to fulfill this requirement. This
methodology ensures that consistent service is delivered between different user groups and
determines the degree to which transit service is responsive to the needs of Low-Income and
Minority communities. To do this, Low-Income, Non Low-Income, Minority, and Non-Minority
Census Tracts are compared using five different transit performance variables based on trips
taken to the top three travel destinations. Census 2010 and 2006-2010 ACS data was utilized
to determine the population characteristics while the fixed route transit networks (MTS and
NCTD) were from fall 2011. Finally, the SANDAG four-step regional travel demand model
(Series 12) was used to conduct the evaluation.
20 Low-Income, 20 Non Low-Income, 20 Minority, and 20 Non-Minority Census Tracts were
randomly selected from each transit district (MTS and NCTD) to determine the quality of
52
service. The three most frequently traveled destinations were identified separately for MTS
and NCTD using the most recent onboard passenger survey. For each of these most frequently
traveled destinations, the following service quality variables were evaluated as recommended
by the FTA, for each transit district:
Average peak hour travel time to destinations
Average non-peak hour travel time to destinations
Number of transfers required to reach the destination
Total cost of trip to the destination
Cost per mile of trip to the destination (tables for distance per trip have been added
to explain cost per mile deficiencies)
The analysis of the above categories is included in the following tables (Tables 2-8 through 2-
55). The MTS and NCTD pairs of service quality variables for Low-Income tables are shown first
(Tables 2-8 thru 2-31), and then the MTS and NCTD pairs of service quality variables of
Minority tables are shown next (Tables 2-32 thru 2-55).
QUALITY OF SERVICE FINDINGS
Overall, the Low-Income and Minority Census Tracts (MTS and NCTD) were shown to have
faster service, lower fares, and similar transfers to the top three major destinations in each
service area. However, the Low-Income and Minority Census Tracts were generally shown to
have a higher cost per mile based on the close proximity of these tracts to the major
destinations.

53
Tables 2-8 and 2-9 present the average peak period travel time (in minutes) from the select MTS
Low-Income and Non Low-Income Census Tracts to each of the top three MTS transit trip
destinations. Included in the average travel time is the travel time spent waiting for both initial
vehicle boarding and any transfers required. The overall average for MTS Low-Income Census Tracts
(53.5 minutes) is lower than that for Non Low-Income Census Tracts (85.9 minutes).

Table 2-8
MTS Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations
Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Mission Valley San Ysidro
17049 66.4 101.4 102.0
9400 55.2 70.0 88.7
8305 62.6 58.3 105.0
7600 48.1 55.3 88.7
13203 44.8 73.3 28.3
9000 37.4 41.9 77.1
8504 32.8 52.2 75.3
10106 35.4 63.9 11.4
7501 46.4 58.1 88.8
1300 27.9 20.7 64.2
2301 39.2 32.2 72.7
2710 46.6 40.2 71.5
2602 44.5 45.0 63.3
15802 63.8 55.2 90.1
10009 55.3 83.8 29.9
5700 13.5 36.2 54.7
4501 17.3 40.8 49.1
5000 25.1 53.6 42.8
11700 33.5 62.0 39.4
12700 34.7 63.2 26.8
Average:
41.5 55.4 63.5

Overall
Average:
53.5

54

Table 2-9
MTS Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego
Mission
Valley San Ysidro
17015 66.3 101.3 101.9
17040 84.1 119.1 119.7
17037 80.6 95.5 114.1
8351 79.6 87.7 109.9
8306 57.2 64.0 109.3
8102 47.0 61.7 89.6
9506 83.8 84.3 117.2
6900 38.3 45.5 78.9
100 71.0 70.7 107.6
4400 22.4 35.8 54.2
9603 80.6 56.4 114.7
9801 79.0 58.1 116.4
13601 64.1 75.3 90.4
16606 133.0 117.0 175.3
21205 131.5 123.0 157.9
13310 59.7 88.3 43.3
16702 87.9 79.4 114.3
11300 30.7 55.3 50.7
13411 80.6 109.1 76.1
9504 90.4 98.5 120.7
Average:
73.4 81.3 103.1

Overall
Average:
85.9

55
Tables 2-10 and 2-11 present the average peak period travel time (in minutes) from the select
NCTD Low-Income and Non Low-Income Census Tracts to each of the top three NCTD transit
trip destinations. The overall average for NCTD Low-Income Census Tracts (88.0 minutes) is
lower than that for Non Low-Income Census Tracts (102.8 minutes).
Table 2-10
NCTD Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17303 88.8 62.2 94.4
17603 110.1 85.8 65.5
17109 119.0 94.7 53.3
17900 104.0 45.1 98.8
18200 100.6 9.1 59.6
18603 107.6 15.7 67.9
18516 127.1 38.8 36.6
18518 140.1 48.5 52.6
19601 165.2 93.3 70.1
19903 118.2 81.1 23.1
20029 140.1 77.1 15.5
20305 149.7 151.8 106.4
20206 101.8 103.9 58.5
20602 98.1 100.2 54.8
20707 65.8 92.6 47.2
20806 162.0 164.1 118.7
18905 170.2 107.6 79.7
18610 124.1 32.2 58.1
18511 134.4 42.4 60.0
17809 126.3 64.1 98.3
Average:
122.7 75.5 66.0

Overall
Average:
88.0

56

Table 2-11
NCTD Non Low-Income Census Tract to Major Destinations
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17200 80.6 70.3 102.5
17106 127.2 116.2 83.9
17108 101.2 76.9 78.4
17601 112.0 87.7 63.4
20809 158.3 160.5 115.1
17801 123.1 45.6 79.8
18515 150.5 46.8 60.0
18700 166.8 74.8 127.0
18613 118.3 26.4 63.9
19301 147.5 51.0 57.1
19904 145.5 82.9 50.5
19203 144.5 82.0 54.1
18802 158.4 95.9 68.0
18903 172.5 110.0 82.1
19101 165.1 167.2 121.8
19106 170.8 173.0 127.5
20708 75.4 96.9 51.5
20106 148.0 150.1 104.7
20023 103.7 95.4 21.6
20307 111.5 105.9 60.5
Average: 134.0 95.8 78.7

Overall
Average:

102.8

57
Tables 2-12 and 2-13 present the average non-peak period travel time (in minutes) from the
select MTS Low-Income and Non Low-Income Census Tracts to each of the top three MTS
transit trip destinations. The overall average for MTS Low-Income Census Tracts (60.9 minutes)
is lower than that for Non Low-Income Census Tracts (93.5 minutes).

Table: 2-12
Non-Peak Hour Travel Time (Minutes)
Census Tract
Downtown
17049 142.6 161.5 179.3
9400 50.1 69.0 86.8
8305 73.0 60.5 118.6
7600 47.6 54.9 89.7
13203 46.6 75.2 30.2
9000 37.3 41.7 78.6
8504 53.5 51.8 99.1
10106 38.6 67.2 14.6
7501 46.5 84.9 93.6
1300 30.3 20.7 69.8
2301 36.6 32.2 73.3
2710 46.4 40.1 102.6
2602 49.3 44.9 66.3
15802 63.8 55.2 93.3
10009 58.5 87.2 33.3
5700 13.5 35.9 57.9
4501 19.7 43.2 54.8
5000 28.3 65.9 46.0
11700 36.6 81.1 42.6
12700 37.9 66.6 30.0
Average: 47.8 62.0 73.0

Overall
Average:

60.9

58

Table: 2-13
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego
Mission
Valley San Ysidro
17015 114.3 133.2 151.0
17040 132.2 151.1 168.9
17037 63.0 81.9 99.7
8351 75.5 103.6 112.2
8306 69.4 63.6 110.7
8102 45.8 84.8 95.4
9506 79.0 84.1 115.7
6900 43.9 51.2 86.0
100 70.8 70.5 110.7
4400 24.8 38.2 59.8
9603 97.9 63.8 116.2
9801 76.3 75.6 117.7
13601 64.0 75.2 93.6
16606 148.0 132.0 191.8
21205 131.4 122.9 161.0
13310 62.7 91.4 46.3
16702 87.9 79.3 117.4
11300 38.2 62.9 61.4
13411 83.6 112.2 79.1
9504 91.1 109.9 127.7
Average: 80.0 89.4 111.1

Overall
Average:

93.5

59
Tables 2-14 and 2-15 present the average non-peak period travel time (in minutes) from the
select NCTD Low-Income and Non Low-Income Census Tracts to each of the top three NCTD
transit trip destinations. The overall average for NCTD Low-Income Census Tracts (105.9
minutes) is lower than that for Non Low-Income Census Tracts (121.7 minutes).

Table 2-14
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17303 102.3 62.0 94.4
17603 146.5 85.6 65.5
17109 155.1 94.2 56.6
17900 155.2 45.2 99.1
18200 146.3 9.1 59.6
18603 165.2 15.6 67.8
18516 177.4 38.9 36.6
18518 180.2 48.2 52.6
19601 214.8 93.1 69.5
19903 168.1 80.8 22.8
20029 190.3 95.9 34.3
20305 199.9 151.7 106.3
20206 152.1 104.0 58.5
20602 148.5 100.3 54.8
20707 116.5 92.7 47.3
20806 227.2 179.0 133.6
18905 235.1 121.9 94.3
18610 181.5 31.9 57.9
18511 189.1 42.3 60.0
17809 178.0 63.9 98.6
Average:
171.5 77.8 68.5

Overall
Average:
105.9

60

Table 2-15
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17200 94.3 70.0 102.4
17106 164.2 115.5 83.4
17108 137.7 76.8 78.3
17601 148.4 87.4 63.4
20809 223.5 175.4 129.9
17801 174.2 45.4 80.1
18515 184.7 46.8 60.1
18700 224.4 74.7 126.9
18613 175.8 26.1 63.7
19301 212.8 60.8 72.0
19904 195.8 82.6 55.0
19203 209.8 96.7 69.1
18802 223.4 110.3 82.7
18903 237.4 124.3 96.7
19101 215.7 167.5 122.1
19106 221.2 173.0 127.6
20708 112.2 97.0 51.5
20106 198.2 150.0 104.56
20023 153.88 95 21.49
20307 161.9 105.9 60.5
Average:
183.5 99.0 82.6

Overall
Average:
121.7

61
Tables 2-16 and 2-17 show the number of transfers required for travel to the top three trip
destinations within the MTS service area. The overall average for MTS Low-Income Census
Tracts (1.2 transfers) is lower than that for Non Low-Income Census Tracts (1.6 transfers).

Table 2-16
Number of Transfers
Census Tract
Downtown
17049 0.0 2.0 1.0
9400 0.0 2.0 1.0
8305 1.0 2.0 2.0
7600 1.0 2.0 1.0
13203 1.0 3.0 1.0
9000 1.0 2.0 1.0
8504 0.0 2.0 1.0
10106 0.0 2.0 0.0
7501 0.0 2.0 1.0
1300 0.0 0.0 1.0
2301 0.0 1.0 1.0
2710 0.0 1.0 2.0
2602 1.0 2.0 1.0
15802 1.0 2.0 2.0
10009 1.0 3.0 1.0
5700 0.0 1.0 1.0
4501 0.0 1.0 1.0
5000 1.0 3.0 1.0
11700 1.0 3.0 1.0
12700 1.0 3.0 1.0
Average:
0.5 2.0 1.1

Overall
Average:
1.2

62

Table 2-17
Number of Transfers
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego
Mission
Valley San Ysidro
17015 1.0 3.0 2.0
17040 1.0 3.0 2.0
17037 0.0 2.0 1.0
8351 1.0 3.0 2.0
8306 1.0 2.0 1.0
8102 0.0 2.0 1.0
9506 1.0 1.0 2.0
6900 1.0 2.0 1.0
100 0.0 2.0 1.0
4400 0.0 1.0 1.0
9603 2.0 2.0 2.0
9801 1.0 2.0 2.0
13601 1.0 3.0 2.0
16606 2.0 2.0 2.0
21205 1.0 2.0 2.0
13310 1.0 3.0 1.0
16702 1.0 2.0 2.0
11300 0.0 2.0 1.0
13411 1.0 3.0 1.0
9504 1.0 3.0 2.0
Average:
0.9 2.3 1.6

Overall
Average:
1.6

63
Tables 2-18 and 2-19 show the number of transfers required for travel to each of the top three
NCTD transit trip destinations. The overall average for NCTD Low-Income Census Tracts
(1.0 transfers) is lower than that for Non Low-Income Census Tracts (1.1 transfers).

Table 2-18
Number of Transfers
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17303 1.0 0.0 1.0
17603 1.0 1.0 0.0
17109 1.0 1.0 0.0
17900 1.0 1.0 1.0
18200 1.0 0.0 1.0
18603 1.0 0.0 1.0
18516 1.0 1.0 0.0
18518 1.0 0.0 1.0
19601 2.0 1.0 1.0
19903 1.0 1.0 0.0
20029 1.0 2.0 0.0
20305 1.0 2.0 1.0
20206 1.0 2.0 1.0
20602 1.0 2.0 1.0
20707 0.0 2.0 1.0
20806 1.0 2.0 1.0
18905 2.0 1.0 1.0
18610 1.0 0.0 1.0
18511 2.0 1.0 1.0
17809 1.0 1.0 1.0
Average:
1.1 1.1 0.8

Overall
Average:
1.0

64

Table 2-19
Number of Transfers
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17200 1.0 0.0 1.0
17106 1.0 1.0 1.0
17108 1.0 1.0 1.0
17601 1.0 1.0 0.0
20809 1.0 2.0 1.0
17801 1.0 1.0 1.0
18515 2.0 1.0 1.0
18700 1.0 0.0 1.0
18613 1.0 0.0 1.0
19301 2.0 1.0 1.0
19904 2.0 1.0 1.0
19203 2.0 1.0 1.0
18802 2.0 1.0 1.0
18903 2.0 1.0 1.0
19101 1.0 2.0 1.0
19106 1.0 2.0 1.0
20708 1.0 2.0 1.0
20106 1.0 2.0 1.0
20023 1.0 1.0 0.0
20307 1.0 2.0 1.0
Average:
1.3 1.2 0.9

Overall
Average:
1.1

65
Tables 2-20 and 2-21 present the total transit costs required for travel from the selected MTS
Low-Income and Non Low-Income Census Tracts to the top three MTS destinations. The overall
average fares for Low-Income Census Tracts ($1.93) is lower than that for Non Low-Income
Census Tracts ($2.05).

Table 2-20
Total Cost of Trip ($)
Census Tract
Downtown
17049 $3.79 $3.79 $3.79
9400 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
8305 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89
7600 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89
13203 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
9000 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
8504 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89
10106 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
7501 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89
1300 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
2301 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
2710 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
2602 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89
15802 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
10009 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
5700 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
4501 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
5000 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
11700 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
12700 1.9 1.9 1.9
Average:
$1.91 $1.90 $1.99

Overall
Average:
$1.93

66

Table 2-21
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego
Mission
Valley San Ysidro
17015 $3.79 $3.79 $3.79
17040 $3.79 $3.79 $3.79
17037 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
8351 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
8306 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89
8102 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89
9506 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89
6900 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89
100 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
4400 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
9603 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
9801 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89
13601 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
16606 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
21205 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
13310 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
16702 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
11300 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
13411 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
9504 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
Average:
$2.02 $2.03 $2.08

Overall
Average:
$2.05

67
Tables 2-22 and 2-23 present the total transit costs required for travel from the selected NCTD
Low-Income and Non Low-Income Census Tracts to the top three NCTD destinations. The
overall average fares for Low-Income Census Tracts ($3.88) is lower than that for Non Low-
Income Census Tracts ($4.05).

Table 2-22
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17303 $3.89 $1.33 $3.33
17603 $6.17 $3.33 $1.33
17109 $6.17 $3.33 $1.33
17900 $6.17 $3.33 $3.52
18200 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52
18603 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52
18516 $5.79 $3.52 $1.52
18518 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52
19601 $5.79 $3.33 $3.33
19903 $5.79 $3.33 $1.33
20029 $5.79 $3.52 $1.33
20305 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
20206 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
20602 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
20707 $3.79 $3.52 $3.52
20806 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
18905 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52
18610 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52
18511 $6.17 $3.33 $3.52
17809 $6.17 $3.33 $3.52
Average:
$5.77 $2.90 $2.96

Overall
Average:
$3.88

68

Table 2-23
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17200 $3.89 $1.33 $3.33
17106 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52
17108 $6.17 $3.33 $3.33
17601 $6.17 $3.33 $1.33
20809 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
17801 $6.17 $3.33 $3.52
18515 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52
18700 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52
18613 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52
19301 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52
19904 $5.79 $3.33 $3.33
19203 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52
18802 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52
18903 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52
19101 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
19106 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
20708 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
20106 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
20023 $5.79 $3.33 $1.33
20307 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
Average:
$5.79 $3.09 $3.27

Overall
Average:
$4.05

69
Tables 2-24 and 2-25 present the average cost per mile from the selected MTS Low-Income
and Non Low-Income Census Tracts to the top three MTS destinations. The overall average for
Low-Income Census Tracts ($0.66 per mile) is higher than that for Non Low-Income Census
Tracts ($0.32). This is due to the locations of Low-Income tracts versus Non Low-Income tracts.
In general, Low-Income tracts are closer to the top three evaluated destinations, yielding
better overall travel times and lower fares as presented in previous tables. However, closer
proximity to major destinations also includes higher costs on a per mile basis. This average
trip distance for Low-Income riders is 12.87 miles compared to 20.20 miles for Non Low-
Income riders. This is shown in Tables 2-26 and 2-27.

Table 2-24
Cost per Mile of Trip ($)
Census Tract
Downtown
17049 $0.16 $0.04 $0.09
9400 $0.42 $0.26 $0.05
8305 $0.41 $0.28 $0.04
7600 $0.81 $0.44 $0.15
13203 $0.56 $0.08 $0.52
9000 $0.97 $0.24 $0.16
8504 $0.66 $0.47 $0.06
10106 $0.49 $0.08 $1.22
7501 $0.81 $0.48 $0.15
1300 $1.51 $1.21 $0.07
2301 $0.92 $0.84 $0.06
2710 $0.88 $0.64 $0.19
2602 $0.71 $0.68 $0.20
15802 $0.33 $0.26 $0.11
10009 $0.23 $0.16 $0.79
5700 $7.62 $0.59 $0.22
4501 $4.11 $0.60 $0.22
5000 $2.60 $0.18 $0.25
11700 $1.11 $0.32 $0.30
12700 0.7 0.2 0.4
Average:
$1.30 $0.41 $0.26

Overall
Average:
$0.66

70

Table 2-25
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego
Mission
Valley San Ysidro
17015 $0.16 $0.04 $0.08
17040 $0.19 $0.09 $0.08
17037 $0.32 $0.19 $0.10
8351 $0.32 $0.19 $0.04
8306 $0.49 $0.34 $0.13
8102 $0.50 $0.28 $0.13
9506 $0.47 $0.27 $0.13
6900 $1.13 $0.25 $0.17
100 $1.08 $0.21 $0.17
4400 $2.40 $0.73 $0.21
9603 $0.54 $1.06 $0.13
9801 $0.45 $0.35 $0.11
13601 $0.41 $0.24 $0.13
16606 $0.22 $0.15 $0.08
21205 $0.17 $0.12 $0.08
13310 $0.38 $0.17 $0.32
16702 $0.25 $0.19 $0.10
11300 $1.09 $0.34 $0.21
13411 $0.40 $0.17 $0.09
9504 $0.32 $0.21 $0.11
Average:
$0.57 $0.28 $0.13

Overall
Average:
$0.32

71

Table 2-26
Distance of Trip (miles)
Census Tract
Downtown
17049 24.27 30.40 38.81
9400 14.76 12.73 29.41
8305 15.19 11.70 30.51
7600 7.65 7.49 22.93
13203 10.99 15.88 6.83
9000 6.36 5.45 21.60
8504 8.82 7.52 24.14
10106 12.55 17.44 2.88
7501 7.16 6.96 22.46
1300 3.83 2.76 18.76
2301 6.30 4.18 20.95
2710 6.57 5.50 18.20
2602 8.18 5.14 17.32
15802 17.67 13.43 30.63
10009 16.72 21.61 4.43
5700 0.76 5.98 15.93
4501 1.41 5.56 15.95
5000 2.37 7.26 13.94
11700 5.58 10.47 11.91
12700 8.47 13.36 8.28
Average:
9.28 10.54 18.79

Overall
Average:
12.87

72

Tabl e 2-27
MTS Non Low -Income Census Tr act t o Maj or Dest i nat i ons
Di st ance of Tr i p (mi l es)
Census Tr act
Dow nt ow n
San Di ego
Mi ssi on
Val l ey San Ysi dr o
17015 24.91 31.03 39.45
17040 29.94 36.06 44.48
17037 19.29 17.26 33.94
8351 19.02 17.11 33.56
8306 11.76 10.40 27.85
8102 12.24 12.08 27.42
9506 12.33 12.22 26.98
6900 5.44 5.28 20.72
100 5.73 6.22 21.03
4400 2.41 4.56 16.95
9603 10.67 3.14 25.79
9801 12.97 9.54 32.18
13601 14.03 14.16 26.98
16606 26.15 21.90 44.55
21205 33.37 29.12 46.32
13310 15.29 20.18 11.13
16702 22.81 18.56 35.76
11300 5.33 10.25 17.05
13411 14.50 19.39 15.61
9504 18.38 16.47 32.93
Aver age:
15.83 15.75 29.03

Over al l
Aver age:
20.20

73
Tables 2-28 and 2-29 present the average cost per mile from the selected NCTD Low-Income
and Non Low-Income Census Tracts to the top three NCTD destinations. The overall average
for Low-Income Census Tracts ($0.28 per mile) is higher than that for Non Low-Income Census
Tracts ($0.21). This is due to the locations of Low-Income tracts versus Non Low-Income tracts.
In general, Low-Income tracts are closer to the top three evaluated destinations, yielding
better overall travel times and lower fares as presented in previous tables. However, closer
proximity to major destinations also includes higher costs on a per mile basis. This average
trip distance for Low-Income riders is 22.61 miles compared to 25.57 miles for Non Low-
Income riders. This is shown in Tables 2-30 and 2-31.

Table 2-28
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17303 $0.17 $0.09 $0.20
17603 $0.20 $0.26 $0.11
17109 $0.18 $0.21 $0.17
17900 $0.16 $0.90 $0.20
18200 $0.15 $1.73 $0.23
18603 $0.14 $0.75 $0.20
18516 $0.12 $0.52 $0.16
18518 $0.12 $0.15 $0.38
19601 $0.13 $0.21 $0.45
19903 $0.14 $0.20 $0.53
20029 $0.14 $0.20 $1.16
20305 $0.17 $0.13 $0.36
20206 $0.17 $0.14 $0.38
20602 $0.18 $0.14 $0.43
20707 $0.13 $0.14 $0.43
20806 $0.12 $0.08 $0.14
18905 $0.10 $0.12 $0.18
18610 $0.13 $0.19 $0.28
18511 $0.13 $0.59 $0.27
17809 $0.15 $0.60 $0.20
Average:
$0.15 $0.37 $0.32

Overall
Average:
$0.28

74

Table 2-29
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17200 $0.19 $0.07 $0.17
17106 $0.14 $0.14 $0.20
17108 $0.19 $0.23 $0.31
17601 $0.19 $0.25 $0.12
20809 $0.12 $0.09 $0.15
17801 $0.15 $0.72 $0.21
18515 $0.11 $0.47 $0.27
18700 $0.13 $0.28 $0.17
18613 $0.13 $0.27 $0.24
19301 $0.12 $0.34 $0.32
19904 $0.12 $0.20 $0.49
19203 $0.13 $0.21 $0.41
18802 $0.11 $0.15 $0.23
18903 $0.10 $0.12 $0.18
19101 $0.11 $0.08 $0.12
19106 $0.13 $0.10 $0.17
20708 $0.19 $0.13 $0.36
20106 $0.17 $0.14 $0.37
20023 $0.16 $0.16 $0.58
20307 $0.18 $0.16 $0.62
Average:
$0.14 $0.21 $0.28

Overall
Average:
$0.21

75

Table 2-30
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17303 23.13 15.64 16.62
17603 31.44 12.84 11.83
17109 34.41 15.81 7.96
17900 39.42 3.71 17.81
18200 42.11 0.77 15.36
18603 43.42 1.78 17.60
18516 46.98 6.73 9.61
18518 50.50 9.16 9.22
19601 45.21 15.54 7.42
19903 40.29 16.69 2.50
20029 41.63 17.43 1.15
20305 34.52 26.08 9.86
20206 34.02 25.59 9.36
20602 32.77 24.33 8.10
20707 29.30 24.38 8.15
20806 50.02 41.58 25.35
18905 56.69 26.91 19.32
18610 48.56 6.92 12.64
18511 47.24 5.60 12.91
17809 41.13 5.54 17.89
Average:
40.64 15.15 12.03

Overall
Average:
22.61

76

Table 2-31
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17200 20.38 18.38 19.36
17106 42.22 23.95 17.56
17108 32.99 14.39 10.91
17601 32.04 13.44 11.23
20809 48.66 40.22 23.99
17801 40.25 4.62 16.98
18515 50.38 7.06 13.01
18700 46.36 4.72 20.54
18613 46.61 4.97 14.59
19301 48.34 9.75 10.96
19904 46.83 17.04 6.77
19203 45.96 16.18 8.59
18802 52.36 22.57 14.98
18903 57.47 27.69 20.09
19101 54.38 45.95 29.72
19106 45.49 37.05 20.83
20708 30.47 26.09 9.86
20106 34.17 25.73 9.50
20023 35.61 21.37 2.30
20307 32.84 21.86 5.64
Average:
42.19 20.15 14.37

Overall
Average:
25.57

77
MTS Minority and Non-Minority Census Tracts to each of the top three MTS transit trip
destinations. Included in the average travel time is the travel time spent waiting for both
initial vehicle boarding and any transfers required. The overall average for MTS Minority
Census Tracts (64.5 minutes) is lower than that for Non-Minority Census Tracts (79.6 minutes).

Table 2-32
MTS Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations
Census Tract
Downtown
17032 106.7 121.5 140.2
8352 80.8 88.9 111.1
8359 53.7 61.9 84.1
8348 66.7 74.8 97.0
8343 60.4 54.7 102.8
8600 67.2 52.3 108.4
16301 73.0 64.5 99.4
15901 63.2 54.7 89.5
1200 27.7 16.9 61.1
2707 44.4 37.9 73.7
1800 49.8 29.6 89.8
4100 19.4 38.4 51.3
4900 18.4 47.0 44.7
14400 44.7 63.9 71.1
13908 67.7 100.7 73.7
11801 46.1 74.7 48.3
3204 42.7 71.2 44.9
12900 62.8 91.4 38.8
10106 35.4 63.9 11.4
13416 56.2 84.7 48.3
Average:
54.3 64.7 74.5

Overall
Average:
64.5

78

Table 2-33
MTS Non Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego
Mission
Valley San Ysidro
17041 64.4 99.4 100.1
17033 84.1 98.9 117.5
17022 85.6 93.7 115.9
8340 72.9 66.0 115.3
7903 50.4 63.8 97.6
8506 41.6 39.9 84.0
9304 43.9 19.6 78.0
9703 90.4 66.8 125.1
16613 135.7 119.7 178.0
16806 84.5 76.0 110.8
15703 67.5 59.0 93.9
14902 61.1 70.9 87.4
97301 55.6 62.9 96.2
400 31.6 48.0 71.2
11100 36.4 61.0 56.3
21205 131.5 123.0 157.9
8101 52.5 67.2 95.1
9510 68.4 80.7 78.0
2904 50.0 46.7 83.4
9106 40.4 44.8 80.1
Average:
67.4 70.4 101.1

Overall
Average:
79.6

79
NCTD Minority and Non-Minority Census Tracts to each of the top three NCTD transit trip
destinations. The overall average for NCTD Minority Census Tracts (87.9 minutes) is lower than
that for Non-Minority Census Tracts (103.2 minutes).

Table 2-34
NCTD Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
18509 130.2 38.6 78.0
18904 172.5 110.0 82.1
19101 165.1 167.2 121.8
18400 102.0 10.0 62.2
18610 124.1 32.2 58.1
18514 128.7 36.8 53.5
18519 140.1 48.5 52.6
19502 127.7 52.7 37.3
19406 137.2 54.5 46.8
20018 130.3 81.7 20.1
20025 101.0 98.1 24.2
20601 69.1 89.6 44.2
20202 97.7 99.8 54.4
20207 101.6 103.7 58.3
20106 145.6 147.8 102.3
20109 100.0 102.1 56.7
20806 162.0 164.1 118.7
19205 131.6 48.8 41.2
20028 106.6 92.4 18.6
18603 107.6 15.7 67.9
Average:
124.0 79.7 59.9

Overall
Average:
87.9

80

Table 2-35
NCTD Non Minority Census Tract to Major Destinations
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17106 127.2 116.2 83.9
17109 119.0 94.7 53.3
17200 80.6 70.3 102.5
17702 102.8 48.7 87.5
20014 111.1 73.7 78.8
22100 127.4 57.4 70.4
17900 65.4 104.6 136.8
18515 150.5 46.8 60.0
20105 151.3 153.4 108.0
20805 164.6 166.7 121.3
18801 164.2 101.7 73.8
18700 167.0 75.0 94.9
20706 133.4 135.5 90.1
20304 154.9 157.1 111.6
20027 130.2 92.4 30.8
19107 170.8 173.0 127.5
18504 124.7 33.2 67.4
17801 123.1 45.6 79.8
20016 107.6 77.1 76.0
17401 92.8 58.2 90.5
Average:
128.4 94.1 87.3

Overall
Average:
103.2

81
Tables 2-36 and 2-37 present the average Non-peak period travel time (in minutes) from the
select MTS Minority and Non-Minority Census Tracts to each of the top three MTS transit trip
destinations. The overall average for MTS Minority Census Tracts (67.7 minutes) is lower than
that for Non-Minority Census Tracts (87.1 minutes).
Table 2-36
Census Tract
Downtown
17032 88.8 107.7 125.5
8352 81.1 100.0 117.8
8359 54.4 73.3 91.1
8348 81.1 82.3 117.8
8343 71.0 56.8 116.7
8600 65.9 52.3 110.3
16301 73.0 64.5 102.6
15901 63.2 54.7 92.7
1200 25.1 16.9 61.8
2707 44.1 37.8 100.4
1800 49.2 29.7 92.4
4100 21.8 40.9 56.9
4900 18.4 47.1 48.0
14400 44.7 64.1 74.3
13908 70.7 100.2 76.7
11801 49.3 91.2 51.5
3204 45.9 89.8 48.1
12900 66.6 93.9 42.6
10106 38.6 67.2 14.6
13416 59.2 87.9 51.3
Average:
55.6 67.9 79.7

Overall
Average:
67.7

82

Table 2-37
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego
Mission
Valley San Ysidro
17041 139.9 158.8 176.6
17033 66.4 85.3 103.1
17022 86.2 105.1 122.9
8340 83.6 65.6 135.1
7903 49.2 62.7 98.4
8506 62.2 39.6 107.9
9304 45.4 19.6 79.5
9703 87.8 73.9 126.3
16613 150.7 134.6 194.5
16806 84.5 75.9 114.0
15703 67.5 59.0 97.1
14902 61.1 70.9 90.7
97301 56.2 63.5 98.3
400 32.1 47.8 72.5
11100 42.4 67.1 65.6
21205 131.4 122.9 161.0
8101 51.3 89.8 100.9
9510 82.5 80.5 119.2
2904 47.4 46.7 84.1
9106 40.4 56.3 81.6
Average:
73.4 76.3 111.5

Overall
Average:
87.1

83
Tables 2-38 and 2-39 present the average Non-peak period travel time (in minutes) from the
select NCTD Minority and Non-Minority Census Tracts to each of the top three NCTD transit
trip destinations. The overall average for NCTD Minority Census Tracts (107.1 minutes) is
lower than that for Non-Minority Census Tracts (119.4 minutes).

Table 2-38
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
18509 178.7 38.7 78.0
18904 237.4 124.3 96.7
19101 215.7 167.5 122.1
18400 159.6 10.0 62.2
18610 181.5 31.9 57.9
18514 186.1 36.5 53.3
18519 180.2 48.2 52.6
19502 178.0 52.4 37.2
19406 186.3 54.3 46.8
20018 176.5 115.5 35.1
20025 151.2 97.7 24.2
20601 119.5 89.7 44.3
20202 148.0 99.8 54.4
20207 152.0 103.8 58.3
20106 195.9 147.7 102.2
20109 150.3 102.1 56.7
20806 227.2 179.0 133.6
19205 181.9 48.5 41.1
20028 156.8 92.1 18.6
18603 165.2 15.6 67.8
Average:
176.4 82.8 62.2

Overall
Average:
107.1

84

Table 2-39
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17106 164.2 115.5 83.4
17109 155.1 94.2 56.6
17200 94.3 70.0 102.4
17702 116.0 48.5 87.5
20014 147.5 73.3 79.3
22100 163.7 57.1 81.0
17900 64.3 103.9 136.4
18515 184.7 46.8 60.1
20105 201.4 153.3 107.8
20805 229.8 181.6 136.2
18801 229.2 116.0 88.4
18700 250.5 89.8 109.7
20706 198.7 150.5 105.0
20304 205.1 156.9 111.5
20027 166.1 105.1 45.7
19107 221.2 173.0 127.6
18504 165.0 33.0 67.5
17801 174.2 45.4 80.1
20016 144.0 76.7 75.9
17401 106.2 58.1 90.6
Average:
169.1 97.4 91.6

Overall
Average:
119.4

85
destinations within the MTS service area. The overall average for MTS Minority Census Tracts
(1.3 transfers) is equal to that for Non-Minority Census Tracts (1.3 transfers).

Table 2-40
Number of Transfers
Census Tract
Downtown
17032 0.0 2.0 1.0
8352 1.0 3.0 2.0
8359 0.0 2.0 1.0
8348 0.0 2.0 1.0
8343 1.0 2.0 2.0
8600 1.0 1.0 2.0
16301 1.0 2.0 2.0
15901 1.0 2.0 2.0
1200 0.0 0.0 1.0
2707 0.0 1.0 2.0
1800 0.0 1.0 1.0
4100 0.0 1.0 1.0
4900 0.0 2.0 1.0
14400 1.0 2.0 2.0
13908 1.0 3.0 1.0
11801 1.0 3.0 1.0
3204 1.0 3.0 1.0
12900 1.0 3.0 1.0
10106 0.0 2.0 0.0
13416 1.0 3.0 1.0
Average:
0.6 2.0 1.3

Overall
Average:
1.3

86

Table 2-41
Number of Transfers
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego
Mission
Valley San Ysidro
17041 0.0 2.0 1.0
17033 0.0 2.0 1.0
17022 1.0 3.0 2.0
8340 1.0 2.0 2.0
7903 1.0 2.0 1.0
8506 0.0 1.0 1.0
9304 1.0 1.0 1.0
9703 1.0 2.0 2.0
16613 2.0 2.0 2.0
16806 1.0 2.0 2.0
15703 1.0 2.0 2.0
14902 1.0 1.0 2.0
97301 1.0 2.0 1.0
400 1.0 2.0 1.0
11100 0.0 2.0 1.0
21205 1.0 2.0 2.0
8101 0.0 2.0 1.0
9510 1.0 1.0 1.0
2904 0.0 1.0 1.0
9106 1.0 2.0 1.0
Average:
0.8 1.8 1.4

Overall
Average:
1.3

87
destinations within the NCTD service area. The overall average for NCTD Minority Census
Tracts (1.0 transfers) is equal to that for Non-Minority Census Tracts (1.0 transfers).

Table 2-42
Number of Transfers
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
18509 1.0 0.0 1.0
18904 2.0 1.0 1.0
19101 1.0 2.0 1.0
18400 1.0 0.0 1.0
18610 1.0 0.0 1.0
18514 1.0 0.0 1.0
18519 1.0 0.0 1.0
19502 2.0 0.0 1.0
19406 2.0 0.0 1.0
20018 2.0 2.0 0.0
20025 1.0 1.0 0.0
20601 0.0 2.0 1.0
20202 1.0 2.0 1.0
20207 1.0 2.0 1.0
20106 1.0 2.0 1.0
20109 1.0 2.0 1.0
20806 1.0 2.0 1.0
19205 2.0 0.0 1.0
20028 1.0 1.0 0.0
18603 1.0 0.0 1.0
Average:
1.2 1.0 0.9

Overall
Average:
1.0

88

Table 2-43
Number of Transfers
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17106 1.0 1.0 1.0
17109 1.0 1.0 0.0
17200 1.0 0.0 1.0
17702 1.0 0.0 1.0
20014 1.0 1.0 1.0
22100 1.0 1.0 0.0
17900 0.0 1.0 2.0
18515 2.0 1.0 1.0
20105 1.0 2.0 1.0
20805 1.0 2.0 1.0
18801 2.0 1.0 1.0
18700 2.0 1.0 1.0
20706 1.0 2.0 1.0
20304 1.0 2.0 1.0
20027 1.0 2.0 0.0
19107 1.0 2.0 1.0
18504 1.0 0.0 1.0
17801 1.0 1.0 1.0
20016 1.0 1.0 1.0
17401 1.0 0.0 1.0
Average:
1.1 1.1 0.9

Overall
Average:
1.0

89
Tables 2-44 and 2-45 present the total transit costs required for travel from the selected MTS
Minority and Non-Minority Census Tracts to the top three MTS destinations. The overall
average fares for Minority Census Tracts ($1.85) is lower than that for Non-Minority Census
Tracts ($1.93).

Table 2-44
Census Tract
Downtown
17032 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
8352 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
8359 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
8348 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
8343 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89
8600 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
16301 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
15901 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
1200 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
2707 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
1800 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
4100 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
4900 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
14400 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89
13908 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89
11801 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
3204 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
12900 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
10106 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
13416 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
Average:
$1.84 $1.81 $1.89

Overall
Average:
$1.85

90

Table 2-45
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego
Mission
Valley San Ysidro
17041 $3.79 $3.79 $3.79
17033 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
17022 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
8340 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89
7903 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
8506 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89
9304 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
9703 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89
16613 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
16806 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
15703 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
14902 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89
97301 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89
400 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
11100 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
21205 $1.89 $1.89 $1.89
8101 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89
9510 $1.89 $1.70 $1.89
2904 $1.70 $1.70 $1.89
9106 $1.70 $1.89 $1.89
Average:
$1.91 $1.91 $1.99

Overall
Average:
$1.93

91
Tables 2-46 and 2-47 present the total transit costs required for travel from the selected NCTD
Minority and Non-Minority Census Tracts to the top three MTS destinations. The overall
average fares for Minority Census Tracts ($3.83) is lower than that for Non-Minority Census
Tracts ($3.87).

Table 2-46
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
18509 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52
18904 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52
19101 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
18400 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52
18610 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52
18514 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52
18519 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52
19502 $5.79 $1.33 $3.52
19406 $5.79 $1.33 $3.52
20018 $5.79 $3.52 $1.33
20025 $5.79 $3.33 $1.33
20601 $3.79 $3.52 $3.52
20202 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
20207 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
20106 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
20109 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
20806 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
19205 $5.79 $1.33 $3.52
20028 $5.79 $3.33 $1.33
18603 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52
Average:
$5.80 $2.51 $3.19

Overall
Average:
$3.83

92

Table 2-47
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17106 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52
17109 $6.17 $3.33 $1.33
17200 $3.89 $1.33 $3.33
17702 $3.89 $1.33 $3.33
20014 $6.17 $3.33 $3.33
22100 $6.17 $3.33 $1.33
17900 $1.70 $3.70 $3.70
18515 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52
20105 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
20805 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
18801 $5.79 $3.33 $3.52
18700 $6.17 $3.33 $3.52
20706 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
20304 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
20027 $6.17 $3.52 $1.33
19107 $5.79 $3.52 $3.52
18504 $6.17 $1.33 $3.52
17801 $6.17 $3.33 $3.52
20016 $6.17 $3.33 $3.33
17401 $3.89 $1.33 $3.33
Average:
$5.45 $3.01 $3.15

Overall
Average:
$3.87

93
Tables 2-48 and 2-49 present the average cost per mile from the selected MTS Minority and
Non-Minority Census Tracts to the top three MTS destinations. The overall average for
Minority Census Tracts ($0.20 per mile) is higher than that for Non-Minority Census Tracts
($0.18). This is due to the locations of Minority tracts versus Non-Minority tracts. In general,
Minority tracts are closer to the top three evaluated destinations, yielding better overall travel
times and lower fares as presented in previous tables. However, closer proximity to major
destinations also includes higher costs on a per mile basis. This average trip distance for
Minority riders is 15.39 miles compared to 18.63 miles for Non-Minority riders. This is shown in
Tables 2-50 and 2-51.

Table 2-48
Census Tract
Downtown
17032 $0.07 $0.08 $0.05
8352 $0.10 $0.11 $0.06
8359 $0.11 $0.13 $0.06
8348 $0.10 $0.11 $0.06
8343 $0.13 $0.16 $0.06
8600 $0.23 $0.45 $0.08
16301 $0.10 $0.13 $0.06
15901 $0.11 $0.15 $0.06
1200 $0.40 $0.79 $0.10
2707 $0.28 $0.34 $0.10
1800 $0.27 $0.59 $0.09
4100 $0.89 $0.34 $0.11
4900 $0.97 $0.28 $0.13
14400 $0.18 $0.18 $0.08
13908 $0.15 $0.11 $0.10
11801 $0.26 $0.16 $0.16
3204 $0.22 $0.14 $0.15
12900 $0.11 $0.08 $0.23
10106 $0.15 $0.11 $0.66
13416 $0.14 $0.10 $0.14
Average:
$0.25 $0.23 $0.13

Overall
Average:
$0.20

94

Table 2-49
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego
Mission
Valley San Ysidro
17041 $0.16 $0.13 $0.10
17033 $0.09 $0.11 $0.05
17022 $0.11 $0.13 $0.06
8340 $0.13 $0.15 $0.06
7903 $0.18 $0.17 $0.08
8506 $0.17 $0.22 $0.07
9304 $0.23 $2.22 $0.08
9703 $0.15 $0.33 $0.07
16613 $0.07 $0.08 $0.04
16806 $0.09 $0.11 $0.05
15703 $0.10 $0.13 $0.06
14902 $0.15 $0.17 $0.07
97301 $0.21 $0.24 $0.08
400 $0.33 $0.34 $0.10
11100 $0.28 $0.16 $0.11
21205 $0.06 $0.06 $0.04
8101 $0.13 $0.14 $0.07
9510 $0.12 $0.15 $0.08
2904 $0.20 $0.27 $0.08
9106 $0.32 $0.53 $0.09
Average:
$0.16 $0.29 $0.07

Overall
Average:
$0.18

95

Table 2-50
Census Tract
Downtown
17032 25.97 23.94 40.62
8352 19.34 17.43 33.89
8359 16.47 14.56 31.01
8348 19.59 17.68 34.14
8343 14.49 10.57 29.81
8600 7.25 3.81 22.42
16301 18.26 14.01 31.21
15901 17.11 12.86 30.06
1200 4.25 2.14 18.90
2707 6.06 4.99 18.71
1800 6.41 2.87 21.59
4100 1.91 5.06 16.45
4900 1.95 6.84 14.90
14400 10.51 9.52 23.47
13908 12.42 15.68 18.76
11801 7.22 12.11 11.70
3204 8.47 13.36 12.94
12900 17.74 22.63 8.07
10106 12.55 17.44 2.88
13416 13.85 18.74 13.66
Average:
12.09 12.31 21.76

Overall
Average:
15.39

96

Table 2-51
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego
Mission
Valley San Ysidro
17041 23.69 29.81 38.22
17033 20.03 17.99 34.67
17022 17.01 15.10 31.56
8340 14.92 11.03 30.24
7903 9.70 10.03 24.95
8506 10.94 7.64 26.26
9304 8.37 0.85 23.49
9703 11.28 5.70 28.34
16613 26.79 22.54 45.19
16806 21.72 17.47 34.67
15703 18.41 14.16 31.36
14902 13.03 9.81 25.98
97301 7.99 7.83 23.27
400 5.21 5.00 19.40
11100 6.02 10.94 17.74
21205 33.37 29.12 46.32
8101 13.45 13.30 28.63
9510 15.19 11.30 23.67
2904 8.53 6.41 23.18
9106 5.24 3.55 20.48
Average:
14.54 12.48 28.88

Overall
Average:
18.63

97
Tables 2-52 and 2-53 present the average cost per mile from the selected NCTD Minority and
Non-Minority Census Tracts to the top three NCTD destinations. The overall average for
Minority Census Tracts ($0.28 per mile) is higher than that for Non-Minority Census Tracts
($0.19). This is due to the locations of Minority tracts versus Non-Minority tracts. In general,
Minority tracts are closer to the top three evaluated destinations, yielding better overall travel
times and lower fares as presented in previous tables. However, closer proximity to major
destinations also includes higher costs on a per mile basis. This average trip distance for
Minority riders is 23.95 miles compared to 24.42 miles for Non-Minority riders. This is shown in
Tables 2-54 and 2-55.

Table 2-52
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
18509 $0.14 $0.65 $0.25
18904 $0.10 $0.12 $0.18
19101 $0.11 $0.08 $0.12
18400 $0.15 $2.38 $0.21
18610 $0.13 $0.19 $0.28
18514 $0.12 $0.16 $0.31
18519 $0.12 $0.15 $0.38
19502 $0.13 $0.10 $0.54
19406 $0.13 $0.12 $0.49
20018 $0.15 $0.20 $0.95
20025 $0.17 $0.15 $0.45
20601 $0.13 $0.15 $0.47
20202 $0.18 $0.14 $0.43
20207 $0.17 $0.14 $0.39
20106 $0.17 $0.14 $0.40
20109 $0.17 $0.14 $0.39
20806 $0.12 $0.08 $0.14
19205 $0.13 $0.11 $0.48
20028 $0.16 $0.16 $1.05
18603 $0.14 $0.75 $0.20
Average:
$0.14 $0.31 $0.41

Overall
Average:
$0.28

98

Table 2-53
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17106 $0.14 $0.14 $0.20
17109 $0.18 $0.21 $0.17
17200 $0.19 $0.07 $0.17
17702 $0.14 $0.12 $0.24
20014 $0.17 $0.23 $0.32
22100 $0.15 $0.36 $0.11
17900 $0.11 $0.14 $0.13
18515 $0.11 $0.47 $0.27
20105 $0.16 $0.13 $0.34
20805 $0.11 $0.08 $0.14
18801 $0.11 $0.13 $0.20
18700 $0.10 $0.18 $0.14
20706 $0.17 $0.13 $0.34
20304 $0.16 $0.13 $0.31
20027 $0.16 $0.17 $0.28
19107 $0.13 $0.10 $0.17
18504 $0.13 $0.26 $0.27
17801 $0.15 $0.72 $0.21
20016 $0.18 $0.21 $0.31
17401 $0.16 $0.09 $0.22
Average:
$0.15 $0.20 $0.23

Overall
Average:
$0.19

99

Table 2-54
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
18509 43.39 2.06 13.97
18904 57.47 27.69 20.09
19101 54.38 45.95 29.72
18400 42.21 0.56 16.39
18610 48.56 6.92 12.64
18514 49.85 8.20 11.36
18519 50.50 9.16 9.22
19502 43.85 13.09 6.47
19406 44.60 11.16 7.22
20018 39.20 17.69 1.40
20025 34.94 22.03 2.96
20601 29.98 23.70 7.48
20202 32.89 24.45 8.22
20207 33.67 25.23 9.00
20106 33.45 25.01 8.78
20109 33.66 25.23 9.00
20806 50.02 41.58 25.35
19205 44.79 12.14 7.41
20028 36.64 20.34 1.27
18603 43.42 1.78 17.60
Average:
42.37 18.20 11.28

Overall
Average:
23.95

100

Table 2-55
Census Tract
Downtown
San Diego Oceanside
Palomar
College
17106 42.22 23.95 17.56
17109 34.41 15.81 7.96
17200 20.38 18.38 19.36
17702 27.81 10.95 13.72
20014 36.05 14.61 10.34
22100 41.38 9.28 11.86
17900 15.87 27.00 27.98
18515 50.38 7.06 13.01
20105 35.10 26.66 10.44
20805 50.48 42.05 25.82
18801 54.87 25.09 17.49
18700 59.95 18.31 25.42
20706 34.96 26.52 10.29
20304 36.07 27.63 11.41
20027 38.55 21.00 4.71
19107 45.49 37.05 20.83
18504 46.37 5.04 13.14
17801 40.25 4.62 16.98
20016 34.88 15.77 10.60
17401 24.66 14.11 15.09
Average:
38.51 19.54 15.20

Overall
Average:
24.42

101
6. REQUIREMENT TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT A TITLE VI PROGRAM
This report includes all of the items required in the revised FTA Title VI Circular, Chapters IV
(Sections 1 through 9) and V (Sections 1 through 6). Additionally, the Circular includes a
requirement (Chapter V, Section 6) to provide a copy of the equity evaluation of any
significant service changes and fare changes implemented since the last report submission.
These evaluations were conducted by the transit service agencies for major services changes
and are included in Appendix E. Also, SANDAG conducted two equity evaluations regarding
fare changes implemented since the last report submission. These reports also are included
separately in the SANDAG Quadrennial Title VI Program Update.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A
RIDER ALERT AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING SAMPLES
TAKE ONE
Post 1/8/08 2/18/08
Many MTS bus services will have route and/or schedule modifications in January
2008. Most changes are minor adjustments. MTS encourages passengers to refer to
our website, www.sdmts.com, for more detailed maps, schedules, and information
about these changes.
Service changes will take effect as follows:
Sunday schedule changes take effect on Sunday, January 27, 2008.
Weekday schedule changes take effect on Monday, January 28, 2008.
Please be sure to pick up a new timetable for the routes with changes, as listed below:
January 2008 Service Changes
Holiday Service
THIS INFORMATION WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE IN ALTERNATIVE FORMATS UPON REQUEST.
To request this notice in an alternative format, please call (619) 231-1466.
The Metropolitan Transit System operators adhere to a nondiscrimination policy with regard
to both services and facilities.
Route: Description:
Green Line Effective 1/27/08: The last two eastbound and westbound trips between Old Town and SDSU are discontinued,
seven days a week. The last eastbound trip to SDSU will now depart Old Town at 12:00 midnight. The last
westbound trip to Old Town will now depart SDSU at 12:32am.
2, 9, 27, All of these routes have schedule adjustments, mostly to improve on-time performance and/or transfer
120, 864, connections. Please pick up a new timetable for these routes before 1/27/08 to ensure that you have a
923, 928, current schedule.
929, 933/934,
936, 955
28 Effective 1/27/08: The southern terminal for all Route 28 trips is changed to Shelter Island Dr. Routes 28B
and 28C are discontinued, and service to the Navy Submarine Base and Cabrillo National Monument is
replaced with new Route 84 (see below). Routes 28 and 84 will make timed transfers to ensure easy connec-
tions. See map inside for transfer location details. Route 28 between Old Town Transit Center and Shelter
Island Dr. will continue to operate every 30 minutes along Rosecrans St., but with a revised schedule and
increased frequency on weekdays between 6:20am and 8:20am (leaving Old Town every 15 minutes).
30 Effective 1/27/08: Route 30A will begin operating at 7:00pm, replacing all night service on
Route 48/49. Service to La Jolla Village Dr. after 7:00pm remains available on Routes 41 and 101.
31 Effective 1/28/08: Route 31 service is reduced to operate during rush hours only; midday service
is discontinued. Miramar Rd. remains accessible on the far eastern end during the midday via
Route 20.
41 Effective 1/27/08: The northern terminal of the route is changed from the VA Medical Center to
the UCSD campus. Route 41 will continue to serve the VA Medical Center, via Villa La Jolla Dr.,
and the UCSD central campus. UCSD campus drop-off stops for service into campus are on
Gilman Dr. at Russell Dr. and Myers Dr. The pick-up stop for service from campus is on Gilman Dr.
at Villa La Jolla Dr. Route 41 service on Gilman Dr. south of Myers Dr. is discontinued, but still
available on Routes 30, 48/49, 101, and 150. Please see map inside for details.
4 8 / 4 9 E f f e c t i v e 1 / 2 7 / 0 8 : T h e n o r t h e r n h a l f o f R o u t e 4 8 / 4 9 i s c h a n g e d t o o p e r a t e o n L a J o l l a
V i l l a g e D r . i n s t e a d o f V o i g t D r . b e t w e e n t h e V A M e d i c a l C e n t e r a n d U T C . M T S s e r v i c e t o
S c r i p p s a n d T h o r n t o n H o s p i t a l ( o n C a m p u s P o i n t D r . a n d V o i g t D r . ) i s o f f e r e d o n a n e w
s h u t t l e R o u t e 8 6 . F o r s e r v i c e t o t h e E x e c u t i v e D r . a n d E a s t g a t e M a l l a r e a , u s e R o u t e 3 1 o r 8 9 .
S e e m a p o n r e v e r s e f o r d e t a i l s . A l s o , w e e k d a y f r e q u e n c y i s i n c r e a s e d t o e v e r y 1 5 m i n u t e s o n
R o u t e 4 8 f r o m 7 : 0 0 a m t o n o o n a n d o n R o u t e 4 9 f r o m n o o n t o 6 : 0 0 p m .
8 4 E f f e c t i v e 1 / 2 7 / 0 8 : R o u t e 8 4 i s a n e w r o u t e r e p l a c i n g t h e s o u t h e r n s e g m e n t s o f R o u t e s 2 8 B a n d 2 8 C .
T h i s r o u t e b r i d g e s R o u t e 2 8 a t S h e l t e r I s l a n d D r . w i t h t h e N a v a l S u b m a r i n e B a s e a n d C a b r i l l o N a t i o n a l
M o n u m e n t . S e r v i c e i s a l s o p r o v i d e d t o f o r m e r l o c a l R o u t e 2 8 B a n d 2 8 C s t o p s a l o n g C a o n S t . ,
C a t a l i n a B l v d . , C a b r i l l o M e m o r i a l D r . , a n d R o s e c r a n s S t . S e r v i c e o p e r a t e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y e v e r y
6 0 - 7 5 m i n u t e s , s e v e n d a y s p e r w e e k . C a s h f a r e o n R o u t e 8 4 i s $ 2 . 0 0 .
8 6 E f f e c t i v e 1 / 2 7 / 0 8 : R o u t e 8 6 i s a n e w r o u t e s e r v i n g S c r i p p s M e m o r i a l H o s p i t a l & T h o r n t o n
H o s p i t a l f r o m U T C , v i a G e n e s e e A v e . , C a m p u s P o i n t D r . , a n d V o i g t D r . S e r v i c e o p e r a t e s a p p r o x i -
m a t e l y e v e r y 3 0 m i n u t e s o n w e e k d a y s a n d e v e r y 6 0 m i n u t e s o n w e e k e n d s a n d h o l i d a y s . C a s h
f a r e o n R o u t e 8 6 i s $ 2 . 0 0 . S e e m a p b e l o w f o r d e t a i l s .
8 9 E f f e c t i v e 1 / 2 8 / 0 8 : T h e n o r t h e r n t e r m i n a l o f R o u t e 8 9 i s c h a n g e d t o t h e S o r r e n t o V a l l e y C o a s t e r
S t a t i o n ( S V C S ) . A l l s e r v i c e n o r t h o f t h e S V C S t o C a r m e l V a l l e y i s d i s c o n t i n u e d . S e r v i c e o n t h e
s o u t h e r n p o r t i o n o f t h e r o u t e , b e t w e e n t h e S V C S a n d U T C , i s m a i n t a i n e d w i t h a r e v i s e d s c h e d u l e .
A l s o , t h e t e r m i n a l a t t h e S V C S i s c h a n g e d t o t h e R o s e l l e S t . s i d e , s o u t h o f t h e r i v e r . R o u t e 8 9
w i l l n o l o n g e r s e r v e t h e s t o p s o n S o r r e n t o V a l l e y R d .
7 0 1 , 7 0 4 , E f f e c t i v e 1 / 2 7 / 0 8 : S c h e d u l e a d j u s t m e n t s o n t h e s e r o u t e s ; p l e a s e p i c k u p n e w t i m e t a b l e s .
7 0 5
8 1 0 , 8 2 0 E f f e c t i v e 1 / 2 8 / 0 8 : : M a j o r r o u t i n g c h a n g e s i n t h e D o w n t o w n S a n D i e g o a r e a , p l u s s c h e d u l e
8 5 0 , 8 6 0 c h a n g e s . S e e m a p b e l o w f o r d e t a i l s .
8 3 2 E f f e c t i v e 1 / 2 7 / 0 8 : I n c r e a s e d f r e q u e n c y o n S a t u r d a y / S u n d a y / H o l i d a y s .
8 3 3 E f f e c t i v e 1 / 2 7 / 0 8 : R o u t e 8 3 3 i s e x t e n d e d f r o m P a r k w a y P l a z a t o t h e E l C a j o n T r a n s i t C e n t e r . T h e n e w
s e g m e n t o f R o u t e 8 3 3 b e t w e e n P a r k w a y P l a z a a n d t h e E l C a j o n T r a n s i t C e n t e r w i l l r u n t h e s a m e a p p r o x i -
m a t e h o u r s a n d f r e q u e n c y a s t h e c u r r e n t R o u t e 8 7 8 , w h i c h w i l l b e d i s c o n t i n u e d . A l s o , I n c r e a s e d f r e q u e n c y
b e t w e e n P a r k w a y P l a z a a n d S a n t e e T r a n s i t C e n t e r o n w e e k e n d s a n d h o l i d a y s .
8 7 8 E f f e c t i v e 1 / 2 7 / 0 8 : R o u t e 8 7 8 i s r e p l a c e d b y a n e x t e n s i o n o f R o u t e 8 3 3 f r o m P a r k w a y P l a z a t o t h e E l
C a j o n T r a n s i t C e n t e r . T h e n e w s e g m e n t o f R o u t e 8 3 3 b e t w e e n P a r k w a y P l a z a a n d t h e E l C a j o n
T r a n s i t C e n t e r w i l l r u n t h e s a m e a p p r o x i m a t e h o u r s a n d f r e q u e n c y a s t h e c u r r e n t R o u t e 8 7 8 , w h i c h w i l l
b e d i s c o n t i n u e d .
9 2 1 E f f e c t i v e 1 / 2 7 / 0 8 : T h e w e s t e r n t e r m i n a l o f t h e r o u t e i s c h a n g e d f r o m t h e V A M e d i c a l C e n t e r t o t h e
U C S D c a m p u s . R o u t e 9 2 1 w i l l c o n t i n u e t o s e r v e t h e V A M e d i c a l C e n t e r , v i a V i l l a L a J o l l a D r . , a n d t h e
U C S D c e n t r a l c a m p u s . U C S D c a m p u s d r o p - o f f s t o p s f o r s e r v i c e i n t o c a m p u s a r e o n G i l m a n D r . a t
R u s s e l l D r . a n d M y e r s D r . T h e p i c k - u p s t o p f o r s e r v i c e f r o m c a m p u s i s o n G i l m a n D r . a t V i l l a L a J o l l a D r .
R o u t e 9 2 1 s e r v i c e o n G i l m a n D r . s o u t h o f M y e r s D r . i s d i s c o n t i n u e d , b u t s t i l l a v a i l a b l e o n R o u t e s 3 0 ,
4 8 / 4 9 , 1 0 1 , a n d 1 5 0 . P l e a s e s e e m a p i n s i d e f o r d e t a i l s .
9 6 0 E f f e c t i v e 1 / 2 8 / 0 8 : M o r n i n g s c h e d u l e a d j u s t m e n t s a n d a d d e d t r i p s t o a l l e v i a t e o v e r c r o w d i n g .
9 6 4 E f f e c t i v e 1 / 2 8 / 0 8 : R o u t e i s r e c o n f i g u r e d t o s e r v e C a m i n o R u i z a n d G o l d C o a s t D r . e v e r y 3 0 m i n u t e s
o n w e e k d a y s , w i t h t w o b r a n c h e s o n t h e e a s t e r n e n d : 9 6 4 A s e r v e s A l l i a n t I n t ' l U n i v e r s i t y e v e r y 6 0 m i n u t e s
v i a C a r r o l l C y n . R d . ; 9 6 4 B s e r v e s M i r a m a r C o l l e g e a n d t h e M i r a M e s a B l v d . / W e s t v i e w P k w y . a r e a e v e r y
6 0 m i n u t e s v i a B l a c k M t n . R d . S e r v i c e t o S c r i p p s R a n c h P k w y . i s d i s c o n t i n u e d n o r t h o f C a r r o l l C y n . R d .
S e e m a p i n s i d e .
9 9 2 E f f e c t i v e 1 / 2 7 / 0 8 : T h e d o w n t o w n t e r m i n a l o f R o u t e 9 9 2 i s c h a n g e d t o B r o a d w a y a n d 4 t h A v e .
P l e a s e u s e R o u t e s 3 o r 1 2 0 f o r s e r v i c e i n t o t h e G a s l a m p Q u a r t e r .
TOMEUNO
Publicacin del 8/1/08 18/2/08
Muchos servicios de autobuses MTS sufrirn modificaciones en las rutas y/o en los
horarios durante enero de 2008. La mayor parte de los cambios son menores. MTS
recomienda a los pasajeros que visiten el sitio web www.sdmts.com para obtener
mapas, horarios e informacin ms detallada acerca de estos cambios.
Los cambios en el servicio se implementarn de la siguiente manera:
Los cambios en los horarios de los domingos tendrn efecto a partir del domingo 27 de enero de 2008.
Los cambios en los horarios de los das laborales tendrn efecto a partir del lunes 28 de enero de 2008.
Asegrese de recoger un nuevo horario para las rutas que tienen cambios en el servicio, segn se indica a continuacin.
Cambios en el servicio en enero de 2008
Servicios durante los das festivos
ESTA INFORMACION ESTA DISPONIBLE EN DIFERENTES FORMATOS. Para solicitar esta
informacin en un formato diferente, por favor llame al (619) 231-1466.
Los operadores del Metropolitan Transit System siguen una poltica que prohbe la
discriminacin con respecto a los servicios e instalaciones.
Ruta: Descripcin:
Green Line Desde el 27.01.08: Se suspenden los dos ltimos viajes entre Old Town y SDSU tanto en direccin este
como oeste, los siete das de la semana. El ltimo viaje en direccin este a SDSU ahora partir desde Old
Town a las 12:00 a.m. El ltimo viaje en direccin oeste a Old Town ahora partir desde SDSU a las 12:32
a.m.
2, 9, 27, Se han efectuado ajustes en los horarios de todas estas rutas, principalmente, para mejorar la puntualidad
120, 864, del servicio y los trasbordos. Por favor, recoja un nuevo horario para estas rutas antes del 27 de enero de
923, 928, 2008 a fin de contar con los datos actualizados.
929, 933/934, 936, 955
28 Desde el 27.01.08: La terminal sur para todos los viajes de la ruta 28 cambia a Shelter Island Dr.
Se suspenden las rutas 28B y 28C. La nueva ruta 84 reemplazar el servicio con destino a la Base Naval
Submarina y el Monumento Nacional Cabrillo (ver a continuacin). Las rutas 28 y 84 contarn con trasbordos
sincronizados a fin de facilitar las conexiones. Consulte el mapa del interior del folleto para conocer los
detalles de los puntos de trasbordo. La ruta 28 entre Old Town Transit Center y Shelter Island Dr. continuar
funcionando cada 30 minutos a lo largo de Rosecrans St., pero con modificaciones en los horarios y mayor
frecuencia de lunes a viernes entre las 6:20 a.m. y las 8:20 a.m. (salidas desde Old Town cada 15 minutos).
30 Desde el 27.01.08: La ruta 30A comenzar a funcionar a las 7:00 p.m. y reemplazar el servicio nocturno
en la ruta 48/49. El servicio con destino a La Jolla Village Dr. despus de las 7:00 p.m. contina disponible
en las rutas 41 y 101.
31 Desde el 27.01.08: El servicio de la ruta 31 funcionar solamente durante las horas pico. Se suspende el
servicio del medioda. Miramar Rd. permanece accesible durante el medioda en la terminal este a travs de
la ruta 20.
41 Desde el 27.01.08: La terminal norte de la ruta cambia de VA Medical Center al campus de la UCSD.
La ruta 41 seguir prestando servicio a VA Medical Center, por Villa La Jolla Dr., y al campus central de la
UCSD. Las paradas de descenso para ingreso al campus de la UCSD son Gilman Dr. en Russell Dr. y Myers
Dr. Las paradas para ascenso de pasajeros provenientes del campus son Gilman Dr. en Villa La Jolla Dr.
El servicio de la ruta 41 en Gilman Dr. al sur de Myers Dr. queda suspendido, pero contina disponible en las
rutas 30, 48/49, 101 y 150. Consulte el mapa a continuacin para obtener ms detalles.
D e s d e e l 2 7 . 0 1 . 0 8 : E l t r a m o n o r t e d e l a r u t a 4 8 / 4 9 c a m b i a d e V o i g t D r . a L a J o l l a V i l l a g e D r . e n t r e V A
M e d i c a l C e n t e r y U T C . E l s e r v i c i o d e M T S c o n d e s t i n o a S c r i p p s H o s p i t a l y T h o r n t o n H o s p i t a l ( e n C a m p u s P o i n t D r .
y V o i g t D r . ) s e o f r e c e a t r a v s d e l a n u e v a r u t a 8 6 d e a u t o b u s e s d i r e c t o s . P a r a a c c e d e r a l r e a d e E a s t g a t e
4 8 / 4 9 M a l l y E x e c u t i v e D r . , u t i l i c e l a r u t a 3 1 o l a 8 9 . C o n s u l t e e l m a p a a c o n t i n u a c i n p a r a o b t e n e r m s d e t a l l e s .
A s i m i s m o , d e l u n e s a v i e r n e s , s e i n c r e m e n t a l a f r e c u e n c i a c o n s e r v i c i o s c a d a 1 5 m i n u t o s e n l a r u t a 4 8
d e s d e l a s 7 : 0 0 a . m . h a s t a e l m e d i o d a y e n l a r u t a 4 9 d e s d e e l m e d i o d a h a s t a l a s 6 : 0 0 p . m .
8 4 D e s d e e l 2 7 . 0 1 . 0 8 : L a r u t a 8 4 e s u n a n u e v a r u t a q u e r e e m p l a z a e l t r a m o s u r d e l a s r u t a s 2 8 B y 2 8 C .
C o n e c t a l a r u t a 2 8 e n S h e l t e r I s l a n d D r . c o n l a B a s e N a v a l S u b m a r i n a y e l M o n u m e n t o N a c i o n a l C a b r i l l o
T a m b i n s e p r e s t a s e r v i c i o a l a s p a r a d a s d e l a s a n t i g u a s r u t a s l o c a l e s 2 8 B y 2 8 C a l o l a r g o d e C a o n S t . ,
C a t a l i n a B l v d . , C a b r i l l o M e m o r i a l D r . y R o s e c r a n s S t . E l s e r v i c i o f u n c i o n a c a d a 6 0 - 7 5 m i n u t o s a p r o x i m a d a m e n t e ,
l o s s i e t e d a s d e l a s e m a n a . L a t a r i f a e n e f e c t i v o c o r r e s p o n d i e n t e a l a r u t a 8 4 e s d e $ 2 . 0 0 .
8 6 D e s d e e l 2 7 . 0 1 . 0 8 : L a r u t a 8 6 e s u n a n u e v a r u t a q u e p r e s t a s e r v i c i o a S c r i p p s M e m o r i a l H o s p i t a l y
T h o r n t o n H o s p i t a l d e s d e U T C , p o r G e n e s e e A v e . , C a m p u s P o i n t D r . y V o i g t D r . E l s e r v i c i o f u n c i o n a a p r o x i
m a d a m e n t e c a d a 3 0 m i n u t o s d e l u n e s a v i e r n e s y c a d a 6 0 m i n u t o s l o s f i n e s d e s e m a n a y d a s f e s t i v o s . L a
t a r i f a e n e f e c t i v o c o r r e s p o n d i e n t e a l a r u t a 8 6 e s d e $ 2 . 0 0 . C o n s u l t e e l m a p a a c o n t i n u a c i n p a r a
o b t e n e r m s d e t a l l e s .
8 9 D e s d e e l 2 7 . 0 1 . 0 8 : L a t e r m i n a l n o r t e d e l a r u t a 8 9 p a s a a s e r l a e s t a c i n d e l c o a s t e r d e S o r r e n t o V a l l e y
( S V C S ) . S e s u s p e n d e n t o d o s l o s s e r v i c i o s d e s d e e l n o r t e d e S V C S h a c i a C a r m e l V a l l e y . L o s s e r v i c i o s d e l t r a m o
s u r d e l a r u t a , e n t r e S V C S y U T C , s e m a n t i e n e n p e r o c o n m o d i f i c a c i o n e s e n l o s h o r a r i o s . A s i m i s m o , l a t e r m i n a l
d e S V C S p a s a a e s t a r d e l l a d o d e R o s e l l e S t . , a l s u r d e l r o . L a r u t a 8 9 y a n o p r e s t a r s e r v i c i o a l a s p a r a d a s d e
S o r r e n t o V a l l e y R d .
7 0 1 , 7 0 4 D e s d e e l 2 7 . 0 1 . 0 8 : L o s h o r a r i o s d e e s t a s r u t a s h a n s i d o m o d i f i c a d o s . P o r f a v o r , r e c o j a u n n u e v o h o r a r i o .
7 0 5
8 1 0 , 8 2 0 D e s d e e l 2 7 . 0 1 . 0 8 : S e h a n r e a l i z a d o c a m b i o s i m p o r t a n t e s e n l a s r u t a s d e l c e n t r o d e S a n D i e g o a s c o m o
8 5 0 , 8 6 0 t a m b i n m o d i f i c a c i o n e s e n l o s h o r a r i o s . C o n s u l t e e l m a p a a c o n t i n u a c i n p a r a o b t e n e r m s d e t a l l e s .
8 3 2 D e s d e e l 2 7 . 0 1 . 0 8 : S e a u m e n t a l a f r e c u e n c i a d e l o s s e r v i c i o s l o s s b a d o s , d o m i n g o s y d a s f e s t i v o s .
8 3 3 D e s d e e l 2 7 . 0 1 . 0 8 : S e e x t i e n d e l a r u t a 8 3 3 d e s d e P a r k w a y P l a z a h a s t a E l C a j o n T r a n s i t C e n t e r .
E l n u e v o t r a m o d e l a r u t a 8 3 3 , e n t r e P a r k w a y P l a z a y E l C a j o n T r a n s i t C e n t e r , t e n d r a p r o x i m a d a m e n t e l a
m i s m a f r e c u e n c i a y l o s m i s m o s h o r a r i o s d e l a a c t u a l r u t a 8 7 8 , l a c u a l q u e d a s u s p e n d i d a . A s i m i s m o , s e
i n c r e m e n t a l a f r e c u e n c i a d e l o s s e r v i c i o s e n t r e P a r k w a y P l a z a y S a n t e e T r a n s i t C e n t e r l o s f i n e s d e s e m a n a
y d a s f e s t i v o s .
8 7 8 D e s d e e l 2 7 . 0 1 . 0 8 : S e r e e m p l a z a l a r u t a 8 7 8 p o r u n a e x t e n s i n d e l a r u t a 8 3 3 d e s d e P a r k w a y P l a z a a
E l C a j o n T r a n s i t C e n t e r . E l n u e v o t r a m o d e l a r u t a 8 3 3 , e n t r e P a r k w a y P l a z a y E l C a j o n T r a n s i t C e n t e r ,
t e n d r a p r o x i m a d a m e n t e l a m i s m a f r e c u e n c i a y l o s m i s m o s h o r a r i o s d e l a a c t u a l r u t a 8 7 8 , l a c u a l q u e d a
s u s p e n d i d a .
9 2 1 D e s d e e l 2 7 . 0 1 . 0 8 : L a t e r m i n a l o e s t e d e l a r u t a c a m b i a d e V A M e d i c a l C e n t e r a l c a m p u s d e l a U C S D .
L a r u t a 9 2 1 s e g u i r p r e s t a n d o s e r v i c i o a V A M e d i c a l C e n t e r , p o r V i l l a L a J o l l a D r . , y a l c a m p u s c e n t r a l d e l a
U C S D . L a s p a r a d a s d e d e s c e n s o p a r a i n g r e s o a l c a m p u s d e l a U C S D s o n G i l m a n D r . e n R u s s e l l D r . y M y e r s
D r . L a s p a r a d a s p a r a a s c e n s o d e p a s a j e r o s p r o v e n i e n t e s d e l c a m p u s s o n G i l m a n D r . e n V i l l a L a J o l l a D r
E l s e r v i c i o d e l a r u t a 9 2 1 e n G i l m a n D r . a l s u r d e M y e r s D r . q u e d a s u s p e n d i d o , p e r o c o n t i n a d i s p o n i b l e e n
l a s r u t a s 3 0 , 4 8 / 4 9 , 1 0 1 y 1 5 0 . C o n s u l t e e l m a p a a c o n t i n u a c i n p a r a o b t e n e r m s d e t a l l e s .
9 6 0 D e s d e e l 2 7 . 0 1 . 0 8 : S e m o d i f i c a n l o s h o r a r i o s m a t u t i n o s y s e a g r e g a n v i a j e s p a r a e v i t a r e l e x c e s o d e p a s a j e r o s .
9 6 4 D e s d e e l 2 7 . 0 1 . 0 8 : L a r u t a s e r e c o n f i g u r a p a r a l l e g a r h a s t a C a m i n o R u i z y G o l d C o a s t D r . c a d a 3 0 m i n u t o s l o s
d a s d e s e m a n a y c u e n t a c o n d o s r a m a l e s e n l a t e r m i n a l e s t e : e l r a m a l 9 6 4 A l l e g a h a s t a A l l i a n t
I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y c a d a 6 0 m i n u t o s p o r C a r r o l l C y n . R d . ; e l r a m a l 9 6 4 B l l e g a h a s t a M i r a m a r C o l l e g e
y e l r e a d e M i r a M e s a B l v d . / W e s t v i e w P k w y . c a d a 6 0 m i n u t o s p o r B l a c k M t n . R d . E l s e r v i c i o h a s t a
S c r i p p s R a n c h P k w y . s e s u s p e n d e a l n o r t e d e C a r r o l l C y n . R d . C o n s u l t e e l m a p a a c o n t i n a c i n .
9 9 2 D e s d e e l 2 7 . 0 1 . 0 8 : L a t e r m i n a l d e l c e n t r o c o r r e s p o n d i e n t e a l a r u t a 9 9 2 c a m b i a a B r o a d w a y y
4 t h A v e . P a r a a c c e d e r a G a s l a m p Q u a r t e r , u t i l i c e l a r u t a 3 o l a 1 2 0 .

A-1
VA Medical
Center
University of
California,
San Diego
GILMAN DR
NORTH
2008 MTS
41 & 921 Routing inbound to UCSD
41 & 921 Routing outbound from UCSD
41 & 921 Stops
Points of interest
Hospital
M
Y
E
R
S
D
R
R
U
S
S
E
L
L
D
R
V
I
L
L
A
L
A
J
O
L
L
A
D
R
G
I
L
M
A
N
D
R
M
E
N
K
AR RD
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
U
I
Z
CAL
L
E
C
R
I
S
T
O
B
A
L
M
O
N
T
O
N
G
O
S
T
W
E
S
T
V
I
E
W
P
K
W
Y
RED CEDA
R
D
R
K
E
A
R
N
Y
V
I
L
L
A
R
D
C
A
M
IN
O
R
U
IZ
REAG
A
N
R
D
Mi ra Mesa
Scri pps Ranch
C
NEW SALEM ST
M
I
T
S
C
H
E
R
W
Y
MIRAMAR
REGULUS
RD
M
IR
A
M
A
R
R
D
MIRAMAR RD
MIRAMAR
WY
WY
P DALE AV
JADE COAST RD
HILLERY DR
S
C
R
I
P
P
S
T
R
L
P
O
M
JADE COAST DR
GOLD COAST DR
GOLD COAST DR
B
U
S
I
N
E
S
S
P
A
R
K
A
V
W
E
S
T
O
N
H
I
L
L
M
E
R
C
Y
R
D
S
C
R
IP
P
S
PO
W
A
Y
P
K
W
Y
P
A
R
K
V
I
L
WESTMORE RD
K
E
L
O
W
N
A
R
D
AQUARIU
S DR
C
A
PRICORN WY
B
L
A
C
K
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
R
D
W
IL
L
O
W
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
M
IRA MESA BLVD
MIRA MESA BLVD
B
L
A
C
K
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
R
D
S
C
R
I
P
P
S
R
A
N
C
H
B
L
V
D
CARROLL CANYON RD
A
V
E
N
U
E
O
F
N
ATIONS
ZAPATA AV
P
O
M
E
R
A
D
O
R
D
SCRIPPS LAKE
DR
921,
210
20, 31,
210, 921
20, 31,
210, 921
20, 31, 210
15
15
15
5
964B
964B
964A
964A
964A
964A
Miramar
College
Park &
Ride
Mira Mesa
MarketCenter
Mira Mesa
Square
Camino
Village
Walker-Wangenheim
School Park
Mira Mesa
Mall
Mira Mesa
Community Park
Scripps Ranch
High School Junior
High School
Mira Mesa
High School
Mesa Verde
Park Hourglass Field
Community Park
Alliant
International
University
1/2 kilometer 0
1/2 mile 0
NORTH
2008 MTS
0
00
Route 964A
Route 964B
Time point/Transfer point
Transfer point
Connecting routes
Points of interest
Hospital
Shopping
Approximate Scale
Route 964A & 964B
Routes 41 and 921
11
163
5
5
GRAPE
ST
GRAPE
ST
FIR
ST
DATE ST
ASH ST
ASH ST
BEECH ST
BROADWAY
BROADWAY
RUSS BLVD
P
A
C
IF
IC
H
W
Y
K
E
T
T
N
E
R
B
L
V
D
K
E
T
T
N
E
R
B
L
V
D
6
T
H
A
V
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
1
S
T
A
V
2
N
D
A
V
4
T
H
A
V
3
R
D
A
V
5
T
H
A
V
U
N
IO
N
S
T
F
R
O
N
T
S
T
9
T
H
A
V
1
0
T
H
A
V
1
1
T
H
A
V
1
1
T
H
A
V
P
A
R
K
B
L
V
D
8
T
H
A
V
7
T
H
A
V
H
A
R
B
O
R
D
R
FIR ST
ELM ST
CEDAR ST
CEDAR ST
A ST
C ST
C ST
B ST B ST
E ST
A ST
IN
D
IA
S
T
IN
D
IA
S
T
B ST
ASH ST
C
O
L
U
M
B
IA
S
T
C
O
L
U
M
B
IA
S
T
County Center/
Little Italy
3, 120
America Plaza
5th Avenue
City College
AMTRAK,
Santa Fe Depot
Hall of
Justice
San Diego
City College
San Diego
High School
Star of India
Ferry to
Coronado
& NASNI
Cruise Ship
Terminal
County
Admin.
Center
NORTH
2008 MTS
Morning (inbound) Routing
Afternoon (outbound) Routing
Downtown Stops for
810, 820, 850, 860
Civic Center
150
150
960
50
105
41
86
41
30
30
31
921
921
921
101
48/49
48/49
30A
89
977
976
976
976
977
978
101
101
89
89
805
30, 41, 101,
150, 921
VA Med Center
UTC Transit Center
30, 31, 48, 49,
50, 86, 101,
105, 150, 921A, 960
N
L
A
J
O
L
L
A
S
C
E
N
I
C
D
R
G
E
N
E
S
E
E
A
V
E
ARRIBA ST
VIA
ALICANTE
E
A
S
T
G
A
T
E
M
A
L
L
EXECU
TIVE
D
R
N
T
O
R
R
E
Y
P
I
N
E
S
R
D
M
IRAM
AR
RD
CAMPUS PT DR
NOBEL
DR
J
O
L
L
A
D
R
V
I
L
L
A
L
A
NOBEL DR
LA JO
L
L
A
V
IL
L
A
G
E
D
R
G
E
N
E
S
E
E
A
V
C
A
R
ROLL RD
T
O
R
R
E
Y

P
I
N
E
S

R
D

V
I
A

M
A
L
L
O
R
C
A

T
O
W
N
E
C
E
N
T
R
E
D
R
G
I
L
M
A
N
J
U
D
I
C
I
A
L

D
R
P
A
L
M
I
L
L
A
L
E
B
O
N
V
O
IG
T
UCSD
Thornton
Hospital
VA Medical
Center
Scripps
Memorial
Hospital
L
A

J
O
L
L
A

S
H
O
R
E
S

D
R

Transfer Point
Hospital
2008 Metropolitan Transit System
Approximate Scale : 3
4 = 1 mile
NORTH
Other routes also operate in the areas shown on the
maps. Please call, 5-1-1 or visit
www.sdmts.comfor route and schedule information.
Tambin funcionarn otras rutas en las reas que
aparecen en los mapas.
Llame al 5-1-1 o visite www.sdmts.com
para obtener informacin sobre rutas y horarios.
NEW Downtown Routing for ALL Premium Express Routes (Rts. 810, 820, 850, 860)
University City Area
28
84
84
C
A
O
N

S
T
S
H
E
L
T
E
R

I
S
L
A
N
D

D
R
R
O
S
E
C
R
A
N
S

S
T
A
N
C
H
O
R
A
G
E

L
N
S
C
O
T
T

S
T
Shelter
Island
Rt 28 to/from
Old Town
Transfer point from
Rt 28 to Rt 84
Transfer point from
Rt 84 to Rt 28
Rt 84 to/from
SPAWAR &
Cabrillo Mont
Rt 84 to/from
Sub Base
Routes 28 and 84
Horarios para el Da de Martin Luther King Jr.
El Da de Martin Luther King Jr. (Lunes, 21 de enero de 2008), todos los autobuses de MTS y NCTD y los servicios de Trolley,
SPRINTER y COASTER funcionan con los horarios normales de los das de entre semana. La tienda The Transit Store estar cerrada.
Horarios para el Presidents Day
El Presidents Day (Lunes, 18 de febrero de 2008), todos los servicios de autobs y Trolley de MTS funcionarn de
acuerdo con el horario de los domingos. La conexin del coaster de Sorrento Valley y la ruta 89 funcionarn con el
horario de los das de entre semana modificado. Todos los dems servicios de MTS que no funcionan los domingos
tampoco se prestarn el Presidents Day. Todos los servicios de BREEZE, SPRINTER, FAST y COASTER de NCTD fun-
cionarn con los horarios normales de los das de entre semana.
Durante el horario reducido, habr una lnea telefnica disponible (5-1-1) para obtener informacin de 7:00 a.m. a
7:00 p.m. La tienda The Transit Store permanecer cerrada. Las suscripciones a MTS Access y ADA Suburban
Paratransit para el 18 de febrero 2008 quedan canceladas. Los pasajeros suscriptos que deseen hacer uso del servicio
este da debern llamar para planificar su transporte.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Schedule
On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (Monday, January 21, 2008), all MTS and NCTD Bus, Trolley, SPRINTER, and COASTER
services operate on a regular weekday schedule. The Transit Store will be closed.
Presidents Day Service Schedule
On Presidents Day (Monday, February 18, 2008), all MTS bus and trolley services will operate on a Sunday schedule.
The Sorrento Valley Coaster Connection and Route 89 will operate with a modified weekday schedule. All other MTS
services that do not operate on Sundays will not operate on Presidents Day.
All NCTD BREEZE, SPRINTER, FAST, and COASTER services will operate on a regular weekday schedule.
Telephone Information (5-1-1) will be available during reduced hours, from 7:00am through 7:00pm.
The Transit Store will be closed. MTS Access and ADA Suburban Paratransit subscriptions are cancelled for February
18, 2008. Subscription ADA passengers who want to maintain their trip on this day must call to arrange their
transportation.
11
163
5
5
GRAPE ST
GRAPE ST
FIR ST
DATE ST
ASH ST
ASH ST
BEECH ST
BROADWAY
BROADWAY
RUSS BLVD
P
A
C
IF
IC
H
W
Y
K
E
T
T
N
E
R
B
L
V
D
K
E
T
T
N
E
R
B
L
V
D
6
T
H
A
V
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
S
T
A
T
E
S
T
1
S
T
A
V
2
N
D
A
V
4
T
H
A
V
3
R
D
A
V
5
T
H
A
V
U
N
IO
N
S
T
F
R
O
N
T
S
T
9
T
H
A
V
1
0
T
H
A
V
1
1
T
H
A
V
1
1
T
H
A
V
P
A
R
K
B
L
V
D
8
T
H
A
V
7
T
H
A
V
H
A
R
B
O
R
D
R
FIR ST
ELM ST
CEDAR ST
CEDAR ST
A ST
C ST
C ST
B ST B ST
E ST
A ST
IN
D
IA
S
T
IN
D
IA
S
T
B ST
ASH ST
C
O
L
U
M
B
IA
S
T
C
O
L
U
M
B
IA
S
T
County Center/
Little Italy
3, 120
America Plaza
5th Avenue
City College
AMTRAK,
Santa Fe Depot
Hall of
Justice
San Diego
City College
San Diego
High School
Star of India
Ferry to
Coronado
& NASNI
Cruise Ship
Terminal
County
Admin.
Center
NORTH
2008 MTS
Morning (inbound) Routing
Afternoon (outbound) Routing
Downtown Stops for
810, 820, 850, 860
Civic Center
A-2
Effective, January 25, 2009:

The following routes will be
completely eliminated due to
ongoing State funding issues of public
transportation:
311/312, 324, 338/339,
341/442, 348, 349A/B,
365 and 397.

NCTD will also be altering the
following routes: 306, 347 and
388/389.

Visit GoNCTD.com for new route
maps and schedules. New Riders
Guides effective January 25 will be
available on BREEZE buses the week
of January 19.

Complete trip planning information via
public transit in San Diego County is
available by calling toll free, 511, or on-line
at: Transit.511sd.com.
BREEZE Bus
Changes for
January 25, 2009
Los prximos cambios en los
horarios de los autobuses BREEZE
se estn acercando y estarn
acompaados de varios cambios de
rutas. Las siguientes rutas sern
completamente eliminadas debido a
los continuos problemas respecto a
los fondos del Estado relacionados
con el transporte pblico: 311/312,
324, 338/339, 341/442, 348, 349A/
B, 365 y 397.

NCTD tambin modificar las
siguientes rutas: 306, 347 y
388/389.

Cuando la informacin de las rutas,
incluyendo los mapas, est
disponible, ser colocada en nuestro
sitio Web: www.gonctd.com
Las nuevas guas del usuario estarn
disponibles a partir del 19 de enero
en los autobuses Breeze. Los
horarios entrarn en vigencia a
partir del 25 de enero.
Cambios en los horarios
de los autobuses BREEZE
a partir del domingo 25
de enero de 2009
A-3

APPENDIX B
MTS/NCTD TITLE VI COMPLAINT PROCEDURES

1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101-7490
619.231.1466 Fax: 619.234.3407

Policies and Procedures No. 48

SUBJECT: Board Approval: 5/13/04

TRANSIT SERVICE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS PROCEDURES

PURPOSE:

To carry out Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) recommends that transit agencies adopt a procedure in which
complaints alleging discrimination in provision of transit service are filed, investigated,
and a determination made. This policy sets forth such procedures.

BACKGROUND:

It is the policy of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, hereinafter "MTS"; its
subsidiaries, San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC), San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI);
and its contractors to follow the established procedure for handling all alleged transit
service discrimination complaints on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

The responsibility for the implementation of the discrimination complaint procedures is
assigned to the Office of General Counsel. All management personnel within MTS,
SDTC, and SDTI are expected to support and implement the following procedures.

PROCEDURES:

48.1 All complaints must be in writing and signed by the complainant or his/her
representative before any action will be taken. The complaint must be filed
within 180 days from the time of the alleged discrimination. The complaints shall
provide all pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged
discrimination that will help the MTS Chief Executive Officer reach a decision.

48.2 MTS will provide the complainant or his/her representative with a written
acknowledgement within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint.

The MTS Chief Executive Officer will review all the information available from
both parties (i.e., the complainant and the identified agency) to determine if the
complaint has sufficient merit to warrant further investigation.

B-1

Should further investigation be warranted, the MTS Chief Executive Officer shall
proceed with an informal hearing from all sides of the issue.

48.3 Upon completion of the hearing, the MTS Chief Executive Officer will evaluate all
information received and make a final determination on the matter. If
noncompliance with Title VI is determined, a recommendation on remedial action
will be made.

48.4 The complainant or his/her representative may appeal MTS's final determination
to the FTA.

LTresc/SChamp/JGarde
POLICY.48.TRANSIT SVC DISCRIM COMPLAINTS PROCEDURES
7/21/06

This policy was adopted 3/12/98.
Policy revised on 5/13/04.
B-2
1 VI C I

1 vl C 8 A n u S

l M1S
?
W M 1 S
1 vl C l A S u CA

SLC1ICN 8ASIC INICkMA1ICN
CCMLAlnAn1S lnlC8MA1lCn
n
A
CSZ
1 n

vlC1lMS lnlC8MA1lCn
n
A
CSZ
1 n

u

u
8C
n C

P

n
? l L l
S l S

C
n
A
CSZ
1 n

A
L
8
C
D
B-3
SLC1ICN LVLN1 DL1AILS

u

M1S ?
?

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

SLC1ICN SIGNA1UkL

C S u
B-4
Iormu|ar|o de que[a de 1|tu|o VI

Ll 1lLulo vl del uecreLo de los uerechos Clvlles de 1964 dlspone que nlnguna persona en los LsLados unldos
debe ser exclulda de parLlclpar en, negada de los beneflclos de sus servlclos en base a su raza, color u orlgen
eLnlco, o ser su[eLo(a) a dlscrlmlnacln ba[o cualquler programa o acLlvldad que reclba ayuda econmlca
federal."

Sl cree que ha sufrldo dlscrlmlnacln, puede presenLar una que[a por escrlLo y flrmada en un plazo de 180 dlas
de la fecha de la presunLa dlscrlmlnacln. uede uLlllzar el formularlo a conLlnuacln, que lncluye la lnformacln
necesarla para procesar su que[a. Cuando Lermlne, favor de enLregar esLe formularlo a MeLropollLan 1ranslL
SysLem, 1lLle vl Cfflcer, 1233 lmperlal Avenue #1000, San ulego, CA 92101.

SLCCICN 1: INICkMACICN 8SICA
uA1CS uLL 8LCLAMAn1L
nombre: ______________________________________________________
ulreccln ____________________________________________________
Culdad/LsLado/Cdlgo posLal: ________________________________________________
numero Lelefnlco: ____________________________________________

uA1CS uL LA vlC1lMA (s| es d|ferente de| anter|or)
nombre: ______________________________________________________
ulreccln ____________________________________________________
Culdad/LsLado/Cdlgo posLal: ________________________________________________

lecha de la presunLa dlscrlmlnacln: ___________________________________

Cree que la razn para la presunLa dlscrlmlnacln es debldo a:
8aza/Color
Crlgen eLnlco

Pa enLregado esLa que[a a cualquler oLro organlsmo local, esLaLal, o federal o con cualquler Lrlbunal
esLaLal o federal?
no
Sl ue ser asl, marque Lodas las ca[as apropladas: Crganlsmo local Crganlsmo federal
Crganlsmo esLaLal 1rlbunal federal 1rlbunal esLaLal

lnformacln de conLacLo para el organlsmo/Lrlbunal donde se presenL la que[a:
nombre: ______________________________________________________
ulreccln: ____________________________________________________
Culdad/LsLado/Cdlgo posLal: ______________________________________
A
L
8
C
D
B-5

SLCCICN 2: DL1ALLLS DLL LVLN1C

uescrlba en sus proplas palabras la presunLa dlscrlmlnacln. lavor de expllcar que fue lo que sucedl y qulen
cree que es responsable. roporclone Lodos los deLalles y hechos perLlnenLes, y clrcunsLanclas en Lorno a la
presunLa dlscrlmlnacln que ayudarn a M1S a lnvesLlgar su que[a. uede uLlllzar el reverso de esLe formularlo sl
requlere espaclo adlclonal. (1amblen puede anadlr cualquler maLerlal escrlLo u oLra lnformacln que consldere
relevanLe a su que[a.)

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

SLCCICN 3: IIkMA

llrma del reclamanLe: ______________________________ lecha: ___________________
B-6

TITLE VI DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
Revised April 9, 2009

Individuals, or individuals as members of a specific class of persons, who feel they have been
discriminated against with respect to transit services or benefits on the basis of race, color, or national
origin may file a written complaint with North County Transit District.

Submission of Complaints

Complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin may be submitted to
the Title VI Coordinator of North County Transit District, 810 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, CA 92054.
The complaint may be submitted in writing or verbally, and should contain information about the
alleged discrimination such as name, address, and phone number of complainant, and location, date
and description of the problem. The description of the problem should include, if appropriate, bus or
train number, time of day, employee name or badge number if available, and any person(s) involved
or witnesses to the problem. Complaints may be submitted by e-mail, provided they identify the
communication as "Title VI Complaint". Other alternative means of filing complaints, such as personal
interviews or tape recording of the complaint, will be made available for persons with disabilities upon
request. The request should be made to the Title VI Coordinator listed below.

The complaint should be submitted by the complainant and/or his/her designee as soon as possible
but no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the alleged violation to:

North County Transit District
Attn: Chief Administrative Officer
810 Mission Avenue
Oceanside, CA 92054
Office: (760) 966-6500
Fax: (760) 967-2001
E-mail address: creports@nctd.org

Persons with hearing impairment please use California Relay Service (CRS): 711
North County Transit District will acknowledge receipt of the complaint within ten (10) working days.

Investigation of Complaints

North County Transit District will review all complaints to determine if there is sufficient merit to
warrant investigation. In some cases the District may submit a written request to the complainant to
provide additional information. If a complaint is found to have sufficient merit to warrant investigation,
the District will proceed with an investigation. If the complaint does not warrant investigation, the District
will respond within thirty (30) working days to the complainant and so state.

Disposition of Complaints

A written determination as to the validity of the complaint and a description of the resolution, if any,
shall be issued by the Title VI Coordinator and a copy forwarded to the complainant no later than sixty
(60) calendar days after its filing. Upon request, the determination will be made available in a format
accessible to the complainant, such as large print, Braille, audio tape, or E-Mail.
B-7

TITLE VI DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
Revised May 15, 2013

Individuals, or individuals as members of a specific class of persons, who feel they have been discriminated
against with respect to transit services or benefits on the basis of race, color, or national origin may file a
written complaint with North County Transit District.

Submission of Complaints

Complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin may be submitted to the Title
VI Officer of North County Transit District, 810 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, CA 92054. The complaint may
be submitted in writing or verbally, and should contain information about the alleged discrimination such as
name, address, and phone number of complainant, and location, date and description of the problem. The
description of the problem should include, if appropriate, bus or train number, time of day, employee name
or badge number if available, and any person(s) involved or witnesses to the problem. Complaints may be
submitted by e-mail, provided they identify the communication as "Title VI Complaint". Other alternative
means of filing complaints, such as personal interviews or tape recording of the complaint, will be made
available for persons with disabilities upon request. The request should be made to the Title VI Coordinator
listed below.

The complaint should be submitted by the complainant and/or his/her designee as soon as possible but no
later than thirty (30) calendar days after the alleged violation to:

Attn:Title VI Officer
810 Mission Avenue
Oceanside, CA 92054
Office: (760) 966-6500
Fax: (760) 967-2001

Persons with hearing impairment please use California Relay Service (CRS): 711
North County Transit District will acknowledge receipt of the complaint within ten (10) working days.

Investigation of Complaints

North County Transit District will review all complaints to determine if there is sufficient merit to warrant
investigation. In some cases the District may submit a written request to the complainant to provide
additional information. If a complaint is found to have sufficient merit to warrant investigation, the District will
proceed with an investigation. If the complaint does not warrant investigation, the District will respond within
thirty (30) working days to the complainant and so state.

Disposition of Complaints

A written determination as to the validity of the complaint and a description of the resolution, if any, shall be
issued by the Title VI Officer and a copy forwarded to the complainant no later than sixty (60) calendar days
after its filing. Upon request, the determination will be made available in a format accessible to the
complainant, such as large print, Braille, audio tape, or E-Mail.
B-8

2
Title VI Discrimination Complaint Form

Section 1

Name: ___________________________________________________________________________

Street Address:____________________________________________________________________

City: __________________________________ State:____________ Zip: _____________________

Telephone (home):______________________________ (work): _____________________________

Email address: ____________________________________________________________________

Any accommodation requests? Large print_____ Audio tape_____ TDD_____ Other_____________

The North County Transit District (NCTD) is responsible for civil rights compliance and
monitoring, which includes ensuring that contractors regardless of tier and subrecipients
regardless of tier properly abide by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order
12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low
Income Populations, and the Department of Transportations Guidance to Recipients on
Special Language Services to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Beneficiaries.

In the NCTD complaint investigation process, we analyze the complainant's allegations for
possible Title VI violations. If violations are identified, they are investigated as provided in the
NCTD Title VI Discrimination Complaint Process.

Section II

Are you filing this complaint on your own behalf? Yes______ No______

If you answered "yes" to this question, go to Section Ill.

If you answered "no", please supply the name and relationship of the person for whom you are
complaining:

________________________________________________________________________________

Please explain why you are filing on behalf of a third party:_________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

Please confirm that you have obtained the permission of the aggrieved party if you are filing on behalf
of a third party. Yes ______ No________

B-9

3
Section Ill

Have you previously filed a Title VI complaint with NCTD? Yes________ No_________

If yes, when and against whom was the complaint filed? ___________________________________

Note: This information is needed for administrative purposes; we will assign the same complaint
number to the new complaint.

Have you filed this complaint with any of the following agencies?
______Department of Transportation
______Department of Justice
______Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
______Other

Have you filed a lawsuit regarding this complaint? Yes______ No______
If yes, please provide a copy of the complaint form.

Note: This above information is helpful for administrative tracking purposes. However, if litigation is
pending regarding the same issues, we defer to the decision of the court.

Section IV

Name of person or organization your complaint is against:_________________________________

Contact person:____________________________________ Title:__________________________

Telephone number: _______________________________________________________________

Please describe your complaint. Include specific details such as names, dates, times, route numbers,
witnesses, and any other information that would assist in the investigation of your allegations. Please
provide any other documentation relevant to this complaint. Attach additional page(s) if necessary.

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Section V

Printed name: _______________________________ Signature: ___________________________

Date: ______________________________________

Please mail or deliver your complaint form to:
NCTD, Attn: Title VI Officer
810 Mission Ave.
Oceanside, CA 92054
B-10

TTULO VI PROCEDIMIENTO DE QUEJAS DE DISCRIMINACIN
Revisado 15 de Mayo de 2013

Personas o individuos como miembros de una clase especfica de las personas, que siente que han sido
discriminados con respecto a los servicios de trnsito o beneficios sobre la base de raza, color o
nacionalidad pueden presentar una queja por escrito con North County Transit District.

Presentacin de Quejas

Quejas que alegan discriminacin de raza, color u origen nacional podrn ser sometidas al Oficial de Ttulo
VI de North County Transit District, 810 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, CA 92054. La queja podr ser
presentada por escrito o verbalmente y debe contener informacin acerca de la supuesta discriminacin
como nombre, direccin y nmero de telfono del querellante y lugar, fecha y descripcin del problema. La
descripcin del problema debe incluir, si procede, nmero de autobs o tren, hora del da, nombre del
empleado o nmero de insignia, si est disponible, y cualquier persona implicada o testigos al problema.
Las quejas pueden presentarse por correo electrnico, siempre que identifiquen la comunicacin como
"Queja de Ttulo VI". Otros medios alternativos de presentar quejas, tales como entrevistas personales o
grabacin de cinta de la queja, estarn disponibles para las personas con discapacidad a su peticin. La
solicitud debe enviarse al Oficial de Ttulo VI a continuacin.

La queja debe ser presentada por el demandante o su designado tan pronto como sea posible pero no ms
tardar de treinta (30) das despus de la supuesta violacin a:

Attn: Oficial de Ttulo VI
810 Mission Avenue
Oceanside, CA 92054
Office: (760) 966-6500
Fax: (760) 967-2001

Las personas con discapacidad auditiva utilizan California Relay Service (CRS): 711
North County Transit District acusar recibo de la queja dentro de diez (10) das de trabajo.

Investigacin de Quejas

North County Transit District revisar todas las denuncias para determinar si existe mrito suficiente para
justificar la investigacin. En algunos casos, el distrito puede presentar una solicitud por escrito al
demandante para proporcionar informacin adicional. Si una queja se encuentra tener mrito suficiente para
justificar la investigacin, el Distrito proceder a una investigacin. Si la queja no amerita la investigacin, el
Distrito responder dentro de treinta (30) das laborales notificar al denunciante.

Disposicin de Quejas

Una determinacin por escrito en cuanto a la validez de la queja y una descripcin de la resolucin, si
lo hubiere, se expedirn por el Oficial de Ttulo VI y una copia ser enviada al demandante no ms
tardar de sesenta (60) das despus de su radicacin. A peticin, la determinacin se har disponible
en un formato accesible al demandante, como letra grande, Braille, cinta de audio o correo electrnico.
B-11

2
FORMA DE TTULO VI DE QUEJAS DE DISCRIMINACIN

Seccin 1

Nombre: ________________________________________________________________________

Calle de Domicilio: ________________________________________________________________

Ciudad: __________________________ Estado: ____________ Cdigo: ____________________

Telfono (casa):__________________________ (trabajo): _____________________________

Correo electrnico:
____________________________________________________________________

Peticines especiales: Letra grande_____ Cinta de Audio_____ TDD_____ Otro_____________

North County Transit District (NCTD) es responsable del cumplimiento de los derechos civiles y
su seguimiento, lo que incluye velar contratistas, independientemente del nivel, y sub-
beneficiarios, independientemente del nivel, que correctamente acaten Ttulo VI de la ley de los
derechos civiles de 1964, orden ejecutiva 12898 "Acciones federales a la direccin ambiental de
justicia en poblaciones de bajos ingresos y minoras" y la orientacin del Departamento de
Transporte a los destinatarios de servicios especiales a los beneficiarios de idioma del ingls
limitado.

En el proceso de investigacin de quejas de NCTD, analizamos los alegatos del querellante para
posibles violaciones del Ttulo VI. Si se identifican violaciones, se investigaran conforme al
proceso de quejas de discriminacin de NCTD Ttulo VI.

Seccin 2

Est presentando esta queja en su nombre? S ______ No______

Si contest "s" a esta pregunta, vaya a la seccin 3.

Si contest "no", por favor de suministrar el nombre y la relacin de la persona a quien usted se queja:

________________________________________________________________________________

Explique por qu est solicitando en nombre de un tercero: ________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

Confirme que ha obtenido el permiso de la persona agraviada si radicara en nombre de un tercero.
S ___ No___

B-12

3
Seccin 3

Ha presentado anteriormente una queja del Ttulo VI con NCTD? S ___ No___

En caso afirmativo, cundo y contra quin se ha denunciado?_______________________________

Nota: Esta informacin es necesaria para propsitos administrativos; asignaremos al mismo nmero de
queja a esta nueva denuncia.

Ha presentado esta denuncia con algunas de las siguientes agencias?
___Departamento de Transporte
___Departamento de la Justicia
___La Comisin de Oportunidad de Empleo Equitativo
___Otro

Se present una demanda sobre esta denuncia? S ___ No___

En caso afirmativo, proporcione una copia del formulario de queja.

Nota: Esta informacin es til para propsitos de seguimiento administrativo. Sin embargo, si el litigio
est pendiente sobre los mismos temas, se aplazar la decisin de la corte.

Seccin 4

Nombre de la persona u organizacin de la cual su queja es en contra: ________________________

Persona de Contacto:______________________________ Titulo: __________________________

Nmero de telfono: _______________________________

Por favor describa su queja. Incluya detalles especficos tales como nombres, fechas, horas, nmeros
de ruta, testigos y cualquier informacin que ayudara en la investigacin de su denuncia. Por favor
proporcione la documentacin pertinente a esta queja. Adjunte pginas adicionales si es necesario.

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Seccin 5

Nombre en letra de molde: _________________________ Firma: ___________________________

Fecha: _____________________________

Por favor enve o traiga su queja a:
NCTD, Attn: Oficial de Ttulo VI
810 Mission Avenue
Oceanside, CA 92054
B-13

APPENDIX C
MTS/NCTD INFORMATION REQUEST POLICIES

1255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101-7490
619/231-1466
FAX 619/234-3407
Policies and Procedures No. 32

SUBJ ECT: Board Approval: 03/25/04

HANDLING OF INFORMATION REQUESTS

PURPOSE:

To establish procedures that the Chief Executive Officer should use in responding to
requests from members of the MTS Board of Directors, other local officials, and the
general public.

POLICY:

32.1 MTS Board member requests for information or research will generally be
reported to the Chairman by the Chief Executive Officer.

32.2 Requests for information from other local officials and the general public will be
generally responded to within five working days.

32.3 In the Chief Executive Officer's judgement, any requests for information that
require four or more hours of staff research will be reported to the MTS Executive
Committee or Board of Directors for their review and consideration.

TFL:paw/SChamp/J Garde
POLICY.32.HANDLING INFO REQUESTS
7/14/06

Policy adopted on 5/14/87.
Policy revised on 3/25/04.
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6

APPENDIX D
POPULATION BY CENSUS TRACT
Census
Tract
Year
Total
Population
LIM
Transit
Agency
# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %
100 2010 3029 1.00 239 7.9% 26 0.9% 15 0.5% 73 2.4% 2 0.1% 1 0.0% 59 1.9% 415 13.7% 403 13.3% not LIM MTS
201 2010 1801 1.00 182 10.1% 28 1.6% 9 0.5% 79 4.4% 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 43 2.4% 342 19.0% 564 31.3% not LIM MTS
202 2010 4208 1.00 583 13.9% 101 2.4% 11 0.3% 194 4.6% 4 0.1% 12 0.3% 121 2.9% 1026 24.4% 702 16.7% not LIM MTS
300 2010 4732 1.00 687 14.5% 110 2.3% 13 0.3% 298 6.3% 17 0.4% 10 0.2% 140 3.0% 1275 26.9% 979 20.7% not LIM MTS
400 2010 3669 1.00 572 15.6% 151 4.1% 14 0.4% 353 9.6% 12 0.3% 12 0.3% 111 3.0% 1225 33.4% 837 22.8% not LIM MTS
500 2010 2722 1.00 394 14.5% 71 2.6% 11 0.4% 123 4.5% 7 0.3% 9 0.3% 80 2.9% 695 25.5% 467 17.2% not LIM MTS
600 2010 3108 1.00 509 16.4% 111 3.6% 14 0.5% 205 6.6% 5 0.2% 6 0.2% 104 3.3% 954 30.7% 910 29.3% not LIM MTS
700 2010 3754 1.00 587 15.6% 101 2.7% 13 0.3% 204 5.4% 9 0.2% 9 0.2% 108 2.9% 1031 27.5% 991 26.4% not LIM MTS
800 2010 4280 1.00 903 21.1% 313 7.3% 18 0.4% 216 5.0% 19 0.4% 20 0.5% 148 3.5% 1637 38.2% 1,166 27.3% not LIM MTS
900 2010 5178 1.00 1534 29.6% 399 7.7% 22 0.4% 324 6.3% 28 0.5% 6 0.1% 184 3.6% 2497 48.2% 2,113 40.8% LIM MTS
1000 2010 4733 1.00 1229 26.0% 338 7.1% 12 0.3% 251 5.3% 17 0.4% 24 0.5% 179 3.8% 2050 43.3% 1,280 27.1% not LIM MTS
1100 2010 3098 1.00 826 26.7% 256 8.3% 14 0.5% 134 4.3% 13 0.4% 11 0.4% 113 3.6% 1367 44.1% 1,055 34.0% LIM MTS
1200 2010 5660 1.00 1899 33.6% 728 12.9% 27 0.5% 321 5.7% 26 0.5% 24 0.4% 236 4.2% 3261 57.6% 2,435 43.0% LIM MTS
1300 2010 6197 1.00 1929 31.1% 763 12.3% 20 0.3% 470 7.6% 28 0.5% 25 0.4% 254 4.1% 3489 56.3% 2,196 35.4% LIM MTS
1400 2010 3084 1.00 702 22.8% 136 4.4% 15 0.5% 172 5.6% 8 0.3% 7 0.2% 94 3.0% 1134 36.8% 900 29.2% not LIM MTS
1500 2010 3934 1.00 1229 31.2% 261 6.6% 22 0.6% 196 5.0% 5 0.1% 8 0.2% 123 3.1% 1844 46.9% 1,041 26.5% not LIM MTS
1600 2010 5651 1.00 3051 54.0% 703 12.4% 17 0.3% 299 5.3% 18 0.3% 18 0.3% 158 2.8% 4264 75.5% 2,115 37.4% LIM MTS
1700 2010 4772 1.00 2018 42.3% 484 10.1% 40 0.8% 209 4.4% 20 0.4% 13 0.3% 148 3.1% 2932 61.4% 1,256 26.3% not LIM MTS
1800 2010 5319 1.00 2130 40.0% 671 12.6% 16 0.3% 213 4.0% 20 0.4% 10 0.2% 190 3.6% 3250 61.1% 1,680 31.6% not LIM MTS
1900 2010 2939 1.00 489 16.6% 85 2.9% 10 0.3% 93 3.2% 5 0.2% 6 0.2% 74 2.5% 762 25.9% 606 20.6% not LIM MTS
2001 2010 3354 1.00 328 9.8% 54 1.6% 9 0.3% 108 3.2% 5 0.1% 4 0.1% 82 2.4% 590 17.6% 350 10.4% not LIM MTS
2002 2010 2559 1.00 427 16.7% 145 5.7% 4 0.2% 111 4.3% 4 0.2% 1 0.0% 67 2.6% 759 29.7% 553 21.6% not LIM MTS
2100 2010 5259 1.00 1928 36.7% 613 11.7% 20 0.4% 422 8.0% 23 0.4% 18 0.3% 170 3.2% 3194 60.7% 2,157 41.0% LIM MTS
2201 2010 3796 1.00 2330 61.4% 670 17.7% 5 0.1% 401 10.6% 11 0.3% 10 0.3% 65 1.7% 3492 92.0% 2,084 54.9% LIM MTS
2202 2010 4859 1.00 2975 61.2% 325 6.7% 13 0.3% 1069 22.0% 7 0.1% 6 0.1% 70 1.4% 4465 91.9% 2,649 54.5% LIM MTS
2301 2010 2821 1.00 1053 37.3% 357 12.7% 5 0.2% 704 25.0% 10 0.4% 4 0.1% 101 3.6% 2234 79.2% 1,359 48.2% LIM MTS
2302 2010 6589 1.00 3781 57.4% 668 10.1% 16 0.2% 1577 23.9% 10 0.2% 14 0.2% 100 1.5% 6166 93.6% 3,573 54.2% LIM MTS
2401 2010 4573 1.00 2769 60.6% 498 10.9% 18 0.4% 345 7.5% 22 0.5% 11 0.2% 110 2.4% 3773 82.5% 1,836 40.2% LIM MTS
2402 2010 5254 1.00 3610 68.7% 487 9.3% 9 0.2% 694 13.2% 15 0.3% 5 0.1% 98 1.9% 4918 93.6% 2,693 51.2% LIM MTS
2501 2010 5504 1.00 3407 61.9% 484 8.8% 8 0.1% 816 14.8% 27 0.5% 15 0.3% 106 1.9% 4863 88.4% 2,061 37.4% LIM MTS
2502 2010 6264 1.00 3165 50.5% 712 11.4% 29 0.5% 694 11.1% 37 0.6% 12 0.2% 160 2.6% 4809 76.8% 1,666 26.6% LIM MTS
2601 2010 6148 1.00 4357 70.9% 254 4.1% 9 0.1% 1070 17.4% 10 0.2% 5 0.1% 70 1.1% 5775 93.9% 2,854 46.4% LIM MTS
2602 2010 4450 1.00 2784 62.6% 452 10.2% 11 0.2% 704 15.8% 13 0.3% 7 0.2% 80 1.8% 4051 91.0% 1,289 29.0% LIM MTS
2702 2010 5180 1.00 1535 29.6% 945 18.2% 25 0.5% 670 12.9% 19 0.4% 29 0.6% 172 3.3% 3395 65.5% 1,913 36.9% LIM MTS
2703 2010 6900 1.00 2780 40.3% 881 12.8% 20 0.3% 1062 15.4% 26 0.4% 6 0.1% 246 3.6% 5021 72.8% 2,175 31.5% LIM MTS
2705 2010 4300 1.00 1233 28.7% 561 13.0% 4 0.1% 1666 38.7% 8 0.2% 13 0.3% 114 2.7% 3599 83.7% 1,225 28.5% LIM MTS
2707 2010 5369 1.00 3132 58.3% 781 14.5% 11 0.2% 1098 20.5% 13 0.2% 28 0.5% 63 1.2% 5126 95.5% 2,710 50.5% LIM MTS
2708 2010 5689 1.00 3048 53.6% 844 14.8% 7 0.1% 1180 20.7% 14 0.2% 28 0.5% 113 2.0% 5234 92.0% 3,584 63.0% LIM MTS
2709 2010 3945 1.00 2074 52.6% 726 18.4% 18 0.5% 642 16.3% 12 0.3% 5 0.1% 83 2.1% 3560 90.2% 2,042 51.8% LIM MTS
2710 2010 4228 1.00 1613 38.2% 980 23.2% 13 0.3% 1189 28.1% 2 0.0% 5 0.1% 96 2.3% 3898 92.2% 1,715 40.6% LIM MTS
2711 2010 3200 1.00 1150 35.9% 478 14.9% 11 0.3% 600 18.8% 54 1.7% 1 0.0% 134 4.2% 2428 75.9% 864 27.0% LIM MTS
2712 2010 4652 1.00 1558 33.5% 1419 30.5% 6 0.1% 715 15.4% 23 0.5% 9 0.2% 124 2.7% 3854 82.8% 1,609 34.6% LIM MTS
2801 2010 3068 1.00 452 14.7% 103 3.4% 6 0.2% 343 11.2% 7 0.2% 3 0.1% 147 4.8% 1061 34.6% 1,721 56.1% LIM MTS
2803 2010 5370 1.00 1296 24.1% 567 10.6% 18 0.3% 848 15.8% 15 0.3% 8 0.1% 175 3.3% 2927 54.5% 1,722 32.1% not LIM MTS
2804 2010 4638 1.00 779 16.8% 203 4.4% 11 0.2% 396 8.5% 4 0.1% 11 0.2% 167 3.6% 1571 33.9% 1,085 23.4% not LIM MTS
2902 2010 5277 1.00 1255 23.8% 464 8.8% 24 0.5% 491 9.3% 17 0.3% 26 0.5% 173 3.3% 2450 46.4% 1,452 27.5% not LIM MTS
2903 2010 3717 1.00 1356 36.5% 339 9.1% 11 0.3% 361 9.7% 25 0.7% 10 0.3% 116 3.1% 2218 59.7% 1,371 36.9% LIM MTS
2904 2010 7316 1.00 1268 17.3% 432 5.9% 14 0.2% 976 13.3% 22 0.3% 21 0.3% 299 4.1% 3032 41.4% 3,500 47.8% LIM MTS
2905 2010 4022 1.00 928 23.1% 424 10.5% 14 0.3% 370 9.2% 20 0.5% 10 0.2% 166 4.1% 1932 48.0% 1,102 27.4% not LIM MTS
3001 2010 4226 1.00 1907 45.1% 1666 39.4% 8 0.2% 221 5.2% 30 0.7% 9 0.2% 112 2.7% 3953 93.5% 1,753 41.5% LIM MTS
3003 2010 5062 1.00 2273 44.9% 959 18.9% 38 0.8% 261 5.2% 32 0.6% 15 0.3% 211 4.2% 3789 74.9% 1,264 25.0% LIM MTS
3004 2010 4940 1.00 3494 70.7% 782 15.8% 6 0.1% 179 3.6% 44 0.9% 2 0.0% 107 2.2% 4614 93.4% 1,882 38.1% LIM MTS
3101 2010 3785 1.00 1677 44.3% 1631 43.1% 11 0.3% 135 3.6% 41 1.1% 1 0.0% 77 2.0% 3573 94.4% 1,253 33.1% LIM MTS
3103 2010 6256 1.00 2670 42.7% 2135 34.1% 5 0.1% 715 11.4% 41 0.7% 16 0.3% 173 2.8% 5755 92.0% 1,745 27.9% LIM MTS
3105 2010 4167 1.00 2678 64.3% 469 11.3% 15 0.4% 292 7.0% 57 1.4% 9 0.2% 102 2.4% 3622 86.9% 1,013 24.3% LIM MTS
3107 2010 5992 1.00 2322 38.8% 1119 18.7% 34 0.6% 1341 22.4% 103 1.7% 2 0.0% 277 4.6% 5198 86.7% 928 15.5% LIM MTS
LowIncome 2ormoreRaces MinorityPopulation
AppendixDPopulationbyCensusTract
Other Hispanic Black AmericanIndian Asian Hawaiian
D-1
Census
Tract
Year
Total
Population
LIM
Transit
Agency
# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %
LowIncome 2ormoreRaces MinorityPopulation Other Hispanic Black AmericanIndian Asian Hawaiian
3108 2010 3520 1.00 1938 55.1% 286 8.1% 10 0.3% 298 8.5% 33 0.9% 14 0.4% 125 3.6% 2704 76.8% 743 21.1% LIM MTS
3109 2010 3358 1.00 336 10.0% 241 7.2% 5 0.1% 2465 73.4% 20 0.6% 6 0.2% 92 2.7% 3165 94.3% 352 10.5% LIM MTS
3111 2010 6183 1.00 3103 50.2% 1329 21.5% 7 0.1% 1202 19.4% 109 1.8% 10 0.2% 184 3.0% 5944 96.1% 2,020 32.7% LIM MTS
3112 2010 4574 1.00 1909 41.7% 1091 23.9% 5 0.1% 1007 22.0% 71 1.6% 4 0.1% 150 3.3% 4237 92.6% 893 19.5% LIM MTS
3113 2010 5043 1.00 1028 20.4% 856 17.0% 3 0.1% 2629 52.1% 73 1.4% 8 0.2% 157 3.1% 4754 94.3% 1,328 26.3% LIM MTS
3114 2010 3341 1.00 494 14.8% 591 17.7% 1 0.0% 1994 59.7% 13 0.4% 0 0.0% 119 3.6% 3212 96.1% 120 3.6% LIM MTS
3115 2010 6454 1.00 2048 31.7% 847 13.1% 10 0.2% 2726 42.2% 82 1.3% 10 0.2% 207 3.2% 5930 91.9% 1,841 28.5% LIM MTS
3201 2010 4932 1.00 1472 29.8% 592 12.0% 15 0.3% 1507 30.6% 97 2.0% 15 0.3% 251 5.1% 3949 80.1% 929 18.8% LIM MTS
3202 2010 4551 1.00 3045 66.9% 250 5.5% 5 0.1% 449 9.9% 40 0.9% 4 0.1% 90 2.0% 3883 85.3% 1,393 30.6% LIM MTS
3204 2010 3453 1.00 1779 51.5% 96 2.8% 18 0.5% 396 11.5% 15 0.4% 4 0.1% 74 2.1% 2382 69.0% 836 24.2% LIM MTS
3207 2010 5890 1.00 2627 44.6% 298 5.1% 25 0.4% 619 10.5% 41 0.7% 19 0.3% 178 3.0% 3807 64.6% 814 13.8% not LIM MTS
3208 2010 6619 1.00 2111 31.9% 1105 16.7% 7 0.1% 2369 35.8% 62 0.9% 15 0.2% 267 4.0% 5936 89.7% 1,214 18.3% LIM MTS
3209 2010 5385 1.00 1442 26.8% 860 16.0% 9 0.2% 2228 41.4% 40 0.7% 11 0.2% 303 5.6% 4893 90.9% 1,168 21.7% LIM MTS
3211 2010 3165 1.00 1645 52.0% 191 6.0% 8 0.3% 699 22.1% 37 1.2% 3 0.1% 81 2.6% 2664 84.2% 392 12.4% LIM MTS
3212 2010 4053 1.00 1819 44.9% 441 10.9% 4 0.1% 924 22.8% 66 1.6% 7 0.2% 153 3.8% 3414 84.2% 625 15.4% LIM MTS
3213 2010 4193 1.00 874 20.8% 516 12.3% 5 0.1% 2251 53.7% 57 1.4% 14 0.3% 148 3.5% 3865 92.2% 260 6.2% LIM MTS
3214 2010 4610 1.00 1520 33.0% 984 21.3% 2 0.0% 1120 24.3% 43 0.9% 11 0.2% 214 4.6% 3894 84.5% 1,058 22.9% LIM MTS
3301 2010 3337 1.00 2207 66.1% 888 26.6% 1 0.0% 112 3.4% 19 0.6% 1 0.0% 45 1.3% 3273 98.1% 1,628 48.8% LIM MTS
3303 2010 4193 1.00 2977 71.0% 614 14.6% 7 0.2% 314 7.5% 19 0.5% 9 0.2% 78 1.9% 4018 95.8% 2,288 54.6% LIM MTS
3304 2010 3563 1.00 2339 65.6% 481 13.5% 4 0.1% 494 13.9% 17 0.5% 5 0.1% 49 1.4% 3389 95.1% 1,683 47.2% LIM MTS
3305 2010 5738 1.00 3234 56.4% 1755 30.6% 2 0.0% 383 6.7% 123 2.1% 7 0.1% 109 1.9% 5613 97.8% 2,941 51.3% LIM MTS
3401 2010 6065 1.00 2406 39.7% 1509 24.9% 16 0.3% 852 14.0% 29 0.5% 11 0.2% 167 2.8% 4990 82.3% 1,688 27.8% LIM MTS
3403 2010 4283 1.00 3223 75.3% 482 11.3% 9 0.2% 333 7.8% 22 0.5% 1 0.0% 63 1.5% 4133 96.5% 1,736 40.5% LIM MTS
3404 2010 4634 1.00 2883 62.2% 770 16.6% 4 0.1% 723 15.6% 40 0.9% 3 0.1% 82 1.8% 4505 97.2% 1,457 31.4% LIM MTS
3501 2010 4255 1.00 3589 84.3% 435 10.2% 7 0.2% 60 1.4% 9 0.2% 8 0.2% 37 0.9% 4145 97.4% 1,947 45.8% LIM MTS
3502 2010 4946 1.00 4154 84.0% 583 11.8% 11 0.2% 24 0.5% 6 0.1% 8 0.2% 56 1.1% 4842 97.9% 2,533 51.2% LIM MTS
3601 2010 3250 1.00 2912 89.6% 179 5.5% 0 0.0% 41 1.3% 7 0.2% 0 0.0% 16 0.5% 3155 97.1% 1,562 48.1% LIM MTS
3602 2010 2987 1.00 2587 86.6% 191 6.4% 6 0.2% 86 2.9% 5 0.2% 4 0.1% 48 1.6% 2927 98.0% 1,372 45.9% LIM MTS
3603 2010 4320 1.00 3739 86.6% 261 6.0% 6 0.1% 112 2.6% 13 0.3% 5 0.1% 15 0.3% 4151 96.1% 2,172 50.3% LIM MTS
3800 2010 6530 1.00 1024 15.7% 1155 17.7% 60 0.9% 449 6.9% 40 0.6% 26 0.4% 281 4.3% 3035 46.5% 0.0% not LIM MTS
3901 2010 4241 1.00 3667 86.5% 423 10.0% 15 0.4% 27 0.6% 6 0.1% 0 0.0% 25 0.6% 4163 98.2% 2,454 57.9% LIM MTS
3902 2010 4927 1.00 4372 88.7% 311 6.3% 12 0.2% 42 0.9% 13 0.3% 5 0.1% 27 0.5% 4782 97.1% 2,252 45.7% LIM MTS
4000 2010 5160 1.00 4452 86.3% 450 8.7% 10 0.2% 51 1.0% 8 0.2% 5 0.1% 41 0.8% 5017 97.2% 2,685 52.0% LIM MTS
4100 2010 6546 1.00 3794 58.0% 450 6.9% 29 0.4% 194 3.0% 13 0.2% 21 0.3% 145 2.2% 4646 71.0% 2,591 39.6% LIM MTS
4200 2010 5673 1.00 1506 26.5% 193 3.4% 14 0.2% 213 3.8% 9 0.2% 13 0.2% 176 3.1% 2124 37.4% 1,120 19.7% not LIM MTS
4300 2010 3665 1.00 776 21.2% 168 4.6% 15 0.4% 118 3.2% 6 0.2% 8 0.2% 143 3.9% 1234 33.7% 839 22.9% not LIM MTS
4400 2010 3866 1.00 1134 29.3% 116 3.0% 17 0.4% 105 2.7% 5 0.1% 12 0.3% 129 3.3% 1518 39.3% 1,141 29.5% not LIM MTS
4501 2010 2875 1.00 1455 50.6% 99 3.4% 6 0.2% 77 2.7% 10 0.3% 6 0.2% 54 1.9% 1707 59.4% 686 23.9% LIM MTS
4600 2010 1940 1.00 647 33.4% 111 5.7% 9 0.5% 74 3.8% 6 0.3% 6 0.3% 59 3.0% 912 47.0% 571 29.4% not LIM MTS
4700 2010 1858 1.00 1309 70.5% 115 6.2% 7 0.4% 21 1.1% 3 0.2% 1 0.1% 39 2.1% 1495 80.5% 1,060 57.0% LIM MTS
4800 2010 4115 1.00 3640 88.5% 169 4.1% 5 0.1% 40 1.0% 4 0.1% 21 0.5% 32 0.8% 3911 95.0% 1,585 38.5% LIM MTS
4900 2010 5028 1.00 4543 90.4% 236 4.7% 4 0.1% 32 0.6% 5 0.1% 3 0.1% 34 0.7% 4857 96.6% 2,424 48.2% LIM MTS
5000 2010 2227 1.00 2010 90.3% 41 1.8% 4 0.2% 30 1.3% 1 0.0% 4 0.2% 16 0.7% 2106 94.6% 1,472 66.1% LIM MTS
5100 2010 7140 1.00 2381 33.3% 1100 15.4% 54 0.8% 365 5.1% 20 0.3% 20 0.3% 204 2.9% 4144 58.0% 3,404 47.7% LIM MTS
5200 2010 4563 1.00 911 20.0% 591 13.0% 43 0.9% 376 8.2% 19 0.4% 17 0.4% 214 4.7% 2171 47.6% 2,241 49.1% LIM MTS
5300 2010 6667 1.00 2209 33.1% 604 9.1% 35 0.5% 496 7.4% 13 0.2% 15 0.2% 178 2.7% 3550 53.2% 3,883 58.2% LIM MTS
5400 2010 7435 1.00 844 11.4% 386 5.2% 21 0.3% 628 8.4% 14 0.2% 25 0.3% 170 2.3% 2088 28.1% 1,813 24.4% not LIM MTS
5500 2010 198 1.00 34 17.2% 28 14.1% 3 1.5% 21 10.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 5.1% 96 48.5% 0.0% not LIM MTS
5600 2010 4463 1.00 681 15.3% 281 6.3% 15 0.3% 414 9.3% 10 0.2% 10 0.2% 134 3.0% 1545 34.6% 1,615 36.2% LIM MTS
5700 2010 1948 1.00 344 17.7% 246 12.6% 18 0.9% 119 6.1% 9 0.5% 3 0.2% 61 3.1% 800 41.1% 816 41.9% LIM MTS
5800 2010 2725 1.00 472 17.3% 87 3.2% 6 0.2% 164 6.0% 1 0.0% 7 0.3% 64 2.3% 801 29.4% 686 25.2% not LIM MTS
5900 2010 2821 1.00 532 18.9% 105 3.7% 10 0.4% 126 4.5% 8 0.3% 8 0.3% 85 3.0% 874 31.0% 751 26.6% not LIM MTS
6000 2010 3536 1.00 451 12.8% 75 2.1% 7 0.2% 167 4.7% 4 0.1% 16 0.5% 73 2.1% 793 22.4% 703 19.9% not LIM MTS
6100 2010 2237 1.00 430 19.2% 49 2.2% 9 0.4% 106 4.7% 4 0.2% 7 0.3% 64 2.9% 669 29.9% 294 13.1% not LIM MTS
6200 2010 144 1.00 4 2.8% 2 1.4% 0 0.0% 4 2.8% 0 0.0% 1 0.7% 6 4.2% 17 11.8% 0.0% not LIM MTS
6300 2010 3435 1.00 644 18.7% 141 4.1% 45 1.3% 87 2.5% 16 0.5% 8 0.2% 94 2.7% 1035 30.1% 0.0% not LIM MTS
6500 2010 2569 1.00 479 18.6% 212 8.3% 16 0.6% 132 5.1% 8 0.3% 7 0.3% 71 2.8% 925 36.0% 1,263 49.1% LIM MTS
6600 2010 1920 1.00 542 28.2% 436 22.7% 9 0.5% 157 8.2% 25 1.3% 0 0.0% 185 9.6% 1354 70.5% 269 14.0% LIM MTS
6801 2010 2503 1.00 316 12.6% 168 6.7% 17 0.7% 98 3.9% 8 0.3% 24 1.0% 70 2.8% 701 28.0% 988 39.5% LIM MTS
6802 2010 5032 1.00 1210 24.0% 281 5.6% 12 0.2% 242 4.8% 22 0.4% 55 1.1% 192 3.8% 2014 40.0% 1,734 34.5% LIM MTS
D-2
Census
Tract
Year
Total
Population
LIM
Transit
Agency
# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %
6900 2010 5148 1.00 523 10.2% 58 1.1% 27 0.5% 145 2.8% 7 0.1% 31 0.6% 128 2.5% 919 17.9% 891 17.3% not LIM MTS
7002 2010 2947 1.00 190 6.4% 13 0.4% 11 0.4% 52 1.8% 17 0.6% 10 0.3% 54 1.8% 347 11.8% 290 9.8% not LIM MTS
7100 2010 5032 1.00 299 5.9% 52 1.0% 12 0.2% 103 2.0% 8 0.2% 12 0.2% 90 1.8% 576 11.4% 920 18.3% not LIM MTS
7200 2010 5493 1.00 413 7.5% 54 1.0% 12 0.2% 118 2.1% 6 0.1% 8 0.1% 122 2.2% 733 13.3% 742 13.5% not LIM MTS
7301 2010 4948 1.00 445 9.0% 44 0.9% 16 0.3% 123 2.5% 8 0.2% 24 0.5% 138 2.8% 798 16.1% 875 17.7% not LIM MTS
7302 2010 2060 1.00 141 6.8% 7 0.3% 0 0.0% 46 2.2% 1 0.0% 4 0.2% 29 1.4% 228 11.1% 119 5.8% not LIM MTS
7400 2010 6590 1.00 820 12.4% 91 1.4% 27 0.4% 180 2.7% 15 0.2% 37 0.6% 224 3.4% 1394 21.2% 976 14.8% not LIM MTS
7501 2010 4040 1.00 515 12.7% 68 1.7% 19 0.5% 72 1.8% 8 0.2% 14 0.3% 134 3.3% 830 20.5% 1,406 34.8% LIM MTS
7502 2010 3227 1.00 347 10.8% 53 1.6% 17 0.5% 74 2.3% 9 0.3% 25 0.8% 81 2.5% 606 18.8% 692 21.4% not LIM MTS
7600 2010 5607 1.00 459 8.2% 49 0.9% 18 0.3% 134 2.4% 14 0.2% 11 0.2% 137 2.4% 822 14.7% 1,738 31.0% not LIM MTS
7701 2010 3703 1.00 374 10.1% 32 0.9% 17 0.5% 121 3.3% 3 0.1% 22 0.6% 87 2.3% 656 17.7% 886 23.9% not LIM MTS
7702 2010 3849 1.00 398 10.3% 41 1.1% 13 0.3% 138 3.6% 12 0.3% 18 0.5% 113 2.9% 733 19.0% 647 16.8% not LIM MTS
7800 2010 5724 1.00 1481 25.9% 182 3.2% 15 0.3% 236 4.1% 18 0.3% 27 0.5% 205 3.6% 2164 37.8% 1,409 24.6% not LIM MTS
7903 2010 4487 1.00 519 11.6% 45 1.0% 6 0.1% 168 3.7% 7 0.2% 10 0.2% 107 2.4% 862 19.2% 1,223 27.3% not LIM MTS
7905 2010 2584 1.00 216 8.4% 30 1.2% 9 0.3% 83 3.2% 5 0.2% 10 0.4% 70 2.7% 423 16.4% 626 24.2% not LIM MTS
7907 2010 3048 1.00 361 11.8% 41 1.3% 9 0.3% 87 2.9% 5 0.2% 17 0.6% 96 3.1% 616 20.2% 769 25.2% not LIM MTS
7908 2010 2819 1.00 537 19.0% 33 1.2% 7 0.2% 82 2.9% 11 0.4% 9 0.3% 76 2.7% 755 26.8% 369 13.1% not LIM MTS
7910 2010 2797 1.00 272 9.7% 39 1.4% 4 0.1% 105 3.8% 2 0.1% 21 0.8% 70 2.5% 513 18.3% 733 26.2% not LIM MTS
8002 2010 2522 1.00 169 6.7% 13 0.5% 4 0.2% 62 2.5% 4 0.2% 2 0.1% 54 2.1% 308 12.2% 248 9.8% not LIM MTS
8003 2010 3334 1.00 333 10.0% 22 0.7% 7 0.2% 93 2.8% 10 0.3% 13 0.4% 110 3.3% 588 17.6% 371 11.1% not LIM MTS
8006 2010 3805 1.00 343 9.0% 25 0.7% 9 0.2% 115 3.0% 10 0.3% 17 0.4% 105 2.8% 624 16.4% 654 17.2% not LIM MTS
8101 2010 4009 1.00 386 9.6% 28 0.7% 6 0.1% 155 3.9% 6 0.1% 16 0.4% 90 2.2% 687 17.1% 514 12.8% not LIM MTS
8102 2010 3395 1.00 226 6.7% 14 0.4% 8 0.2% 99 2.9% 8 0.2% 6 0.2% 103 3.0% 464 13.7% 327 9.6% not LIM MTS
8200 2010 3022 1.00 208 6.9% 18 0.6% 1 0.0% 129 4.3% 1 0.0% 12 0.4% 51 1.7% 420 13.9% 671 22.2% not LIM MTS
8301 2010 3094 1.00 235 7.6% 29 0.9% 7 0.2% 148 4.8% 4 0.1% 3 0.1% 72 2.3% 498 16.1% 295 9.5% not LIM MTS
8303 2010 3446 1.00 324 9.4% 17 0.5% 2 0.1% 198 5.7% 1 0.0% 3 0.1% 84 2.4% 629 18.3% 238 6.9% not LIM MTS
8305 2010 10482 1.00 1168 11.1% 270 2.6% 9 0.1% 4156 39.6% 5 0.0% 44 0.4% 480 4.6% 6132 58.5% 3,814 36.4% LIM MTS
8306 2010 2997 1.00 188 6.3% 21 0.7% 7 0.2% 266 8.9% 2 0.1% 16 0.5% 101 3.4% 601 20.1% 412 13.7% not LIM MTS
8307 2010 3794 1.00 286 7.5% 31 0.8% 7 0.2% 445 11.7% 16 0.4% 8 0.2% 113 3.0% 906 23.9% 630 16.6% not LIM MTS
8310 2010 5392 1.00 500 9.3% 35 0.6% 3 0.1% 409 7.6% 7 0.1% 17 0.3% 164 3.0% 1135 21.0% 365 6.8% not LIM MTS
8311 2010 2884 1.00 248 8.6% 6 0.2% 3 0.1% 141 4.9% 3 0.1% 7 0.2% 95 3.3% 503 17.4% 153 5.3% not LIM MTS
8312 2010 3629 1.00 264 7.3% 21 0.6% 4 0.1% 270 7.4% 2 0.1% 10 0.3% 90 2.5% 661 18.2% 602 16.6% not LIM MTS
8313 2010 2225 1.00 193 8.7% 8 0.4% 4 0.2% 192 8.6% 0 0.0% 18 0.8% 68 3.1% 483 21.7% 50 2.2% not LIM MTS
8324 2010 6585 1.00 360 5.5% 46 0.7% 6 0.1% 519 7.9% 4 0.1% 29 0.4% 189 2.9% 1153 17.5% 679 10.3% not LIM MTS
8327 2010 5775 1.00 392 6.8% 30 0.5% 6 0.1% 1137 19.7% 4 0.1% 9 0.2% 185 3.2% 1763 30.5% 777 13.5% not LIM MTS
8328 2010 5162 1.00 398 7.7% 46 0.9% 4 0.1% 1183 22.9% 4 0.1% 11 0.2% 195 3.8% 1841 35.7% 634 12.3% not LIM MTS
8329 2010 6347 1.00 529 8.3% 86 1.4% 15 0.2% 1485 23.4% 9 0.1% 12 0.2% 224 3.5% 2360 37.2% 973 15.3% not LIM MTS
8330 2010 5668 1.00 368 6.5% 26 0.5% 4 0.1% 1574 27.8% 4 0.1% 18 0.3% 162 2.9% 2156 38.0% 602 10.6% not LIM MTS
8331 2010 2466 1.00 145 5.9% 10 0.4% 0 0.0% 332 13.5% 1 0.0% 5 0.2% 82 3.3% 575 23.3% 98 4.0% not LIM MTS
8333 2010 13744 1.00 993 7.2% 122 0.9% 16 0.1% 4177 30.4% 10 0.1% 46 0.3% 534 3.9% 5898 42.9% 877 6.4% not LIM MTS
8335 2010 9540 1.00 780 8.2% 178 1.9% 15 0.2% 3460 36.3% 23 0.2% 17 0.2% 463 4.9% 4936 51.7% 465 4.9% not LIM MTS
8336 2010 2332 1.00 184 7.9% 27 1.2% 6 0.3% 495 21.2% 2 0.1% 1 0.0% 93 4.0% 808 34.6% 59 2.5% not LIM MTS
8337 2010 4316 1.00 401 9.3% 101 2.3% 12 0.3% 1097 25.4% 12 0.3% 6 0.1% 223 5.2% 1852 42.9% 357 8.3% not LIM MTS
8339 2010 1853 1.00 226 12.2% 24 1.3% 1 0.1% 685 37.0% 3 0.2% 5 0.3% 70 3.8% 1014 54.7% 455 24.6% LIM MTS
8340 2010 8988 1.00 944 10.5% 165 1.8% 12 0.1% 3255 36.2% 9 0.1% 18 0.2% 324 3.6% 4727 52.6% 1,800 20.0% not LIM MTS
8341 2010 7614 1.00 536 7.0% 112 1.5% 1 0.0% 3258 42.8% 22 0.3% 34 0.4% 248 3.3% 4211 55.3% 2,572 33.8% LIM MTS
8343 2010 4587 1.00 530 11.6% 88 1.9% 9 0.2% 1836 40.0% 5 0.1% 11 0.2% 165 3.6% 2644 57.6% 1,575 34.3% LIM MTS
8344 2010 3462 1.00 315 9.1% 57 1.6% 3 0.1% 460 13.3% 4 0.1% 5 0.1% 112 3.2% 956 27.6% 811 23.4% not LIM MTS
8345 2010 3254 1.00 335 10.3% 53 1.6% 3 0.1% 374 11.5% 7 0.2% 5 0.2% 81 2.5% 858 26.4% 651 20.0% not LIM MTS
8346 2010 4615 1.00 364 7.9% 69 1.5% 4 0.1% 1928 41.8% 2 0.0% 11 0.2% 177 3.8% 2555 55.4% 124 2.7% not LIM MTS
8347 2010 6358 1.00 766 12.0% 174 2.7% 8 0.1% 2746 43.2% 43 0.7% 26 0.4% 291 4.6% 4054 63.8% 495 7.8% not LIM MTS
8348 2010 5259 1.00 654 12.4% 126 2.4% 15 0.3% 2576 49.0% 35 0.7% 23 0.4% 276 5.2% 3705 70.5% 562 10.7% LIM MTS
8349 2010 3514 1.00 561 16.0% 155 4.4% 8 0.2% 1550 44.1% 21 0.6% 7 0.2% 166 4.7% 2468 70.2% 475 13.5% LIM MTS
8350 2010 6493 1.00 662 10.2% 239 3.7% 12 0.2% 3665 56.4% 32 0.5% 17 0.3% 263 4.1% 4890 75.3% 648 10.0% LIM MTS
8351 2010 4261 1.00 591 13.9% 188 4.4% 12 0.3% 2029 47.6% 22 0.5% 5 0.1% 197 4.6% 3044 71.4% 488 11.4% LIM MTS
8352 2010 3517 1.00 586 16.7% 138 3.9% 5 0.1% 1520 43.2% 48 1.4% 16 0.5% 189 5.4% 2502 71.1% 402 11.4% LIM MTS
8353 2010 5048 1.00 593 11.7% 192 3.8% 16 0.3% 1946 38.5% 25 0.5% 4 0.1% 311 6.2% 3087 61.2% 488 9.7% not LIM MTS
8354 2010 5972 1.00 604 10.1% 228 3.8% 7 0.1% 2791 46.7% 24 0.4% 28 0.5% 266 4.5% 3948 66.1% 395 6.6% LIM MTS
8355 2010 3365 1.00 339 10.1% 155 4.6% 7 0.2% 1777 52.8% 14 0.4% 9 0.3% 173 5.1% 2474 73.5% 427 12.7% LIM MTS
8356 2010 3629 1.00 357 9.8% 130 3.6% 13 0.4% 1631 44.9% 25 0.7% 5 0.1% 154 4.2% 2315 63.8% 651 17.9% not LIM MTS
D-3
Census
Tract
Year
Total
Population
LIM
Transit
Agency
# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %
8357 2010 4345 1.00 523 12.0% 148 3.4% 10 0.2% 2481 57.1% 24 0.6% 1 0.0% 210 4.8% 3397 78.2% 810 18.7% LIM MTS
8358 2010 6554 1.00 1030 15.7% 261 4.0% 6 0.1% 2880 43.9% 63 1.0% 15 0.2% 277 4.2% 4532 69.1% 780 11.9% LIM MTS
8359 2010 3975 1.00 780 19.6% 234 5.9% 16 0.4% 1473 37.1% 41 1.0% 18 0.5% 174 4.4% 2736 68.8% 744 18.7% LIM MTS
8360 2010 5857 1.00 1169 20.0% 369 6.3% 9 0.2% 2185 37.3% 44 0.8% 26 0.4% 301 5.1% 4103 70.1% 956 16.3% LIM MTS
8361 2010 2642 1.00 242 9.2% 43 1.6% 0 0.0% 658 24.9% 1 0.0% 11 0.4% 106 4.0% 1061 40.2% 1,051 39.8% LIM MTS
8362 2010 3141 1.00 336 10.7% 41 1.3% 3 0.1% 617 19.6% 1 0.0% 11 0.4% 96 3.1% 1105 35.2% 632 20.1% not LIM MTS
8363 2010 4921 1.00 452 9.2% 52 1.1% 6 0.1% 2620 53.2% 1 0.0% 22 0.4% 158 3.2% 3311 67.3% 1,595 32.4% LIM MTS
8364 2010 4992 1.00 575 11.5% 71 1.4% 8 0.2% 1399 28.0% 7 0.1% 22 0.4% 193 3.9% 2275 45.6% 1,198 24.0% not LIM MTS
8365 2010 2979 1.00 177 5.9% 46 1.5% 4 0.1% 1104 37.1% 7 0.2% 2 0.1% 84 2.8% 1424 47.8% 47 1.6% not LIM MTS
8366 2010 6882 1.00 557 8.1% 119 1.7% 1 0.0% 2458 35.7% 13 0.2% 21 0.3% 258 3.7% 3427 49.8% 128 1.9% not LIM MTS
8501 2010 5271 1.00 881 16.7% 62 1.2% 25 0.5% 266 5.0% 11 0.2% 11 0.2% 173 3.3% 1429 27.1% 787 14.9% not LIM MTS
8502 2010 6241 1.00 1454 23.3% 86 1.4% 21 0.3% 544 8.7% 11 0.2% 15 0.2% 211 3.4% 2342 37.5% 1,516 24.3% not LIM MTS
8503 2010 6599 1.00 1421 21.5% 93 1.4% 24 0.4% 354 5.4% 22 0.3% 22 0.3% 198 3.0% 2134 32.3% 1,434 21.7% not LIM MTS
8504 2010 6021 1.00 1399 23.2% 76 1.3% 15 0.2% 394 6.5% 28 0.5% 21 0.3% 202 3.4% 2135 35.5% 1,238 20.6% not LIM MTS
8505 2010 5605 1.00 1302 23.2% 105 1.9% 21 0.4% 773 13.8% 27 0.5% 9 0.2% 177 3.2% 2414 43.1% 1,452 25.9% not LIM MTS
8506 2010 4042 1.00 981 24.3% 73 1.8% 8 0.2% 578 14.3% 23 0.6% 8 0.2% 173 4.3% 1844 45.6% 884 21.9% not LIM MTS
8507 2010 7627 1.00 2048 26.9% 294 3.9% 18 0.2% 1094 14.3% 52 0.7% 13 0.2% 291 3.8% 3810 50.0% 1,685 22.1% not LIM MTS
8509 2010 6647 1.00 1271 19.1% 500 7.5% 32 0.5% 822 12.4% 18 0.3% 28 0.4% 308 4.6% 2979 44.8% 1,480 22.3% not LIM MTS
8510 2010 6626 1.00 1489 22.5% 355 5.4% 29 0.4% 1195 18.0% 38 0.6% 16 0.2% 279 4.2% 3401 51.3% 1,764 26.6% not LIM MTS
8511 2010 2633 1.00 430 16.3% 118 4.5% 11 0.4% 585 22.2% 28 1.1% 7 0.3% 103 3.9% 1282 48.7% 456 17.3% not LIM MTS
8512 2010 4193 1.00 538 12.8% 67 1.6% 23 0.5% 285 6.8% 11 0.3% 11 0.3% 129 3.1% 1064 25.4% 635 15.2% not LIM MTS
8513 2010 2691 1.00 307 11.4% 41 1.5% 10 0.4% 211 7.8% 5 0.2% 4 0.1% 85 3.2% 663 24.6% 271 10.1% not LIM MTS
8600 2010 6864 1.00 3525 51.4% 338 4.9% 21 0.3% 1382 20.1% 38 0.6% 29 0.4% 182 2.7% 5515 80.3% 1,974 28.8% LIM MTS
8701 2010 3361 1.00 646 19.2% 348 10.4% 20 0.6% 576 17.1% 22 0.7% 7 0.2% 213 6.3% 1832 54.5% 626 18.6% not LIM MTS
8702 2010 5206 1.00 1204 23.1% 467 9.0% 38 0.7% 649 12.5% 33 0.6% 11 0.2% 254 4.9% 2656 51.0% 901 17.3% not LIM MTS
8800 2010 6188 1.00 1803 29.1% 451 7.3% 8 0.1% 2621 42.4% 43 0.7% 13 0.2% 169 2.7% 5108 82.5% 1,762 28.5% LIM MTS
8901 2010 4805 1.00 1261 26.2% 195 4.1% 21 0.4% 611 12.7% 19 0.4% 19 0.4% 166 3.5% 2292 47.7% 1,091 22.7% not LIM MTS
8902 2010 2221 1.00 342 15.4% 104 4.7% 3 0.1% 172 7.7% 13 0.6% 5 0.2% 66 3.0% 705 31.7% 475 21.4% not LIM MTS
9000 2010 3861 1.00 1638 42.4% 192 5.0% 7 0.2% 501 13.0% 31 0.8% 5 0.1% 117 3.0% 2491 64.5% 1,308 33.9% LIM MTS
9101 2010 5318 1.00 779 14.6% 70 1.3% 15 0.3% 265 5.0% 9 0.2% 24 0.5% 184 3.5% 1346 25.3% 669 12.6% not LIM MTS
9102 2010 3537 1.00 860 24.3% 117 3.3% 12 0.3% 307 8.7% 5 0.1% 8 0.2% 145 4.1% 1454 41.1% 1,121 31.7% not LIM MTS
9103 2010 3679 1.00 429 11.7% 51 1.4% 4 0.1% 165 4.5% 14 0.4% 15 0.4% 110 3.0% 788 21.4% 800 21.7% not LIM MTS
9104 2010 2775 1.00 334 12.0% 15 0.5% 4 0.1% 80 2.9% 3 0.1% 4 0.1% 79 2.8% 519 18.7% 506 18.2% not LIM MTS
9106 2010 3882 1.00 671 17.3% 67 1.7% 14 0.4% 226 5.8% 12 0.3% 13 0.3% 142 3.7% 1145 29.5% 850 21.9% not LIM MTS
9107 2010 3688 1.00 737 20.0% 117 3.2% 13 0.4% 276 7.5% 12 0.3% 14 0.4% 165 4.5% 1334 36.2% 1,088 29.5% not LIM MTS
9201 2010 5014 1.00 1156 23.1% 767 15.3% 36 0.7% 700 14.0% 45 0.9% 14 0.3% 295 5.9% 3013 60.1% 1,100 21.9% not LIM MTS
9202 2010 4152 1.00 682 16.4% 147 3.5% 18 0.4% 568 13.7% 28 0.7% 7 0.2% 212 5.1% 1662 40.0% 591 14.2% not LIM MTS
9301 2010 4164 1.00 833 20.0% 304 7.3% 13 0.3% 608 14.6% 36 0.9% 13 0.3% 230 5.5% 2037 48.9% 645 15.5% not LIM MTS
9304 2010 7944 1.00 1374 17.3% 436 5.5% 31 0.4% 1000 12.6% 50 0.6% 34 0.4% 328 4.1% 3253 40.9% 1,437 18.1% not LIM MTS
9305 2010 4764 1.00 773 16.2% 268 5.6% 18 0.4% 539 11.3% 21 0.4% 13 0.3% 156 3.3% 1788 37.5% 786 16.5% not LIM MTS
9306 2010 5589 1.00 918 16.4% 392 7.0% 36 0.6% 738 13.2% 32 0.6% 22 0.4% 292 5.2% 2430 43.5% 830 14.8% not LIM MTS
9400 2010 5028 1.00 1028 20.4% 473 9.4% 53 1.1% 216 4.3% 34 0.7% 18 0.4% 222 4.4% 2044 40.7% 1,543 30.7% not LIM MTS
9502 2010 3659 1.00 474 13.0% 165 4.5% 12 0.3% 516 14.1% 9 0.2% 4 0.1% 181 4.9% 1361 37.2% 487 13.3% not LIM MTS
9504 2010 5914 1.00 438 7.4% 156 2.6% 9 0.2% 1259 21.3% 13 0.2% 10 0.2% 218 3.7% 2103 35.6% 468 7.9% not LIM MTS
9505 2010 6442 1.00 616 9.6% 161 2.5% 21 0.3% 1013 15.7% 19 0.3% 13 0.2% 278 4.3% 2121 32.9% 656 10.2% not LIM MTS
9506 2010 4258 1.00 533 12.5% 187 4.4% 11 0.3% 407 9.6% 22 0.5% 14 0.3% 230 5.4% 1404 33.0% 437 10.3% not LIM MTS
9507 2010 3369 1.00 440 13.1% 136 4.0% 10 0.3% 360 10.7% 15 0.4% 13 0.4% 168 5.0% 1142 33.9% 250 7.4% not LIM MTS
9509 2010 4136 1.00 595 14.4% 256 6.2% 12 0.3% 426 10.3% 24 0.6% 18 0.4% 174 4.2% 1505 36.4% 836 20.2% not LIM MTS
9510 2010 5087 1.00 1181 23.2% 474 9.3% 28 0.6% 201 4.0% 47 0.9% 6 0.1% 412 8.1% 2349 46.2% 716 14.1% not LIM MTS
9511 2010 4427 1.00 1147 25.9% 545 12.3% 34 0.8% 186 4.2% 25 0.6% 7 0.2% 354 8.0% 2298 51.9% 845 19.1% not LIM MTS
9602 2010 3775 1.00 539 14.3% 92 2.4% 14 0.4% 266 7.0% 21 0.6% 4 0.1% 124 3.3% 1060 28.1% 866 22.9% not LIM MTS
9603 2010 4533 1.00 944 20.8% 316 7.0% 20 0.4% 410 9.0% 14 0.3% 7 0.2% 193 4.3% 1904 42.0% 812 17.9% not LIM MTS
9604 2010 3179 1.00 604 19.0% 105 3.3% 19 0.6% 186 5.9% 12 0.4% 3 0.1% 126 4.0% 1055 33.2% 663 20.8% not LIM MTS
9703 2010 3446 1.00 478 13.9% 79 2.3% 13 0.4% 114 3.3% 7 0.2% 5 0.1% 105 3.0% 801 23.2% 546 15.8% not LIM MTS
9704 2010 5750 1.00 770 13.4% 236 4.1% 17 0.3% 369 6.4% 18 0.3% 12 0.2% 193 3.4% 1615 28.1% 343 6.0% not LIM MTS
9705 2010 3652 1.00 549 15.0% 179 4.9% 11 0.3% 144 3.9% 12 0.3% 22 0.6% 158 4.3% 1075 29.4% 612 16.8% not LIM MTS
9706 2010 6996 1.00 710 10.1% 176 2.5% 24 0.3% 389 5.6% 18 0.3% 9 0.1% 202 2.9% 1528 21.8% 905 12.9% not LIM MTS
9801 2010 4894 1.00 633 12.9% 183 3.7% 13 0.3% 258 5.3% 16 0.3% 9 0.2% 152 3.1% 1264 25.8% 1,001 20.4% not LIM MTS
9802 2010 6101 1.00 1051 17.2% 326 5.3% 23 0.4% 366 6.0% 43 0.7% 22 0.4% 253 4.1% 2084 34.2% 1,210 19.8% not LIM MTS
9804 2010 4773 1.00 672 14.1% 124 2.6% 19 0.4% 254 5.3% 13 0.3% 10 0.2% 147 3.1% 1239 26.0% 715 15.0% not LIM MTS
D-4
Census
Tract
Year
Total
Population
LIM
Transit
Agency
# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %
9805 2010 4715 1.00 601 12.7% 125 2.7% 12 0.3% 198 4.2% 21 0.4% 9 0.2% 145 3.1% 1111 23.6% 698 14.8% not LIM MTS
9901 2010 625 1.00 87 13.9% 63 10.1% 5 0.8% 19 3.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.3% 11 1.8% 187 29.9% 0.0% not LIM MTS
9902 2010 0 1.00 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0.0% not LIM MTS
10001 2010 4097 1.00 2573 62.8% 140 3.4% 2 0.0% 721 17.6% 31 0.8% 6 0.1% 126 3.1% 3599 87.8% 636 15.5% LIM MTS
10003 2010 5906 1.00 3823 64.7% 207 3.5% 13 0.2% 973 16.5% 50 0.8% 5 0.1% 155 2.6% 5226 88.5% 1,264 21.4% LIM MTS
10004 2010 4679 1.00 3585 76.6% 122 2.6% 5 0.1% 489 10.5% 25 0.5% 0 0.0% 77 1.6% 4303 92.0% 779 16.7% LIM MTS
10005 2010 7366 1.00 6787 92.1% 70 1.0% 3 0.0% 238 3.2% 27 0.4% 3 0.0% 49 0.7% 7177 97.4% 3,230 43.8% LIM MTS
10009 2010 6693 1.00 6092 91.0% 164 2.5% 2 0.0% 190 2.8% 1 0.0% 6 0.1% 34 0.5% 6489 97.0% 2,666 39.8% LIM MTS
10010 2010 5510 1.00 4007 72.7% 105 1.9% 7 0.1% 603 10.9% 12 0.2% 2 0.0% 91 1.7% 4827 87.6% 1,891 34.3% LIM MTS
10011 2010 3633 1.00 2219 61.1% 206 5.7% 4 0.1% 634 17.5% 27 0.7% 13 0.4% 126 3.5% 3229 88.9% 804 22.1% LIM MTS
10012 2010 4581 1.00 4345 94.8% 30 0.7% 5 0.1% 62 1.4% 6 0.1% 4 0.1% 19 0.4% 4471 97.6% 1,306 28.5% LIM MTS
10013 2010 5484 1.00 5336 97.3% 19 0.3% 5 0.1% 19 0.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 10 0.2% 5389 98.3% 3,228 58.9% LIM MTS
10014 2010 17679 1.00 8943 50.6% 2097 11.9% 57 0.3% 3071 17.4% 31 0.2% 188 1.1% 401 2.3% 14788 83.6% 642 3.6% LIM MTS
10015 2010 2803 1.00 2323 82.9% 66 2.4% 7 0.2% 217 7.7% 4 0.1% 5 0.2% 43 1.5% 2665 95.1% 705 25.1% LIM MTS
10103 2010 5515 1.00 4155 75.3% 165 3.0% 11 0.2% 246 4.5% 5 0.1% 7 0.1% 90 1.6% 4679 84.8% 1,750 31.7% LIM MTS
10104 2010 3217 1.00 1510 46.9% 62 1.9% 16 0.5% 417 13.0% 16 0.5% 3 0.1% 132 4.1% 2156 67.0% 697 21.7% LIM MTS
10106 2010 5200 1.00 4518 86.9% 76 1.5% 4 0.1% 200 3.8% 3 0.1% 1 0.0% 50 1.0% 4852 93.3% 2,252 43.3% LIM MTS
10107 2010 6498 1.00 4685 72.1% 176 2.7% 9 0.1% 682 10.5% 12 0.2% 2 0.0% 124 1.9% 5690 87.6% 1,240 19.1% LIM MTS
10109 2010 4595 1.00 3271 71.2% 168 3.7% 4 0.1% 630 13.7% 9 0.2% 12 0.3% 112 2.4% 4206 91.5% 1,490 32.4% LIM MTS
10110 2010 7298 1.00 4635 63.5% 229 3.1% 4 0.1% 1336 18.3% 29 0.4% 5 0.1% 191 2.6% 6429 88.1% 2,014 27.6% LIM MTS
10111 2010 3072 1.00 2779 90.5% 39 1.3% 0 0.0% 69 2.2% 5 0.2% 1 0.0% 28 0.9% 2921 95.1% 1,253 40.8% LIM MTS
10112 2010 4764 1.00 3953 83.0% 220 4.6% 12 0.3% 182 3.8% 11 0.2% 1 0.0% 77 1.6% 4456 93.5% 2,224 46.7% LIM MTS
10200 2010 6800 1.00 2293 33.7% 312 4.6% 43 0.6% 297 4.4% 41 0.6% 9 0.1% 226 3.3% 3221 47.4% 1,905 28.0% not LIM MTS
10300 2010 4507 1.00 2115 46.9% 131 2.9% 20 0.4% 292 6.5% 28 0.6% 12 0.3% 191 4.2% 2789 61.9% 1,005 22.3% not LIM MTS
10401 2010 2476 1.00 1548 62.5% 101 4.1% 11 0.4% 113 4.6% 8 0.3% 6 0.2% 72 2.9% 1859 75.1% 1,000 40.4% LIM MTS
10402 2010 5558 1.00 3223 58.0% 254 4.6% 35 0.6% 563 10.1% 44 0.8% 7 0.1% 204 3.7% 4330 77.9% 2,148 38.6% LIM MTS
10501 2010 1433 1.00 460 32.1% 16 1.1% 9 0.6% 80 5.6% 2 0.1% 1 0.1% 54 3.8% 622 43.4% 474 33.1% LIM MTS
10502 2010 5550 1.00 3254 58.6% 249 4.5% 18 0.3% 279 5.0% 33 0.6% 18 0.3% 165 3.0% 4016 72.4% 2,102 37.9% LIM MTS
10601 2010 2127 1.00 442 20.8% 26 1.2% 8 0.4% 65 3.1% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 52 2.4% 594 27.9% 184 8.6% not LIM MTS
10800 2010 2390 1.00 205 8.6% 16 0.7% 16 0.7% 41 1.7% 3 0.1% 5 0.2% 69 2.9% 355 14.9% 369 15.5% not LIM MTS
10900 2010 1750 1.00 152 8.7% 9 0.5% 2 0.1% 25 1.4% 1 0.1% 0 0.0% 38 2.2% 227 13.0% 172 9.8% not LIM MTS
11000 2010 2799 1.00 308 11.0% 53 1.9% 8 0.3% 139 5.0% 8 0.3% 10 0.4% 73 2.6% 599 21.4% 520 18.6% not LIM MTS
11100 2010 3698 1.00 430 11.6% 32 0.9% 10 0.3% 95 2.6% 3 0.1% 6 0.2% 109 2.9% 685 18.5% 511 13.8% not LIM MTS
11300 2010 6520 1.00 1131 17.3% 1223 18.8% 78 1.2% 377 5.8% 45 0.7% 10 0.2% 233 3.6% 3097 47.5% 0.0% not LIM MTS
11601 2010 5891 1.00 4863 82.5% 127 2.2% 15 0.3% 527 8.9% 9 0.2% 3 0.1% 57 1.0% 5601 95.1% 2,706 45.9% LIM MTS
11602 2010 3228 1.00 2532 78.4% 123 3.8% 8 0.2% 253 7.8% 5 0.2% 4 0.1% 32 1.0% 2957 91.6% 1,391 43.1% LIM MTS
11700 2010 6773 1.00 4173 61.6% 164 2.4% 13 0.2% 1720 25.4% 47 0.7% 8 0.1% 145 2.1% 6270 92.6% 3,393 50.1% LIM MTS
11801 2010 3961 1.00 3061 77.3% 87 2.2% 7 0.2% 419 10.6% 22 0.6% 0 0.0% 40 1.0% 3636 91.8% 1,351 34.1% LIM MTS
11802 2010 6741 1.00 5179 76.8% 302 4.5% 8 0.1% 810 12.0% 52 0.8% 7 0.1% 83 1.2% 6441 95.5% 2,497 37.0% LIM MTS
11902 2010 5246 1.00 2932 55.9% 265 5.1% 10 0.2% 1282 24.4% 75 1.4% 0 0.0% 136 2.6% 4700 89.6% 1,268 24.2% LIM MTS
12002 2010 3285 1.00 1180 35.9% 183 5.6% 3 0.1% 1630 49.6% 19 0.6% 3 0.1% 78 2.4% 3096 94.2% 2,050 62.4% LIM MTS
12003 2010 3351 1.00 1956 58.4% 101 3.0% 5 0.1% 827 24.7% 45 1.3% 1 0.0% 71 2.1% 3006 89.7% 906 27.0% LIM MTS
12101 2010 2235 1.00 1724 77.1% 36 1.6% 10 0.4% 132 5.9% 17 0.8% 0 0.0% 21 0.9% 1940 86.8% 659 29.5% LIM MTS
12102 2010 3279 1.00 2478 75.6% 78 2.4% 13 0.4% 291 8.9% 8 0.2% 4 0.1% 41 1.3% 2913 88.8% 950 29.0% LIM MTS
12200 2010 3326 1.00 2364 71.1% 71 2.1% 7 0.2% 290 8.7% 26 0.8% 2 0.1% 66 2.0% 2826 85.0% 1,532 46.1% LIM MTS
12302 2010 1917 1.00 1328 69.3% 109 5.7% 2 0.1% 112 5.8% 10 0.5% 1 0.1% 56 2.9% 1618 84.4% 658 34.3% LIM MTS
12303 2010 3431 1.00 1555 45.3% 163 4.8% 8 0.2% 215 6.3% 19 0.6% 11 0.3% 73 2.1% 2044 59.6% 904 26.3% not LIM MTS
12304 2010 3434 1.00 1818 52.9% 103 3.0% 19 0.6% 168 4.9% 6 0.2% 9 0.3% 94 2.7% 2217 64.6% 568 16.5% not LIM MTS
12401 2010 3676 1.00 2467 67.1% 221 6.0% 14 0.4% 225 6.1% 7 0.2% 6 0.2% 76 2.1% 3016 82.0% 1,324 36.0% LIM MTS
12402 2010 5445 1.00 3736 68.6% 255 4.7% 16 0.3% 230 4.2% 29 0.5% 9 0.2% 124 2.3% 4399 80.8% 1,953 35.9% LIM MTS
12501 2010 3858 1.00 2729 70.7% 200 5.2% 18 0.5% 281 7.3% 9 0.2% 1 0.0% 89 2.3% 3327 86.2% 2,182 56.6% LIM MTS
12502 2010 4466 1.00 3516 78.7% 199 4.5% 14 0.3% 222 5.0% 9 0.2% 3 0.1% 73 1.6% 4036 90.4% 2,018 45.2% LIM MTS
12600 2010 5047 1.00 3818 75.6% 134 2.7% 19 0.4% 176 3.5% 22 0.4% 10 0.2% 95 1.9% 4274 84.7% 1,438 28.5% LIM MTS
12700 2010 4624 1.00 3196 69.1% 198 4.3% 16 0.3% 235 5.1% 15 0.3% 16 0.3% 71 1.5% 3747 81.0% 2,431 52.6% LIM MTS
12800 2010 3913 1.00 2413 61.7% 85 2.2% 9 0.2% 167 4.3% 13 0.3% 15 0.4% 52 1.3% 2754 70.4% 1,211 31.0% LIM MTS
12900 2010 3374 1.00 1884 55.8% 58 1.7% 9 0.3% 100 3.0% 9 0.3% 2 0.1% 65 1.9% 2127 63.0% 838 24.8% not LIM MTS
13000 2010 5903 1.00 4028 68.2% 226 3.8% 41 0.7% 318 5.4% 19 0.3% 18 0.3% 94 1.6% 4744 80.4% 1,702 28.8% LIM MTS
13102 2010 6487 1.00 4892 75.4% 279 4.3% 28 0.4% 205 3.2% 37 0.6% 10 0.2% 91 1.4% 5542 85.4% 2,565 39.5% LIM MTS
13103 2010 2668 1.00 2128 79.8% 62 2.3% 10 0.4% 84 3.1% 36 1.3% 0 0.0% 23 0.9% 2343 87.8% 1,076 40.3% LIM MTS
13104 2010 5893 1.00 4312 73.2% 363 6.2% 18 0.3% 284 4.8% 28 0.5% 6 0.1% 139 2.4% 5150 87.4% 1,487 25.2% LIM MTS
D-5
Census
Tract
Year
Total
Population
LIM
Transit
Agency
# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %
13203 2010 6464 1.00 5145 79.6% 195 3.0% 9 0.1% 416 6.4% 32 0.5% 13 0.2% 79 1.2% 5889 91.1% 3,045 47.1% LIM MTS
13204 2010 4014 1.00 3489 86.9% 59 1.5% 3 0.1% 122 3.0% 4 0.1% 4 0.1% 40 1.0% 3721 92.7% 1,699 42.3% LIM MTS
13205 2010 2381 1.00 2041 85.7% 68 2.9% 2 0.1% 53 2.2% 1 0.0% 4 0.2% 20 0.8% 2189 91.9% 1,019 42.8% LIM MTS
13206 2010 6544 1.00 5148 78.7% 149 2.3% 9 0.1% 254 3.9% 12 0.2% 6 0.1% 68 1.0% 5646 86.3% 3,489 53.3% LIM MTS
13301 2010 5180 1.00 3246 62.7% 118 2.3% 10 0.2% 158 3.1% 56 1.1% 4 0.1% 142 2.7% 3734 72.1% 1,019 19.7% LIM MTS
13302 2010 4933 1.00 3395 68.8% 88 1.8% 19 0.4% 245 5.0% 34 0.7% 1 0.0% 87 1.8% 3869 78.4% 832 16.9% LIM MTS
13303 2010 4909 1.00 3694 75.2% 110 2.2% 23 0.5% 219 4.5% 43 0.9% 3 0.1% 72 1.5% 4164 84.8% 1,620 33.0% LIM MTS
13306 2010 4773 1.00 3278 68.7% 170 3.6% 18 0.4% 326 6.8% 40 0.8% 2 0.0% 96 2.0% 3930 82.3% 910 19.1% LIM MTS
13307 2010 3966 1.00 2829 71.3% 175 4.4% 3 0.1% 338 8.5% 23 0.6% 5 0.1% 73 1.8% 3446 86.9% 599 15.1% LIM MTS
13308 2010 3731 1.00 3061 82.0% 129 3.5% 4 0.1% 118 3.2% 17 0.5% 2 0.1% 50 1.3% 3381 90.6% 445 11.9% LIM MTS
13309 2010 7005 1.00 3966 56.6% 188 2.7% 13 0.2% 965 13.8% 32 0.5% 3 0.0% 247 3.5% 5414 77.3% 383 5.5% LIM MTS
13310 2010 28960 1.00 12860 44.4% 1654 5.7% 53 0.2% 8212 28.4% 158 0.5% 61 0.2% 1068 3.7% 24066 83.1% 3,801 13.1% LIM MTS
13311 2010 10117 1.00 4655 46.0% 576 5.7% 18 0.2% 2151 21.3% 34 0.3% 0 0.0% 384 3.8% 7818 77.3% 935 9.2% LIM MTS
13312 2010 2853 1.00 1992 69.8% 80 2.8% 6 0.2% 155 5.4% 15 0.5% 1 0.0% 101 3.5% 2350 82.4% 505 17.7% LIM MTS
13313 2010 9464 1.00 3810 40.3% 518 5.5% 13 0.1% 3136 33.1% 65 0.7% 11 0.1% 389 4.1% 7942 83.9% 811 8.6% LIM MTS
13314 2010 14837 1.00 6661 44.9% 802 5.4% 35 0.2% 3664 24.7% 55 0.4% 20 0.1% 616 4.2% 11853 79.9% 687 4.6% LIM MTS
13401 2010 4203 1.00 2189 52.1% 35 0.8% 12 0.3% 217 5.2% 6 0.1% 8 0.2% 98 2.3% 2565 61.0% 542 12.9% not LIM MTS
13409 2010 5380 1.00 2731 50.8% 222 4.1% 32 0.6% 639 11.9% 16 0.3% 9 0.2% 143 2.7% 3792 70.5% 690 12.8% LIM MTS
13410 2010 7073 1.00 2900 41.0% 276 3.9% 17 0.2% 1315 18.6% 41 0.6% 9 0.1% 283 4.0% 4841 68.4% 827 11.7% LIM MTS
13411 2010 4999 1.00 2031 40.6% 118 2.4% 8 0.2% 633 12.7% 27 0.5% 1 0.0% 141 2.8% 2959 59.2% 400 8.0% not LIM MTS
13412 2010 5086 1.00 2488 48.9% 174 3.4% 3 0.1% 732 14.4% 16 0.3% 8 0.2% 126 2.5% 3547 69.7% 398 7.8% LIM MTS
13414 2010 7227 1.00 3677 50.9% 234 3.2% 13 0.2% 1277 17.7% 34 0.5% 21 0.3% 234 3.2% 5490 76.0% 671 9.3% LIM MTS
13415 2010 1567 1.00 779 49.7% 70 4.5% 3 0.2% 194 12.4% 4 0.3% 10 0.6% 36 2.3% 1096 69.9% 264 16.9% LIM MTS
13416 2010 3780 1.00 1486 39.3% 179 4.7% 13 0.3% 423 11.2% 14 0.4% 5 0.1% 135 3.6% 2255 59.7% 405 10.7% not LIM MTS
13417 2010 2087 1.00 917 43.9% 127 6.1% 5 0.2% 354 17.0% 13 0.6% 0 0.0% 82 3.9% 1498 71.8% 275 13.2% LIM MTS
13418 2010 5998 1.00 3279 54.7% 214 3.6% 6 0.1% 827 13.8% 30 0.5% 3 0.1% 153 2.6% 4512 75.2% 1,001 16.7% LIM MTS
13419 2010 7268 1.00 3346 46.0% 343 4.7% 11 0.2% 1396 19.2% 9 0.1% 20 0.3% 241 3.3% 5366 73.8% 720 9.9% LIM MTS
13420 2010 3471 1.00 1760 50.7% 197 5.7% 6 0.2% 694 20.0% 17 0.5% 5 0.1% 124 3.6% 2803 80.8% 83 2.4% LIM MTS
13421 2010 4695 1.00 2353 50.1% 175 3.7% 7 0.1% 1115 23.7% 27 0.6% 5 0.1% 118 2.5% 3800 80.9% 388 8.3% LIM MTS
13503 2010 5776 1.00 1776 30.7% 685 11.9% 26 0.5% 235 4.1% 56 1.0% 6 0.1% 270 4.7% 3054 52.9% 1,206 20.9% not LIM MTS
13504 2010 3471 1.00 788 22.7% 414 11.9% 7 0.2% 403 11.6% 14 0.4% 13 0.4% 138 4.0% 1777 51.2% 290 8.3% not LIM MTS
13505 2010 4725 1.00 1132 24.0% 520 11.0% 24 0.5% 191 4.0% 25 0.5% 21 0.4% 205 4.3% 2118 44.8% 847 17.9% not LIM MTS
13506 2010 3509 1.00 1213 34.6% 222 6.3% 12 0.3% 219 6.2% 17 0.5% 7 0.2% 121 3.4% 1811 51.6% 757 21.6% not LIM MTS
13601 2010 5053 1.00 1051 20.8% 375 7.4% 18 0.4% 177 3.5% 17 0.3% 13 0.3% 211 4.2% 1862 36.8% 772 15.3% not LIM MTS
13604 2010 6147 1.00 957 15.6% 335 5.4% 15 0.2% 251 4.1% 16 0.3% 8 0.1% 250 4.1% 1832 29.8% 294 4.8% not LIM MTS
13605 2010 5622 1.00 796 14.2% 148 2.6% 26 0.5% 204 3.6% 10 0.2% 15 0.3% 160 2.8% 1359 24.2% 310 5.5% not LIM MTS
13606 2010 6386 1.00 1068 16.7% 391 6.1% 14 0.2% 371 5.8% 15 0.2% 14 0.2% 324 5.1% 2197 34.4% 873 13.7% not LIM MTS
13701 2010 2352 1.00 374 15.9% 84 3.6% 5 0.2% 98 4.2% 14 0.6% 4 0.2% 66 2.8% 645 27.4% 270 11.5% not LIM MTS
13702 2010 5357 1.00 2150 40.1% 726 13.6% 19 0.4% 286 5.3% 47 0.9% 12 0.2% 200 3.7% 3440 64.2% 1,521 28.4% not LIM MTS
13801 2010 4771 1.00 1522 31.9% 452 9.5% 16 0.3% 175 3.7% 70 1.5% 7 0.1% 201 4.2% 2443 51.2% 1,114 23.4% not LIM MTS
13802 2010 2957 1.00 1432 48.4% 374 12.6% 12 0.4% 178 6.0% 22 0.7% 11 0.4% 104 3.5% 2133 72.1% 872 29.5% LIM MTS
13903 2010 4116 1.00 1610 39.1% 399 9.7% 16 0.4% 508 12.3% 38 0.9% 1 0.0% 160 3.9% 2732 66.4% 737 17.9% LIM MTS
13905 2010 3676 1.00 1169 31.8% 566 15.4% 3 0.1% 293 8.0% 27 0.7% 6 0.2% 173 4.7% 2237 60.9% 294 8.0% not LIM MTS
13906 2010 4701 1.00 1951 41.5% 678 14.4% 8 0.2% 258 5.5% 105 2.2% 5 0.1% 226 4.8% 3231 68.7% 1,107 23.6% LIM MTS
13907 2010 4185 1.00 2539 60.7% 549 13.1% 11 0.3% 250 6.0% 20 0.5% 8 0.2% 146 3.5% 3523 84.2% 1,792 42.8% LIM MTS
13908 2010 3708 1.00 2106 56.8% 413 11.1% 11 0.3% 246 6.6% 41 1.1% 5 0.1% 110 3.0% 2932 79.1% 1,076 29.0% LIM MTS
13909 2010 4489 1.00 2418 53.9% 417 9.3% 22 0.5% 351 7.8% 39 0.9% 3 0.1% 167 3.7% 3417 76.1% 787 17.5% LIM MTS
14001 2010 4630 1.00 1828 39.5% 386 8.3% 24 0.5% 305 6.6% 32 0.7% 9 0.2% 159 3.4% 2743 59.2% 1,024 22.1% not LIM MTS
14002 2010 4488 1.00 1789 39.9% 564 12.6% 22 0.5% 410 9.1% 31 0.7% 9 0.2% 187 4.2% 3012 67.1% 885 19.7% LIM MTS
14101 2010 3507 1.00 1630 46.5% 272 7.8% 15 0.4% 108 3.1% 24 0.7% 0 0.0% 113 3.2% 2162 61.6% 572 16.3% not LIM MTS
14102 2010 3768 1.00 1477 39.2% 1174 31.2% 5 0.1% 406 10.8% 46 1.2% 8 0.2% 161 4.3% 3277 87.0% 754 20.0% LIM MTS
14200 2010 6277 1.00 2695 42.9% 654 10.4% 21 0.3% 400 6.4% 70 1.1% 14 0.2% 204 3.2% 4058 64.6% 1,795 28.6% not LIM MTS
14300 2010 3618 1.00 1612 44.6% 414 11.4% 17 0.5% 175 4.8% 40 1.1% 2 0.1% 136 3.8% 2396 66.2% 1,032 28.5% LIM MTS
14400 2010 3523 1.00 1476 41.9% 934 26.5% 14 0.4% 118 3.3% 31 0.9% 4 0.1% 119 3.4% 2696 76.5% 2,055 58.3% LIM MTS
14500 2010 3749 1.00 1163 31.0% 444 11.8% 28 0.7% 303 8.1% 31 0.8% 3 0.1% 132 3.5% 2104 56.1% 1,230 32.8% not LIM MTS
14601 2010 4795 1.00 1266 26.4% 521 10.9% 22 0.5% 221 4.6% 20 0.4% 7 0.1% 199 4.2% 2256 47.0% 1,226 25.6% not LIM MTS
14602 2010 4729 1.00 898 19.0% 417 8.8% 23 0.5% 406 8.6% 21 0.4% 11 0.2% 191 4.0% 1967 41.6% 813 17.2% not LIM MTS
14700 2010 7600 1.00 1547 20.4% 440 5.8% 35 0.5% 466 6.1% 34 0.4% 37 0.5% 300 3.9% 2859 37.6% 1,764 23.2% not LIM MTS
14803 2010 4690 1.00 766 16.3% 275 5.9% 14 0.3% 328 7.0% 21 0.4% 17 0.4% 186 4.0% 1607 34.3% 1,576 33.6% LIM MTS
14804 2010 4351 1.00 597 13.7% 205 4.7% 24 0.6% 172 4.0% 10 0.2% 16 0.4% 131 3.0% 1155 26.5% 1,394 32.0% not LIM MTS
D-6
Census
Tract
Year
Total
Population
LIM
Transit
Agency
# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %
14805 2010 4328 1.00 850 19.6% 349 8.1% 14 0.3% 254 5.9% 15 0.3% 9 0.2% 133 3.1% 1624 37.5% 1,039 24.0% not LIM MTS
14806 2010 2577 1.00 674 26.2% 361 14.0% 16 0.6% 151 5.9% 17 0.7% 7 0.3% 103 4.0% 1329 51.6% 1,476 57.3% LIM MTS
14901 2010 4243 1.00 772 18.2% 357 8.4% 23 0.5% 134 3.2% 54 1.3% 15 0.4% 200 4.7% 1555 36.6% 822 19.4% not LIM MTS
14902 2010 3186 1.00 705 22.1% 116 3.6% 14 0.4% 107 3.4% 9 0.3% 9 0.3% 115 3.6% 1075 33.7% 941 29.5% not LIM MTS
15000 2010 6193 1.00 1339 21.6% 394 6.4% 17 0.3% 348 5.6% 23 0.4% 14 0.2% 241 3.9% 2376 38.4% 1,626 26.3% not LIM MTS
15100 2010 4769 1.00 827 17.3% 177 3.7% 14 0.3% 199 4.2% 16 0.3% 9 0.2% 166 3.5% 1408 29.5% 854 17.9% not LIM MTS
15200 2010 3879 1.00 449 11.6% 86 2.2% 12 0.3% 96 2.5% 4 0.1% 7 0.2% 81 2.1% 735 18.9% 212 5.5% not LIM MTS
15301 2010 3179 1.00 970 30.5% 135 4.2% 22 0.7% 144 4.5% 57 1.8% 10 0.3% 128 4.0% 1466 46.1% 1,199 37.7% LIM MTS
15302 2010 4075 1.00 663 16.3% 107 2.6% 11 0.3% 168 4.1% 5 0.1% 8 0.2% 141 3.5% 1103 27.1% 736 18.1% not LIM MTS
15403 2010 2508 1.00 226 9.0% 30 1.2% 7 0.3% 77 3.1% 11 0.4% 2 0.1% 81 3.2% 434 17.3% 246 9.8% not LIM MTS
15404 2010 7626 1.00 1431 18.8% 292 3.8% 31 0.4% 146 1.9% 14 0.2% 12 0.2% 452 5.9% 2378 31.2% 2,262 29.7% not LIM MTS
15405 2010 5765 1.00 882 15.3% 83 1.4% 19 0.3% 147 2.5% 8 0.1% 7 0.1% 177 3.1% 1323 22.9% 1,100 19.1% not LIM MTS
15406 2010 2492 1.00 265 10.6% 31 1.2% 14 0.6% 59 2.4% 7 0.3% 5 0.2% 74 3.0% 455 18.3% 106 4.3% not LIM MTS
15501 2010 4955 1.00 796 16.1% 45 0.9% 41 0.8% 80 1.6% 8 0.2% 2 0.0% 110 2.2% 1082 21.8% 646 13.0% not LIM MTS
15502 2010 2748 1.00 443 16.1% 19 0.7% 108 3.9% 53 1.9% 3 0.1% 1 0.0% 79 2.9% 706 25.7% 194 7.1% not LIM MTS
15601 2010 5937 1.00 1525 25.7% 223 3.8% 30 0.5% 122 2.1% 15 0.3% 13 0.2% 225 3.8% 2153 36.3% 1,522 25.6% LIM MTS
15602 2010 2536 1.00 361 14.2% 35 1.4% 21 0.8% 48 1.9% 8 0.3% 6 0.2% 84 3.3% 563 22.2% 201 7.9% not LIM MTS
15701 2010 6239 1.00 2156 34.6% 629 10.1% 30 0.5% 218 3.5% 21 0.3% 41 0.7% 354 5.7% 3449 55.3% 2,720 43.6% LIM MTS
15703 2010 7102 1.00 2056 28.9% 460 6.5% 17 0.2% 251 3.5% 27 0.4% 30 0.4% 419 5.9% 3260 45.9% 3,434 48.3% LIM MTS
15704 2010 4024 1.00 1279 31.8% 257 6.4% 16 0.4% 129 3.2% 8 0.2% 9 0.2% 158 3.9% 1856 46.1% 1,280 31.8% LIM MTS
15801 2010 3550 1.00 1326 37.4% 406 11.4% 28 0.8% 83 2.3% 18 0.5% 8 0.2% 203 5.7% 2072 58.4% 2,050 57.7% LIM MTS
15802 2010 4673 1.00 1494 32.0% 307 6.6% 34 0.7% 141 3.0% 29 0.6% 12 0.3% 234 5.0% 2251 48.2% 1,947 41.7% LIM MTS
15901 2010 3450 1.00 1683 48.8% 341 9.9% 7 0.2% 148 4.3% 10 0.3% 3 0.1% 183 5.3% 2375 68.8% 1,517 44.0% LIM MTS
15902 2010 5220 1.00 1837 35.2% 360 6.9% 21 0.4% 133 2.5% 20 0.4% 14 0.3% 206 3.9% 2591 49.6% 1,789 34.3% LIM MTS
16000 2010 2419 1.00 602 24.9% 86 3.6% 5 0.2% 97 4.0% 2 0.1% 3 0.1% 112 4.6% 907 37.5% 342 14.2% not LIM MTS
16100 2010 5788 1.00 1081 18.7% 178 3.1% 38 0.7% 184 3.2% 20 0.3% 12 0.2% 189 3.3% 1702 29.4% 588 10.2% not LIM MTS
16201 2010 5843 1.00 753 12.9% 100 1.7% 11 0.2% 202 3.5% 37 0.6% 14 0.2% 171 2.9% 1288 22.0% 711 12.2% not LIM MTS
16202 2010 3337 1.00 1117 33.5% 438 13.1% 20 0.6% 163 4.9% 36 1.1% 7 0.2% 139 4.2% 1920 57.5% 982 29.4% not LIM MTS
16301 2010 4919 1.00 1801 36.6% 488 9.9% 28 0.6% 203 4.1% 17 0.3% 15 0.3% 207 4.2% 2759 56.1% 1,738 35.3% LIM MTS
16302 2010 5444 1.00 2238 41.1% 391 7.2% 14 0.3% 177 3.3% 40 0.7% 34 0.6% 255 4.7% 3149 57.8% 2,129 39.1% LIM MTS
16401 2010 4996 1.00 958 19.2% 164 3.3% 13 0.3% 140 2.8% 22 0.4% 8 0.2% 168 3.4% 1473 29.5% 827 16.6% not LIM MTS
16402 2010 7452 1.00 1924 25.8% 378 5.1% 55 0.7% 243 3.3% 24 0.3% 3 0.0% 299 4.0% 2926 39.3% 2,710 36.4% LIM MTS
16502 2010 6915 1.00 1987 28.7% 352 5.1% 28 0.4% 181 2.6% 43 0.6% 6 0.1% 376 5.4% 2973 43.0% 2,607 37.7% LIM MTS
16503 2010 2784 1.00 599 21.5% 154 5.5% 13 0.5% 88 3.2% 6 0.2% 6 0.2% 125 4.5% 991 35.6% 676 24.3% not LIM MTS
16504 2010 6253 1.00 1934 30.9% 573 9.2% 21 0.3% 213 3.4% 33 0.5% 11 0.2% 264 4.2% 3049 48.8% 2,110 33.7% LIM MTS
16605 2010 7339 1.00 1211 16.5% 148 2.0% 44 0.6% 279 3.8% 35 0.5% 10 0.1% 218 3.0% 1945 26.5% 1,727 23.5% not LIM MTS
16606 2010 3388 1.00 554 16.4% 21 0.6% 15 0.4% 174 5.1% 20 0.6% 12 0.4% 130 3.8% 926 27.3% 344 10.1% not LIM MTS
16607 2010 6365 1.00 967 15.2% 52 0.8% 20 0.3% 225 3.5% 31 0.5% 4 0.1% 227 3.6% 1526 24.0% 774 12.2% not LIM MTS
16608 2010 2526 1.00 328 13.0% 23 0.9% 22 0.9% 71 2.8% 4 0.2% 2 0.1% 80 3.2% 530 21.0% 142 5.6% not LIM MTS
16609 2010 5227 1.00 745 14.3% 63 1.2% 32 0.6% 102 2.0% 20 0.4% 7 0.1% 192 3.7% 1161 22.2% 819 15.7% not LIM MTS
16610 2010 4163 1.00 627 15.1% 48 1.2% 17 0.4% 142 3.4% 11 0.3% 0 0.0% 171 4.1% 1016 24.4% 639 15.3% not LIM MTS
16612 2010 6143 1.00 856 13.9% 77 1.3% 50 0.8% 181 2.9% 21 0.3% 10 0.2% 225 3.7% 1420 23.1% 579 9.4% not LIM MTS
16613 2010 1860 1.00 288 15.5% 12 0.6% 8 0.4% 57 3.1% 14 0.8% 2 0.1% 41 2.2% 422 22.7% 234 12.6% not LIM MTS
16614 2010 3912 1.00 639 16.3% 46 1.2% 11 0.3% 165 4.2% 23 0.6% 5 0.1% 129 3.3% 1018 26.0% 772 19.7% not LIM MTS
16615 2010 3059 1.00 609 19.9% 206 6.7% 26 0.8% 159 5.2% 18 0.6% 6 0.2% 90 2.9% 1114 36.4% 473 15.5% not LIM MTS
16616 2010 4067 1.00 719 17.7% 98 2.4% 22 0.5% 195 4.8% 16 0.4% 5 0.1% 142 3.5% 1197 29.4% 792 19.5% not LIM MTS
16617 2010 3102 1.00 591 19.1% 70 2.3% 22 0.7% 114 3.7% 5 0.2% 9 0.3% 88 2.8% 899 29.0% 1,111 35.8% LIM MTS
16701 2010 8666 1.00 1543 17.8% 214 2.5% 43 0.5% 251 2.9% 35 0.4% 14 0.2% 326 3.8% 2426 28.0% 971 11.2% not LIM MTS
16702 2010 6944 1.00 1494 21.5% 100 1.4% 79 1.1% 94 1.4% 17 0.2% 0 0.0% 241 3.5% 2025 29.2% 1,654 23.8% not LIM MTS
16802 2010 6942 1.00 859 12.4% 61 0.9% 42 0.6% 107 1.5% 8 0.1% 10 0.1% 137 2.0% 1224 17.6% 1,397 20.1% not LIM MTS
16804 2010 7292 1.00 1702 23.3% 83 1.1% 50 0.7% 83 1.1% 22 0.3% 4 0.1% 265 3.6% 2209 30.3% 1,958 26.8% not LIM MTS
16806 2010 4081 1.00 905 22.2% 113 2.8% 31 0.8% 56 1.4% 42 1.0% 0 0.0% 160 3.9% 1307 32.0% 1,294 31.7% not LIM MTS
16807 2010 7135 1.00 1325 18.6% 117 1.6% 34 0.5% 105 1.5% 18 0.3% 4 0.1% 163 2.3% 1766 24.8% 618 8.7% not LIM MTS
16809 2010 5486 1.00 1072 19.5% 100 1.8% 51 0.9% 146 2.7% 6 0.1% 6 0.1% 165 3.0% 1546 28.2% 1,071 19.5% not LIM MTS
16810 2010 2792 1.00 381 13.6% 17 0.6% 13 0.5% 52 1.9% 5 0.2% 3 0.1% 71 2.5% 542 19.4% 224 8.0% not LIM MTS
16811 2010 4374 1.00 606 13.9% 36 0.8% 24 0.5% 78 1.8% 11 0.3% 0 0.0% 104 2.4% 859 19.6% 593 13.5% not LIM MTS
16901 2010 6909 1.00 972 14.1% 186 2.7% 49 0.7% 124 1.8% 13 0.2% 7 0.1% 175 2.5% 1526 22.1% 805 11.6% not LIM MTS
16902 2010 2341 1.00 363 15.5% 22 0.9% 495 21.1% 27 1.2% 9 0.4% 2 0.1% 49 2.1% 967 41.3% 402 17.2% not LIM MTS
17006 2010 2876 1.00 215 7.5% 25 0.9% 11 0.4% 205 7.1% 2 0.1% 2 0.1% 66 2.3% 526 18.3% 94 3.3% not LIM MTS
17009 2010 4024 1.00 815 20.3% 54 1.3% 15 0.4% 303 7.5% 17 0.4% 9 0.2% 124 3.1% 1337 33.2% 893 22.2% not LIM MTS
D-7
Census
Tract
Year
Total
Population
LIM
Transit
Agency
# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %
17010 2010 3152 1.00 473 15.0% 30 1.0% 13 0.4% 243 7.7% 10 0.3% 6 0.2% 84 2.7% 859 27.3% 146 4.6% not LIM MTS
17014 2010 2416 1.00 112 4.6% 27 1.1% 6 0.2% 123 5.1% 4 0.2% 1 0.0% 19 0.8% 292 12.1% 801 33.2% LIM MTS
17015 2010 7295 1.00 712 9.8% 198 2.7% 10 0.1% 1065 14.6% 13 0.2% 8 0.1% 280 3.8% 2286 31.3% 792 10.9% not LIM MTS
17018 2010 3834 1.00 517 13.5% 148 3.9% 9 0.2% 1293 33.7% 12 0.3% 8 0.2% 200 5.2% 2187 57.0% 1,024 26.7% not LIM MTS
17019 2010 5883 1.00 315 5.4% 73 1.2% 16 0.3% 292 5.0% 6 0.1% 6 0.1% 122 2.1% 830 14.1% 1,054 17.9% not LIM MTS
17020 2010 3694 1.00 298 8.1% 35 0.9% 6 0.2% 184 5.0% 6 0.2% 1 0.0% 85 2.3% 615 16.6% 317 8.6% not LIM MTS
17021 2010 3177 1.00 229 7.2% 24 0.8% 11 0.3% 207 6.5% 2 0.1% 4 0.1% 66 2.1% 543 17.1% 87 2.7% not LIM MTS
17022 2010 5316 1.00 559 10.5% 165 3.1% 7 0.1% 450 8.5% 10 0.2% 19 0.4% 199 3.7% 1409 26.5% 445 8.4% not LIM MTS
17029 2010 8823 1.00 618 7.0% 97 1.1% 14 0.2% 1037 11.8% 9 0.1% 29 0.3% 307 3.5% 2111 23.9% 1,026 11.6% not LIM NCTD
17030 2010 17064 1.00 1497 8.8% 388 2.3% 26 0.2% 4977 29.2% 17 0.1% 48 0.3% 811 4.8% 7764 45.5% 1,695 9.9% not LIM NCTD
17031 2010 3853 1.00 551 14.3% 128 3.3% 18 0.5% 522 13.5% 16 0.4% 7 0.2% 143 3.7% 1385 35.9% 421 10.9% not LIM MTS
17032 2010 13593 1.00 1263 9.3% 305 2.2% 18 0.1% 4204 30.9% 47 0.3% 31 0.2% 627 4.6% 6495 47.8% 1,067 7.8% not LIM NCTD
17033 2010 4689 1.00 403 8.6% 122 2.6% 6 0.1% 1294 27.6% 21 0.4% 13 0.3% 239 5.1% 2098 44.7% 482 10.3% not LIM MTS
17034 2010 4752 1.00 617 13.0% 146 3.1% 18 0.4% 874 18.4% 15 0.3% 16 0.3% 215 4.5% 1901 40.0% 247 5.2% not LIM MTS
17035 2010 2354 1.00 360 15.3% 100 4.2% 3 0.1% 583 24.8% 4 0.2% 8 0.3% 170 7.2% 1228 52.2% 1,124 47.7% LIM MTS
17036 2010 3276 1.00 365 11.1% 105 3.2% 13 0.4% 729 22.3% 18 0.5% 13 0.4% 194 5.9% 1437 43.9% 481 14.7% not LIM MTS
17037 2010 5880 1.00 647 11.0% 133 2.3% 8 0.1% 1603 27.3% 16 0.3% 18 0.3% 288 4.9% 2713 46.1% 346 5.9% not LIM MTS
17039 2010 6921 1.00 627 9.1% 120 1.7% 6 0.1% 2074 30.0% 6 0.1% 14 0.2% 272 3.9% 3119 45.1% 327 4.7% not LIM MTS
17040 2010 4363 1.00 779 17.9% 80 1.8% 18 0.4% 587 13.5% 9 0.2% 7 0.2% 160 3.7% 1640 37.6% 412 9.4% not LIM MTS
17041 2010 6147 1.00 1229 20.0% 99 1.6% 14 0.2% 619 10.1% 22 0.4% 11 0.2% 184 3.0% 2178 35.4% 628 10.2% not LIM MTS
17042 2010 7869 1.00 647 8.2% 169 2.1% 13 0.2% 2557 32.5% 16 0.2% 12 0.2% 367 4.7% 3781 48.0% 291 3.7% not LIM MTS
17043 2010 5535 1.00 539 9.7% 178 3.2% 13 0.2% 1837 33.2% 9 0.2% 20 0.4% 282 5.1% 2878 52.0% 347 6.3% not LIM MTS
17044 2010 5570 1.00 401 7.2% 88 1.6% 16 0.3% 1679 30.1% 4 0.1% 18 0.3% 245 4.4% 2451 44.0% 122 2.2% not LIM MTS
17045 2010 2790 1.00 185 6.6% 52 1.9% 18 0.6% 720 25.8% 4 0.1% 5 0.2% 118 4.2% 1102 39.5% 71 2.5% not LIM MTS
17046 2010 3678 1.00 302 8.2% 41 1.1% 1 0.0% 740 20.1% 9 0.2% 3 0.1% 108 2.9% 1204 32.7% 128 3.5% not LIM MTS
17047 2010 4021 1.00 371 9.2% 55 1.4% 9 0.2% 424 10.5% 8 0.2% 15 0.4% 132 3.3% 1014 25.2% 144 3.6% not LIM MTS
17048 2010 6123 1.00 1728 28.2% 163 2.7% 23 0.4% 868 14.2% 7 0.1% 14 0.2% 211 3.4% 3014 49.2% 885 14.5% not LIM MTS
17049 2010 2919 1.00 559 19.2% 54 1.8% 8 0.3% 318 10.9% 6 0.2% 10 0.3% 118 4.0% 1073 36.8% 530 18.2% not LIM MTS
17050 2010 3068 1.00 667 21.7% 38 1.2% 13 0.4% 423 13.8% 3 0.1% 4 0.1% 93 3.0% 1241 40.4% 492 16.0% not LIM MTS
17051 2010 4301 1.00 393 9.1% 138 3.2% 6 0.1% 753 17.5% 6 0.1% 9 0.2% 106 2.5% 1411 32.8% 631 14.7% not LIM MTS
17052 2010 4796 1.00 444 9.3% 86 1.8% 9 0.2% 1305 27.2% 15 0.3% 8 0.2% 164 3.4% 2031 42.3% 623 13.0% not LIM MTS
17053 2010 3364 1.00 172 5.1% 37 1.1% 8 0.2% 204 6.1% 6 0.2% 0 0.0% 96 2.9% 523 15.5% 80 2.4% not LIM MTS
17054 2010 5810 1.00 510 8.8% 89 1.5% 9 0.2% 532 9.2% 13 0.2% 11 0.2% 206 3.5% 1370 23.6% 788 13.6% not LIM MTS
17055 2010 5086 1.00 459 9.0% 163 3.2% 12 0.2% 1349 26.5% 24 0.5% 15 0.3% 267 5.2% 2289 45.0% 107 2.1% not LIM MTS
17056 2010 4541 1.00 403 8.9% 105 2.3% 15 0.3% 1184 26.1% 11 0.2% 9 0.2% 169 3.7% 1896 41.8% 666 14.7% not LIM MTS
17104 2010 3907 1.00 447 11.4% 18 0.5% 6 0.2% 168 4.3% 3 0.1% 15 0.4% 97 2.5% 754 19.3% 572 14.6% not LIM NCTD
17106 2010 4973 1.00 321 6.5% 17 0.3% 1 0.0% 158 3.2% 4 0.1% 14 0.3% 86 1.7% 601 12.1% 956 19.2% not LIM NCTD
17107 2010 2871 1.00 207 7.2% 9 0.3% 1 0.0% 171 6.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 97 3.4% 486 16.9% 266 9.3% not LIM NCTD
17108 2010 4658 1.00 567 12.2% 18 0.4% 11 0.2% 210 4.5% 8 0.2% 17 0.4% 149 3.2% 980 21.0% 285 6.1% not LIM NCTD
17109 2010 6650 1.00 638 9.6% 37 0.6% 9 0.1% 454 6.8% 0 0.0% 12 0.2% 270 4.1% 1420 21.4% 707 10.6% not LIM NCTD
17110 2010 10622 1.00 1555 14.6% 144 1.4% 27 0.3% 743 7.0% 14 0.1% 25 0.2% 390 3.7% 2898 27.3% 1,596 15.0% not LIM NCTD
17200 2010 4161 1.00 175 4.2% 9 0.2% 2 0.0% 115 2.8% 1 0.0% 11 0.3% 76 1.8% 389 9.3% 294 7.1% not LIM NCTD
17303 2010 3018 1.00 283 9.4% 10 0.3% 6 0.2% 85 2.8% 5 0.2% 6 0.2% 66 2.2% 461 15.3% 591 19.6% not LIM NCTD
17304 2010 5508 1.00 1501 27.3% 20 0.4% 13 0.2% 177 3.2% 11 0.2% 14 0.3% 91 1.7% 1827 33.2% 899 16.3% not LIM NCTD
17305 2010 2969 1.00 172 5.8% 13 0.4% 9 0.3% 157 5.3% 3 0.1% 4 0.1% 69 2.3% 427 14.4% 498 16.8% not LIM NCTD
17306 2010 2818 1.00 154 5.5% 22 0.8% 1 0.0% 165 5.9% 2 0.1% 6 0.2% 53 1.9% 403 14.3% 315 11.2% not LIM NCTD
17401 2010 5355 1.00 375 7.0% 21 0.4% 26 0.5% 159 3.0% 6 0.1% 19 0.4% 149 2.8% 755 14.1% 1,057 19.7% not LIM NCTD
17403 2010 4922 1.00 519 10.5% 17 0.3% 8 0.2% 179 3.6% 5 0.1% 25 0.5% 106 2.2% 859 17.5% 776 15.8% not LIM NCTD
17404 2010 6338 1.00 1045 16.5% 29 0.5% 25 0.4% 204 3.2% 12 0.2% 14 0.2% 141 2.2% 1470 23.2% 624 9.8% not LIM NCTD
17501 2010 3571 1.00 835 23.4% 18 0.5% 13 0.4% 150 4.2% 13 0.4% 28 0.8% 107 3.0% 1164 32.6% 650 18.2% not LIM NCTD
17502 2010 2839 1.00 656 23.1% 20 0.7% 6 0.2% 37 1.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 21 0.7% 740 26.1% 620 21.8% LIM NCTD
17601 2010 4941 1.00 322 6.5% 35 0.7% 5 0.1% 171 3.5% 8 0.2% 14 0.3% 96 1.9% 651 13.2% 689 13.9% not LIM NCTD
17603 2010 2476 1.00 548 22.1% 12 0.5% 7 0.3% 58 2.3% 2 0.1% 8 0.3% 56 2.3% 691 27.9% 527 21.3% not LIM NCTD
17604 2010 7040 1.00 1150 16.3% 63 0.9% 15 0.2% 468 6.6% 10 0.1% 17 0.2% 151 2.1% 1874 26.6% 1,415 20.1% not LIM NCTD
17701 2010 5275 1.00 937 17.8% 30 0.6% 15 0.3% 137 2.6% 11 0.2% 11 0.2% 137 2.6% 1278 24.2% 1,060 20.1% not LIM NCTD
17702 2010 2777 1.00 310 11.2% 3 0.1% 7 0.3% 51 1.8% 3 0.1% 9 0.3% 65 2.3% 448 16.1% 708 25.5% not LIM NCTD
17801 2010 6539 1.00 1040 15.9% 66 1.0% 24 0.4% 271 4.1% 4 0.1% 8 0.1% 151 2.3% 1564 23.9% 1,495 22.9% not LIM NCTD
17808 2010 5975 1.00 365 6.1% 43 0.7% 13 0.2% 446 7.5% 3 0.1% 16 0.3% 203 3.4% 1089 18.2% 327 5.5% not LIM NCTD
17809 2010 2293 1.00 347 15.1% 5 0.2% 8 0.3% 54 2.4% 1 0.0% 5 0.2% 72 3.1% 492 21.5% 472 20.6% not LIM NCTD
17810 2010 4942 1.00 572 11.6% 31 0.6% 20 0.4% 169 3.4% 10 0.2% 10 0.2% 135 2.7% 947 19.2% 719 14.6% not LIM NCTD
D-8
Census
Tract
Year
Total
Population
LIM
Transit
Agency
# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %
17811 2010 6355 1.00 539 8.5% 49 0.8% 8 0.1% 598 9.4% 16 0.3% 19 0.3% 186 2.9% 1415 22.3% 831 13.1% not LIM NCTD
17813 2010 4106 1.00 324 7.9% 24 0.6% 13 0.3% 224 5.5% 5 0.1% 21 0.5% 90 2.2% 701 17.1% 895 21.8% not LIM NCTD
17900 2010 6958 1.00 2510 36.1% 65 0.9% 31 0.4% 201 2.9% 23 0.3% 12 0.2% 156 2.2% 2998 43.1% 2,183 31.4% not LIM NCTD
18000 2010 3711 1.00 435 11.7% 46 1.2% 10 0.3% 134 3.6% 9 0.2% 8 0.2% 76 2.0% 718 19.3% 752 20.3% not LIM NCTD
18100 2010 5659 1.00 1173 20.7% 100 1.8% 36 0.6% 143 2.5% 40 0.7% 9 0.2% 174 3.1% 1675 29.6% 1,402 24.8% not LIM NCTD
18200 2010 6847 1.00 3818 55.8% 180 2.6% 31 0.5% 107 1.6% 47 0.7% 11 0.2% 143 2.1% 4337 63.3% 2,651 38.7% LIM NCTD
18300 2010 2166 1.00 269 12.4% 29 1.3% 11 0.5% 38 1.8% 2 0.1% 3 0.1% 55 2.5% 407 18.8% 541 25.0% not LIM NCTD
18400 2010 3566 1.00 1338 37.5% 146 4.1% 20 0.6% 194 5.4% 28 0.8% 9 0.3% 95 2.7% 1830 51.3% 1,425 40.0% LIM NCTD
18504 2010 6631 1.00 1327 20.0% 237 3.6% 28 0.4% 256 3.9% 64 1.0% 9 0.1% 238 3.6% 2159 32.6% 758 11.4% not LIM NCTD
18507 2010 9097 1.00 4109 45.2% 429 4.7% 15 0.2% 868 9.5% 119 1.3% 11 0.1% 308 3.4% 5859 64.4% 1,476 16.2% not LIM NCTD
18509 2010 4968 1.00 2848 57.3% 264 5.3% 27 0.5% 173 3.5% 42 0.8% 13 0.3% 140 2.8% 3507 70.6% 1,793 36.1% LIM NCTD
18510 2010 2975 1.00 1424 47.9% 121 4.1% 2 0.1% 186 6.3% 55 1.8% 7 0.2% 97 3.3% 1892 63.6% 688 23.1% LIM NCTD
18511 2010 5003 1.00 2190 43.8% 217 4.3% 13 0.3% 220 4.4% 75 1.5% 4 0.1% 139 2.8% 2858 57.1% 1,184 23.7% not LIM NCTD
18512 2010 3397 1.00 587 17.3% 124 3.7% 10 0.3% 145 4.3% 26 0.8% 5 0.1% 104 3.1% 1001 29.5% 1,345 39.6% LIM NCTD
18513 2010 9081 1.00 2132 23.5% 538 5.9% 22 0.2% 870 9.6% 108 1.2% 27 0.3% 440 4.8% 4137 45.6% 996 11.0% not LIM NCTD
18514 2010 7947 1.00 1746 22.0% 535 6.7% 24 0.3% 836 10.5% 72 0.9% 10 0.1% 293 3.7% 3516 44.2% 1,132 14.2% not LIM NCTD
18515 2010 4494 1.00 672 15.0% 158 3.5% 8 0.2% 283 6.3% 25 0.6% 20 0.4% 145 3.2% 1311 29.2% 804 17.9% not LIM NCTD
18516 2010 3992 1.00 1506 37.7% 113 2.8% 14 0.4% 254 6.4% 57 1.4% 0 0.0% 144 3.6% 2088 52.3% 643 16.1% LIM NCTD
18517 2010 4127 1.00 1260 30.5% 185 4.5% 14 0.3% 240 5.8% 39 0.9% 15 0.4% 115 2.8% 1868 45.3% 1,368 33.1% LIM NCTD
18518 2010 3175 1.00 1941 61.1% 91 2.9% 17 0.5% 131 4.1% 64 2.0% 4 0.1% 90 2.8% 2338 73.6% 584 18.4% LIM NCTD
18519 2010 5891 1.00 3703 62.9% 161 2.7% 31 0.5% 288 4.9% 119 2.0% 10 0.2% 166 2.8% 4478 76.0% 839 14.2% LIM NCTD
18601 2010 4779 1.00 1334 27.9% 127 2.7% 20 0.4% 499 10.4% 44 0.9% 23 0.5% 197 4.1% 2244 47.0% 462 9.7% not LIM NCTD
18603 2010 6810 1.00 4336 63.7% 357 5.2% 46 0.7% 181 2.7% 88 1.3% 18 0.3% 164 2.4% 5190 76.2% 2,318 34.0% LIM NCTD
18608 2010 3175 1.00 773 24.3% 269 8.5% 15 0.5% 320 10.1% 58 1.8% 10 0.3% 179 5.6% 1624 51.1% 409 12.9% not LIM NCTD
18609 2010 6133 1.00 3226 52.6% 361 5.9% 16 0.3% 452 7.4% 96 1.6% 11 0.2% 213 3.5% 4375 71.3% 947 15.4% LIM NCTD
18610 2010 7635 1.00 4320 56.6% 409 5.4% 15 0.2% 478 6.3% 177 2.3% 9 0.1% 270 3.5% 5678 74.4% 1,408 18.4% LIM NCTD
18611 2010 8052 1.00 2857 35.5% 284 3.5% 14 0.2% 862 10.7% 178 2.2% 12 0.1% 299 3.7% 4506 56.0% 603 7.5% not LIM NCTD
18612 2010 3331 1.00 1209 36.3% 203 6.1% 16 0.5% 196 5.9% 42 1.3% 4 0.1% 123 3.7% 1793 53.8% 209 6.3% not LIM NCTD
18613 2010 3477 1.00 1285 37.0% 277 8.0% 20 0.6% 251 7.2% 52 1.5% 18 0.5% 170 4.9% 2073 59.6% 577 16.6% not LIM NCTD
18614 2010 6494 1.00 2830 43.6% 299 4.6% 38 0.6% 420 6.5% 102 1.6% 15 0.2% 238 3.7% 3942 60.7% 2,463 37.9% LIM NCTD
18700 2010 37452 1.00 8192 21.9% 2739 7.3% 407 1.1% 1016 2.7% 284 0.8% 71 0.2% 1417 3.8% 14126 37.7% 9,017 24.1% not LIM NCTD
18801 2010 3614 1.00 683 18.9% 27 0.7% 14 0.4% 79 2.2% 2 0.1% 7 0.2% 81 2.2% 893 24.7% 337 9.3% not LIM NCTD
18802 2010 8122 1.00 1021 12.6% 58 0.7% 27 0.3% 226 2.8% 16 0.2% 13 0.2% 147 1.8% 1508 18.6% 1,372 16.9% not LIM NCTD
18803 2010 4564 1.00 1017 22.3% 57 1.2% 22 0.5% 141 3.1% 5 0.1% 12 0.3% 104 2.3% 1358 29.8% 910 19.9% not LIM NCTD
18903 2010 4861 1.00 2350 48.3% 33 0.7% 22 0.5% 68 1.4% 11 0.2% 7 0.1% 82 1.7% 2573 52.9% 1,579 32.5% not LIM NCTD
18904 2010 5640 1.00 3006 53.3% 50 0.9% 27 0.5% 81 1.4% 9 0.2% 7 0.1% 91 1.6% 3271 58.0% 1,285 22.8% LIM NCTD
18905 2010 6765 1.00 4165 61.6% 131 1.9% 19 0.3% 95 1.4% 18 0.3% 16 0.2% 126 1.9% 4570 67.6% 1,997 29.5% LIM NCTD
18906 2010 6033 1.00 3025 50.1% 149 2.5% 21 0.3% 126 2.1% 10 0.2% 4 0.1% 117 1.9% 3452 57.2% 1,202 19.9% not LIM NCTD
19001 2010 5946 1.00 1219 20.5% 30 0.5% 12 0.2% 151 2.5% 6 0.1% 7 0.1% 97 1.6% 1522 25.6% 805 13.5% not LIM NCTD
19002 2010 1759 1.00 748 42.5% 18 1.0% 5 0.3% 43 2.4% 16 0.9% 0 0.0% 22 1.3% 852 48.4% 352 20.0% not LIM NCTD
19101 2010 7458 1.00 2697 36.2% 97 1.3% 1082 14.5% 262 3.5% 21 0.3% 13 0.2% 185 2.5% 4357 58.4% 1,349 18.1% LIM NCTD
19103 2010 6373 1.00 1558 24.4% 24 0.4% 38 0.6% 180 2.8% 13 0.2% 9 0.1% 127 2.0% 1949 30.6% 599 9.4% not LIM NCTD
19105 2010 5722 1.00 840 14.7% 72 1.3% 19 0.3% 369 6.4% 11 0.2% 4 0.1% 123 2.1% 1438 25.1% 708 12.4% not LIM NCTD
19106 2010 9131 1.00 2890 31.7% 72 0.8% 687 7.5% 216 2.4% 15 0.2% 25 0.3% 254 2.8% 4159 45.5% 1,189 13.0% not LIM NCTD
19107 2010 2104 1.00 512 24.3% 6 0.3% 239 11.4% 24 1.1% 0 0.0% 1 0.0% 39 1.9% 821 39.0% 428 20.3% not LIM NCTD
19203 2010 2866 1.00 838 29.2% 61 2.1% 12 0.4% 99 3.5% 4 0.1% 7 0.2% 84 2.9% 1105 38.6% 486 16.9% not LIM NCTD
19205 2010 6163 1.00 3215 52.2% 171 2.8% 13 0.2% 227 3.7% 54 0.9% 10 0.2% 126 2.0% 3816 61.9% 1,623 26.3% not LIM NCTD
19206 2010 5614 1.00 4093 72.9% 123 2.2% 24 0.4% 104 1.9% 22 0.4% 8 0.1% 105 1.9% 4479 79.8% 1,531 27.3% LIM NCTD
19207 2010 8416 1.00 3644 43.3% 206 2.4% 24 0.3% 293 3.5% 57 0.7% 11 0.1% 159 1.9% 4394 52.2% 1,854 22.0% LIM NCTD
19208 2010 3537 1.00 988 27.9% 66 1.9% 15 0.4% 101 2.9% 17 0.5% 7 0.2% 137 3.9% 1331 37.6% 456 12.9% not LIM NCTD
19301 2010 6936 1.00 1579 22.8% 206 3.0% 26 0.4% 653 9.4% 63 0.9% 11 0.2% 243 3.5% 2781 40.1% 825 11.9% not LIM NCTD
19302 2010 7344 1.00 1993 27.1% 318 4.3% 30 0.4% 426 5.8% 81 1.1% 10 0.1% 252 3.4% 3110 42.3% 1,595 21.7% not LIM NCTD
19303 2010 6538 1.00 2114 32.3% 199 3.0% 18 0.3% 280 4.3% 41 0.6% 13 0.2% 236 3.6% 2901 44.4% 912 14.0% not LIM NCTD
19403 2010 5255 1.00 2578 49.1% 132 2.5% 18 0.3% 316 6.0% 70 1.3% 8 0.2% 120 2.3% 3242 61.7% 985 18.7% not LIM NCTD
19404 2010 3984 1.00 3216 80.7% 29 0.7% 8 0.2% 34 0.9% 33 0.8% 8 0.2% 65 1.6% 3393 85.2% 859 21.6% LIM NCTD
19405 2010 3592 1.00 1880 52.3% 173 4.8% 13 0.4% 146 4.1% 49 1.4% 9 0.3% 106 3.0% 2376 66.1% 708 19.7% LIM NCTD
19406 2010 4628 1.00 2068 44.7% 174 3.8% 25 0.5% 177 3.8% 20 0.4% 10 0.2% 115 2.5% 2589 55.9% 564 12.2% LIM NCTD
19501 2010 4147 1.00 3581 86.4% 55 1.3% 22 0.5% 68 1.6% 25 0.6% 11 0.3% 49 1.2% 3811 91.9% 1,349 32.5% LIM NCTD
19502 2010 5715 1.00 4695 82.2% 125 2.2% 21 0.4% 53 0.9% 27 0.5% 6 0.1% 72 1.3% 4999 87.5% 1,666 29.2% LIM NCTD
19503 2010 4795 1.00 2758 57.5% 163 3.4% 20 0.4% 169 3.5% 26 0.5% 5 0.1% 112 2.3% 3253 67.8% 1,776 37.0% LIM NCTD
D-9
Census
Tract
Year
Total
Population
LIM
Transit
Agency
# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %
19601 2010 6291 1.00 2277 36.2% 186 3.0% 28 0.4% 180 2.9% 48 0.8% 16 0.3% 250 4.0% 2985 47.4% 1,470 23.4% not LIM NCTD
19602 2010 5466 1.00 2329 42.6% 127 2.3% 30 0.5% 116 2.1% 19 0.3% 5 0.1% 109 2.0% 2735 50.0% 1,106 20.2% not LIM NCTD
19701 2010 6022 1.00 1734 28.8% 324 5.4% 28 0.5% 338 5.6% 29 0.5% 29 0.5% 208 3.5% 2690 44.7% 1,088 18.1% not LIM NCTD
19702 2010 4933 1.00 1367 27.7% 77 1.6% 15 0.3% 134 2.7% 40 0.8% 8 0.2% 172 3.5% 1813 36.8% 844 17.1% not LIM NCTD
19803 2010 4465 1.00 701 15.7% 60 1.3% 24 0.5% 389 8.7% 13 0.3% 13 0.3% 163 3.7% 1363 30.5% 805 18.0% not LIM NCTD
19804 2010 4447 1.00 574 12.9% 38 0.9% 6 0.1% 190 4.3% 14 0.3% 5 0.1% 127 2.9% 954 21.5% 491 11.0% not LIM NCTD
19805 2010 3763 1.00 1432 38.1% 136 3.6% 13 0.3% 123 3.3% 23 0.6% 15 0.4% 90 2.4% 1832 48.7% 818 21.7% not LIM NCTD
19806 2010 10858 1.00 1757 16.2% 260 2.4% 36 0.3% 1134 10.4% 36 0.3% 32 0.3% 427 3.9% 3682 33.9% 1,155 10.6% not LIM NCTD
19808 2010 4502 1.00 438 9.7% 83 1.8% 4 0.1% 207 4.6% 7 0.2% 6 0.1% 87 1.9% 832 18.5% 1,076 23.9% not LIM NCTD
19809 2010 4082 1.00 572 14.0% 64 1.6% 11 0.3% 204 5.0% 5 0.1% 9 0.2% 96 2.4% 961 23.5% 1,101 27.0% not LIM NCTD
19902 2010 4078 1.00 1991 48.8% 92 2.3% 11 0.3% 117 2.9% 16 0.4% 2 0.0% 120 2.9% 2349 57.6% 580 14.2% not LIM NCTD
19903 2010 4137 1.00 1170 28.3% 81 2.0% 14 0.3% 121 2.9% 5 0.1% 2 0.0% 53 1.3% 1446 35.0% 1,151 27.8% not LIM NCTD
19904 2010 6538 1.00 1452 22.2% 211 3.2% 13 0.2% 495 7.6% 13 0.2% 9 0.1% 215 3.3% 2408 36.8% 1,048 16.0% not LIM NCTD
19905 2010 4256 1.00 795 18.7% 131 3.1% 11 0.3% 274 6.4% 10 0.2% 9 0.2% 133 3.1% 1363 32.0% 1,056 24.8% not LIM NCTD
20013 2010 12473 1.00 1730 13.9% 228 1.8% 20 0.2% 1351 10.8% 18 0.1% 37 0.3% 452 3.6% 3836 30.8% 1,005 8.1% not LIM NCTD
20014 2010 7006 1.00 636 9.1% 117 1.7% 20 0.3% 494 7.1% 19 0.3% 8 0.1% 195 2.8% 1489 21.3% 615 8.8% not LIM NCTD
20015 2010 3841 1.00 329 8.6% 27 0.7% 12 0.3% 221 5.8% 3 0.1% 12 0.3% 112 2.9% 716 18.6% 636 16.6% not LIM NCTD
20016 2010 9314 1.00 755 8.1% 38 0.4% 13 0.1% 601 6.5% 7 0.1% 15 0.2% 245 2.6% 1674 18.0% 951 10.2% not LIM NCTD
20017 2010 3282 1.00 1567 47.7% 100 3.0% 24 0.7% 190 5.8% 30 0.9% 18 0.5% 85 2.6% 2014 61.4% 915 27.9% not LIM NCTD
20018 2010 7708 1.00 5400 70.1% 141 1.8% 17 0.2% 282 3.7% 16 0.2% 16 0.2% 92 1.2% 5964 77.4% 2,119 27.5% LIM NCTD
20019 2010 6832 1.00 1806 26.4% 149 2.2% 11 0.2% 374 5.5% 8 0.1% 11 0.2% 161 2.4% 2520 36.9% 1,554 22.7% not LIM NCTD
20020 2010 7108 1.00 2056 28.9% 86 1.2% 12 0.2% 955 13.4% 36 0.5% 12 0.2% 290 4.1% 3447 48.5% 638 9.0% not LIM NCTD
20021 2010 6423 1.00 3916 61.0% 143 2.2% 14 0.2% 727 11.3% 25 0.4% 17 0.3% 179 2.8% 5021 78.2% 1,519 23.7% LIM NCTD
20022 2010 7773 1.00 2186 28.1% 227 2.9% 32 0.4% 1015 13.1% 30 0.4% 22 0.3% 213 2.7% 3725 47.9% 1,404 18.1% not LIM NCTD
20023 2010 3941 1.00 1501 38.1% 71 1.8% 9 0.2% 148 3.8% 27 0.7% 18 0.5% 75 1.9% 1849 46.9% 916 23.2% not LIM NCTD
20024 2010 4175 1.00 1519 36.4% 66 1.6% 15 0.4% 161 3.9% 30 0.7% 6 0.1% 65 1.6% 1862 44.6% 1,122 26.9% not LIM NCTD
20025 2010 4626 1.00 1442 31.2% 130 2.8% 29 0.6% 277 6.0% 13 0.3% 5 0.1% 147 3.2% 2043 44.2% 773 16.7% not LIM NCTD
20026 2010 4089 1.00 700 17.1% 44 1.1% 17 0.4% 258 6.3% 1 0.0% 10 0.2% 122 3.0% 1152 28.2% 910 22.3% not LIM NCTD
20027 2010 12627 1.00 1914 15.2% 295 2.3% 32 0.3% 1337 10.6% 47 0.4% 22 0.2% 590 4.7% 4237 33.6% 2,119 16.8% not LIM NCTD
20028 2010 3479 1.00 2866 82.4% 83 2.4% 7 0.2% 174 5.0% 7 0.2% 2 0.1% 27 0.8% 3166 91.0% 1,658 47.6% LIM NCTD
20029 2010 4819 1.00 3014 62.5% 67 1.4% 37 0.8% 219 4.5% 23 0.5% 19 0.4% 55 1.1% 3434 71.3% 2,190 45.4% LIM NCTD
20103 2010 10235 1.00 2405 23.5% 198 1.9% 34 0.3% 1094 10.7% 23 0.2% 30 0.3% 257 2.5% 4041 39.5% 917 9.0% not LIM NCTD
20105 2010 3801 1.00 1120 29.5% 118 3.1% 32 0.8% 170 4.5% 12 0.3% 1 0.0% 81 2.1% 1534 40.4% 869 22.9% not LIM NCTD
20106 2010 3803 1.00 1652 43.4% 42 1.1% 22 0.6% 285 7.5% 5 0.1% 4 0.1% 85 2.2% 2095 55.1% 702 18.5% not LIM NCTD
20107 2010 3837 1.00 1453 37.9% 68 1.8% 24 0.6% 252 6.6% 8 0.2% 8 0.2% 79 2.1% 1892 49.3% 425 11.1% not LIM NCTD
20108 2010 5813 1.00 4021 69.2% 159 2.7% 32 0.6% 305 5.2% 4 0.1% 1 0.0% 87 1.5% 4609 79.3% 1,344 23.1% LIM NCTD
20109 2010 5127 1.00 2929 57.1% 50 1.0% 18 0.4% 347 6.8% 15 0.3% 1 0.0% 78 1.5% 3438 67.1% 738 14.4% LIM NCTD
20202 2010 6689 1.00 5318 79.5% 178 2.7% 19 0.3% 167 2.5% 2 0.0% 5 0.1% 85 1.3% 5774 86.3% 3,075 46.0% LIM NCTD
20206 2010 5217 1.00 3997 76.6% 115 2.2% 9 0.2% 122 2.3% 7 0.1% 7 0.1% 58 1.1% 4315 82.7% 1,553 29.8% LIM NCTD
20207 2010 4765 1.00 3583 75.2% 88 1.8% 6 0.1% 136 2.9% 12 0.3% 4 0.1% 64 1.3% 3893 81.7% 1,735 36.4% LIM NCTD
20208 2010 2501 1.00 1560 62.4% 20 0.8% 9 0.4% 59 2.4% 14 0.6% 6 0.2% 33 1.3% 1701 68.0% 331 13.2% LIM NCTD
20209 2010 4748 1.00 2480 52.2% 179 3.8% 26 0.5% 302 6.4% 7 0.1% 1 0.0% 100 2.1% 3095 65.2% 2,269 47.8% LIM NCTD
20210 2010 4639 1.00 2175 46.9% 105 2.3% 19 0.4% 363 7.8% 18 0.4% 5 0.1% 96 2.1% 2781 59.9% 1,466 31.6% not LIM NCTD
20211 2010 6702 1.00 4124 61.5% 161 2.4% 35 0.5% 371 5.5% 23 0.3% 12 0.2% 151 2.3% 4877 72.8% 2,006 29.9% LIM NCTD
20213 2010 4028 1.00 3493 86.7% 43 1.1% 2 0.0% 69 1.7% 0 0.0% 6 0.1% 22 0.5% 3635 90.2% 1,990 49.4% LIM NCTD
20214 2010 5143 1.00 4025 78.3% 89 1.7% 27 0.5% 124 2.4% 10 0.2% 4 0.1% 47 0.9% 4326 84.1% 2,588 50.3% LIM NCTD
20304 2010 6061 1.00 1083 17.9% 67 1.1% 18 0.3% 385 6.4% 9 0.1% 9 0.1% 151 2.5% 1722 28.4% 1,247 20.6% not LIM NCTD
20305 2010 5984 1.00 1602 26.8% 161 2.7% 28 0.5% 461 7.7% 10 0.2% 13 0.2% 134 2.2% 2409 40.3% 995 16.6% not LIM NCTD
20306 2010 9746 1.00 1754 18.0% 259 2.7% 21 0.2% 1012 10.4% 28 0.3% 29 0.3% 331 3.4% 3434 35.2% 2,225 22.8% not LIM NCTD
20307 2010 7156 1.00 2025 28.3% 146 2.0% 32 0.4% 514 7.2% 10 0.1% 6 0.1% 185 2.6% 2918 40.8% 1,762 24.6% not LIM NCTD
20308 2010 5743 1.00 2036 35.5% 224 3.9% 14 0.2% 381 6.6% 17 0.3% 9 0.2% 164 2.9% 2845 49.5% 2,547 44.3% LIM NCTD
20309 2010 3945 1.00 1682 42.6% 55 1.4% 30 0.8% 445 11.3% 12 0.3% 7 0.2% 133 3.4% 2364 59.9% 765 19.4% not LIM NCTD
20401 2010 2369 1.00 177 7.5% 12 0.5% 5 0.2% 85 3.6% 0 0.0% 5 0.2% 34 1.4% 318 13.4% 117 4.9% not LIM NCTD
20403 2010 4107 1.00 1651 40.2% 56 1.4% 30 0.7% 284 6.9% 5 0.1% 3 0.1% 73 1.8% 2102 51.2% 875 21.3% not LIM NCTD
20404 2010 5070 1.00 1283 25.3% 136 2.7% 15 0.3% 507 10.0% 13 0.3% 11 0.2% 142 2.8% 2107 41.6% 921 18.2% not LIM NCTD
20405 2010 3412 1.00 370 10.8% 16 0.5% 4 0.1% 224 6.6% 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 79 2.3% 694 20.3% 512 15.0% not LIM NCTD
20500 2010 5196 1.00 3595 69.2% 48 0.9% 8 0.2% 162 3.1% 9 0.2% 8 0.2% 65 1.3% 3895 75.0% 2,005 38.6% LIM NCTD
20601 2010 5560 1.00 4202 75.6% 118 2.1% 28 0.5% 93 1.7% 26 0.5% 8 0.1% 58 1.0% 4533 81.5% 2,101 37.8% LIM NCTD
20602 2010 5859 1.00 2789 47.6% 153 2.6% 41 0.7% 171 2.9% 6 0.1% 2 0.0% 109 1.9% 3271 55.8% 1,384 23.6% LIM NCTD
20705 2010 4635 1.00 1540 33.2% 54 1.2% 15 0.3% 231 5.0% 7 0.2% 3 0.1% 88 1.9% 1938 41.8% 621 13.4% not LIM NCTD
D-10
Census
Tract
Year
Total
Population
LIM
Transit
Agency
# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %
20706 2010 6286 1.00 1140 18.1% 55 0.9% 26 0.4% 262 4.2% 11 0.2% 17 0.3% 132 2.1% 1643 26.1% 870 13.8% not LIM NCTD
20707 2010 4734 1.00 2537 53.6% 160 3.4% 21 0.4% 234 4.9% 13 0.3% 11 0.2% 127 2.7% 3103 65.5% 1,128 23.8% LIM NCTD
20708 2010 3437 1.00 708 20.6% 60 1.7% 6 0.2% 334 9.7% 6 0.2% 20 0.6% 104 3.0% 1238 36.0% 653 19.0% not LIM NCTD
20709 2010 8007 1.00 2074 25.9% 114 1.4% 15 0.2% 640 8.0% 16 0.2% 12 0.1% 154 1.9% 3025 37.8% 1,068 13.3% not LIM NCTD
20710 2010 1749 1.00 252 14.4% 18 1.0% 13 0.7% 129 7.4% 7 0.4% 9 0.5% 22 1.3% 450 25.7% 255 14.6% not LIM MTS
20801 2010 5230 1.00 697 13.3% 79 1.5% 24 0.5% 98 1.9% 5 0.1% 6 0.1% 80 1.5% 989 18.9% 591 11.3% not LIM NCTD
20805 2010 3501 1.00 1226 35.0% 31 0.9% 25 0.7% 55 1.6% 9 0.3% 1 0.0% 71 2.0% 1418 40.5% 447 12.8% LIM NCTD
20806 2010 5846 1.00 2239 38.3% 46 0.8% 53 0.9% 100 1.7% 12 0.2% 9 0.2% 139 2.4% 2598 44.4% 1,680 28.7% not LIM NCTD
20807 2010 2599 1.00 476 18.3% 7 0.3% 20 0.8% 23 0.9% 1 0.0% 1 0.0% 46 1.8% 574 22.1% 456 17.6% not LIM NCTD
20809 2010 6778 1.00 2302 34.0% 24 0.4% 48 0.7% 55 0.8% 32 0.5% 10 0.1% 107 1.6% 2578 38.0% 1,321 19.5% not LIM NCTD
20810 2010 5266 1.00 636 12.1% 36 0.7% 26 0.5% 62 1.2% 10 0.2% 8 0.2% 131 2.5% 909 17.3% 299 5.7% not LIM NCTD
20811 2010 5650 1.00 634 11.2% 49 0.9% 44 0.8% 83 1.5% 18 0.3% 7 0.1% 134 2.4% 969 17.2% 507 9.0% not LIM NCTD
20902 2010 2122 1.00 217 10.2% 32 1.5% 5 0.2% 24 1.1% 1 0.0% 7 0.3% 40 1.9% 326 15.4% 458 21.6% not LIM MTS
20903 2010 3192 1.00 467 14.6% 42 1.3% 498 15.6% 50 1.6% 2 0.1% 2 0.1% 77 2.4% 1138 35.7% 1,038 32.5% not LIM MTS
20904 2010 3075 1.00 381 12.4% 11 0.4% 38 1.2% 26 0.8% 2 0.1% 2 0.1% 49 1.6% 509 16.6% 850 27.6% not LIM MTS
21000 2010 4440 1.00 1528 34.4% 16 0.4% 39 0.9% 20 0.5% 2 0.0% 1 0.0% 31 0.7% 1637 36.9% 1,761 39.7% LIM MTS
21100 2010 8689 1.00 3072 35.4% 541 6.2% 126 1.5% 180 2.1% 32 0.4% 37 0.4% 250 2.9% 4238 48.8% 2,378 27.4% not LIM MTS
21202 2010 3156 1.00 553 17.5% 38 1.2% 288 9.1% 39 1.2% 15 0.5% 5 0.2% 73 2.3% 1011 32.0% 698 22.1% not LIM MTS
21204 2010 5239 1.00 592 11.3% 43 0.8% 44 0.8% 92 1.8% 12 0.2% 0 0.0% 92 1.8% 875 16.7% 613 11.7% not LIM MTS
21205 2010 6801 1.00 1205 17.7% 95 1.4% 96 1.4% 157 2.3% 20 0.3% 4 0.1% 172 2.5% 1749 25.7% 1,528 22.5% not LIM MTS
21206 2010 2995 1.00 418 14.0% 21 0.7% 45 1.5% 54 1.8% 4 0.1% 4 0.1% 54 1.8% 600 20.0% 478 16.0% not LIM MTS
21302 2010 6261 1.00 2141 34.2% 291 4.6% 215 3.4% 67 1.1% 7 0.1% 6 0.1% 41 0.7% 2768 44.2% 1,137 18.2% not LIM MTS
21303 2010 8981 1.00 2597 28.9% 211 2.3% 29 0.3% 1003 11.2% 11 0.1% 9 0.1% 253 2.8% 4113 45.8% 1,037 11.5% not LIM MTS
21304 2010 2616 1.00 654 25.0% 43 1.6% 7 0.3% 32 1.2% 3 0.1% 8 0.3% 58 2.2% 805 30.8% 173 6.6% not LIM MTS
21400 2010 7225 1.00 1221 16.9% 356 4.9% 29 0.4% 366 5.1% 33 0.5% 29 0.4% 275 3.8% 2309 32.0% 1,946 26.9% not LIM MTS
21500 2010 8850 1.00 761 8.6% 50 0.6% 7 0.1% 2054 23.2% 5 0.1% 18 0.2% 327 3.7% 3222 36.4% 789 8.9% not LIM MTS
21600 2010 3391 1.00 535 15.8% 160 4.7% 21 0.6% 92 2.7% 27 0.8% 5 0.1% 127 3.7% 967 28.5% 803 23.7% not LIM MTS
21800 2010 2022 1.00 151 7.5% 8 0.4% 8 0.4% 50 2.5% 6 0.3% 1 0.0% 35 1.7% 259 12.8% 297 14.7% not LIM MTS
21900 2010 6816 1.00 2507 36.8% 883 13.0% 57 0.8% 558 8.2% 36 0.5% 10 0.1% 215 3.2% 4266 62.6% 3,677 54.0% LIM MTS
22000 2010 4186 1.00 2186 52.2% 139 3.3% 9 0.2% 1381 33.0% 59 1.4% 3 0.1% 96 2.3% 3873 92.5% 1,735 41.4% LIM MTS
22100 2010 9082 1.00 1614 17.8% 204 2.2% 22 0.2% 867 9.5% 15 0.2% 17 0.2% 335 3.7% 3074 33.8% 2,060 22.7% not LIM NCTD
D-11

APPENDIX E
MTS/NCTD TITLE VI STUDIES
*REVISED PUBLIC HEARING
Att. E, AI 25, 3/12/09

E-1
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Title VI, Environmental Justice,
and Limited-English Proficiency Analysis of Proposed Service Changes

The San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) faces a budgetary funding deficit of $11 million
in FY2010. The causes are primarily low sales tax revenues and elimination of funding from the
State of California. The elimination of all State Transit Assistance funding by the State of
California and declines in sales tax revenue have resulted in a fiscal crisis by which MTS is
projected to have negative working capital by August 2009. MTS has issued a resolution
declaring a fiscal emergency. MTS proposes to bridge the gap between revenues and
expenditures through reducing labor costs, increasing non-subsidy revenues, and adjusting
services.

This Title VI analysis addresses the proposed FY 2010 service changes and will be presented to
the MTS Board of Directors on March 12, 2009.

1) What service and/or fare changes does MTS propose? Please describe the nature of
the change, the basis or rationale for the change, the modes of service impacted, and
the communities affected by the change.

There are two alternatives that the MTS Board of Directors might consider:

Alternative #1: Adjustments to MTS services for a total subsidy savings of $4.7 million.

Alternative #2: Adjustments to MTS services for a total subsidy savings of $10.85
million.

This Title VI analysis will analyze major adjustments to service for Alternative #1 based on
staffs recommendation. If Alternative #2 is chosen, staff will perform an additional Title VI
analysis for the Boards March 26, 2009, meeting.

Alternative #1 Detail

Route 14
Nature of Change:
Reconfigure this route so that it operates only between La Mesa and Grantville, and only
Monday-Friday. A separate shuttle would be operated for part of the route, seven days a
week, between Old Town Transit Center and Hotel Circle.
Basis for Change: Route 14 has a very high subsidy per passenger ($6.42), low passengers
per hour (12.5), and low farebox recovery (11.7%). (MTS system farebox recovery is currently
41%.) It is the lowest performing directly-operated MTS route. MTS is precluded by California
Assembly Bill 117 from contracting the route for a lower cost structure. However, even as a
contracted route, its productivity would likely be a basis for service reduction.
Mode of Service Impacted: Motorbus
Communities Affected: Mission Valley, Grantville, Allied Gardens, College Area, La
Mesa

Route 84
Nature of Change:
Eliminate service on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
Basis for Change: Overall, Route 84 has a relatively high subsidy per passenger ($2.53), but
on the weekend the subsidy per passenger is closer to $8. Therefore, weekend service
elimination is being proposed to address the funding shortfall.
E-1

E-2
Communities Affected: Point Loma, La Playa

Route 86
Nature of Change:
Discontinue service on this route.
Basis for Change: Overall, Route 86 has a high subsidy per passenger ($6.19), low
passengers per hour (6.8), and low farebox recovery (11.3%). Therefore, discontinuation of
this route is being proposed to address the funding shortfall.
Communities Affected: University City
Note: This service is planned to be replaced with Super Loop implementation.

Route 820
Nature of Change:
Cut one trip in the a.m. and one trip in the p.m.
Basis for Change: Route 820 is a Premium Express service that operates along the I-15
corridor. Service would be reduced by one round trip to help address the agencys budgetary
shortfall. However, the route would be re-scheduled in order to minimize the impact to riders.
Communities Affected: Sabre Springs, Poway

Route 832
Nature of Change:
Reduce frequency of service to 60 minutes on weekdays, and 90 minutes on weekends.
Basis for Change: This community circulator route has a high subsidy per passenger ($3.11)
and low farebox recovery (22.9%). Therefore, reduced frequency on this route is being
proposed to address the funding shortfall.
Communities Affected: Santee

Route 871/872
Nature of Change:
Reduce frequency of service to 60 minutes on weekdays, and discontinue weekend service.
Basis for Change: This community circulator route has a relatively high subsidy per passenger
($2.05) and low farebox recovery (33%), especially on the weekends. Therefore, reduced
frequency on this route and discontinuation of service on weekends is being proposed to
address the funding shortfall.
Communities Affected: El Cajon

Route 965
Nature of Change:
Eliminate the 965B loop, and retain the 965A loop. Discontinue all service after 7 pm.
Discontinue Sunday service.
Basis for Change: This community circulator route has a high subsidy per passenger ($7.61) in
during the times being proposed for change. Therefore, reduced frequency on this route is
being proposed to address the funding shortfall.
Communities Affected: City Heights, Azalea Park, Chollas Creek, Fairmount Park

E-2

E-3
2) What are the impacts of the service changes on minority and/or low-income
communities?

An analysis was completed to assess the potential impacts on low-income and minority
communities by comparing the percentage of census tracts considered low-income and
minority (2000 U.S. Census) through which the route will travel to the entire MTS service area
average. The results are shown in the figure below. A map is included as an attachment.
LIM TOTAL PCT LIM LIM TOTAL PCT LIM
Route 14 3 23 13% 41,797 105,247 40%
Route 84 0 5 0% 2,915 18,373 16%
Route 86 2 4 50% 8,744 17,770 49%
Route 820 0 8 0% 12,728 37,891 34%
Routes 871/872 4 10 40% 20,527 42,819 48%
Route 932 0 7 0% 6,074 28,495 21%
Route 965 12 12 100% 59,146 65,691 90%
TOTAL 21 69 30% 151,931 316,286 48%
TOTAL 21 62 34% 145,857 287,791 51%
SERVICE AREA (ENTIRE AREA) 205 452 45% 1,045,459 2,017,735 52%
SERVICE AREA (NEAR SERVICE) 203 409 50% 999,848 1,860,778 54%
LOW-INCOME AND/OR MINORITY (LIM) TOTAL
CENSUS TRACTS SERVED
LIM POPULATION IN CENSUS
TRACTS SERVED

Combined, the major changes do not show a disproportionate impact on low-income and
minority populations.

In census tracts served by those routes with major changes, 48 percent of the population is
low-income or minority. This compares to the MTS Service Area average of 52 percent. If
only census tracts currently served by transit are considered, the low-income and minority
population in the MTS Service Area is 54%.

Additionally, only 30 percent of the census tracts affected by these changes have a higher-
percentage of low-income and minority residents than the Service Area as a whole. This
compares to 45 percent of all census tracts in the Service Area.

On a route-specific level, only Route 965 shows a disproportionate impact to low-income and
minority residents. Ninety percent of residents in census tracts served by Route 965 are low-
income or minority, and all census tracts are identified as low-income or minority tracts. These
residents will be losing some frequency on weekdays and a discontinuation of service after
7pm and all day on Sunday. The majority of these residents, however, will still be well served
by Routes 7 and 13 both of which are very frequent services.

3) What are the transit alternatives available for riders who would be impacted by
proposed service changes?

For changes that relate to span or frequency of service, riders will have the option to take an
alternate trip. For the discontinued Route 86, a new shuttle service is proposed by the San
Diego Association of Governments to start in May, 2009, which will provide a better level of
service. For riders on Route 84 on the weekend, there are no other transit alternatives.

E-3

E-4
4) What, if any, measures would MTS take to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse
effects of the service and/or fare change on minority and low-income populations?
What, if any enhancements or offsetting benefits would MTS implement in conjunction
with the service and/or fare change?

MTS has sought to minimize the impact of service changes on minority and low-income
populations. Wherever possible, MTS sought changes that would continue to provide the
public with other alternative modes of transport. Minor changes spread throughout the
agencys service area were emphasized in the strategy for dealing with the fiscal crisis.

5) Would the proposed service and/or fare change have a disproportionately high and
adverse effect on minority and low-income populations?
No.

6) What steps does MTS plan to take to seek out and consider the viewpoints of minority
and low-income populations in the course of conducting public outreach and
involvement activities?

MTS has printed and distributed 90,000 Rider Alert flyers that are posted on all MTS bus and
trolley vehicles. Additionally, a Notice of Public Hearing was posted in the San Diego Daily
Transcript, a newspaper of general circulation in the MTS area. These materials were
published in English and Spanish.

MTS will receive feedback and input in five ways for the Public Hearing regarding these
proposals: 1) The Public Hearing will be held during a regularly noticed public meeting, with a
pre-published agenda. The MTS Board of Directors will listen to public comments during the
hearing. Recognizing that the Public Hearing will be held on a weekday and many interested
parties, especially working low-income populations, are unable to attend, MTS will also accept
public testimony via: 2) telephone hotline; 3) email; 4) U.S. Mail; 5) on-line survey. Comments
received via the last four methods are transcribed and provided to the Board of Directors for
their consideration at the public hearing.

MTS held 10 publicly-noticed Outreach Events at transit facilities throughout its service area to
explain the proposed service adjustments and gain public comment. These events were
heavily publicized, and held during the day and evening, weekdays, Saturday and Sunday.
Spanish speakers were available to assist in communication, and bi-lingual handouts were
passed to customers. A special website was set up to communicate the proposed changes,
and was available in both English and Spanish.

7) Does MTS believe that it is necessary to disseminate information on the service
changes/fare increases that is accessible to limited English-proficient persons? If so,
what steps to provide information in languages other than English does MTS propose?

Due to the high percentage of Spanish-speaking persons that use MTS services, MTS finds it
necessary to publish all public materials in English and Spanish. All public information
materials related to these proposals will be published and provided in both English and
Spanish. The information will also be on the MTS Web site (www.sdmts.com) in English and
Spanish.

Title VI Self-Analysis template from: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Newequityquestions.doc
(Recommended Title VI, Env. Justice, and LEP Analysis of Proposed Service and Fare Changes)

MAR12-09.25.AttE.PUB HRG SVCC.COONEY.doc
E-4

E-5

E-5

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
Title VI, Environmental Justice, and Limited English Proficiency
Analysis of Proposed Changes to Premium Express Route 880

In March 2009 the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) began a new Premium Express
route serving the 4S Ranch, Rancho Bernardo, Mira Mesa, Sorrento Valley, and University Towne
Center (UTC) areas. Funding for the route was provided by mitigation funding from the
developers of 4S Ranch (4S Kelwood), and the funding is required to be spent on transit
improvements for 4S Ranch residents.

At that time, using surveys and demand analysis, MTS determined the most cost-effective use of
the funds, for both 4S Ranch residents and residents of the greater San Diego area, was to
establish the aforementioned express route. However, use of the route has been poor (fewer than
six passengers per trip) and staff proposes to alter the routing. The current Route 880 operates
three AM peak trips from 4S Ranch and three PM peak trips to 4S Ranch. The adjusted route
would operate two round trips daily and serve Downtown San Diego, a market that surveys
indicated would be of equal interest as a destination for 4 S Ranch residents. The 4 S Ranch
community currently does not have access to the Downtown San Diego area via transit. This
change would affect more than 25 percent of the routes miles.

This Title VI analysis addresses the proposed new route, which will be presented to the MTS
Board of Directors on December 10, 2009. The route will be considered a pilot project, and is
subject to service reductions or discontinuation if it is under-utilized or over budget.

1) What service and/or fare changes does MTS propose? Please describe the nature of the
change, the bases or rationale for the change, the modes of service impacted, and the
communities affected by the change.

MTS proposes adjusting Route 880 to provide express service between 4S Ranch and
downtown San Diego.

Nature of Change: It is proposed that Route 880 be adjusted to serve downtown San Diego.
This change would discontinue this Routes service to Mira Mesa, Sorrento Valley and
University Towne Center (UTC) areas.One round trip will also be discontinued.

Basis for Change: The developers of 4S Ranch provided developer mitigation funding to be
used for 4S Ranch transit purposes. After surveying the community, and assessing regional
travel patterns, an express route to Sorrento Valley and UTC was determined to be the best
use of the funds. However, operation of this pilot has demonstrated poor demand for the
current routing. Since the surveys showed equal interest in the 4S community for the
downtown destination, MTS is proposing to reroute the service to try to develop greater route
productivity.


Communities Affected: 4S Ranch, Rancho Bernardo, Mira Mesa, Sorrento Valley, University
Towne Center (UTC), Downtown San Diego.

2) What are the impacts of the service changes on minority and/or low income
communities?

Route changes. An analysis was completed to assess the potential impacts on low-income
and minority communities by comparing the percentage of census tracts considered low-
E-6

income and minority (2000 U.S. Census) through which the route will travel to the entire MTS
service area average. The results are shown in the figure below. A map is included as an
attachment.

LOW-INCOME AND/OR MINORITY (LIM) TOTAL
TRACTS SERVED
Route 880 2 6 33% 9,646 25,568 38%

MTS SERVICE AREA 205 452 45% 1,045,459 2,017,735 52%

3) What are the transit alternatives available for riders who would be impacted by
proposed service changes?

Funding for this route may only be used to fund transit services for residents of 4S Ranch
pursuant to the development permit. Under the proposed change, the 4S Ranch community
could use the re-designed Route 880 to access the Rancho Bernardo Transit Station, transfer
to Route 20 there, and then transfer to Route 921 in Mira Mesa. The community of Mira Mesa
will continue to have better service to Sorrento Valley and UTC via the existing Route 921,
which operates every 30 minutes from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

4) What, if any measures would MTS take to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse
effects of the service and/or fare change on minority and low-income populations?
What, if any enhancements or offsetting benefits would MTS implement in conjunction
with the service and/or fare change?

The route will benefit low-income and minority populations. There should be minimal noise
impacts to residential areas, as the route will operate along already well-traveled corridors.
The greatest impact of the change will be felt by those 4 S Ranch residents who currently use
the service to gain access to Sorrento Valley and UTC. However, 4 S Ranch is not a LIM
community.
5) Would the proposed service and/or fare change have a disproportionately high and
adverse effect on minority and low-income populations?
While a straight analysis of the census tracts through which Route 880 runs would show a
disproportionately high impact overall, this would be misleading. The community of Mira
Mesa, which does have an 880 stop and which would not be served by Route 880 if the
proposed changes to the Route are implemented, is disproportionately LIM, but this
community will have the alternative of Route 921 to gain access to Sorrento Valley and UTC
communities served by the current Route 880 routing. In addition, Route 921 is a lower cost
alternative to the current Route 880, which is a Premium Express service (with a fare more
than double that of Route 921).

6) What steps does MTS plan to take to seek out and consider the viewpoints of minority
and low-income populations in the course of conducting public outreach and
involvement activities?

Figure 1:
E-7

MTS will print and distribute Take One flyers that will be posted on all MTS bus and trolley
vehicles. These flyers will be printed in both English and Spanish. A public hearing will be
held on December 10. Eighteen outreach events, including one at the Rancho Bernardo
Transit Station, which is currently served by Route 880, will be held.

7) Does MTS believe that it is necessary to disseminate information on the service
changes/fare increases that is accessible to Limited English Proficient persons? If so,
what steps to provide information in languages other than English does MTS propose?

Due to the high percentage of Spanish-speaking persons that use MTS services, MTS finds it
necessary to publish all public materials in English and Spanish. All public information
materials related to these proposals have been published and provided in both English and
Spanish (see Take One below). The information is also on the MTS website, www.sdmts.com,
in English and Spanish.
Title VI Self-Analysis template from: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Newequityquestions.doc
(Recommended Title VI, Env. Justice, and LEP Analysis of Proposed Service and Fare Changes)
E-8

A
t
t
.

E
,

A
I

2
5
,

1
2
/
1
0
/
0
9

E
-
4

E-9
?
?
A
?p
?
A
!"_$
A
?
!
" ^
%&s(
Ag
!"a$
!"_$
!"^$
A
%&s(
!"^$
Navajo
Harbor
Peninsula
Clairemont Mesa
Uptown
Tierrasanta
Mission Bay Park
Linda Vista
Kearny Mesa
Mission Valley
La J olla
Skyline-Paradise Hills
Pacific Beach
Serra Mesa
College Area
Mid-City:City Heights
Centre City
Balboa Park
Lindbergh Field
Mid-City:Eastern Area
Greater North Park
Southeastern:Encanto Neighborhoods
Southeastern:Southeastern San Diego
Ocean Beach
Barrio Logan
Mid-City:Kensington-Talmadge
Greater Golden Hill
Midway-Pacific Highway
Mid-City:Normal Heights
32nd Street Naval Station
Old San Diego
Mission Beach
LEGEND
Percentage of Population
Either Low-Income or Minority
Proposed Express Route
<25%
25% - 51.8%
51.8% - 75%
>75%
Sources: SANDAG,
U.S. Census (2000)
0 1 2
Miles
Non-LIM
Tracts
LIM
Tracts
TITLE VI ANALYSIS -
Route 830 (proposed route)
Tierrasanta vicinity 1 1 100% 5,762 10,101 57%
Naval Base vicini ty 1 2 50% 6,834 11,506 59%
Murph Express Total 2 3 67% 12,596 21,607 58%
MTS SERVICE AREA 205 452 45% 1,045,459 2,017,735 52%
TRACTS SERVED
E-10
E-11
E-12
E-13
E-14
DraftTransmittalLettertoFTA
Date
Mr.DerrinJourdan
CivilRightsOfficer
FederalTransitAdministration,RegionIX
201MissionStreet,Suite2210
SanFrancisco,CA94105
DearMr.Jourdan:
Subject:NCTDTitleVIMajorServiceChangeReport
EnclosedistheNorthCountyTransitDistrict(NCTD)TitleVIMajorServiceChangeReportdevelopedin
accordancewiththeFederalTitleVICircularC4702.1AdatedMay13,2007.Thereportcoversthemajor
changestotheexistingfixedroutebusandthenewflexibleservicesproposedforFY2012.Italsocovers
thechangestothefaresystemtoincorporatetheproposedflexibleservices.Twocopiesofthereport
areenclosedforyouruse.ThisTitleVIreportwaspreparedforNCTDbyitsTransitPlanningoncall
consultant.
Shouldyouhaveanyquestionsregardingthisreportorneedanyadditionalinformation,pleasecontact
TomLichterman,ChiefofBusOperations,Planning,andSafetyat(760)9672855.
Sincerely,
MatthewTucker
ExecutiveDirector
NCTD
cc:GaryGallegos
ExecutiveDirector,SanDiegoAssociationofGovernments
Enclosure:TitleVIEvaluationofProposedMobilityPlanServiceChanges(2)
E-15
i
TableofContents
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................1
CHAPTERIVGENERALREQUIREMENTSANDGUIDELINES......................................................................2
LIMITEDENGLISHPROFICIENCY...................................................................................................2
CHAPTERVPROGRAMSPECIFICREQUIREMENTSANDGUIDELINESFORRECIPIENTSSERVINGLARGE
URBANIZEDAREAS......................................................................................................................3
(1) ASSESSTHEEFFECTSOFTHEPROPOSEDSERVICECHANGEONMINORITYANDLOW
INCOMEPOPULATIONSTHROUGHTHEANALYSISOFROUTECHANGESANDSPANOF
SERVICECHANGES..............................................................................................................3
(2) ASSESSTHEALTERNATIVESAVAILABLEFORPEOPLEAFFECTEDBYTHEMAJORSERVICE
CHANGE...........................................................................................................................18
(3)DESCRIBETHEACTIONSTHEAGENCYPROPOSESTOMINIMIZE,MITIGATE,OROFFSETANY
ADVERSEEFFECTSOFPROPOSEDSERVICECHANGESONMINORITYANDLOWINCOME
POPULATIONS..................................................................................................................35
(4) DETERMINEWHICH,IFANYOFTHEPROPOSALSUNDERCONSIDERATIONWOULDHAVEA
DISPROPORTIONATELYHIGHANDADVERSEEFFECTONMINORITYANDLOWINCOME
RIDERS.............................................................................................................................35
E-16
ii
ListofFigures
Figure1ProposedMobilityPlanServiceChanges.......................................................................................7
Figure2SegmentsofExistingRouteNetworkUnservedUnderProposedServiceChanges(Flexible
ServiceAreasIncluded).................................................................................................................................8
Figure3ExistingRouteNetworkwithTravelTimes/FaresAnalysisLocations..........................................19
Figure4ProposedRouteNetworkandTravelTimes/FaresAnalysisLocations........................................20
ListofTables
Table1ProposedMobilityPlanChangesSummarybyRoute.....................................................................5
Table2ProposedMobilityPlanChangesSummarybyChangeType..........................................................9
Table3ReplacementServicesforDiscontinuedRoutes..............................................................................9
Table4NumberofCensusTractswithServiceChangeImpacts...............................................................10
Table5PopulationCharacteristicsofAffectedCensusTracts...................................................................10
Table6LIMRiderAnalysisforRoutewithChanges...................................................................................12
Table7ComparisonofExistingandProposedAnnualRevenueHoursofRouteswithFrequencyChanges
byLIMRouteType.......................................................................................................................................15
Table8ComparisonofExistingandProposedOperatingHoursofRouteswithServiceSpanChangesby
LIMRouteType...........................................................................................................................................17
Table9LIMandNonLIMTractsUsedinAnalysis......................................................................................18
Table10PeakLIMTravelTimes(minutes).................................................................................................23
Table11PeakNonLIMTravelTimes(minutes).........................................................................................24
Table12OffPeakLIMTravelTimes(minutes)..........................................................................................25
Table13OffPeakNonLIMTravelTimes(minutes)..................................................................................26
Table14PeakLIMNumberofTransfers....................................................................................................27
Table15PeakNonLIMNumberofTransfers............................................................................................28
Table16OffPeakLIMNumberofTransfers..............................................................................................29
Table17OffPeakNonLIMNumberofTransfers......................................................................................30
Table18PeakLIMFares($)........................................................................................................................31
Table19PeakNonLIMFares($)................................................................................................................32
Table20OffPeakLIMFares($).................................................................................................................33
Table21OffPeakNonLIMFares($).........................................................................................................34
E-17
NCTDTitleVIAnalysisof
MobilityPlanServiceChanges
1
INTRODUCTION
ThisTitleVIreportwaspreparedinMarch2011todocumenttheanalysisoftheproposedserviceand
farechangesscheduledtobeginbeingphasedinthroughouttheNorthCountyTransitDistrict(NCTD)
areaofSanDiegoCountyinAugust2011,andcompletedbyAugust2012(referredtohereafterasthe
MobilityPlanchanges).Thesechangesrequireanexaminationinadvanceoftheupcomingpublic
hearingtodeterminewhethertheywillhaveaTitleVIimpact.Thisassessmenthasbeenmadein
accordancewiththeFederalTitleVIguidanceissuedbytheFederalTransitAdministration(FTA)withthe
releaseofCircularC4702.1AdatedMay13,2007.
Whencompletelyimplemented,theanticipatedservicechangeswillinclude:
Discontinuecertainroutes
Restructureportionsofexistingroutestoimproveoperations/efficiency
Increaseweekdayfrequencyorspansofservice
Decreaseweekdayfrequencyorspansofservice
Introduceweekendserviceorchangestoweekendfrequencyorspanofservice
Createnewroutesandflexibleservicestoreplacediscontinuedroutesandconnectdestinations
BACKGROUND
TitleVIoftheCivilRightsActof1964(42U.S.C.2000d)providesthat:NopersonintheUnitedStates
shall,onthegroundsofrace,color,ornationalorigin,beexcludedfromparticipationin,bedeniedthe
benefitsof,orbesubjectedtodiscriminationunderanyprogramoractivityreceivingFederalfinancial
assistance.ThescopeofTitleVIwasexpandedbytheCivilRightsRestorationActof1987(P.L.100209)
toincludeallofarecipientsandcontractorsprogramsoractivitieswhetherfederallyassistedornot.
TheFebruary11,1994,ExecutiveOrder12898onEnvironmentJusticeaddedlowincometominority
andrequiresthatdisproportionatelyhighandadverseimpactsbeidentifiedandaddressed.
Environmentaljusticeappliestoallprograms,policies,andactivitiesofthetransportationprogramand
isconsistentwithTitleVIoftheCivilRightsActof1964.ExecutiveOrder12898alsorequirespublic
involvementandmandatesthattransportationagenciesensurethereisnoexclusionfromparticipation,
nodenialofbenefits,andnodiscriminationintheserviceswhichtheyprovide.
FTArequiresalltransitoperatorswhoreceivefederalfundstoconductassessmentsofTitleVIto
demonstratenondiscriminationofservicesandfacilitiesforminoritycommunities.InSanDiegoCounty,
thisresponsibilityhasbeensharedbySANDAGandthetwotransitagencies:theMetropolitanTransit
System(MTS),formerlyMetropolitanTransitDevelopmentBoard(MTDB),andNCTD.
ThisTitleVIReportwaspreparedforNCTDbyIBIGroupundertheTransitPlanningServicescontract.
ThesectionnumberingiscongruentwiththesectionsregardingmajorservicechangesinChapterV,
Section4ofthefinalFederalTitleVICircularC4702.1A.
E-18
2
CHAPTERIVGENERALREQUIREMENTSANDGUIDELINES
LIMITEDENGLISHPROFICIENCY
FTATitleVICircular4702.1AintroducestherequirementtoprovidemeaningfulaccesstoLimited
EnglishProficient(LEP)persons(ChapterIV,Part4)tocomplywithExecutiveOrder13166,Improving
AccesstoServicesforPersonswithLimitedEnglishProficiency.TheExecutiveOrderrequiresFederal
agenciestoexaminetheservicestheyprovide,identifyanyneedforservicestothosewithlimited
Englishproficiency(LEP),anddevelopandimplementasystemtoprovidethoseservicessothatLEP
personscanhavemeaningfulaccesstothem.Tofulfillthisrequirement,FTArecipientsmusttake
responsiblestepstoensuremeaningfulaccesstothebenefits,services,information,andother
importantportionsoftheirprogramsandactivitiesforindividualswhoareLEP.
NCTDpublishesandpresentspublicinformationdocumentsinbothEnglishandSpanish.Information
andwarningsignspostedatBREEZEbusstops,andCOASTERandSPRINTERstationsarepresentedin
EnglishandSpanish.ThetelephoneinformationdepartmentprovidesinformationonallNCTDtransit
servicesandisstaffedbyindividualsspeakingEnglish,Spanish,Vietnamese,Chinese,andFilipino
languages.
Inaddition,NCTDstaffincludesbilingualcoachoperatorsandcustomerservicerepresentativesto
communicateproposedservicechangesandfareincreases.Alltransitservicechanges,includingthe
MobilityPlanservicechanges,havebeenissuedbyNCTDintheformofRiderAlerts,publishedinboth
EnglishandSpanishontheNCTDwebsite(www.gonctd.com),aswellasonallbuses,trains,SPRINTER
vehicles,andtransitcenters.AsastandardNCTDpolicy,bilingualstaffmembersalsoareavailableat
transitcentersandarepresentatpublicworkshopstoensurethatLEPpersonsarewellinformed.
SpecificallywithregardtotheMobilityPlan,NCTDinitiatedamajorCommunityOutreachprogramto
informresidentsandpatronsthroughoutnorthcountyoftheproposedservicechanges.A90page
GuidetoProposedMobilityPlanChangeswasprintedinEnglishandSpanishandmadeavailableat
multiplelocationsandonBREEZEfixedroutebuses.TheGuideincludesinformationonhowtoobtain
informationforthosewithlimitedEnglishproficiency,inlanguagesotherthanSpanish.NCTDstaffalso
conductedoutreachsessionsandopenhousesatnumerouslocationsthroughouttheserviceareain
FebruaryandMarch,2011,aswellasatmajorTransitCenters.
InadditiontoprintingtheguideinEnglishandSpanish,page3oftheguidefeaturedanofferin
Vietnamese,ChineseandFilipinotomaketheguideavailableinthoselanguages.
E-19
3
CHAPTERVPROGRAMSPECIFICREQUIREMENTSANDGUIDELINESFORRECIPIENTSSERVING
LARGEURBANIZEDAREAS
NCTDhasproposedasetofservicechangesinanefforttobecometheareastransportationbroker.
Thisapproachrequiresanexpansionoftheservicesanddeliveryoptionsconsideredtofullyincorporate
allappropriatetechnologiesandserviceprovisionmodels.Theproposedservicechangesidentify
opportunitiestorestructuretoincreaseefficiency,focusincreasedserviceonthemostproductive
routes,andintroduceflexibledemandresponsiveservicedelivery,amongothermeasures.
Anevaluationoftheproposedservicechangeswasconductedtoassessthepotentialfor
disproportionateimpactstorelevantpopulationsasaresultoftheproposedrouteeliminationsand/or
alignmentchanges,increasesinweekendservice,andthecreationofflexibleserviceareas.
Inaddition,anassessmentofthealternativesavailableforthoseaffectedbytheservicechangeswas
alsoconductedthroughananalysisoftraveltimes,transfers,andfarestomajordestinationsinthe
region.Theresultsofthisanalysisarepresentedinthisdocument.
(1)ASSESSTHEEFFECTSOFTHEPROPOSEDSERVICECHANGEONMINORITYANDLOWINCOME
POPULATIONSTHROUGHTHEANALYSISOFROUTECHANGESANDSPANOFSERVICECHANGES
ThereleaseofExecutiveOrder12898inFebruaryof1994enhancedtheTitleVIresponsibilitiesof
Federalagenciesbymandatingtheinclusionofminoritypopulationsandlowincomepopulations
(LIM)intheanalysisofenvironmentaljustice.Tocomplywiththisorder,anassessmentoftheproposed
MobilityPlanservicechangeswasconductedtodeterminethepotentialTitleVIimpactstoLIMsinthe
region.ALIMCensusTractisdefinedasanyCensusTractwherethepercentageoftheLIMpopulationis
greaterthantheLIMpercentagefortheserviceareaasawhole.Basedondatafromthe2000United
StatesCensus,SANDAGhasdeterminedtheLIMaveragefortheNCTDserviceareais40percent.
(a)RouteChanges
FixedRouteAlignmentChanges
NCTDisproposingtorefineitsfixedrouteoperationsinanefforttoincreaseefficienciesanddirectmore
ofitsresourcestobetterperformingroutes.Toaccomplishthisgoal,severalexistingfixedroute
servicesaretobealteredsignificantly.Generally,theroutechangesinvolvereroutingandreplacing
existingfixedrouteserviceswithnewroutesornewalternativeservicetypes,althoughtherewillbea
limitednumberofsegmentswheretherewillbenoservice.Thespecificfixedroutechangesare
reportedinTable1,andcanbeseeninFigures1and2.
Thesechanges,togetherwiththeaccompanyingspanofservicechanges,wereplottedonaGISbased
maptohighlightthosecensustractswherethetotalLIMpopulationisgreaterthanthe40percent
serviceareaaverage(seeFigure1).Inaddition,ananalysisoftheeffectonLIMandnonLIMcensus
tractswasundertakenbyservicechangetype.Theresultsarepresentedbelow.
E-20
4
FlexibleServiceAreas
InanefforttocontinuetoprovideserviceforresidentsandemployeesinareaswheretheMobilityPlan
changeswouldresultinalossoffixedroutetransitservice,anewserviceconcepthasbeendeveloped.
CalledFlexibleServiceAreas,theywillfunctionasahybridbetweenfixedrouteserviceandADAstyle,
demandresponseservices.CustomerswithintheFlexibleServiceareaswouldprebooktripsfroma
centraldispatcher,andwouldbeabletoaccessregionaldestinationsandNCTDfixedrouteservicesafter
usingtheservicetotraveltoafixedrouteaccesspointsuchasaTransitCenter,busstop,orrailstation.
TheservicewouldhaveafarestructureseparatefromNCTDBREEZE,butwouldbeincludedinthe
RegionPlusDayPass.Figure2showsthefiveproposedFlexibleServiceAreas.
AmorecompletediscussionoftheservicesfarestructureanditsimpactonLIMpopulationsis
presentedintheFaressectionofthisdocument.
E-21
5
Table1ProposedMobilityPlanChangesSummarybyRoute
Route ExistingRouteDescription SpecificNatureofProposedChange
101 OceansidetoUTCviaHighway101 TruncateserviceatVAMedicalCenter
302 OceansidetoVistaviaMissionAvenue
ReroutebusatPlazaCaminoRealforfastertraveltime.Morefrequentservice
runningevery15minutespeakandevery20minutesoffpeakonweekdays.
303 OceansidetoVistaviaMissionAvenue
Morefrequentservicerunningat20minuteheadwaysonweekends.Routewill
servicethenewSanLuisReyTransitCenterstartingJune2012.
304/304 EncinitastoSanMarcosviaRanchoSanteFeRd. Reroute304/404toimprovecirculationinEncinitas.NewserviceonSaturday.
305 EscondidotoVistaviaMissionRd.&S.SanteFe. Nochange.
306 FallbrooktoVistaviaMissionRoad
ExtendrouteinFallbrook.Morefrequentservicerunningevery30minutesin
theafternoonpeakweekdays.
308 SolanaBeachtoEscondidoviaDelDiosHwy Lessfrequentweekdayservicerunningevery60minutesallday.
309 EastOceansidetoEncinitasviaElCaminoReal
New,moredirectroutingtoTowneCenterNorthandnewroutingatPlaza
CaminoRealforfastertraveltime.
311 EastOceansidetoRanchoDelOroSPRINTERstation
NewweekdaypeakrouteservingDouglasRoad,RanchoDelOro,OceanRanch
BusinessPark,MLKMiddleSchool,andElCaminoHighSchool.
313 OceansidetoTowneCenterNorthviaMesaDr. RoutediscontinuedandreplacedbysectionsofRoutes309,311and315.
315 CollegeBoulevardSPRINTERStationtoCampPendleton
RouteextendedtoCollegeBoulevardSPRINTERStation.Morefrequentservice
running30minutesonweekdays.
316 OceanRanchShuttle
NewonebusshuttlerunningashortroutethroughOceanRanchBusinessPark
meetingtrainsfrom6amto6pmweekdays.
317 Vandegrift&GoldtoRanchoDelOroStation RoutediscontinuedandreplacedbyRoutes311and315.
318 OceansidetoVistaviaOceansideBlvd
RouteextendedtoBobierandEastVistaWay,coveringthenorthernhalfof
existingRoute334/335.
319
ElCorozonSeniorCenterRanchoDelOroSPRINTERStationMira
CostaCollege
Routediscontinued.ServicetoMiraCostaCollegetobeprovidedbyRoutes302
and325.
320X OceansidetoPlazaCaminoRealExpress
NewweekendonlyrouteprovidingexpressservicebetweenPlazaCaminoReal
andOceansideTransitCenter.
321 CarlsbadVillagetoCollegeBoulevardSPRINTERStation
Routediscontinued.Servicetothewesternhalfofthe routeprovidedonroutes
444/445/446,andSouthwestCarlsbadflexibleservice.Servicetoportionsofthe
easternhalfoftherouteprovidedonroutes304and347.
325 CarlsbadVillagetoCollegeBoulevardSPRINTERStation
Routesignificantlychanged.NewsegmentsanddestinationsincludeMiraCosta
College,andVistaWaybetweenRanchoDelOroandJefferson.Eliminated
segmentsreplacedbyRoutes315andQuarryCreekflexibleservice.
331 BuenaCreekStationtoUniversityDrive
Routediscontinued.Serviceonroute332alteredtoserveformerroute331
destinations.
E-22
6
Route ExistingRouteDescription SpecificNatureofProposedChange
332 VistatoBuenaCreekSPRINTERStationviaBusinessParkMelrose
RouteextendedonsouthendtoserveBuenaCreekSPRINTERStation,providing
moredirectservicetoVistaBusinessParkfromEscondido.Serviceon
Shadowridgediscontinued.
333 TowneCenterNorthtoVistaviaOldGroveRdandOceansideBlvd RoutediscontinuedandreplacedinsectionsbyRoutes309,318,332,and334.
334/335 VistaCirculator
Routeshortenedtooperatealoopservingportionsoftheformer334/335.
Otherportionsreplacedwithserviceon305,306,and318.
340 CalStateSanMarcosShuttle
Thisroutediscontinued.ServicetoCSUSMincorporatedintoRoute347,linking
theCSUSMSPRINTERStationtoCravenCircleevery30minutesonweekdays.
NewserviceonSaturday.
347 CalStateSanMarcostoPalomarCollegeviaCreekside
Currentroutesplitinhalf,withRoute347continuingtoservebetweenCSUSM
andPalomarCollege,andnewRoute353replacingroute347betweenNordahl
MarketplaceandEscondido.
350 EscondidotoDelLagoParkandRideviaNorthCountyMall
NewfasterBREEZERapidservice,withshortertriptimesandimprovedbus
stopsandcustomerinformation.Morefrequentserviceonweekendevenings.
351/352 EscondidoCirculator
RouteshortenedtoMidwayDrive,withnewRoute355/357replacingserviceon
ElNorteandValley.Morefrequentservicerunningevery15minutesinthe
peak,every20minutesinthemidday,andevery30minutesontheweekend.
353 NordahlMarketplacetoPalomarHospital
NewroutewhichreplacesRoute347eastofNordahlMarketplaceandalso
connectsthecurrentandnewPalomarPomeradoMedicalcentercampuses.
354 OrangeGlenHSviaMissionLincolnMidway Nochanges.
355/357 ElNorteParkwayValleyParkway
NewrouteprovidingserviceonElNorteParkwayeastofBroadway,and
replacingRoutes358/359onBroadwayandRoute386onValleyParkway.
356 MorningviewDriveEscondidoBlvd Nochanges.
358/359 NorthBroadwayCountryClubElNorte
RoutediscontinuedwithservicereplacedbynewRoute355/357andnew
EscondidoSanMarcosFlexibleservice.
386 EscondidotoRamonaviaSafariPark
RoutediscontinuedwithserviceonValleyParkwayreplacedbynewroute
355/357andRamonaandSafariParkservicereplacedbyRamonaFlexible
Service.
388/389 EscondidotoPalaRinconValleyCenter Nochanges.
395 OceansidetoSanClementeviaCampPendleton Nochanges.
444 PalomarAirportRoadCOASTERShuttle
Routerestructured,inconjunctionwith445andnew446,toprovidefaster,
moredirectservicebetweenPoinsettiaStationandCarlsbademployment
centers.
445 CollegeBlvdandFarradayAveCOASTERShuttle
Routerestructured,inconjunctionwith444andnew446,toprovidefaster,
moredirectservicebetweenPoinsettiaStationandCarlsbademployment
centers.
446 PaseoDelNorteLegolandCOASTERShuttle
Newroute,designedtoprovidefaster,moredirectservicebetweenPoinsettia
StationandCarlsbademploymentcenters.
E-23
7
Figure1ProposedMobilityPlanServiceChanges
E-24
8
Figure2SegmentsofExistingRouteNetworkUnservedUnderProposedServiceChanges(FlexibleServiceAreasIncluded)
E-25
9
LIMPopulationSpatialAnalysisfromCensusData
AsseeninFigure1,theNCTDserviceareaconsistsof153Censustracts.Tofurtherexaminetheeffects
oftheproposedservicechanges,aGISanalysiswasconductedtoidentifytheextentofthechangeson
boththeLIMandnonLIMcensustracts.TheresultsoftheanalysisarereportedinTables2and3.
Table2ProposedMobilityPlanChangesSummarybyChangeType
TypeofChange Routes(LIMRoutesinBold)
1
Discontinueallservice 313,317,319,321,331,333,340,358/359,386
Restructureoreliminateportionsofexistingroutesto
improveoperations/efficiency
101,302,304/404,306,309,315,318,325,332,
334/335,347,351/352,444,445
Increaseservicefrequency
302,303,304/404,306,309,315,325,334/335, 347,
350,351/352
Reduceservicefrequency 308
Increasespanofservice 304/404,334/335,347,351/352
Decreasespanofservice 334/335 (effectiveAugust2012)
Createnewroutestoreplacediscontinuedroutesand
connectdestinations
311,316,320X,353,355/357,446,5flexzones
Table3ReplacementServicesforDiscontinuedRoutes
DiscontinuedRoute LIM/NonLIM ReplacementService(s)
313 LIM 303,309,311
317 LIM 309,311,315
319 LIM 325
321 NonLIM 309,444,445,446,
SouthwestCarlsbadFlex
(noreplacementservicebetweenMelroseDr.
andRanchoSantaFeRd.)
331 NonLIM 332
333 LIM 303,309,311,315,318
340 NonLIM 347
358/359 NonLIM 355/357,
EscondidoSanMarcosFlex
386 NonLIM RamonaFlex
Table4highlightsthewayinwhichthepopulationofthesetractswillbeaffectedbytheproposed
MobilityPlanchanges.RouteeliminationsaffectmoreLIMtractsthannonLIM(38of66LIM,58
percent,comparedto31of87nonLIMtracts,36percent).However,LIMtractsaremorethantwiceas
likelytohavenewroutesimplementedinthem(23of66tracts,35percent,comparedto15of87non
LIMtracts,17percent).
Further,LIMtractresidentsaremorelikelytoexperienceroutealignmentchanges,withover80percent
oftheLIMtractsintheNCTDserviceareahavingarealignmentwithintheirboundaries,(53of66),while
only63percentofnonLIMtractswouldseearealignment.
1
LIMRoutesaredefinedasrouteswithahigherproportionofLIMridersthantheBREEZEsystemaverageof83.8%.
E-26
10
Lastly,inkeepingwithNCTDsobjectivetoconcentratefixedrouteserviceamongtransitdependentLIM
populationsandcreateflexible,demandresponseservicesforotherresidents,flexibleserviceareasare
morelikelytobelocatedinnonLIMtractsthanLIM(52percentto35percent).
Itisimportanttoremember,however,thattheoverwhelmingmajorityofservicechangesinthe
proposalareactuallyservicefrequencyincreases,soLIMheavypopulationareaswouldactuallyhavea
greaterincreaseintheirleveloftransitservicethanwouldnonLIMpopulations.Servicefrequencyis
discussedatlengthlaterinthisreport.
Table4NumberofCensusTractswithServiceChangeImpacts
CensusTract
Type
CensusTractsin
NCTDService
Area
TractsAffectedby
ProposedRoute
Discontinuations
TractsAffected
byIntroduction
ofNewRoutes
TractsAffected
byProposed
Route
Alignment
Changes
TractsWithin
Proposed
FlexibleService
Areas
LIM 66 38 23 53 23
NonLIM 87 31 15 55 46
Total
2
153 69 38 108 69
Table5looksatthechangesfromadifferentperspectivethatoftotalpopulationwithinthetracts.
Table5PopulationCharacteristicsofAffectedCensusTracts
CensusTract
Type
Populationin
NCTDService
AreabyTract
Type
Population
Affectedby
ProposedRoute
Discontinuations
Population
Affectedby
Introductionof
NewRoutes
Population
Affectedby
ProposedRoute
Alignment
Changes
Population
Affected
Within
Proposed
FlexibleService
Areas
LIM 374,677 206,978 127,537 314,448 122,373
NonLIM 421,421 150,801 76,750 276,445 219,489
Total 796,098 357,779 204,287 590,893 341,862
ItisimportanttorememberthatwhiletheNCTDserviceareacontains153censustracts,severalofthese
tractshavemorethanonefixedrouteserviceoption,sosummarycalculationswillnotalwaysaddupto
153duetothefrequentoccurrenceofindividualtractssimultaneouslyhavingsomecombinationof
reducedlevelsofservice,eliminatedlevelsofservice,ornochangetoanexistingroutethatpasses
throughthetractitself.
LIMRiderAnalysisfromOnboardSurveyData
Whilethepreviousevaluationfocusedontransitservicechangesfromalanduse/routealignment
perspective,thisevaluationfocusesonthedemographicandeconomiccharacteristicsoftheusersofthe
services.Theanalysiswascompletedwithinformationgeneratedfromweekdayonboardridership
surveysconductedbySANDAGin2009.
2
SumsmaynotequaltotalamountsofcensustractsduetomultipleroutespresentwithinaparticularCensusTract.
E-27
11
Duetotheextensivenatureoftheproposedservicechanges,anattemptwasmadetoevaluateeach
routeproposedforeitherareductionofitsspanofserviceoreliminationofaportionofitsservice
altogether.Duetothelackofavailableweekendsurveyinformation,ininstanceswhereonlyaroutes
weekendservicewasimpacted,thatroutesweekdayridershipsurveyinformationwasused.New,
proposedrouteswerenotincludedintheanalysis.
SurveydatawascalculatedforapplicableNCTDfixedroutestodeterminethepercentageofthatroutes
riderswhoareLIM.ThesesurveyswerethencomparedtothecharacteristicsoftheremainingNCTD
servicestodeterminethepercentageLIMforallotherNCTDfixedrouteservice.Throughthis
evaluation,acomparisonwasdrawntodetermineifLIMridersaredisproportionatelyaffectedbythe
proposedservicespanchanges.ThecomparisonwasmadeforthesystemwithouttheCOASTERor
SPRINTERsurveydatatobetterisolatetheLIMpercentageofBREEZEfixedroutetransitusers.(Ahigh
proportionofCOASTERridersarenonLIMandtherewereahighnumberofCOASTERsurveyresponses,
whichcouldhavepotentiallyskewedtheresultsifincluded.)
Statisticaltestsarecommonlyusedwithsampledatawheninferringresultstotherestofapopulation
(i.e.,thesampleofbusrouteridersrepresentsalltheridersthatridethatbusroute).Anoddsratio
comparisonwasusedtomeasuretheoddsofonegroupspropensityforsomethingversusanother
groups(i.e.,oneroutehavingmorelowincomeorminorityridersthantheremainderoftheroutes).
Anoddsratioof1.0meansthatboththeroutebeingtestedandtheremainingrouteshaveequal
likelihoodofpossessingLIMriders,whileanoddsratiooflessthan1.0meanstheroutebeingtestedis
lesslikelythantheremainingroutestocarryLIMriders.Conversely,anoddsratioofmorethan1.0
meansitismorelikelytocarryLIMriders.
IsolatingtheBREEZEservicesfromrailservicesfortheanalysis,theobservedpercentageofLIMridersin
2009was83.8%.Thesepercentagesweretheresultofthe13,635surveyresponsesgatheredthrough
SANDAGs2009datacollectionefforts.Thehighestoddsratioofanyroutesaffectedbytheproposed
servicewasobservedalongRoute335,withanoddsratioof1.49.
Table6includestherouteswithservicespanchangesandcompareseachroutewithproposedservice
changestotheremainingNCTDfixedrouteservices.
E-28
12
Table6LIMRiderAnalysisforRoutewithChanges
Route
ProposedChanges LIM
Percent
Higher
than
BREEZE
System
Average?
Percent
LIMRiders
forThis
Route
3
PercentLIM
RidersforAll
OtherNCTD
Routes
Odds
Ratio
Number
of
Responses Description Alignment Frequency
Hoursof
Operation
Daysof
Operation
101 Routerestructured
No 65.4% 86.4% 0.42 1,679

302
Routerestructured,
increasedweekday
servicefrequency
+ +
Yes 86.5% 83.4% 1.09 1,506
303
Increasedweekend
servicefrequency
+ +
Yes 90.6% 82.4% 1.25 2,281
304*
4
Routerestructured,
addedSaturdayservice
+ +
No 78.9% 83.9% 0.85 265
404*
Routerestructured,
+ +
Yes 86.9% 83.7% 1.18 154
306
Routeextended,
increasedweekday
servicefrequency
+ +
Yes 90.9% 83.5% 1.22 550
308
Reducedweekday
servicefrequency
No 78.7% 83.9% 0.85 197

309
Routerestructured,
increasedSaturday
servicefrequency
+ +
No 74.1% 84.5 0.70 963
313 Routediscontinued

Yes 86.5% 83.7% 1.08 444
315
Routeextended,
increasedweekday
servicefrequency
+ +
Yes 84.6% 83.8% 1.02 188

Yes 94.4% 83.7% 1.32 89
3
Note:NCTDBREEZEsystemwideLIMRiderpercentage83.8percent(DoesNOTincludeCOASTER/SPRINTERsurveyresponses)
E-29
13
Route
ProposedChanges LIM
Percent
Higher
than
BREEZE
System
Average?
Percent
LIMRiders
forThis
Route
3
PercentLIM
RidersforAll
OtherNCTD
Routes
Odds
Ratio
Number
of
Hoursof
Operation
Daysof
Operation
318 Routeextended.
+
Yes 86.8% 83.8% 1.09 114

Yes 90.0% 83.7% 1.19 150

No 60.9% 84.0% 0.32 138
325
Routerestructured,
increasedweekday
servicefrequency,added
Saturdayservice
No 83.5% 83.8% 0.99 375


NA NA NA NA NA
+
No 81.5% 83.8% 0.93 248

Yes 83.8% 83.8% 1.00 191
334*
Routerestructured,
addedSaturdayonly
service,increased
weekdayservice
frequency
+ +
Yes 98.3% 83.6% 1.44 172
335*
Routerestructured,
addedSaturdayonly
service,increased
weekdayservice
frequency
+ +
Yes 100.0% 83.7% 1.49 94
340
Routediscontinued,
absorbedintoRoute347

NA NA NA NA NA
347
Routerestructured,
increasedweekday
servicefrequency,added
Saturdayservice
+ +
No 78.0% 83.8% 0.83 141
E-30
14
Route
ProposedChanges LIM
Percent
Higher
than
BREEZE
System
Average?
Percent
LIMRiders
forThis
Route
3
PercentLIM
RidersforAll
OtherNCTD
Routes
Odds
Ratio
Number
of
Hoursof
Operation
Daysof
Operation
350
Increasedweekend
servicefrequency,faster
traveltimeswithqueue
jumpsandtrafficsignal
preference
+
No 77.4% 84.1% 0.80 705
351*
Routerestructured,
increasedservice
frequency
+
Yes 91.4% 83.5% 1.24 488
352*
Routerestructured,
increasedservice
frequency
+
Yes 95.7% 83.5% 1.36 325
358* Routediscontinued

No 77.6% 83.8% 0.82 76
359* Routediscontinued

Yes 86.6% 83.8% 1.08 67

No 78.2% 83.8% 0.83 119
+
No 23.8% 83.9% 0.77 21
+
No 72.2% 83.8% 0.66 18
NAdatanotavailable
*Surveydatawascollectedandtabulatedbyroutenumber,thereforedirectionspecificBREEZEroutenumbers(Routes304/404,334/335,351/352,and
358/359)arereportedhereindividuallytoallowfordirectionspecificanalysis.ThedesignationsasLIMandNonLIMroutesisbasedontheresultsofsurveys
ofthespecificdirectionofeachroute.
**ProposedChanges:Reduction,+Increase,BlankNoChange
E-31
15
ServiceFrequency
Theproposedservicechangesnowincludeservicefrequencychangesnotevaluatedintheprevious
section.Theseproposedchangesinservicefrequencyareevaluatedinthissectiontodeterminewhether
LIMroutesidentifiedintheprevioustablearelesslikelytoseeincreasesinservicefrequencythannon
LIMroutes.
ByexaminingNCTDoperationsdatarelatingtoexistingandproposedannualhoursofoperationby
route,itispossiblefortheeffectofthechangesinservicefrequencytobeisolatedandcompared.As
notedpreviously,theMobilityPlanenvisionsaphasedimplementationofservicechanges,withthefinal
seriesofchangesbeingimplementedbyAugust2012.Thisisthedateusedinthecomparisonsbelow.
AsseeninTable7below,undertheMobilityPlan,LIMroutesaremuchmorelikelytohaveanincrease
inservicefrequencythannonLIMroutes.
Table7ComparisonofExistingandProposedAnnualRevenueHoursofRouteswithFrequency
ChangesbyLIMRouteType
LIMRoutes NatureofProposedChange
PercentChangeInAnnualRevenue
Hours,Existingvs.August2012
302 Routerestructured,increasedweekdayservicefrequency +31.2%
303 Increasedweekendservicefrequency +5.8%
334/335
Routerestructured,addedSaturdayonlyservice,
increasedweekdayservicefrequency
54.0%
351/352 Routerestructured,increasedservicefrequency +23.7%
AveragePercentChange +7.8%
NonLIM
Route NatureofProposedChange
PercentChangeInAnnualRevenue
Hours,Existingvs.August2012
308 Reducedweekdayservicefrequency 27.0%
309 Routerestructured,increasedSaturdayservicefrequency 6.7%
325
Routerestructured,increasedweekdayservicefrequency,
+26.8%
347
Routerestructured,increasedweekdayservicefrequency,
+9.4%
350 Increasedweekendservicefrequency 0%
AveragePercentChange +0.5%
E-32
16
(b)SpanofService
TheproposedMobilityPlanservicechangesincludeservicespan(hoursanddaysofoperation)changes
notevaluatedintheprevioussection.Theseproposedchangesinservicespanareevaluatedinthis
sectiontodeterminewhetherLIMridersaremorelikelytousetheserviceduringthehoursand/ordays
thatwouldbeaffected.Theanalysiswascompletedwithinformationgeneratedfromweekdayonboard
ridershipsurveysconductedbySANDAGin2009.
Duetothenatureoftheproposedservicechanges,anattemptwasmadetoevaluateeachroute
proposedtoexperienceareductionofitsspanofservice.Ininstanceswhereonlyaroutes
weekend/holidayservicewasimpacted,thatroutesweekdayridershipsurveyinformationwasusedto
determinewhetheraroutewasLIMornot.
TheMobilityPlanproposedrelativelyfewspanchanges,typicallytheadditionofSaturdayservicealonga
routeorslightlylongerhoursofoperationonweekends.Toevaluatetheeffectsofspanchangeson
population,ananalysiswasconductedthatcomparedthetotalweeklyhoursofoperationbyroutes.
Onlyrouteswithspanchangeswereevaluated,andeachroutewasdesignatedaseitheraLIMrouteora
nonLIMroute.ForBREEZERoute304/404,theroutesweeklyhourswerenotedtwice,asone
direction(404)wasLIM,whiletheotherwasnonLIM.TheresultsoftheanalysisareseeninTable8
below.
Insummary,fiveBREEZErouteswillexperiencesomesortofspanchange.Ofthesefive,allbutRoute
351/352willseeanincreaseinweeklyoperatinghours.The6.8percentdecreaseinoperatinghoursof
the351/352islargelyoffsetbythenewlycreatedBREEZERoutes353and355/357,aswellasthe
flexibleserviceareasinandaroundtheareaservedbythe351/352,thenetresultbeinganincrease
transitserviceoptionsforEscondidoriders,bothLIMandnonLIM..
E-33
17
Table8ComparisonofExistingandProposedOperatingHoursofRouteswithServiceSpanChangesbyLIMRouteType
LIMRoutes
NatureofProposed
SpanChange
ExistingHoursof
OperationbyDay
(RoundedtoNearest
HalfHour)
ProposedHoursof
OperationbyDay
(RoundedtoNearest
HalfHour)
Existing
Weekly
Operating
HoursTotal
Proposed
Weekly
Operating
HoursTotal
Percent
Change
334/335
AddedSaturday
service,slightlyshorter
weekdayspanof
service
Weekday:4:30am8:30pm
Saturday:None
Sunday:None
Saturday:10:00am6:00pm
Sunday:None
80 86 +7.5%
351/352
Shorterspanofservice
onalldays
Weekday:4:00am12:00am
Sunday:5:30am9:30pm
Sunday:7:00am9:00pm
132 123 6.8%
404
5
AddedSaturday
service
Saturday:None
Sunday:None
Sunday:None
80 94 +17.5%
TotalIncludingRoute404 292 303 +3.8%
TotalWithoutRoute404 212 209 1.4%
NonLIM
Routes
NatureofProposed
SpanChange
ExistingHoursof
OperationbyDay
(RoundedtoNearest
HalfHour)
ProposedHoursof
OperationbyDay
(RoundedtoNearest
HalfHour)
Existing
Weekly
Operating
Hours
Proposed
Weekly
Operating
Hours
Percent
Change
304
1
AddedSaturday
service
Saturday:None
Sunday:None
Sunday:None
80 94 +17.5%
308
Slightlylonger
weekdayspanof
service
Sunday:6:30am7:30pm
Sunday:6:30am7:30pm
103.5 106 +2.4%
347
AddedSaturday
service,slightlylonger
weekdayspanof
service
Saturday:None
Sunday:None
Sunday:None
70 94 +34.3%
TotalIncludingRoute304 253.5 294 +16.0%
TotalWithoutRoute304 173.5 200 +15.3%
5
Surveydatafordirectionalrouteswerecollectedandtabulatedbyroutenumber;dataisreportedhereasrecordedwhenbothdirectionswereLIM.Route304/404wasLIMasthe404,andNonLIM
asthe304.
E-34
18
(2) ASSESSTHEALTERNATIVESAVAILABLEFORPEOPLEAFFECTEDBYTHEMAJORSERVICECHANGE
Traveltime,transfers,andpassengerfareswereevaluatedtodeterminetheimpactsoftheMobilityPlan
servicechanges.Theevaluationcomparedexistingtraveltime,numberoftransfersrequired,andfares
tothetraveltime,transfers,andfaresofthenetworkwiththeproposedservicechangesinplace.The
analysisincludedanassessmentofthesefactorsfor13LIMand12nonLIMcensustractsintheNCTD
serviceareafortraveltofourfrequentlytraveleddestinationsforallNCTDriders(SantaFeDepot,
PalomarCollege,EscondidoTransitCenter,andPlazaCaminoReal).Table8showsthespecifictracts
usedintheanalysis.
ThetractswereselectedusingacombinationoftractspreviouslyusedbySANDAGinearlierTitleVI
evaluations,andadditionaltractswithservicechangesproposedwithinthem.Theeffectswere
examinedforweekdaytripsduringthepeakandoffpeakperiodsusingtheNCTDwebsiteandGoogle
Transit,alongwithhandestimatesfortravelusingtheproposedservicenetwork.Forpeaktravel,atrip
starttimeofapproximately8:00amwasused,whileforoffpeaktravel,atripstarttimeofapproximately
11:00amwasused.Figures3and4illustratethelocationontheexistingandproposedsystemmaps.
ThelocationidentificationsaredescribedinTable9.
Table9LIMandNonLIMTractsUsedinAnalysis
LIMTracts NonLIMTracts
Map
ID
Census
Tract StartingLocation
Map
ID
Census
Tract StartingLocation
1 185.16
OceansideBlvd.&CollegeBlvd. A 193.01 RosewoodDr.&SagewoodDr.

2 194.06
OliveDr.&N.MelroseDr.
B 200.25 NordahlRd.&MissionRd.
3 200.2
W.BordenRd.&N.TwinOaks
ValleyRd. C 185.14 CollegeBlvd.&ChromaDr.
4 196.02
S.SantaFe&EscondidoAve. D 199.03 YorkDr.&KentPlace

5 185.13 OldGroveRd.&MissionAve. E 180
CarlsbadVillageDr.&ElCamino
Real
6 186.08 DouglasDr.&N.RiverRd. F 178.12
PalomarAirportRd.&CaminoVida
RobleRd.
7 195.01
E.CaliforniaAve.&N.SantaFeDr. G 181 CassidySt.&MyersAve.

8 185.07
PalaRd.&FrazeeRd. H 197.02 HaciendaDr.&VistaVillage

9 185.11
OceansideBlvd.&FoussatRd. I 203.06 TwinOaksValleyRd.&CravenDr.

10 199.02
UniversityDr.&SycamoreAve. J 204.03 W.FelicitaAve.&S.RedwoodSt.

11 201.09
N.AshSt.&E.LincolnAve. K 178.12 AviaraParkwayandPoinsettiaLn.

12 208.06 MainSt.&10
th
St. L 200.23
WoodlandParkwayandBordenRd.
Escondido
13 203.02
NordahlRd.&RockSpringsRd.

E-35
19
Figure3ExistingRouteNetworkwithTravelTimes/FaresAnalysisLocations
E-36
20
Figure4ProposedRouteNetworkandTravelTimes/FaresAnalysisLocations
E-37
21
TravelTimes
ExistingandproposedtraveltimeswerederivedfromtheNCTDwebsiteandGoogleTransitwith
adjustmentsasneededfortheproposedtraveltimesbasedonexistingtransitschedulesandthe
proposedservicechanges.Tripswereassumedtostartaround8:00amforthepeaktraveltime,and
around11:00amfortheoffpeakperiod.Includedinthetraveltimeestimatewasthetraveltimeonthe
initial(andsubsequent)vehiclesandanytransfer/waitingtimetoadditionalvehicles.Fortheproposed
servicenetwork,atransfertimeof15minuteswasassumedwhenconnectingtorouteswith30minute
serviceand8minutesforconnectionstorouteswith15minuteservice.
Tables10and11reporttheweekdaytraveltimesforLIMandnonLIMcensustractsduringthepeak
period.TheaveragepeakweekdaytraveltimeforLIMpopulationsusingtheexistingservicesis68.5
minutes,whichwouldincreaseby3.1percentto70.6minuteswiththeproposedservicechanges.The
averagenonLIMpeaktraveltimeis76.2minutes,whichwoulddecrease3.3percentto73.7minutes
withtheproposedchanges.
AsseeninTables12and13,theaverageoffpeaktraveltimeforLIMpopulationsusingtheexisting
servicesis71.6minutes,whichwouldincrease8.7percentto77.8minuteswiththeproposedchanges.
TheaveragenonLIMoffpeaktraveltimeis78.2minutes,whichwouldincreaseby0.4percentto78.5
minuteswiththeproposedchanges.
Fares
Theproposedservicechangeswouldaffectfaresintwoways.First,thenumberoftransfersrequiredfor
agiventripmaychangeduetonewconnectionsthatwouldberequiredinusingtherestructured
service.Second,theintroductionoftheflexibleservices,withasingleridecashfareof$5.00,would
affectthefareforridersusingthoseservices.Boththechangeinthenumberoftransfersandthe
changeinthetotalonewaycashfarewereanalyzedandarereportedinthissection.
Thecurrentadultcashfareswereusedfortheanalysis,includingtheBREEZEat$1.75,theSPRINTERat
$2.00,andtheCOASTERat$5.50forthethreezonefare.ThecashfareforthenewFlexserviceis
assumedtobe$5.00.CashfaresfortheMTSservicesincluded$2.50forExpressservice(Routes20and
150)and$2.50fortheTrolley.Daypasseswerealsoappliedasappropriateintheamountof$5.00for
theRegionalDayPasswhichcoverstheSPRINTER,BREEZE,Trolley,andMTSregularservice.The
RegionPlusDayPass,whichincludestheservicescoveredbytheRegionalDayPassplustheCOASTER,
PremiumExpressBus(Route810),andtheproposedFlexservices,ispricedat$14.00andwasusedfor
tripsinvolvingthepremiumservices.
TheRegionalDayPassandtheRegionPlusdaypassesareusedextensivelybyriderswhentransferringis
required.Mostridersmakeroundtripsandusethepassesifoneormoretransfersareinvolved,since
thereisasignificantsavingsonthereturntrip.Althoughthefareanalysisconsidersonewaytrips,an
approachwasdevelopedtoreflectthispassbuyingbehavior.Fortripsinvolvingoneormoretransfers,it
wasassumedthatadaypasswouldbepurchased,andtheonewayfarewouldbeonehalfthecostof
thepass.Thisapproachavoidstheunrealisticassumptionthatriderswouldbuyseveralonewaycash
farestocompletetheirtripaslongastheytotaledlessthatthecostofthedaypass.
Anassessmentofthenumberoftransfersrequiredwasperformedtohelpcalculatethefareamounts.
AsshowninTables14and15,theaveragenumberoftransfersforpeakLIMtripsdecreasedby2.9
E-38
22
percent,from0.65to0.63.FornonLIMriders,theaveragenumberoftransfersinthepeakperiod
increasedby10.8percent,from0.77to0.85.Tables16and17reportthatforoffpeakLIMtravel,the
averagenumberoftransfersincreasedby1.5percent,from0.83to0.85,whilethenonLIMaverage
increasedby11.9percent,from0.88to0.98.
AsreportedinTables18and19,forpeaktravelbyLIMpopulations,theaveragefareincreasedby7.7
percent,from$3.33to$3.58.FornonLIMpopulations,thefaresincreased17.7percent,from$3.18to
$3.74.Tables20and21reportthattheaveragefareforoffpeaktravelbyLIMpopulationsincreased
10.4percent,from$2.77to$3.06.TheoffpeakaveragefarefornonLIMridersgrew22.7percent,from
$2.82to$3.46.
E-39
23
Table10PeakLIMTravelTimes(minutes)
Map
ID
Census
Tract Starting Location Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
1 185.16
Oceanside Blvd. &
College Blvd. 110 110 48 48 30 30 45 31
2 194.06
Olive Dr. & N. Melrose
Dr. 125 125 44 44 27 27 50 50
3 200.2
W. Borden Rd. & N.
Twin Oaks Valley Rd. 127 127 32 32 21 21 82 82
4 196.02
S. Santa Fe &
Escondido Ave. 124 124 35 35 18 18 55 55
5 185.13
Old Grove Rd. &
Mission Ave. 135 142 74 78 57 62 66 41
6 186.08
Douglas Dr. & N. River
Rd. 97 97 77 81 60 65 37 51
7 195.01
E. California Ave. & N.
Santa Fe Dr. 119 119 38 38 21 21 48 48
8 185.07 Pala Rd. & Frazee Rd. 132 132 76 86 59 70 67 65
9 185.11
Oceanside Blvd. &
Foussat Rd. 108 108 58 58 41 41 33 33
10 199.02
University Dr. &
Sycamore Ave. 132 132 33 33 16 16 67 67
11 201.09
N. Ash St. & E. Lincoln
Ave. 145 160 15 15 38 38 98 98
12 208.06 Main St. & 10
th
St. 118 149 56 71 80 100 130 162
13 203.02
Nordahl Rd. & Rock
Springs Rd. 103 96 28 28 34 34 94 94
121.2 124.7 47.2 49.8 38.6 41.8 67.1 67.5
Overall
68.5
70.9
3.5% Percent Change
Plaza Camino Real
Average for Destination
Existing
Proposed
Santa Fe Depot
Escondido Transit
Center Palomar College
E-40
24
Table11PeakNonLIMTravelTimes(minutes)
Map
ID
Census
A 193.01
Rosewood Dr. &
Sagewood Dr. 123 123 67 67 50 50 78 66
B 200.25
Nordahl Rd. & Mission
Rd. 139 139 8 8 12 12 73 73
C 185.14
College Blvd. & Chroma
Dr. 127 127 72 63 55 47 63 66
D 199.03 York Dr. & Kent Place 129 129 50 50 33 33 76 76
E 180
Carlsbad Village Dr. & El
Camino Real 128 128 73 73 56 56 13 13
F 178.12
Palomar Airport Rd. &
Camino Vida Roble Rd. 121 94 88 119 54 103 39 43
G 181 Cassidy St. & Myers Ave. 77 77 68 68 51 51 20 20
H 197.02
Hacienda Dr. & Vista
Village 131 131 48 48 31 31 43 43
I 203.06
Twin Oaks Valley Rd. &
Craven Dr. 197 184 30 30 20 20 93 96
J 204.03
W. Felicita Ave. & S.
Redwood St. 137 137 17 17 42 42 103 103
K 178.12
Aviara Parkway and
Poinsettia Ln. 141 84 144 122 127 91 75 67
L 200.23
Woodland Parkway and
Borden Rd. Escondido 165 165 32 30 37 38 103 99
134.6 126.5 58.1 57.9 47.3 47.8 64.9 63.8
Overall
76.2
74.0
-2.9% Percent Change
Plaza Camino Real
Existing
Proposed
Santa Fe Depot
Escondido Transit
E-41
25
Table12OffPeakLIMTravelTimes(minutes)
Map
ID
Census
1 185.16
Oceanside Blvd. &
College Blvd. 121 121 48 48 31 31 48 39
2 194.06
Dr. 165 165 44 44 27 27 51 51
3 200.2
W. Borden Rd. & N.
4 196.02
S. Santa Fe &
Escondido Ave. 171 171 35 35 20 20 56 56
5 185.13
Old Grove Rd. &
Mission Ave. 130 120 74 78 57 62 64 41
6 186.08
Rd. 108 108 75 75 58 58 37 51
7 195.01
Santa Fe Dr. 135 135 38 38 21 38 49 49
8 185.07 Pala Rd. & Frazee Rd. 132 132 76 86 59 70 67 65
9 185.11
Oceanside Blvd. &
Foussat Rd. 96 96 58 58 41 41 33 28
10 199.02
University Dr. &
Sycamore Ave. 166 166 33 33 16 16 70 70
11 201.09
Ave. 154 154 14 14 38 38 96 96
12 208.06 Main St. & 10
th
St.* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
13 203.02
Nordahl Rd. & Rock
Springs Rd. 164 172 29 20 34 48 91 110
142.5 142.3 46.3 46.8 35.2 39.1 62.4 61.9
Overall
71.6
72.5
1.3% Percent Change
Plaza Camino Real
Existing
Proposed
Santa Fe Depot
Escondido Transit
* It is not possible to compare Existing to Proposed for off peak travel
from Ramona because only peak period service is currently operated.
E-42
26
Table13OffPeakNonLIMTravelTimes(minutes)
Map
ID
Census
A 193.01
Rosewood Dr. &
Sagewood Dr. 122 122 74 74 53 53 69 66
B 200.25
Rd. 144 144 8 8 13 13 73 73
C 185.14
Dr. 126 126 72 63 55 47 64 66
E 180
Camino Real 152 153 81 81 64 64 10 10
F 178.12
H 197.02
Village 184 184 48 48 31 48 44 44
I 203.06
Craven Dr. 167 184 30 30 21 21 84 89
J 204.03
Redwood St. 133 133 17 17 43 43 104 104
K 178.12
Aviara Parkway and
Poinsettia Ln. 95 84 122 122 78 91 66 67
L 200.23
146.4 142.4 58.6 59.2 45.7 50.4 62.3 63.1
Overall
78.2
78.8
0.7% Percent Change
Palomar College Plaza Camino Real
Proposed

Existing
Santa Fe Depot
Escondido Transit
Center
E-43
27
Table14PeakLIMNumberofTransfers
Map
ID
Census
1 185.16
Oceanside Blvd. &
College Blvd. 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
2 194.06 Olive Dr. & N. Melrose Dr. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 200.2
W. Borden Rd. & N. Twin
Oaks Valley Rd. 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1
4 196.02
S. Santa Fe & Escondido
Ave. 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
5 185.13
Old Grove Rd. & Mission
Ave. 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0
6 186.08
Rd. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
7 195.01
Santa Fe Dr. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 185.07 Pala Rd. & Frazee Rd. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
9 185.11
Oceanside Blvd. &
Foussat Rd. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 199.02
University Dr. &
Sycamore Ave. 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
11 201.09
Ave. 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2
12 208.06 Main St. & 10
th
St. 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2
13 203.02
Nordahl Rd. & Rock
Springs Rd. 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
1.15 1.23 0.23 0.23 0.38 0.38 0.85 0.69
Overall
0.65
0.63
-2.9% Percent Change
Plaza Camino Real
Existing
Proposed
Santa Fe Depot
Escondido Transit
E-44
28
Table15PeakNonLIMNumberofTransfers
Map
ID
Census
A 193.01
Rosewood Dr. &
Sagewood Dr. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
B 200.25
Rd. 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
C 185.14
Dr. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
E 180
Camino Real 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
F 178.12
H 197.02
Village 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
I 203.06
Craven Dr. 3 4 0 0 0 0 2 2
J 204.03
Redwood St. 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2
K 178.12
Aviara Parkway and
Poinsettia Ln. 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
L 200.23
1.42 1.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.67 0.67 0.75
Overall
0.77
0.85
10.8% Percent Change
Plaza Camino Real
Existing
Proposed
Santa Fe Depot
Escondido Transit
E-45
29
Table16OffPeakLIMNumberofTransfers
Map
ID
Census
1 185.16
Oceanside Blvd. &
College Blvd. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 194.06
Dr. 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 200.2
W. Borden Rd. & N.
4 196.02
S. Santa Fe &
Escondido Ave. 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1
5 185.13
Old Grove Rd. &
Mission Ave. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
6 186.08
Rd. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
7 195.01
Santa Fe Dr. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 185.07 Pala Rd. & Frazee Rd. 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
9 185.11
Oceanside Blvd. &
Foussat Rd. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 199.02
University Dr. &
Sycamore Ave. 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1
11 201.09
Ave. 3 3 0 0 1 1 2 2
12 208.06 Main St. & 10
th
St. NA 3 NA 0 NA 1 NA 2
13 203.02
Nordahl Rd. & Rock
Springs Rd. 3 3 0 0 0 0 2 1
2.08 2.08 0.25 0.23 0.33 0.38 0.67 0.69
Overall
0.83
0.85
1.5% Percent Change
Plaza Camino Real
Existing
Proposed
Santa Fe Depot
Escondido Transit
E-46
30
Table17OffPeakNonLIMNumberofTransfers
Map
ID
Census
A 193.01
Rosewood Dr. &
Sagewood Dr. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
B 200.25
Rd. 3 3 0 0 1 0 1 1
C 185.14
Dr. 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0
E 180
Camino Real 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0
F 178.12
H 197.02
Village 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
I 203.06
Craven Dr. 3 4 0 0 0 0 2 2
J 204.03
Redwood St. 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 2
K 178.12
Aviara Parkway and
Poinsettia Ln. 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 1
L 200.23
1.83 2.00 0.42 0.50 0.58 0.67 0.67 0.75
Overall
0.88
0.98
Plaza Camino Real
Existing
Proposed
Santa Fe Depot
Escondido Transit
E-47
31
Table18PeakLIMFares($)
Map
ID
Census
1 185.16
Oceanside Blvd. &
College Blvd. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 1.75
2 194.06 Olive Dr. & N. Melrose Dr. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75
3 200.2
Oaks Valley Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50
4 196.02
Ave. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50
5 185.13
Ave. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75
6 186.08
Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 2.50
7 195.01
Santa Fe Dr. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75
8 185.07 Pala Rd. & Frazee Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75
9 185.11
Oceanside Blvd. &
Foussat Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75
10 199.02
University Dr. & Sycamore
Ave. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50
11 201.09
Ave. 7.00 7.00 1.75 1.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
12 208.06 Main St. & 10
th
St. 6.75 7.00 1.75 5.00 2.50 7.00 2.50 7.00
13 203.02
Nordahl Rd. & Rock
Springs Rd. 7.00 6.75 1.75 1.75 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50
6.98 6.98 2.06 2.31 2.19 2.54 2.27 2.50
Overall
3.33
3.58
7.7% Percent Change
Plaza Camino Real
Existing
Proposed
Santa Fe Depot
Escondido Transit
E-48
32
Table19PeakNonLIMFares($)
Map
ID
Census
A 193.01
Rosewood Dr. &
Sagewood Dr. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75
B 200.25
Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50
C 185.14
Dr. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75
D 199.03 York Dr. & Kent Place 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50
E 180
Camino Real 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75
F 178.12
Camino Vida Roble Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 1.75 2.50 1.75 1.75
G 181 Cassidy St. & Myers Ave. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75
H 197.02
Village 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75
I 203.06
Craven Dr. 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50
J 204.03
Redwood St. 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
K 178.12
Aviara Parkway and
Poinsettia Ln. 7.00 7.00 2.50 7.00 2.50 7.00 2.50 6.75
L 200.23
Borden Rd. Escondido 7.00 7.00 1.75 5.00 1.75 7.00 2.50 7.00
6.25 6.25 2.17 2.81 2.17 3.04 2.13 2.85
Overall
3.18
3.74
Plaza Camino Real
Existing
Proposed
Santa Fe Depot
Escondido Transit
E-49
33
Table20OffPeakLIMFares($)
Map
ID
Census
1 185.16
Oceanside Blvd. &
College Blvd. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75
2 194.06 Olive Dr. & N. Melrose Dr. 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75
3 200.2
Oaks Valley Rd. 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50
4 196.02
Ave. 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 2.50 2.50
5 185.13
Ave. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75
6 186.08
Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 2.50
7 195.01
Santa Fe Dr. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75
8 185.07 Pala Rd. & Frazee Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75
9 185.11
Oceanside Blvd. &
Foussat Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75
10 199.02
University Dr. & Sycamore
Ave. 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50
11 201.09
Ave. 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
12 208.06 Main St. & 10
th
St. NA 7.00 NA 5.00 NA 7.00 NA 7.00
13 203.02
Nordahl Rd. & Rock
Springs Rd. 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50
4.75 4.92 2.06 2.29 2.15 2.52 2.13 2.50
Overall
2.77
3.06
Plaza Camino Real
Existing
Proposed
Santa Fe Depot
Escondido Transit
E-50
34
Table21OffPeakNonLIMFares($)
Map
ID
Census
A 193.01
Rosewood Dr. &
Sagewood Dr. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75
B 200.25
Rd. 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50
C 185.14
Dr. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75
D 199.03 York Dr. & Kent Place 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50
E 180
Camino Real 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75
F 178.12
Camino Vida Roble Rd. 7.00 7.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75
G 181 Cassidy St. & Myers Ave. 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75
H 197.02
Village 7.00 7.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 1.75
I 203.06
Craven Dr. 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50
J 204.03
Redwood St. 2.50 2.50 1.75 1.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
K 178.12
Aviara Parkway and
Poinsettia Ln. 7.00 7.00 2.50 7.00 2.50 7.00 1.75 6.75
L 200.23
Borden Rd. Escondido 2.50 7.00 1.75 5.00 1.75 7.00 2.50 7.00
4.75 5.13 2.17 2.81 2.23 3.04 2.13 2.85
Overall
2.82

3.46
Plaza Camino Real
Existing
Proposed
Santa Fe Depot
Escondido Transit
E-51
35
(3)DESCRIBETHEACTIONSTHEAGENCYPROPOSESTOMINIMIZE,MITIGATE,OROFFSETANY
ADVERSEEFFECTSOFPROPOSEDSERVICECHANGESONMINORITYANDLOWINCOME
POPULATIONS
Previousonboardsurveysindicatethatapproximately83.8percentofBREEZEridersareLIM.Asa
result,theproposedMobilityPlanservicechangeswillaffectahighnumberofthesepopulations,
regardlessofthetypesofchangesproposed.Potentialmitigationsforthechangesaredescribedbelow.
Mostoftheservicesproposedforeliminationareinthevicinityofotherexistingornewfixedrouteor
lightrailservices.Longeraccesstimesmayberequired,butsignificantlevelsoffixedrouteservice
optionswillstillbeavailable.Inaddition,theintroductionoftheflexibleserviceswillprovidetransit
servicetointracommunitydestinationsandaccesstotheregionalsystem.Theseserviceswillhelpto
ensuretheavailabilityoftransitservicetomostoftheareaslosingfixedrouteservice.
Thefollowingactionswillhelptomitigatethepotentialadverseeffectsoftheproposedchanges.
Forthediscontinuedroutes,otherfixedrouteswillbeavailableinthevicinityofmanyofthe
corridors.Theseincludeexistingroutes,andinsomecases,newreplacementroutesorroute
extensions.
Theintroductionofflexibleservicesinfivedesignatedserviceareaswillhelplessenthelossof
fixedrouteservices.
Extensiveandtargetedinformationonalternativeserviceswillbeprovidedaspartoftheservice
changeimplementation.
Encouragingincreasedmonthlypassusewillhelplessentheeffectsofthechangesincashfares
resultingfromtheintroductionoftheflexibleservices.
(4)DETERMINEWHICH,IFANYOFTHEPROPOSALSUNDERCONSIDERATIONWOULDHAVEA
DISPROPORTIONATELYHIGHANDADVERSEEFFECTONMINORITYANDLOWINCOMERIDERS
TheimpactoftheproposedMobilityPlanchangesonLIMpopulationsintheNCTDserviceareais
summarizedbelow.
ServiceChanges
WhileresidentsofLIMtractsaremorelikelytohavesomesortofservicechangeintheirneighborhoods
thanresidentsinnonLIMtracts,theeffectsofthesechangesarenotnecessarilynegative,nor
disproportionate.Asmentionedintheintroduction,NCTDhasproposedanoverallincreaseinservice
throughoutitsservicearea,andassuch,LIMresidentsstandtobenefitasmuchormorethannonLIM
residents.
ResidentsofLIMtractsaremorelikelytohavenewroutesimplementedintheirneighborhoods,and
theyaremorelikelytobetherecipientsofincreasedservicefrequency.Forroutesthatare
discontinued,newrouteshavebeenproposedinallbutaselectfewareasoftheNCTDexistingroute
network,offsettingthelossoftheseroutesforLIMandnonLIMtractsalike.
E-52
Forrouteswithincreasedfrequency,LIMtractsarelikelytohaveamoredirect,morefrequent
replacementroutetoservetheirtransportationneedsthannonLIMtracts.ExistingNCTDridersstand
tobeimpactedroughlyequivalentlyaswell.FourofthenineroutesbeingdiscontinuedareLIM,and7
ofthe14routesscheduledforrealignmentareLIM.Inaddition,frequencyincreasesproposedunder
theMobilityPlanaremorelikelytobenefitLIMriders,with6LIMroutesseeinganaverageofa7
percentincreaseintheirannualoperatinghours,comparedtoalessthan1percentincreaseinthe5
nonLIMroutesscheduledforfrequencyincreases.Theoneroutescheduledforadecreaseinmidday
frequencyisnonLIM.
SpanofService
TheMobilityPlanproposesrelativelyfewspanchanges,typicallytheadditionofSaturdayservicealong
arouteorslightlylongerhoursofoperationonweekends.Oftherouteswithsignificantspanchanges
(morethanafewminutesworthofchangetoweeklyhoursofoperation),twohaveLIMrider
percentagesbelowtheBREEZEsystemaverage,andthreehaveLIMriderpercentagesabovetheBREEZE
systemaverage,andnoneofthechangesrepresentsadisproportionateimpacttoLIMpopulations.
Ofthefiveroutes,allbutRoute351/352willhaveanincreaseinweeklyoperatinghours.The6.8
percentdecreaseinoperatinghoursofthe351/352islargelyoffsetbytheoverallincreaseofservicein
itscatchmentarea,includingthenewRoutes353,355/357,andtwonewflexibleserviceareas.Thenet
resultisanincreasetransitserviceoptionsforEscondidoriders,bothLIMandnonLIM.
TravelTimes
Peaktraveltimewouldincreaseby3.5percentforLIMpopulationsanddecreaseby2.9percentfornon
LIMpopulations.Intheoffpeakperiod,LIMtraveltimewouldincreaseby1.3percent,whilenonLIM
traveltimewouldincrease0.7percent.Thepeakperiodchangesarerelativelysmallandbalanced
betweenLIMandnonLIMpopulations.Similarly,theeffectonbothLIMandnonLIMpopulationsfor
offpeaktravelisrelativelysmall.
Fares
Theintroductionoftheflexibleservicesandtheir$5.00cashfarehaveanimpactonaveragefaresfor
bothLIMandnonLIMpopulations.However,theseimpactsaremitigatedsomewhatthroughtheuseof
daypasses.Duringthepeakperiod,LIMfareswouldincreaseby7.7percent,whilethenonLIMfares
wouldincreaseby17.7percent.Intheoffpeakperiod,LIMfareswouldincreaseby10.4percent,while
nonLIMfareswouldrise22.7percent.Theincreaseinfaresinboththepeakandoffpeakislargerfor
nonLIMpopulations.
E-53

APPENDIX F
COORDINATED PLAN PERFORMANCE
MONITORING CHAPTER
The Coordinated Plan (2012 2016)
CHAPTER 3:
MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
3.1 Purpose
The performance monitoring program was developed to retain a regional perspective on the
transportation system as a whole, but it also was conducted to assist the transportation agencies
with their evaluation of current or future service expansions or contractions. In addition, with an
understanding that public transit is not always an appropriate or applicable service, social service
transportation evaluation has been included to round out the entire context of available
transportation solutions within the region. Monitoring of these programs helps to develop an
understanding of their contribution to the host of transportation solutions available.
This chapter begins with an overview of the goals and policies of the 2050 Regional Transportation
Plan (2050 RTP) and how they have been refined and enhanced in this Coordinated Plan to evaluate
the transit and social service transportation system. This is followed by the overall goals and
objectives to guide the development of the transit and social service transportation systems over the
next five years. Finally, since transit funding also is tied to state funding sources, a description of the
state-mandated evaluation process is included in this chapter.
3.2 Vision and Goals
The SANDAG 2050 RTP is the long-range blueprint for a regional transportation system that further
enhances the quality of life, promotes sustainability, and offers more mobility options for people
and goods. The Coordinated Plan implements the RTP transit and social service transportation vision
on a rolling five-year time period. The RTP vision describes a transportation system that:
Supports a prosperous economy
Promotes a healthy and safe environment which includes climate change protection
Provides a higher quality of life for all San Diego County residents
The development of transit and specialized transportation services can enhance these elements in
developing a more sustainable future transportation system. Furthermore, the RTP expands this
vision into six specific goals surrounding two themes:
1. Quality of Travel & Livability
Mobility: The transportation system should provide convenient travel options;
Reliability: The transportation system should be reliable; and
System Preservation and Safety: The transportation system should be well-maintained to
protect the publics investments in transportation.
F-1
CHAPTER 3: MEASURING OUR SUCCESS
2. Sustainability
Social Equity: The transportation system should be designed to provide an equitable level of
transportation services to all segments of the population;
Healthy Environment: The transportation system should promote environmental
sustainability and foster efficient development patterns that optimize travel, housing and
employment choices; and
Prosperous Economy: The transportation system should play a significant role in raising the
regions standard of living.
In order to specifically evaluate transit and social service transportation in the San Diego region, a
series of 11 goals for the coordinated transportation network was developed. These goals were
based on the visions of the four agencies (Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), North County Transit
District (NCTD), Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA), and SANDAG involved in
planning and operation of the transportation system, along with the overarching goals of the RTP
identified above.
The coordinated transportation network goals along with their relevant RTP goals are:
Develop a network of fast, flexible, reliable, safe, and convenient transit services that maximize
the role of transit in the region and reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions
(Mobility and Healthy Environment);
Offer accessible public and social service transportation services in San Diego that are reliable,
offer competitive travel times to major destinations, and provide consistent travel times for the
same trip and mode of transportation (Reliability);
Reinforce and upgrade existing transit services in key urban corridors, and pursue new transit
projects in the most urbanized areas of the region using a broad combination of transit modes
(System Preservation & Safety);
Maximize the farebox recovery rate and ensure that operation of the transit system is fiscally
responsible (System Preservation and Safety);
Offer accessible public and social service transportation services in San Diego without
discrimination on the basis of race, color, language, national origin, or disability (Social Equity);
Enhance the mobility choices of the transportation disadvantaged by improving coordination
and developing alternative models of transportation (Social Equity);
Provide accessible lifeline public and social service transportation to all populations (Social
Equity);
Develop a strong link between transit and transit supportive land use patterns to maximize the
cost-effectiveness of future transit investments (Healthy Environment);
Offer accessible public and social service transportation services that support the smart growth
policies as outlined in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (Healthy Environment);
F-2
Offer affordable and accessible public and social service transportation services that are
productive, coordinated, convenient, and appropriate for the markets being served (Healthy
Environment and Prosperous Economy);
Provide an accessible transit network in the urban areas that offers frequency and span of
service to support spontaneous use for a wide range of needs to support a diverse economy
(Prosperous Economy).
3.3 Regional Performance Evaluation Program
The objectives and performance indicators included in the regional
performance evaluation program evaluate transit service on a five-
year time horizon. This allows SANDAG to more carefully evaluate
transit performance and to ensure that additional planning and
funding resources are allocated appropriately. This section provides
the evaluation of transit service and also includes indicators to
monitor social service transportation as required by the federal
government in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
Regional Transit Service Monitoring, Implementation and
Links to the RTP
The monitoring of transit performance provides a tool to annually assess the overall health of the
regional public transit system. The objectives explored in this section are derived from the RTP and
Coordinated Plan goals and specifically fall under two categories, fixed-route transit and specialized
transportation. As articulated in the 2050 RTP, the development of an ambitious and far-reaching
transit network that significantly expands the role that transit plays in meeting the regions mobility
needs is dependent on the development of three key strategies:
Improvements to the current system that will improve the convenience and travel speeds of bus
and rail services
Implementation of new transit services that will improve transit connections and access in key
urban areas and offer new service types designed to attract new riders to transit
Enhancements to the transit customer experience to make transit easier, safer, and more
enjoyable to use
The 2050 RTP also places more attention on transportation for seniors, people with limited means,
and individuals with disabilities. While the 2050 RTP provides a broad framework for these services,
the Coordinated Plan provides the specific strategies to guide these investments. To accomplish this,
the 2050 RTP includes additional funding for supplemental specialized transportation services,
which is estimated to be five percent of the cost of fixed-route transit.
F-3
Guidelines vs. Targets
Under these 2050 RTP action items, the general approach to evaluating transit and social service
transportation includes the setting of guidelines where the requirement is in a SANDAG policy or
the requirement is a target in state or federal regulations. The guidelines presented in this chapter
are based on a five-year service objective, which can be adjusted, as needed, to reflect changing
conditions. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, funding, energy costs, and the
health of the local economy. The guidelines also may be updated to reflect changes in funding
levels or from a desire to adjust service levels. On the other hand, the identified targets are based
on requirements established by state and federal legislation or regulations.
Interpreting the Results
The results of the performance indicators give the transit agencies, SANDAG, the public, and elected
officials valuable information, including:
Evaluation of regional transit system performance;
Determination of whether sufficient funding is being provided to the regional transit system to
meet the guidelines and targets;
Indication of the need for transit priority measures and, once implemented over time, how well
they are performing in terms of improving transit performance;
Assessment of regional efforts to better link transit and land use planning through regional
smart growth programs; and
Identification of deficiencies or service gaps.
Methodology and Performance Indicator Development
Care has been taken to identify objectives that can easily be quantified and indicators that can be
objectively measured with existing or proposed data sources. Should the development of new
transportation funding sources arise, or if unspent fund balances are re-allocated for local
programs, the evaluation of transit service performance may enable the justification for the
programming of future funds for transit given the ongoing evaluation of actual quantitative
performance data.
The goals and objectives influence the design and quality of the transit service and implement the
transit vision of the RTP. The RTP policy goals and objectives are to be applied across the entire
county, while the performance indicators and guidelines have been tailored to specific
environments. The guidelines help provide clarity for decision makers and the public regarding the
level of transit service proposed to be provided regionally and assist individuals in making decisions
on where to locate their residence, place of employment, choose a school, or location for their
business.
F-4
Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Categories
The comprehensive objectives are based on regional issues as they relate to transit and social service
transportation. These objectives include multiple variables or results which have regional impacts
beyond transit or social service transportation. The passenger-centered comprehensive objectives
address the following categories:
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Measures
Regional Growth
Transit Performance Evaluation Categories
The transit objectives are based on subregional areas that group similar geographic or demographic
areas. These objectives either relate to the goals of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), the RTP,
or have consistently been tracked through the annual Transportation Development Act (TDA)
performance improvement program. The transit objectives address the following categories:
Financial
Productivity
Access
Convenience
Reliability and Speed
Environmental J ustice
Comfort
A brief description of the performance results relating to these categories is included in this
chapter, while the detailed statistical tables are included in Appendix L. This report also includes
data sets reported in prior years in order to ensure statistical continuity between previous Regional
Short-Range Transit Plans and future Coordinated Plans (Appendices B and C). It is anticipated that
in future plans, this data set will be improved and expanded as new data from automated sources
becomes available to encompass social service transportation.
Service Zones
The Coordinated Plan must integrate the transit vision of the 2050 RTP, the smart growth objectives
of the RCP, the short-term service objectives of the MTS Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA)
and NCTDs forthcoming Mobility Plan. To do this, San Diego County was divided into three distinct
types of service zones based on land use, demographics, and travel behaviors in order to more
carefully evaluate transit service in these zones. These three zones are urban, suburban, and rural,
which are shown in Figure 3.1. The objectives, indicators, and guidelines or targets provide policy
direction to the two transit agencies as they implement service to ensure that it is provided
efficiently, effectively, and equitably across the entire service area. The objectives and indicators
usually apply across all zones, but the guidelines will generally vary by zone reflecting the different
needs and markets in the urban, suburban, and rural zones.
F-5
Figure 3.1: Service Zones

F-6
The urbanized area boundary was developed through the 2050 urban area transit strategy shown in
Figure 3.1. The largest urban area within the urban zone covers the denser central, south, and east
county areas and extends from University City on the north to Imperial Beach in the south and from
the coast east to El Cajon. The northern urbanized area follows the SPRINTER corridor in North
County and includes parts of Oceanside, Escondido, Carlsbad, Vista, and San Marcos. The coastal
urban zone generally covers the lands between I-5 and the Pacific Ocean from La J olla to Oceanside.
The urban zones are characterized by two key factors that support high levels of transit service:
higher-density, transit-oriented land uses (residential, commercial, industrial, institutional) and
good access to transit via a network of arterial and collector roadways. A rich transit network in this
zone should be provided and designed to allow for spontaneous use for a wide range of
destinations and trip needs throughout the day, including early evening.
The suburban zone surrounds the urban zone. The suburban zone is characterized by low-density
development and street patterns that make access to transit difficult. These areas may include some
smart growth development, including pockets of transit-oriented residential, commercial, and
institutional uses; however, the overall development pattern is not always transit friendly for fixed
route services. The result is that spontaneous transit use is more challenging here, requires a greater
sensitivity to local conditions, and a larger repertoire of solutions to be effective. Thus, transit
services in the suburban zone are best oriented toward providing peak-period commuter services,
linkages to major destinations in key travel corridors, and community-based services tailored to
individual community needs. The provision of park-and-ride facilities is needed to maximize access
to the peak-period commuter services.
The third zone (rural) extends from the eastern edge of the suburban zone into the backcountry
areas. The limited transit services are designed to maintain lifeline access to rural villages.
The zones were initially developed to support planning for public transportation; however, in the
future they also may become a useful tool in planning for social service transportation. It may
become necessary in the future to use the zones as means of prioritizing social service
transportation needs and expenditures. For example, it seems unlikely that the region will be able
to provide the same level of social service transportation services and mobility choices for people
living in rural areas as for those people who are living in urban areas.
Comprehensive Objectives
The comprehensive objectives outlined below involve more than just transit or social service
performance data. The climate change indicator includes an evaluation of the future benefit of
transit toward regional GHG reduction targets, while the growth objectives looks at transit ridership
compared to other growth measures in the region.
GHG REDUCTION OBJECTIVE
Public transit can play an important role in the reduction of regional GHG emissions to combat
global climate change. In doing so, transit can contribute to the emissions reductions targets
included in California Senate Bill (SB) 375 (Government Code 65080 et seq.) for passenger cars and
light-duty trucks. Quantifying potential GHG emissions reductions from transit operations will help
achieve the draft targets set by the California Air Resources Board required by SB 375. This analysis
also will support the SANDAG development of a Sustainable Community Strategy, also required by
F-7
SB 375. Since passenger cars and light-duty trucks account for about 41 percent of the regions
cumulative GHG emissions
1
, transits role is potentially substantial in order to curb GHG emissions
down to desired levels. The anticipated benefits of transit ridership on GHG reductions will be
quantified and incorporated into future Coordinated Plans
2
.
The transit GHG reduction objective and guideline are as follows:
Objective Reduce regional GHG emissions
Guideline Reduced carbon emissions from the expansion or addition of regional
transit services
Result No regional services were added or changed in FY 2011
GROWTH OBJECTIVE
In the San Diego region, ridership growth is measured against growth in population and against
growth in employment and growth in vehicle registrations. The need to increase transit ridership is
a corollary to the service growth projected in the RTP. In addition, many existing services have
additional capacity to handle more riders at no additional cost; however, much of the capacity is in
the off-peak direction or during off-peak periods. To take advantage of this capacity may require
land use change and significant transit-oriented development, which is beyond the direct control of
SANDAG and the transit operators.
Objective The ridership for each transit agency shall grow faster than the rate of growth
in population, jobs, and private vehicle registrations within their service area.
Guideline Year-over-year growth in transit ridership by operator.
Results Between FY 2006 and FY 2011, transit ridership increased by 5 percent. This
was due to a steep decline in jobs (-5 percent) during this time period.
Additionally, population was slightly up over this analysis period (+2 percent)
and vehicle registration was up by 1 percent. This information is shown in the
following chart.

1
From the September 2008 San Diego County GHG Inventory report prepared by the Energy Policy Initiatives Center
(EPIC), University of San Diego.
2
Available reporting methodologies include the Climate Registrys Performance Metrics for Transit Agencies (J une 2010,
Version 1.0), which include three specific metrics: emissions per passenger-mile traveled, emissions per vehicle-mile and
emissions per revenue vehicle-hour.
F-8
Figure 3.2: Transit Ridership Growth Compared to Jobs, Population, and Vehicle
Registration (FY2006 FY2011)

F-9
TRANSIT OBJECTIVES
The objectives outlined below are designed to provide the quantifiable outcomes for the transit-
related goals articulated earlier in this chapter. As with the evaluation of the TDA performance
measures included later in this chapter, poor performance by any particular operator or service is
not to be seen as a criticism of the service itself, but rather a validation of the need for additional
funding sources. Services also exhibiting negative trends may use the data to re-evaluate all or part
of the service and seek ways to coordinate components to achieve greater efficiencies or to
combine services to achieve greater productivity.
The performance of each agency is summarized, while the detailed tables listing the quantitative
performance data are included in Appendix L. The data specifically used to evaluate the
environmental justice objective is included in Appendix H with the smart growth maps included in
Appendix I.
FINANCIAL OBJECTIVE
This objective addresses the farebox recovery goal to ensure fiscally responsible operations. The cost
recovery goal and objective provides an evaluation of the financial health of the systems and their
continued eligibility for state financial support. The financial objective has been split into two parts:
targets emanating from the TDA of California and guidelines set forth in SANDAG policy. The TDA
objective has a target rather than a guideline as SANDAG is required by the TDA to establish firm
cost-recovery targets for MTS and NCTD. The cost-recovery indicator helps to determine the
appropriateness of the fare structure and the ability of the system to generate ridership and
revenue. The TDA of the State of California requires that MTS generate a cost recovery of at least
31.9 percent for all services except the Commuter Express Service, which must achieve a 20 percent
cost recovery. NCTD must achieve a minimum cost recovery of 18.8 percent for all services.
Additionally, the SANDAG guideline stems from Board of Directors direction to obtain a farebox
recovery ratio that is higher than the TDA targets to encourage revenue growth and ridership
(SANDAG Policy 29). To do this, the SANDAG guideline was developed to track farebox recovery
growth in terms of trends above the TDA thresholds.
Objective For each transit agency to meet or exceed minimum farebox cost-recovery
targets or guidelines.
TDA Target Percentage of operating costs recovered from fare revenue for fixed-route
and demand responsive services (31.9 percent MTS, 20 percent MTS Commuter
Express, 18.8 percent NCTD, and 10 percent MTS ADA and NCTD ADA).
Results Both transit agencies met the performance targets for this objective.
SANDAG
Guideline
Farebox recovery should improve annually above the minimum TDA targets.
F-10
Results MTS met this objective for fixed-route and an analysis of MTS ADA services
was unavailable. This was due to the accounting methodology for overhead
costs changed during this time period which affects the calculation of the MTS
ADA Paratransit farebox recovery. For fiscal years 2009 and 2010, overhead
expenses were allocated as an annual amount in the fourth quarter of each
fiscal year. Starting in FY 2011, MTS began allocating monthly, with the
beginning of this analysis period (FY 2008) having no overhead costs. MTS also
updated the cost allocation methodology used during this evaluation cycle.
Each operator allocated costs using passenger count ratios in fiscal years 2009
and 2010. Since the small passenger volume within Paratransit does not
accurately reflect the effort required to serve these passengers, the
methodology for the cost allocation was changed to revenue miles in FY 2011.
This spreading of the overhead costs created a more equitable cost
distribution among the operators but created a challenge in evaluating five
year trends. NCTD met the objective for ADA Paratransit services but fell just
shy of the fixed-route objective with a change from 26 percent farebox
recovery in FY 2008 to a farebox recovery of 25 percent in FY 2012. This was
due to a large increase in unemployment over the evaluation period given
that NCTD relies on the commute sector for one of its major services
(COASTER heavy rail).
PRODUCTIVITY OBJECTIVE
This objective addresses the goals to operate productive services that also are convenient and
appropriate for the markets being served. In order to meet this goal, an objective was developed to
measure productivity and to judge whether appropriate levels of service are being provided.
Separate guidelines have been established for each service type to reflect differing expectations. A
guideline was chosen instead of a target, as this is a SANDAG policy objective, rather than a state or
federal requirement. The productivity evaluation includes an evaluation of passengers per revenue-
hour and average percentage of seats occupied. Both measures provide a passenger-centric means
of evaluating productivity and the attractiveness of a service.
3
Calculating a load factor for a transit
service has some similarity to a capacity analysis for a roadway. Both roads and transit services are
well utilized during peak periods, but when measured over an entire operating day, the capacity
utilization is much less. Transit systems reduce capacity or headway during off-peak hours to keep
their load factors from falling too low. Roads, as fixed facilities cannot usually reduce capacity in
off-peak hours
4
.

3
Transit productivity is impacted by nonproductive time resulting from deadhead, layovers, and operator makeup time
(time for which drivers are paid, but are not driving), which means that load factor may be a less valuable measurement
for analyzing specific routes. MTS and NCTD will need to continue to look at other more detailed measurement techniques
to determine potential service adjustments at the route or route segment level.
4
In urban areas, transit services that manage an overall daily load factor average of at least 20 percent are doing well. A
typical urban arterial, such as Balboa Avenue in San Diego, El Camino Real in North County, and H Street in Chula Vista
also have a typical all-day capacity utilization rate by all vehicles of about 20 percent. Sample capacity calculations for
these arterial roadways are provided in Appendix G.
F-11
Objective To operate transit services that are productive and appropriate for the
markets being served.
Guideline 1 Average annual revenue passengers per revenue service-hour by operator
(at least 35 revenue passenger boardings/service-hour for MTS and at least
20 revenue passenger boardings/service-hour for NCTD).
Results Both MTS and NCTD met both guidelines for this objective.
Guideline 2 Average percentage of seats occupied (load factor) at or above the set
thresholds included in Appendix L, which vary by service type, zone and
time of day (peak/off peak).
Results In FY 2011 MTS met all of the guidelines for this measure with the exception
of the Urban Peak Community bus service (guideline of 25 percent with
performance of 24 percent). It is notable; however, that MTS improved
performance on the Urban Weekday Community bus service which was
above the set guideline in FY 2010 and FY 2011.
NCTD met all but the Urban Corridor (SPRINTER) guidelines in FY 2011. This
can be attributable to the downturn in the economy. It is notable, however,
that NCTD improved performance on the Urban Regional (COASTER) service
with performance exceeding the threshold it FY 2011. This may be
attributable to the fare decreases that took place in FY 2011. NCTD Rural
Local Bus service also improved between FY 2009 and FY 2010/2011 from 14
percent to 24 percent.
ACCESS OBJECTIVES
Transit access can involve issues such as walking distance to a bus stop, the provision of wheelchair
lifts or ramps, and the provision of
complementary ADA dial-a-ride service.
The access objectives identify guidelines
on how far people must walk or drive to
access transit, as well as linking transit
accessibility to the SANDAG smart
growth program. Accessibility targets
have been established for bus stops as
the requirements are federally
mandated. In some cases, cities rather
than transit operators may be
responsible for bus stops. However, this
objective is provided here to be
consistent with the passenger-centered
focus of this Coordinated Plan and to
ensure that this indicator is tracked and the appropriate authorities are reminded of their
responsibilities.
F-12
Walking Distance
Walking distance to a bus stop is one of the major determinants of transit usage. The closer a bus
stop is to a persons point of origin or destination, the more likely they are to choose transit. Several
research studies in the United States and Canada have shown that about half of all transit
passengers walk less than 750 feet to a bus stop. The graph in Figure 3.3 illustrates the results of this
research.
The topography of hills and canyons in San Diego County means that the street network is
discontinuous, and pedestrian routes are often interrupted by geographic barriers. Therefore, it is
very difficult to provide good transit coverage, even in many parts of the urban zones. This means
the guidelines are relatively conservative. Smart growth will encourage future population growth
to occur near transit stops, which should increase the percentage living within the specified
distance. The land use change will be a slow process that will occur over many years.
In addition to nonwork trips, the proposed guideline recognizes that employment is a major
generator of transit trips. Focusing the guideline on employment reinforces the role of the transit
system as supporting economic activity and access to jobs.
The results for this indicator are derived through the use of actual walking (or driving) distance
from origin to destination utilizing advanced geographic information systems extensions.
Figure 3.3: Walking Distance Behavior

Source: Canadian Transit Handbook, Third Edition, Canadian Urban Transit Association

F-13
Objective1 In urban areas, transit and land use development should ensure a
comfortable walking distance to transit for residents and jobs.
Guideline 1 80 percent of residents or jobs within one-half mile of a bus stop or rail
station in urban areas.
Results Both MTS and NCTD met the guidelines for this objective.
Objective 2 Transit and land use development should attempt to ensure that in
suburban areas, residents are within a reasonable distance of a park-and-
ride facility with access to the transit network, or a bus stop and transit
services should be provided to existing or planned smart growth areas.
Guideline 1 100 percent of suburban residences within five miles of a transit stop
services.
Results Both MTS and NCTD met the guidelines for this objective
Guideline 2 70 percent of residents and 75 percent of jobs within one mile of a bus stop
or rail station in suburban areas.
Results NCTD met both guidelines for this objective (suburban residential and
employment access). MTS fell just shy of the two indicators. This is primarily
due to the sprawling employment sites which are difficult for MTS to serve
all sites under current budget constraints.
Smart Growth
To provide consistency with the smart growth objectives of the SANDAG RCP, the following
performance measure recognizes the critical link between land use and transportation services.
Objective 3 Transit service should be designed to support smart growth.
Guideline Transit service should be designed to support the smart growth areas
located on the SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map.
F-14
Results All of the existing/planned smart growth areas included in the SANDAG
Smart Growth Concept Map are served by the requisite levels of transit
specified in the RCP. The vast majority of potential smart growth areas
also are served by transit. Several areas do not have the level of transit
service called for in the RCP, including 4 areas
5
without the desired levels of
regional transit service. This analysis was based on the update of the Smart
Growth Concept Map Site Descriptions (last updated J anuary 27, 2012)
identified in the RCP. The Smart Growth place types have been significantly
redefined since the 2010-2014 Coordinated Plan.
According to the updated Smart Growth Concept Map Site Descriptions,
there were 20 areas which require highfrequency, local service under the
operational purview of the transit agencies. Fourteen areas
6
are located in
the MTS service area, and six
7
are located in the NCTD service area. Maps
illustrating these areas along with the regionally deficient areas are shown
in Appendix I. There is a recognition that, while service to smart growth
areas is desirable, implementing higher levels of service needs to be justified
based on the overall transit demand potential of the area. As such, MTS
and NCTD will continue to review the demand potential in these potential
smart growth areas compared with the demand potential in other areas
where service improvements are needed. Given the current budget shortfall
faced by the transit agencies, the ability to implement service improvements
will likely be constrained over the next several years.
Lifeline Services
The evaluation of lifeline services helps to ensure that at least some level of service is provided to
areas that have been identified as smart growth opportunity areas.

5
Poway, 100% corner (at Poway Road and Community Road) (PW-1), Poway, Pomerado Hospital area (on Pomerado Road
south of Bernardo Heights Parkway) (PW-2), San Diego Clairemont Mesa, Mesa College Drive (SD-CM-9), San Diego Navajo
(along Mission Gorge Road north of Zion) (SD-NV-2
6
El Cajon, Grossmont Community College (at SR 125 and Grossmont College Drive) (EC-3), La Mesa, La Mesa Boulevard
(between Spring Street and Fletcher Parkway) (LM-6), La Mesa, El Cajon Boulevard (between 73rd Street and La Mesa
Boulevard, extending on La Mesa Boulevard until University Avenue) (LM-9), San Diego Black Mountain Ranch (southwest of
intersection of Camino del Sur and Black Mountain Road) (SD-BMR-1), San Diego City Heights, Euclid Avenue (from El Cajon
Boulevard to University Avenue) (SD-CH-2), San Diego Otay Mesa (South of I-905 and Oceanview Hills Parkway) (SD-OM-1),
San Diego Pacific Highlands Ranch (East of Carmel Valley Road and Del Mar Heights Road) (SD-PHR-1), San Diego Torrey
Highlands (North side of SR 56 and Camino del Sur) (SD-THD-1), San Diego Uptown San Diego Avenue (from Old Town to
Washington Street and India Street from Washington Street to Palm Avenue) (SD-UP-3), Santee, Cuayamaca Street (between
Mission Gorge Road and Prospect Avenue) (ST-2), Santee, Magnolia Avenue and Mast Boulevard (ST-3), Santee- Mission
Gorge Road and West Hills Parkway (ST-4), County of San Diego- Lakeside-Bostonia (CN-7), County of San Diego, J amacha
Boulevard (at Sweetwater Springs) (CN-10).
7
Carlsbad, Plaza Camino Real (at State Route 78 and El Camino Real Carlsbad) (CB-2), Carlsbad, Quarry Creek Area (at
Marron Road and north of Tamarack Avenue) (CB-3), Escondido, Citricado Parkway and Centre City Parkway (ES-6), San
Marcos, Rancho Santa Fe Road (between Mission Road/South Santa Fe Road and San Marcos Boulevard) (SM-7), San Marcos-
San Elijo Hills (at San Elijo Road and Elfin Forest Road) (SM-8), Vista, East Vista Way/Foothill (VS-6).
F-15
Objective 4 Transit should attempt to maintain existing lifeline services to currently
identified rural village smart growth areas.
Guideline One return trip provided at least two days per week to destinations from
rural villages identified on the Smart Growth Concept Map.
Results Both MTS and NCTD met both guidelines for this objective.
Accessible Services
The evaluation of accessible services helps to ensure that accessible services are provided to disabled
populations in the region.
Objective 5 Attempt to provide fully accessible bus stops and transit stations.
Guideline 100 percent of bus stops and transit stations that are fully accessible.
Results Neither MTS nor NCTD currently meet the guidelines established for this
category. MTS has finished developing a comprehensive inventory of the
top 100 bus stops and will be developing a plan to prioritize and retrofit
non ADA-compliant stops. Additionally, NCTD has developed a program to
look beyond the accessibility of the stop to look comprehensively at the
path of travel to the stop; however, the identified deficiencies point to the
need for additional funding in this category.
CONVENIENCE OBJECTIVES
Five of the regional transit goals relate to developing a transit system that is convenient for users
and potential users. The goals in this section all relate to convenience but note that different levels
of service are appropriate for different markets or zones.
The span of service guidelines define the times that transit service will be provided. For the Urban
Zone, the objective is to ensure that service is convenient and can accommodate travel during most
hours of the day. In the suburban zone, the emphasis on providing excellent commuter services in
major corridors is backed by a guideline to provide a limited network of lifeline services. In the rural
areas, the policy objectives and guidelines only contemplate lifeline levels of service. The MTS and
NCTD Boards of Directors also may decide to provide higher levels of service in specific areas where
there is higher ridership or special market conditions.
The frequency of service also influences peoples modal choice. The urban core is the area that
requires and can support a high-level of frequency that will enable passengers to travel
spontaneously. The COA has developed an extensive network of routes with headways of
15 minutes or better in the urban zone. Experience in San Diego and elsewhere shows that better
headways almost always result in more riders.
F-16
The minimum regional service headway goals are set at 20 minutes for bus and 30 minutes for rail,
consistent with the vision of the RTP. With the additional investment described in the 2030 RTP, the
headways will be enhanced in future plans with the goal of bringing bus services in key travel
corridors up to the service goal of 15 minutes or better for all-day service. The current goals
recognize the high cost of reducing rail headways below 30 minutes and take into account current
funding or facility limitations.
Objective 1 To provide an appropriate span of service to bus stops based on the zone
designation.
Guideline Percentage of stops that have transit service within the specified timeframes
for each zone and day of week (weekday/Saturday/Sunday) that are at or
above the thresholds included in Appendix L.
Results Both agencies did not meet weekday guidelines for this objective. It is
recognized, however, that limited financial resources have an impact on
reduced service spans at shoulder time periods where service is less
efficient.
Objective 2 To provide frequency appropriate for spontaneous travel on major corridors
and convenient travel to all parts of the urban core.
Guideline Minimum headways expressed in minutes that are at or below the
thresholds included in Appendix L, which vary by service type, zone, and
time of day (peak/off peak).
Results Updated GIS files were unavailable for FY 2010 and 2011. However, the
performance results for the frequency performance measure were mixed in
FY 2009, with both MTS and NCTD exceeding several frequency thresholds.
The results show that, while the service guidelines are certainly reasonable
expectations for our transit system, funding for public transportation in the
region is not sufficient for MTS and NCTD to provide this desired level of
service.
RELIABILITY AND SPEED OBJECTIVES
Reliability and speed are very important to existing and prospective transit users. As such the transit
service goals recognize the importance of reliability and maintaining or improving travel times. The
reliability objective provides a link between the published timetables (promised service) and actual
service operated on the road
8
.
The guideline for local and community bus service was lowered to 80 percent in the 2008-2012
Coordinated Plan from 95 percent. This was done to reflect experience from other transit agencies
that have shown that the previous manual schedule adherence-checking often overstates reliability,

8
Service reliability is a critical factor that influences peoples modal choice. The automatic vehicle location (AVL) system now
being installed on the transit fleet will provide useful data for evaluating the schedule reliability of the system. These
guidelines are consistent with the capabilities of the electronic data reporting that will be feasible with AVL.
F-17
and to distinguish local and community buses from regional and corridor cars where greater
reliability is expected due to use of reserved rights-of-way and priority systems. In future years, the
guidelines can be adjusted as more data is received and analyzed. The evaluation of completed trips
also is included under the first objective since it is important to evaluate whether the overall transit
routes are adequately serving the public. While on-time performance helps evaluate scheduling or
congestion issues, this indicator quantifies maintenance or driver issues for vehicles that are taken
out of service.
The guidelines for ADA paratransit meet federal rules that establish guidelines for ADA paratransit
service. The federal law does not specify performance levels for missed trips or schedule
performance, but does require a high level of service be provided. MTS considers an Access trip to
be on time if the passenger is picked up within a 10-minute window surrounding the promised
pickup time. NCTD considers NCTD LIFT to be on time if the passenger is picked up within a 20-
minute window.
The second objective is to ensure that transit services do not lose speed over the course of the
evaluation period. Slower services cost more in operating expenses and are less attractive to
passengers. It becomes increasingly difficult to maintain service speed in the face of growing traffic
congestion; however, implementation of transit priority measures can mitigate this problem.
Deficiencies in this area can point to the need for additional funding for signal priority systems
which can be developed through partnerships between Caltrans, SANDAG, various cities, transit
agencies, developers, or other organizations.
Objective 1 To operate transit services that are reliable, offer competitive travel times,
and adhere to published timetables or service intervals.
Guideline 1 Percentage of trips on time at departure, arrivals, and enroute timing
points.
Results MTS met the 80 percent on-time guideline for regional and corridor services
(including Premium Express Bus) in FY 2011, but fell shy of the guidelines for
local and community bus service. NCTD met the 80 percent on-time
guideline for its rail services (regional and corridor) but fell shy of the
guidelines for local bus service by 1 and 4 percent.
Guideline 2 Percentage of completed trips.
Results MTS and NCTD met both guidelines for this objective for the categories with
available data.
Guideline 3 Percentage of ADA trips with pickup within schedule window.
Results MTS and NCTD met the guidelines for this objective.
Objective 2 To maintain or improve existing average speeds on existing transit services
within the geographical zones.
F-18
Guideline Average transit operating speed in each zone.
Results Both MTS and NCTD generally met the speed guidelines within 1 mile per
hour with the exception of NCTD suburban service, which was 2 miles per
hour lower than the guideline. This issue will be evaluated as the NCTD
Mobility Plan is implemented.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE OBJECTIVE
This objective supports the federal environmental justice, federal Title VI legislation, and RTP equity
goals articulated in Chapter 3.
Objective To ensure that transit service and amenities provided in minority and low-
income census tracts are on average comparable to the level of service and
amenities provided in nonminority census tracts.
Target Percentage of minority and low-income census tracts with transit service
must not be disparately impacted when compared to the average level of
service and amenities provided in nonminority census tracts.
Results An updated Title VI evaluation was conducted for FY 2011 and found that
the transit operators provided service in minority and low-income census
tracts that was equal or of better quality than service typically provided in
nonminority and non-low-income census tracts. The results of this analysis
are included in Appendix H.
COMFORT OBJECTIVE
This objective addresses the goal to provide appropriate service for the markets being served. One
of the least welcomed aspects of public transit is the need to stand on board crowded, moving
buses or trains during peak periods. Standing can be uncomfortable and is perceived by some
passengers as being unsafe, particularly for Express/Bus Rapid Transit services operating at freeway
speeds. In extreme conditions, standing also may be the result of crowding that exceeds the comfort
level in terms of personal space. People are generally uncomfortable in an environment where they
must stand shoulder to shoulder with complete strangers. As a result, most transit systems have
policies that define the maximum capacity of bus and rail vehicles. This objective sets guidelines for
transit occupancy based on standee density using available floor space.
This policy proposes to adopt guidelines for transit occupancy based on standee density using only
the available floor space in the calculation. This requires the measurement of the floor area for each
vehicle type in the fleet, but represents the only accurate means of measuring standee density. This
indicator will require on-board observations. However, automatic passenger counting (APC) data,
when it becomes available, will be used to highlight any routes not meeting the guidelines.
F-19
Objective Occupancy on board vehicles should be appropriate for the distance, speed,
fare, and type of service being operated.
Guideline 1 Density of standees per square foot of available standing area.
Results Data is not yet available to measure this objective.
Guideline 2 No peak-hour standees on regional and community services.
Results MTS and NCTD met the guideline for this service objective.
Specialized Transportation
In the past SANDAG has had a very limited role in specialized transportation. SANDAG has
coordinated the local process for awarding FTA Section 5310 money for
elderly and disabled transportation. SANDAG also has overseen the CTSA
for San Diego County and participated in some coordination strategies such
as the STRIDE (Specialized Transportation Referral & Information for the
Disabled and Elderly) Web site and coordinated training programs for
specialized transportation operators. As a result of Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-
LU), SANDAG was given the responsibility to develop a Coordinated Plan
and to administer grant program funding to agencies providing specialized
transportation. Additionally, the TransNet Extension Ordinance contained
a provision for a Senior Transportation Mini-Grant program that also has
increased SANDAGs role in specialized transportation services in the
region.
SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIVES
The objectives outlined below are designed to provide the quantifiable outcomes for each of the
goals related to specialized transportation from Section 3.2. As required by the Government
Performance Results Act, the federal government has identified five indicators for measuring
relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes for each of its programs. It is the responsibility of the
FTA to collect and report this data at the program level, and is not used to assess individual grants,
however to remain consistent SANDAG has adopted these indicators for the purposes of the
Coordinated Plan. Because of the close parallels of the goals of the Senior Mini-Grant program to
these federal specialized transportation programs, indicators for projects funded through the Senior
Mini-Grant program are included in this section with the detailed results included in Appendix L.
Because of the wide array of projects funded through these specialized transportation grant
programs with differing service parameters and associated costs, these indicators should not be
used to analyze or evaluate the performance of individual projects or the grant programs.
F-20
NEW FREEDOM PROGRAM MEASURES
The New Freedom program is a federal program intended to improve mobility choices for persons
with disabilities. The three measures established by the FTA for the New Freedom Program are:
Measure 1 Increases or enhancements related to geographic coverage, service quality,
and/or service times for transportation services for persons with disabilities
in the current year, to be measured by:
Geographic area in square miles where services are being provided
under the New Freedom program
Enhanced service quality for disabled transportation
Enhanced frequency of service for disabled transportation
Results The geographic coverage including operating projects in 30 zip codes and
mobility management services in 120 zip codes. All projects to date have
represented new projects and therefore there have not been any
enhancements to service quality or frequency of service for existing
programs funded through New Freedom.
Measure 2 Additions or changes to environmental infrastructure, technology, and
vehicles that impact the availability of transportation services for the
disabled in the current year, to be measured by:
Improved infrastructure and technologies
Improved vehicles
Results Two accessible vehicles were purchased with New Freedom funds in FY 2010
and FY 2011. No improved infrastructure or technology projects have been
funded,
Objective 3 Actual or estimated number of rides (as measured by one-way trips)
provided for individuals with disabilities as a result of the New Freedom
projects
Results The number of one-way trips provided under the New Freedom program
was 7,435 in FY 2009, 11,172 in FY 2010, and 12,204 in FY 2011.
Additionally, for mobility management projects, 26,041 units of service were
provided in FY 2010 and 20,483 in FY 2011.

F-21
JARC PROGRAM MEASURES
J ob Access and Reverse Commute (J ARC) is a federal program intended to improve mobility choices
for employment related travel for reverse commuters and persons of limited means. The two
measures established by the FTA for the J ARC Program are:
Measure 1 The actual or estimated number of jobs that can be accessed as a result of
geographic or temporal coverage of J ARC projects implemented.
Results The estimated number of jobs that can be accessed as a result of J ARC
projects in FY 2011 were 349,590.
Measure 2 The actual or estimated number of rides (as measured by one-way trips):
Results The number of one-way trips provided by JARC projects was FY 2010 was
1,163,245 trips and 1,201,428 in FY 2011. Additionally in FY 2011 a mobility
management project delivered 407 units including individuals receiving
travel training and assistance with route planning.
SENIOR MINI-GRANT PROGRAM MEASURES
The Senior Mini-Grant program is a local program funded through the TransNet Extension
Ordinance. SANDAG has included the requirement that all projects funded through the Senior Mini-
Grant program be included in the Coordinated Plan, similar to the federal requirements under the
J ARC and New Freedom programs. The program and evaluation criteria were developed with
stakeholder input and through this process, a performance indicator was established to measure the
performance of projects funded under this program. The measure established for operational
projects funded by the Senior Mini-Grant program is:
Measure 1
The actual or estimated number of rides (as measured by one-way trips):
Results 53,656 trips one way trips were provided through Senior Mini-Grant funded
projects in FY 2010 and 70,898 one way trips were provided in FY 2011.
Objective 1 To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a project, to be measured by:
Operating cost in dollars per passenger
Results The operating cost in dollars per passenger was $32.50 in FY 2009, $21.55 in
FY 2010, and $20.11 in FY 2011.

F-22
Specialized Transportation Project Monitoring and Reporting
With the responsibility of coordinating the local process for awarding and providing grant money
for the JARC, New Freedom, and Senior Mini-Grant programs, SANDAG has developed a
consolidated approach to monitoring the projects funded through these programs. This monitoring
program is specifically laid out in the Program Management Plan, which is available on the SANDAG
website at http://www.sandag.org/CoordinatedPlan. SANDAG developed a Monitoring Checklist
that assesses the projects compliance with the terms of the grant agreement and the project
delivery. As part of the Monitoring Checklist, SANDAG measures that grantees progress towards
project delivery by measuring the cost per unlinked one way passenger trip (or other measurable
unit of service) and comparing it with the cost per unit original proposed by the grantee in their
grant application. The Monitoring Checklist is completed during site visits performed for all
grantees at regular intervals.
SANDAG also monitors the projects on an ongoing basis through the progress reports that are
required to be submitted with each invoice packet in order to be eligible for reimbursement.
SANDAG uses the information from these report forms and associated data along with information
from site-visits to report on the performance of the grantees and the programs as a whole to
stakeholders annually. The performance report (also available on the website) includes a qualitative
assessment of each of the projects and their progress along with a quantitative analysis related to
the level of service provided and the cost per unit, in comparison to the grantees proposal. This
performance report is annually presented to the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council,
Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee, and Transportation Committee.
Operating Projects/Trip-Based Services
Total number of one-way passenger trips
Operating cost per trip
Geographical coverage
Number of targeted jobs (J ARC only)
Mobility Management Projects
Total number of service units provided
Operating cost per service unit
Geographical coverage
Capital Projects
Total number of units added
Operating cost per unit
F-23
Additional indicators, such as operating cost per revenue-hour and passenger seat utilization, and
evaluation for capital projects will be added in future years per the guidelines list in the previous
section.
Maps of the J ob Access & Reverse Commute (J ARC), New Freedom, and Senior Mini-Grant projects
that received funding in 2011 are shown in Figures 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. These figures only include
service and route-based projects; other projects such as travel training and infrastructural
improvements are not displayed on the maps.
F-24
Figure 3.2: Job Access & Reverse Commute (JARC)
F-25
Figure 3.3: New Freedom
F-26
Figure 3.4: Senior Mini-Grant Program
F-27

CTSA OBJECTIVES
The major initiative of SANDAG to improve transportation coordination among social service
transportation providers has been the creation and funding of the CTSA. In 2006 SANDAG
designated Facilitating Access to Coordinated Transportation (FACT) of Oceanside to be the CTSA
for San Diego County.
The role of the CTSA is to improve transportation service that is needed by social service recipients
by promoting consolidation of social service transportation, incorporating such benefits as
centralized dispatching, combined purchasing of necessary equipment and supplies, centralized
maintenance, centralized administration to eliminate duplicative administrative tasks, and
consolidation of existing sources of funding. This consolidation results in more efficient and
effective use of vehicles throughout the region.
The core mission of the CTSA is to consolidate and coordinate transportation services to people with
disabilities, senior citizens, social service agencies, health care providers, various organizations, and
individuals within that particular service area.
Now that SANDAG has actively managed several grant recipients over the past several years,
SANDAG can begin to evaluate the coordination of the various grant projects. The following
objective was set by SANDAG to develop and encourage coordinated transportation.
Objective 1 To effectively advance coordinated access to the full spectrum of community
transportation options for populations in need (seniors, persons with
disabilities, and persons of limited means) through mechanisms such as
mobility management, data tracking for unmet needs, vehicle brokerage,
coordinated service, etc., to be measured by:
Increase in the number of social service programs including, coordinated
transportation as an integrated component.
Objective 2 To fulfill the scheduled tasks and activities as identified in the CTSA contract
between SANDAG and FACT (Contract No. 5000644) as follows:
Maintain an information and referral web site;
Provide information and referral assistance on transportation for seniors,
persons with disabilities, and other transportation disadvantaged
populations;
Organize trainings for the community;
Maintain an active (minimum four times per year) advisory council of the
CTSA (CAM) that can serve as a forum for local health and social service
transportation agencies to coordinate and disseminate information on
specialized transportation;
Develop an annually updated strategic business plan;
F-28
Maintain an inventory of existing resources;
Coordinate surveys;
Maintain a CTSA mailing list;
Provide newsletters, brochures and other information materials;
Report on actions and activities of the CTSA;
Ensure that at least 50 percent of the FACT Board of Directors is
comprised of officials elected to municipal or county positions in San
Diego County, including one member who is a sitting member of the
SANDAG Transportation Committee;
Work with SANDAG on the development and updating of the
Coordinated Plan;
Conduct quarterly workshops and safety roundtables;
Assist with the federal capital grant process;
Maintain a supplemental transportation programs best practice library;
Give community presentations and technical assistance;
Identify partnerships between public and private services;
Facilitate combined purchasing to achieve cost savings among providers
of social service transportation;
Provide consolidated driver training for social service transportation
providers;
Coordinate centralized maintenance of vehicles;
Provide transit travel training;
Conduct ADA paratransit/alternative transportation training;
Provide centralized dispatch of vehicles for social service transportation
providers;
Develop an administrative model that would eliminate numerous
duplicative and costly administrative burdens;
Identify and consolidate existing sources of funding for social service
transportation service to provide a more effective and cost efficient use
of scarce resources;
Ensure that local elected officials are involved in developing local actions
necessary for the success of the CTSA;
F-29
Participate in regional disaster preparedness planning for coordinated
emergency evacuation; and
Identify target area for deployment outside the pilot project area.
3.4 TDA Productivity Improvement Program and Performance Monitoring
Another component of the transit monitoring process is the Transportation Development Act (TDA)
productivity improvement program and performance audit, which is included in the Coordinated
Plan. This program is updated and evaluated annually so that SANDAG may distribute state TDA
monies to the transit agencies.
9
The productivity improvement program ensures that state and local
requirements are met and that these programs improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the
regional transportation system.
Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99244, an operator can be allocated no
more in FY 2013 than it was allocated in FY 2012 unless SANDAG determines that the operator
made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvement recommendations adopted
by the Board of Directors for the current fiscal year. This reasonable effort is developed through the
evaluation of 3-year trend data and through a determination of whether or not those trends are
positive.
The Productivity Improvement Program includes all of the performance measures explicitly stated in
the state TDA Manual Section 99246(d). Additionally, SANDAG tracks multiyear trend analysis since
it is recognized that steps taken by the transit agencies to improve system performance often take
several years to be fully realized. The Productivity Improvement Program for FY 2012 included the
evaluation of the following TDA performance measures over a three-year (12 quarter) period:
Operating Cost Per Passenger (adjusted for annual inflation) measures cost-effectiveness
Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour (adjusted for annual inflation) measures cost-efficiency
Passengers Per Revenue Hour measures service productivity
Passengers Per Revenue Mile measures service productivity
Revenue Hours Per Employee measures labor productivity
Farebox Recovery Ratio measures service cost-efficiency
10

These performance indicators are measured separately for fixed-route (MTS Trolley, MTS Bus,
NCTD SPRINTER, NCTD COASTER, and NCTD BREEZE Bus), demand-based services (NCTD FLEX), and
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Paratransit services (MTS ADA and NCTD ADA).
The indicators help determine if the agency is obtaining the desired results from the system and if
overall performance is improving based on updated regional strategies or service operation plans.
Also, these indicators help the transit agencies determine where improvements can be made. These

9
The TDA provides funding for the regions public transit operators and for nonmotorized transportation projects and, as
the Regional Transportation Planning Agency, SANDAG administers the TDA funds.
10
Based on the TDA Manual Sections 6633.2 and 6633.5, this measure includes the evaluation of the last four quarters of
available data (Quarter 2 of FY 2011 through Quarter 2 of FY 2012).
F-30
improvements can be incorporated into each operators Service Improvement Plan, which are
included in the Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan prepared by
SANDAG.
Performance trends were evaluated in FY 2012 to determine whether the transit agencies improved
their performance in light of external circumstances (e.g., fuel prices and reduced state funding
levels for transit). To facilitate a greater understanding of each individual service (MTS Bus, MTS
Paratransit, MTS Trolley, NCTD Breeze, NCTD COASTER, NCTD SPRINTER, and NCTD Paratransit), a
composite index of the six TDA performance measures is included in the Productivity Improvement
Program to help determine overall trends.
Appendix J includes the composite evaluation of each service from Quarter 2 of FY 2009 to
Quarter 2 of FY 2012. The overall composite charts are followed by charts that specifically illustrate
the percent change through the reporting period as discussed below.
MTS FY 2012 Performance
The results of the FY 2012 MTS performance trend analysis indicate that:
MTS Trolley performance declined by 4 percent based on the Quarter 2 FY 2009 to Quarter 2
FY 2012 analysis. The main reason for the slight decline was a 13 percent decrease in Trolley
ridership over the three-year period, due primarily to the economic recession that led to large
job losses in the San Diego region. As a result, operating costs per passenger have increased,
and passenger productivity (passengers per revenue hour and mile) also declined. Despite the
drop in ridership over the three year period, the trolley farebox recovery rate remained stable
resulting in a recent four-quarter average of 51 percent. This farebox recovery is well above the
36 percent system average and almost double the national light rail average of 28 percent. This
was largely due decreased operating costs coupled with a 4 percent increase in fare revenue
over the evaluation period. Trolley ridership has begun to increase, with FY 2011 ridership up
3.8 percent over the previous year, and year-to-date ridership up 5.1 percent.
MTS Bus overall performance improved by 1 percent through the Second Quarter of FY 2012.
Factors contributing to the improved performance included large increases in productivity from
a 10 percent reduction in revenue hours and miles without proportionately affecting ridership
(which increased by 1 percent). Bus ridership had a year to date FY 2012 increase of 5.9 percent.
Overall improvements also were seen in labor productivity.
MTS ADA overall performance declined by 13 percent over the past 12 quarters. Positive signs
were seen in productivity (passengers per revenue mile and revenue hour). Additionally,
operating costs slightly increased while ridership, revenue hours and revenue miles declined.
The accounting process for overhead, however, changed during this time period. For fiscal years
2009 and 2010, overhead expenses were allocated as an annual amount in the fourth quarter of
each fiscal year. Starting in FY 2011, MTS began allocating overhead monthly, so the beginning
of the analysis period had no overhead costs. MTS also changed the cost allocation
methodology used during this evaluation cycle. Each operator allocated costs using passenger
count ratios in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Since the small passenger volume within Paratransit
does not accurately reflect the effort required to serve these passengers, the methodology for
the cost allocation was changed to revenue miles. This spreading of the overhead costs created
F-31
a more equitable cost distribution among the operators but created a challenge in evaluating
composite trends for the MTS ADA service.
MTS Farebox Recovery Rates exceeded the minimum TDA requirements for fixed-route and
ADA Paratransit services. TDA requirements include a minimum annual farebox recovery of:
31.9 percent for fixed-route rail and bus (41.1 percent was achieved); 20.0 percent for Premium
Express (46.8 percent achieved); and 10 percent for MTS ADA services (13.3 percent was
achieved).
NCTD FY 2012 Performance
The results of the FY 2012 NCTD performance trend analysis indicate that:
NCTD COASTER overall performance declined by 5 percent during the last 12 quarters due
mainly to declines in ridership and passenger fares coupled with increased operating costs,
revenue hours and Full Time Equivalent Employees (FTEs). However, despite high
unemployment levels, ridership has increased over the last four quarters by 26 percent, as a
result of several factors, including increased fuel prices, increasing traffic congestion, increased
marketing efforts, and the reduction in passenger fares which was introduced in the Third
Quarter of Fiscal Year 2011. It is important to note that while the overall composite
performance is slightly down for the three year term, performance has been improving since
the reduction of COASTER passenger fares.
NCTD SPRINTER performance improved by 7 percent over the last 12 quarters. The SPRINTER
performance improvement was primarily due to the decline in operating costs matched by
increased passengers, revenue hours and fares. This yielded improvements in cost-effectiveness
and productivity. Farebox recovery also was up 7 percent in the year-over-year analysis.

NCTD BREEZE overall performance did not change over the 12 quarter evaluation period. Gains
in cost-effectiveness were offset by slight reductions in farebox recovery. BREEZE farebox
recovery, however, has improved by 2 percent over the last two years. Service and labor
productivity held constant from the Quarter 2 FY 2009 to the Quarter 2 FY 2012.
NCTD ADA service improved by 13 percent over the previous 12 quarter period. This was the
result of large improvements in cost-effectiveness and productivity based on increased
passengers (+8 percent), declining costs (-21 percent) due to the transition away from a
dedicated fleet service model to a brokerage model, increased revenue hours (+10 percent) and
increased fares (+1 percent).
NCTD Farebox Recovery minimum TDA requirements were exceeded for fixed-route and ADA
Paratransit services. TDA requirements include a minimum annual farebox recovery of: 18.8 percent
for fixed-route (25 percent was achieved); and 10 percent for ADA (13.7 percent was achieved)
services.
F-32
3.5 TDA Performance Audit Recommendations
In addition to the three-year performance monitoring associated with the annual TDA claim, the
triennial performance audit included the development of improvement recommendations for the
transit agencies. The most recent performance audit completed in April 2010 included some
recommendations on possible strategies to improve efficiency and effectiveness for both transit
operators. These recommendations and the associated MTS and NCTD action plans to implement
them (from Form B of the 2012 TDA Claim) were updated by MTS and NCTD and are included in
Attachment J .
3.6 Technical Advancements and Automation
As outlined in this chapter, the Coordinated Plan provides a comprehensive performance analysis of
transit service from the regional and passenger perspectives. However, as more detailed data
becomes available from new technologies, this evaluation can be further expanded in future years.
Automated and consistent data collection is critical to ensuring that performance is tracked over the
five-year timeframe discussed in this chapter, including the three years outlined in the TDA section.
The following section discusses the status of technical advancements and improvements to the data
collection process expected over the next several years.
Transit System
SANDAG, MTS, and NCTD rely on numerous tools for performance monitoring. The Regional Transit
Management System (RTMS) is a sophisticated management tool for providing real-time
performance monitoring and reporting. The RTMS relies on data from automatic vehicle locator
(AVL) technology for real time vehicle location. AVL data is used for on-time performance
monitoring, as well as real-time dispatch control.
Figure 3.5: AVL and APC Fleet Deployment (FY 2012)
F-33
The passenger counting program (PCP) provides stop-by-stop boarding and alighting information
for every weekday trip, as well as a sample of weekend trips. The PCP relies heavily on manually
collected data, but has recently been using data from APC units from a subset of the system. To
increase the reliability of PCP data and reduce data collection costs, APC units will be purchased on
most new vehicles and retrofitted on older buses and rail cars. The long-term goal for the region is
to have 100 percent of transit vehicles equipped with APC units.
Figure 3.5 shows the percentage of vehicles (in some cases purchased but not yet deployed) with
AVL and APC technology within each fleet, as well as regionwide.
T-PeMS
Planned improvements to the highway Performance Measurement System (PeMS) program
(developed by U.C. Berkeley in cooperation with Caltrans) include the development and integration
of transit (T-PeMS) and arterial (A-PeMS) modules. These features will allow PeMS to perform as a
multimodal performance measurement and evaluation tool for the San Diego region. These
improvements will supplement the SANDAG transit performance monitoring program over the next
several years by providing the ability to gather, track, and analyze real-time transit data.
F-34
APPENDIX G
MTS BUS STOP LOCATION PROCESS
G-1
G-2
G-3
APPENDIX H
NCTD SERVICE STANDARDS FINAL REPORT
NCTD Mobility Plan
Service Standards
Final Report
November 22, 2010
H-1
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Transit Services Overview ................................................................................................. 1
3.0 Rail Service Design, Performance, and Amenities ........................................................... 2
Rail Service Design Criteria 2
Rail Performance Targets 4
Rail Passenger Amenity Guidelines 4
4.0 Fixed Route Bus Service Design, Performance, and Amenities ...................................... 5
Fixed Route Bus Service Design Criteria 7
Fixed Route Bus Performance Targets 11
Fixed Route Bus Passenger Amenity Guidelines 14
5.0 Community-Based Transit Service Design, Performance, and Amenities ......................15
Community-Based Transit Service Design Criteria 18
Community-Based Transit Performance Targets 19
Community-Based Transit Passenger Amenity Guidelines 20
6.0 Ongoing Performance Monitoring and Reporting ...........................................................21
Attachments ........................................................................................................................... 22
H-2
List of Figures
Figure 1 RPI Calculation .........................................................................................................11
Figure 2 Typical Community Based Routing Options ............................................................16
List of Tables
Table 1 Sprinter and Coaster Spans of Service ...................................................................... 3
Table 2 Rail Capacity Targets ................................................................................................. 3
Table 3 Rail Service Frequency Targets .................................................................................. 3
Table 4 Rail Service Performance Targets .............................................................................. 4
Table 5 Corridor Routes .......................................................................................................... 6
Table 6 Local Routes ............................................................................................................... 7
Table 7 Commuter Routes ...................................................................................................... 7
Table 8 Population Density Thresholds .................................................................................. 8
Table 9 Threshold Activity Levels for Transit Service to Non-Residential Destinations ......... 9
Table 10 Bus Stop Spacing by Service Area Type .................................................................. 9
Table 11 Bus Stop Spacing by Population Density ................................................................10
Table 12 Service Frequency Targets by Route Category ......................................................10
Table 13 Service Span Targets ..............................................................................................11
Table 14 Load Factor Targets .................................................................................................13
Table 15 Range of RPI Ratings by Route Category and Service Day ....................................14
Table 16 Community Based Transit Service Options ............................................................16
Table 17 Community Service Design Criteria ........................................................................18
Table 18 Operating Effciency & Effectiveness Performance Targets ...................................19
Table 19 Service Quality Performance Targets ..................................................................... 20
i
H-3
IBI GROUP NCTDMOBILITYPLANSERVICESTANDARDS-FINALREPORT
1 NOVEMBER22,2010
1.0 Introduction
It is a good practice to routinely measure transit performance both at the system level and by individual route
level by service day, and to periodically update the targets and standards where appropriate for systemwide
and individual route performance. Developing the tools for performance measurement is an important frst step
in reviewing existing services and restructuring them in a way to maximize their performance and utility. Service
standards are used to ensure the services operated by NCTD meet their customers needs and expectations,
and are provided in a cost-effective, fscally responsible manner. They provide guidance and information for the
following purposes:
Service development
Evaluation
Budgeting
Public accountability
Title VI
This technical report outlines the types of services currently operated by NCTD, followed by a discussion of
service design guidelines, service performance standards, and passenger amenity guidelines for each service
type. The memo concludes with suggestions for the ongoing monitoring and reporting of service performance.
2.0 Transit Services Overview
NCTD currently operates fve types of transit services:
Coaster The Coaster operates Monday Saturday providing commuter rail (CR) service between the
Oceanside Transit Center and the Santa Fe Depot in San Diego. Five of the eight Coaster stations are located
within the NCTD service area: Oceanside, Carlsbad Village, Poinsettia, Encinitas and Solana Beach. The
Coaster serves primarily work trips made during peak periods. The current weekday schedule consists of 11
round trips spread over a 13-hour period between 5:18 am and 8:01 pm. On Fridays, two additional round trips
are added at night extending coverage to 11:46 pm. The current Saturday schedule consists of six southbound
and seven northbound trips. Sunday Coaster service is limited to special events with no regularly scheduled
trips. As part of the LOSSAN corridor, there are plans to increase the mileage of double tracked sections and
increase the number of daily trips. The 2050 Regional Transportation Plan currently being prepared by SANDAG
calls for full double tracking of the LOSSAN corridor as part of the unconstrained alternative.
Sprinter Operating since March 2008, the Sprinter provides light rail transit (LRT) along 22 miles of track
running generally parallel to the CA 78 Freeway between Oceanside and Escondido. Sprinter serves 15 stations
and accommodates a wide range of trip purposes. Service frequency presently is limited to every 30 minutes
due to extensive single track segments. There also is interest providing express skip-stop services (which
would require additional trackwork), and a longer service day (freight operations would be limited to Sundays).
Similar to plans for the Coaster, the unconstrained alternative currently being developed for the 2050 RTP
includes full double tracking for the Sprinter.
Breeze Fixed route bus service is provided throughout the NCTD service area. The Breeze network includes
three types of routes:
Corridor routes that cover heavily traveled main streets;
Local routes that operate within communities; and
Commuter routes that operate on weekdays only during peak hours.
Breeze service includes the Coaster Connection (Routes 444 and 445) that provides links between the Carlsbad
Poinsettia Station and key employment destinations in Carlsbad. The productivity and fnancial performance of
H-4
2 NOVEMBER22,2010
the routes varies widely.
Community Based Non-Fixed Services No general public demand responsive services are currently
operated. NCTD formerly operated FAST services in Encinitas, Fallbrook, Ramona, San Marcos, and Vista,
but these services were eliminated due to budget constraints. This type of service is being reconsidered in the
development of the Mobility Plan as part of the restructuring of fxed route service in selected areas.
ADA Service NCTD operates the LIFT service to provide mobility for disabled users who are unable to use
the Breeze system. It is designed to conform with state and federal requirements for ADA service in corridors
served by fxed routes.
3.0 Rail Service Design, Performance, and Amenities
NCTD services include two distinct rail transit modes, commuter rail and light rail transit. With signifcant
differences in purpose, ridership base, and fare structure, as well as their relationship to the Breeze bus system,
the Coaster and Sprinter are not readily comparable to one another.
Coaster The Coaster is an important regional service designed to provide a viable commute alternative to
driving the I-5 Freeway between Oceanside and downtown San Diego. Given its limited service span and
frequency, the Coaster is not designed to function as an integral part of the local transit network, although a
critical function of the Breeze is as a feeder service to the fve commuter rail stations in the NCTD service area.
Coaster stations also serve as favorable terminal points for Breeze bus routes covering coastal communities,
providing both connectivity for customers and meeting operational requirements.
Sprinter From a design perspective, the Sprinter provides a foundation for the Breeze bus network.
Recognizing the need to funnel as many longer-distance passengers as possible into the Sprinter line when it
opened in 2008, NCTD developed and implemented structural service changes in 2008 and 2009 to improve
bus-train connections throughout the system. Primary transfer points were established at the Escondido,
Oceanside and Vista stations where pre-existing transit centers already accommodated timed-transfer bus
locations. Several new short-distance feeder routes were created to serve Mira Costa College (Route 319),
Kaplan College (Route 331) and California State University San Marcos (Route 340). In addition, connections
between Sprinter and Coaster trains at Oceanside were coordinated where possible.
3.1 Rail Service Design Criteria
The alignments for the Coaster and Sprinter rail services are fxed for the short to medium term and it is
understood that future investments in track capacity and station improvements are long-term in nature. Thus
the primary options available to NCTD for adjusting these services in the next several years involve changes
to service span (i.e., days and hours of operation) or train capacity (i.e., number of cars per train - up to six
per train on Coaster, up to two per train on Sprinter). Rails service frequency adjustments are limited by both
physical and fnancial constraints. Similarly, it may be diffcult to operate Sprinter trains in express or limited-
stop service until additional double track line segments are constructed. There are opportunities to add some
trips to the Coaster schedule and extended service hours are being considered for the Sprinter in January 2011.
H-5
3 NOVEMBER22,2010
Rail Service Span
Existing and target service span for Sprinter and Coaster rail services are shown below.
Table 1 - Sprinter and Coaster Spans of Service
Service Weekday Saturday Sunday
SPRINTER
Existing 4:03am-9:26pm 4:33am-9:26pm 4:33am-9:26pm
Target 4:00am-12:00am 4:30am-11:00pm 5:00am-9:00pm
COASTER
Existing
5:18am-8:01pm
Fridays until 11:46pm
8:30am-11:46am Special Events
Target
5:00am-9:00pm
Fridays until 12:00am
7:00am-9:00pm As-Needed
Rail Service Capacity
Passenger load targets guide the need to add capacity through additional cars or increased frequency.
Weekday peak passenger loading targets are shown below.
Table 2 - Rail Capacity Targets
Service Maximum Load
SPRINTER 125% of Seated Capacity
COASTER 100% of Seated Capacity
Rail Service Frequency
NCTDs substantial investment in rail infrastructure warrants a commensurate level of service. Sprinter service
frequency currently is limited to 30 minutes due to track capacity. This is low relative to typically 5-15 minute
peak service frequencies encountered on comparable LRT systems in the United States. Coaster service
frequency also is constrained due to track agreements as well as the cost of rolling stock and commuter rail
operations. NCTD has long-range plans to improve service frequencies on both services as funding permits.
Existing and target frequencies for Sprinter and Coaster rail services are indicated in the following table.
Table 3 - Rail Service Frequency Targets
Service Weekday Peak
Weekday Base /
Evening Saturday Sunday
SPRINTER
Existing 30 30
Morning & Evening - 60
Midday - 30
Morning & Evening - 60
Midday - 30
Target 15* 15* 20 30
COASTER
Existing
AM NB 26-46
PM SB 30-54
2 Trains 6 Round Trips Special Events
Target 30 60 60 120
*currently limited to 30 minutes by track confguration.
H-6
4 NOVEMBER22,2010
3.2 Rail Performance Targets
A summary of proposed standards for net cost per passenger and passengers per revenue hour is shown
below, based on recent Sprinter and Coaster performance.
Table 4 - Rail Service Performance Targets
Standard Service Target
Net Cost Per Passenger Mile
Sprinter $0.60
Coaster $0.25
Passengers Per Hour
Sprinter 100
Coaster 225
3.3 Rail Passenger Amenity Guidelines
Rail service passenger facilities include stations and rolling stock provided through a signifcant capital
investment. One of the essential passenger amenities is the provision of current route maps and timetables at
all Coaster and Sprinter stations. Future improvements include updates to the wayfnding signing system and
possible additional amenities as part of joint development projects at stations.
Real-time transit information systems are key technology applications within the transit industry designed to
provide better customer service by disseminating timely and accurate information. Riders use this information
to make various decisions about modes of travel, travel routes, and travel times. Real-time transit information
generally includes information on projected vehicle arrival and departure times, service disruptions and delays,
transfers and other transportation services, as well as other related information such as date and time, weather,
public announcements, security related information and updates during emergency events, and other general
events in the local area.
This information is provided to assist riders in making pre-trip and en route (including in-vehicle) trip decisions.
Moreover, the provision of real-time transit information helps improve the visibility of transit agencies within their
communities. Access to this information is made through a variety of media including dynamic message signs
(DMS) at stops and stations, kiosks (at bus shelters, offce buildings, shopping centers, and other locations),
cable television, cell phones/personal digital assistants (PDAs), the Internet, and telephones.
H-7
5 NOVEMBER22,2010
4.0 Fixed Route Bus Service Design, Performance, and
Amenities
NCTD adopted transit system performance standards initially as part of the 2002 Fast Forward Strategic Plan
that refected a Productivity and Coverage strategy to guide service distribution and to set performance
standards. This approach refers to two types of routes: Productivity-oriented routes that carry the highest
possible ridership in areas with higher ridership and employment densities; and Coverage-oriented routes that
serve transit-dependent and other niche markets. Within these two route orientations, various route types are
defned:
Corridor Routes generally run on major arterials at higher average speeds and focus on inter-community
travel. These routes operate at least every 30 minutes on weekdays and carry at least 25 passengers per
revenue vehicle hour if considered to be productivity-oriented, or operate every 60 to 120 minutes and carry
at least 15 passengers per hour if considered to be coverage-oriented.
Local Routes generally serve one or two communities and provide circulation within rather than between
communities. These routes operate every 30 to 60 minutes on weekdays and must carry at least 20
passengers per revenue vehicle hour if considered to be productivity-oriented, or operate every 60 minutes
and carry at least 12 passengers per hour if considered to be coverage-oriented.
Commuter Routes address particular needs for service to major employment and educational centers.
These routes are considered productivity-oriented and must carry at least 20 passengers per revenue
vehicle hour and 15 passengers per trip.
Local Peak Capacity Routes include supplemental tripper services required to alleviate overloading
during peak hours and at school bell times. These are considered productivity-oriented for purposes of
performance evaluation and must carry at least 30 passengers per revenue vehicle hour and 20 passengers
per trip.
Coaster Connection Routes provide last mile feeder services between major employment sites and
the Carlsbad Poinsettia commuter rail station. These are considered coverage-oriented for purposes of
performance evaluation and must carry at least 10 passengers per revenue vehicle hour.
Special Event and Supplemental Services such as Padre and Charger service are no longer operated due
to changes in charter regulations. Limited special event service (e.g., San Diego County Fair) is provided
because it has the same fare as regular service. In addition, extra trips on bus routes and rail service
bridges are operated when required by service interruptions.
For the most part the route categories developed for the Fast Forward Strategic Plan still ft current conditions.
However some adjustments to NCTD policies and approach to service standards and performance monitoring
are recommended. The most signifcant adjustment needed is precipitated by the introduction of Sprinter LRT
service in March 2008, which altered the basis for Breeze network design such that the distinction between
productivity and coverage among bus routes now is less relevant. System design now depends more on
Sprinters substantial capacity to provide longer distance trips between communities at operating speeds that
are faster and more predictable than Breeze buses running on surface streets. It is anticipated that future bus
service changes will lead to more local feeder connections to Sprinter stations as well as short-distance
neighborhood trips. Meanwhile, the number of corridor routes will be limited to those operating in areas
peripheral to, perpendicular to, or beyond the infuence of the Sprinter line.
Going forward, Breeze routes should be differentiated not only by function relative to Sprinter and Coaster
services but also on the basis of geographic and demographic characteristics of the areas they cover, ridership
volumes and vehicle size. Suggested route categories are described in the following paragraphs.
H-8
6 NOVEMBER22,2010
Corridor Routes should continue to serve moderate and higher density travel corridors using primarily arterial
streets to provide direct connections between communities that are not linked by the Sprinter. Corridor routes
tend to be longer with round trip cycle times of 120 to 240 minutes and end-to-end one-way travel times of
50 to 100 minutes. Level of service characteristics should refect the prevailing geographic and demographic
conditions in the service area. In areas of higher population and employment density (i.e., primary transit
corridors) for example, these routes likely are full-service in terms of coverage, span and frequency. Existing
targets for productivity (25 passengers per revenue vehicle hour) and frequency (30 minutes or better) are
appropriate for these routes, although peak period target frequencies of 15 minutes should be considered for
the medium-range future (3-5 years). In addition to service productivity, new measures of service utilization and
cost-effectiveness are proposed as part of a three-part Route Performance Index (RPI) described later in this
section.
In areas of lower population and employment density (i.e., secondary transit corridors), corridor routes may be
less than full-service, but nevertheless suffcient to meet the basic transportation needs of transit dependent
and mobility-challenged persons. Target service productivity for all corridor routes should be at least 25
passengers per revenue vehicle hour. This represents a 16% increase over current weekday productivity (21.6
passengers per hour); a 33% increase over current Saturday productivity; and a 71% increase over current
Sunday productivity among corridor routes. Frequency targets should be 30 minutes during peak hours and 60
minutes during off-peak hours.
The following Breeze routes are included in the corridor group for purposes of performance measurement.
Table 5 - Corridor Routes
Breeze
Route Communities Linked Corridors Served
101
Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach,
Del Mar, San Diego
Pacific Coast Hwy
302 Oceanside, Vista Vista Way
303 Oceanside, Vista Mission Ave, N. Santa Fe
304/404 San Marcos, Encinitas Rancho Santa Fe
305 Escondido, San Marcos, Vista Mission, S. Santa Fe
306 Fallbrook, Bonsall, Vista Mission Ave, Vista Way
308 Escondido, Solana Beach Del Dios Hwy, Via De La Valle
309 Encinitas, Carlsbad, Oceanside El Camino Real
315 Oceanside, Camp Pendleton Vandegrift Blvd
347 Escondido, San Marcos Mission Rd, Barham Dr, Craven Rd
388/389 Escondido, Pala, Rincon Valley Center Rd, Pala Rd
395 Oceanside, Camp Pendleton, San Clemente Camp Pendleton
Local Routes should focus on circulation within communities and increasingly should accommodate short-
distance feeder trips to and from Sprinter stations. Local routes tend to be moderate in length with round trip
cycle times of 60 to 90 minutes and end-to-end one-way running times of 25 to 40 minutes. Existing targets
for productivity (20 passengers per revenue vehicle hour) and peak frequency (30 minutes or better) should be
retained for local routes in the short-term. However, higher medium-term targets should be considered in view
of the current weekday average productivity of 22.1 passengers per hour among local routes; 19.5 passengers
per hour on Saturdays and 15 passengers per hour on Sundays. The following Breeze routes are included in the
local group for the purpose of performance measurement.
H-9
7 NOVEMBER22,2010
Table 6 - Local Routes
Breeze
Route Communities Served Coverage Area
313 Oceanside Mission Ave, Mesa Drive
318 Oceanside Oceanside Blvd
319 Oceanside Rancho Del Oro
325 Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista Carlsbad Village Dr, College Blvd
331 Vista University Dr Kaplan College
332 Vista Melrose Dr, Sycamore Ave
333 Oceanside, Vista Old Grove Rd, Oceanside Blvd, Melrose Dr
334/335 Vista Loop Circulator
340 San Marcos Csu San Marcos Civic Center Sprinter Station
350 Escondido
Escondido Blvd, Bear Valley Pkwy (Soon To Be Upgraded To
Rapid Service)
351/352 Escondido Loop Circulator Via Grand Ave, Washington Ave
354 Escondido Lincoln Ave, Midway Dr
356 Escondido Escondido Blvd, Morning View Dr
358/359 Escondido N. Broadway, El Norte Pkwy, Country Club Ln
Commuter Routes combine commuter and Coaster Connection routes into a single category defned by
common function and level of service characteristics. These routes focus on niche ridership markets and
therefore are less likely to require all-day service span or a constant service frequency. Applying the above
criteria, the following Breeze routes are included in the commuter group.
Table 7 - Commuter Routes
Breeze
Route Communities Served Coverage Area
317 Oceanside College Blvd
321 Carlsbad Palomar Airport - San Marcos Blvd
386 Escondido, Ramona San Pasqual Valley Rd
444/445 Carlsbad Palomar Airport Rd & Faraday Ave Corridors
Finally, it is recommended that the separate route designation local peak capacity be dropped. Alternatively
the need for supplemental capacity on NCTD routes should be considered holistically as a level of service
characteristic associated with overall demand for corridor, local or commuter routes defned as proposed in this
section.
4.1 Fixed Route Bus Service Design Criteria
Design criteria include a combination of static indicators and active measures of transit system functionality
that embody NCTD policies, level of service preferences, customer expectations and transit industry
peer performance levels. Design criteria infuence the form and function of the various transit routes by
distinguishing among different types of routes in three major characteristics: service coverage; service
H-10
8 NOVEMBER22,2010
frequency; and service span. There are at least two purposes for design criteria: one is to guide the allocation
of resources in relation to physical service area and demand characteristics; and the other is to identify whether
NCTD is meeting prescribed targets or minimum thresholds for service quantity and quality.
Service Coverage
Transit system coverage is the product of several design criteria including proximity to residential origins and
primarily non-residential destinations, bus stop spacing, and comparative travel time. It should be noted that
transit coverage typically is less quantifable than service span or frequency, given the often unique topographic
conditions, prevailing land use patterns and development densities observed among transit system service
areas. These physical characteristics, as well as demographic and behavioral differences among population
segments, weather variations and even the image of the transit system itself all contribute to wide differences
in the rates of transit trip-making. The signifcance of these issues to the Breeze bus system is discussed in the
following paragraphs.
Proximity to Residential Locations measures the walking distance and time required for transit riders to travel
between home and the nearest NCTD bus stop. Traditionally, the design standard for measuring pedestrian
access to transit has been -mile, which is the distance traversed within fve minutes walking at a pace of
three miles per hour. Although accepted without question for many years, this assumption may be changing
over time for reasons that include the increased cost of personal automobile ownership, changing lifestyles;
availability of bicycle racks on buses and, improved accessibility of bus stops to meet ADA mandates. These
factors tend to increase the time and distance that many transit customers are willing to travel to reach the
nearest bus stop. Therefore, it is proposed that reasonable access to transit be redefned as 0.4-mile, which is
the distance traversed within 10 minutes at a pace of 2.5 miles per hour.
The following table indicates the targeted percentage of households located within this threshold, depending
on the population density of the service area. It is noted that 95% of all residents in the NCTD service area live
within 0.4 miles of existing fxed route service, based on SANDAG 2010 population estimates.
Table 8 - Population Density Thresholds
Population Density Persons per Acre Percent of Households within 0.4-Mile
High 16 or Above 90%
Medium 11-15 75%
Low 6-10 50%
Rural 5 or Below 10%
Access to Non-Residential Destinations may be used to identify those commercial and institutional trip
generators such as downtown areas, offce parks and factories, hospitals, colleges and secondary schools,
shopping centers, public buildings, popular visitor destinations and other facilities that should be accessible
via public transportation. Generally transit trip generation by land use or development type is not researched
exhaustively at the industry level, nor is there a single organization (e.g., Institute for Transportation Engineers)
engaged in forecasting the number of daily transit riders generated by various types and sizes of property
development. Therefore, setting a minimum number of passenger boardings that should be required to justify
new transit service to a particular destination can be problematic or even misleading.
NCTD should be guided by a combination of factors when determining the need for service to non-residential
destinations, including actual ridership levels achieved at comparable developments, anticipated deviation
travel times for existing riders on the routes affected, customer requests, fnancial or other support from
property owners and major tenants, and operating considerations. While specifc standards for service to non-
residential destinations are not necessarily recommended, the following threshold (i.e., targets) are suggested
and summarized in Table 9.
H-11
9 NOVEMBER22,2010
Table 9 - Threshold Activity Levels for Transit Service to Non-Residential Destinations
Types of Development Examples of Destinations Threshold Size or Activity Level
Employment
Central Business District,
Office Parks And Buildings
100 Employees Per Shift
(Common Start/Quit Times)
Medical Hospital, Medical Offices 50 Employees And Significant Out-Patient Facilities
Public Facilities
Government Offices, Human
Service Agencies, Libraries
And Senior Centers
Frequent Public Visitation During Regular Business
Hours
Retail
Regional mall; neighborhood
shopping center
100,000 Sq. Ft. Of Retail Space With At Least One
Anchor Store
School / Training
College, High School And
Middle School
500 Combined Students, Faculty & Employees
Bus Stop Spacing, which measures the physical distance between consecutive bus stops along a route, refects
an important balance between convenient access for transit customers on one hand, and faster onboard travel
time on the other. For example, closely spaced stops (e.g., every 1-2 blocks) yield short walking distances for
customers, but more frequent stops for passengers on board and a longer bus trip overall for the majority of
passengers. Conversely, bus stops located farther apart yield longer walk distances for some passengers, but
fewer stops for passengers on board and a shorter bus trip for the majority of passengers.
Bus stop spacing depends on several factors ranging from service area density and prevailing land use to the
specifc orientation of destinations relative to street intersections, availability of sidewalks, crosswalks and traffc
signals. TCRP Report 19 offers general guidance concerning bus stop spacing shown in Table 10.
Table 10 - Bus Stop Spacing by Service Area Type
Service Area Characteristics Spacing Range Typical Spacing
Typical Number of Stops per Di-
rectional Route Mile
CBD core 300 1,000 feet 600 Feet 9
Urban areas 500 1,200 feet 750 Feet 7
Suburban areas 600 2,500 feet 1,000 Feet 5
Rural areas 650 2,640 feet 1,250 Feet 4
Source: TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Placement of Bus Stops; Chapter 3, p. 18.
TCRPs guidance focuses on physical and operating factors rather than on minimum utilization of bus stops as
a criterion for stop placement. This is part refects substantial variations in passenger volumes among transit
systems as well as among routes within each system. It also is reasonable to factor in the current and predicted
future utilization characteristics of bus stops in the NCTD service area to help achieve a balance between
access for boarding customers and bus travel times experienced by those already on board.
Considering the unique topography and prevailing land use conditions observed in the NCTD service area,
however, it may be preferable to assess the need for bus stops on a case-by-case basis rather than to impose
a minimum level of boarding/alighting activity in order to warrant a bus stop. Several common-sense
considerations should be brought to bear on this question. For example, a bus stop may be warranted (or even
be regarded as essential) when used by a small number of riders (e.g., 5-10 per day) if the presence of the bus
stop serves a particular purpose and does not contribute signifcantly to the onboard travel times of most riders.
This logic might apply when most or all riders board a single trip serving a school bell time or workplace shift
time. Alternatively, a smaller number of boardings may nevertheless warrant a bus stop when they occur at
night or in a neighborhood where issues of personal security may exist. Similarly, special consideration may be
justifed when the bus stop serves a destination frequented by senior citizens or persons with disabilities.
H-12
10 NOVEMBER22,2010
Optimal bus stop spacing guidelines by population density are summarized in Table 11. Minimum activity levels
(boardings plus alightings) are suggested as a means to selectively eliminate the least utilized bus stops in the
system. Fewer stops will generate incremental running time improvements and nominally improve schedule
reliability. The objective is to achieve a balance between reducing access times for boarding and alighting
customers and onboard travel times experienced by all customers. It should be noted that even spacing is
more critical in higher density communities than in suburban and rural locations where direct proximity to
specifc destinations be required for safety reasons.
Table 11 - Bus Stop Spacing by Population Density
Population
Density
Persons Per
Acre
Bus Stops Per
Directional Route
Mile
Distance Between Stops
(Feet)
Minimum Average Weekday
Boardings & Alightings
High 16 Or Above 7 8 750 Or Less 20
Medium 11 15 5 7 750 1,000 20
Low 6 10 4 5 1,000 1,300 15
Rural
5 Or
Below
2 4 1,300 2,600 10
Service Frequency
Service frequency refers to the interval of time, or headway between consecutive buses passing a given point
along a route. Transit riders clearly prefer higher frequency service while the U.S. transit industry perspective
generally is that 10-15 minute headways are a minimum threshold for high frequency service. A systemwide
15-minute weekday service frequency is a reasonable long-range design target for the Breeze network. In
the short and mid-range however, transit service frequency decisions must be tempered by current demand
for service at existing service frequencies and fnancial constraints. A realistic objective is to improve service
frequency selectively on those routes that exhibit the best combination of existing and potential ridership as
funding permits. Mid-range (3 5 years) targets for route frequency by route category are provided in Table
12. Beyond functional route classifcation, increases or decreases in service frequency should be made in
consideration of population and population density of the area served, demographics, actual and anticipated
ridership, topography and street network, and operating conditions.
Table 12 - Service Frequency Minimum Targets by Route Category
Route Classification Weekday Peak Weekday Base Saturday Sunday
Corridor 15 15 30 30
Local 30 30 60 60
Commuter 30 As needed As needed As needed
Service Span
H-13
11 NOVEMBER22,2010
Service span refers to the days and hours during which transit service is provided on a route. Target spans of
service are summarized in Table 13.
Table 13 - Service Span Targets
Route Classification Weekday Saturday Sunday
Corridor
4:30 am
9:00 - 11:00 pm
5:30 am 9:30 pm 6:30 am 7:30 pm
Local
5:00 am
8:00 - 9:00 pm
6:00 am 7:00 pm 7:00 am 6:00 pm
Commuter
Per Conditions Typically
Peak Periods
NA NA
4.2 Fixed Route Bus Performance Targets
This section proposes signifcant changes to NCTDs existing approach to performance measurement and
service standards for the Breeze fxed route bus system. Use of performance targets rather than minimum
standards is recommended, for two reasons. First, NCTD needs to provide assurance to customers that the
system is stable and may be relied upon into the future. The use of targets makes it clear that services will be
reviewed in a multifaceted way rather than against a fxed performance level. Second, the use of targets affords
the ability to better respond to the prospect of reduced State and local transit operating funds by allowing
fexibility in making adjustments to specifc services. The targets can represent minimum performance levels,
such as passengers per revenue hour, or they can represent maximum acceptable levels, such as the load
factor targets.
Diversifcation of performance measurement is recommended as well. For the last decade at least, NCTD
has relied on a single productivity measure -- Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Hour -- as the primary metric
underlying service adjustments, including the budget-driven service reductions implemented in 2009 and 2010.
Going forward, two additional metrics are proposed: Passenger Miles per Seat Mile, which is a measure of
Breeze service capacity utilization; and Net Cost per Passenger, which is a measure of cost-effectiveness of
service provided. These three performance measures will be blended into a Route Performance Index (RPI)
designed to show the relative strength of each Breeze route within its functional route category. The Breeze RPI
is illustrated in Figure 1 and described in the following pages. FY 2010 RPI tables for weekday, Saturday and
Sunday services are provided in Attachment C.
Figure 1 - RPI Calculation
H-14
12 NOVEMBER22,2010
Productivity Passengers per Revenue Hour
The average number of passengers carried per revenue hour of bus service is a common measure of how
effectively the service is distributed. It is calculated by dividing the productivity of the individual route by the
average productivity of all routes in the same category for the same service day. For example, the average
productivity among corridor routes on weekdays is 21.6 passengers per hour. The category average is
equivalent to a numerical rating of 1.0, meaning that above-average routes have ratings above 1.0 while below-
average routes have ratings below 1.0. The higher the rating, the more productive a route is considered to be.
The relative productivity of Breeze routes is measured against other routes within route categories (i.e., Corridor,
Local, Commuter) and by service day (i.e., Weekday, Saturday, Sunday). Service productivity is weighted as
one-third of the overall RPI.
While not specifcally part of the RPI calculation, passenger trips per capita is another common measure
of service productivity. Frequently applied at the system level rather than the individual route level, it is an
indicator of transit market share and reported in the National Transit Database (NTD). It is calculated by
dividing total annual ridership by the service area population. For example, NCTD served approximately 13.5
passenger trips per capita in 2008, based on a reported 12,337,600 total passenger trips on all modes, and an
estimated service area population of 914,500 residents. Trips per capita may be calculated by individual route
assuming that reasonable population estimates for neighborhoods served by each route can be accurately
determined.
Utilization Passenger Miles per Seat
The average number of passenger miles per seat mile is less commonly used but nevertheless a good way to
measure the extent to which service supply conforms to passenger demand. Passenger miles are calculated
as the product of average daily ridership multiplied by the average transit passenger trip length. Seat miles
are calculated as the product of total scheduled revenue miles multiplied by the seating capacity of the buses
operating those miles. Utilization is calculated by dividing total daily passenger miles by total daily seat miles.
For example, the average utilization rate among corridor routes operating on weekdays is 0.26 passengers per
seat mile. The category average is equal to a numerical rating of 1.0, meaning that above-average routes have
a rating above 1.0 while below-average routes have a rating below 1.0. The higher the rating, the more highly
utilized a route is considered to be. Service utilization is weighted as one-third of the overall RPI.
As with productivity, the relative relationship of capacity and demand of Breeze routes is measured against
other routes within route categories (i.e., Corridor, Local, Commuter) and by service day (i.e., Weekday,
Saturday, Sunday).
While not specifcally part of the RPI calculation, it is appropriate to establish maximum acceptable loading
conditions to prevent excessive overcrowding on Breeze bus services. Passenger loading conditions are
measured by a Load Factor that is calculated as the number of passengers on board at the maximum load
point in each travel direction on the route, divided by the seating capacity of the bus. A load factor of 1.0
means that a bus is carrying a full seated load at the maximum load point. A load factor of less than 1.0 means
that seats are available.
A reasonable expectation is that passengers should have access to a seat while riding NCTD buses most of
the time. During peak hours when passenger demand is heaviest, some standees must be tolerated but total
passenger loads should not become excessive. Accordingly, maximum loading targets by route category and
service day/time period are recommended in Table 14.
H-15
13 NOVEMBER22,2010
Table 14 - Load Factor Targets
Route Category
Service Day /
Time Period
Maximum
Load Factor
Corridor
Weekday Peak 1.25
Other Times 1.10
Local
Weekday Peak 1.10
Other Times 1.00*
Commuter
Weekday Peak 1.25
Other Times 1.00*
* By policy, small vehicles cannot have a load factor greater than 1.00.
Cost Effectiveness Net Operating Cost per Passenger
The average net operating cost per passenger is one indicator of the cost effectiveness of transit services
provided. It measures the bottom line; that is, how much does it cost on average to provide a one-way way
trip after fares and other passenger revenues have been deducted.
Unlike passengers per hour and passenger miles per seat mile, both of which refect improvement as the
numerical value increases, the net cost per passenger improves as the numerical value decreases. Therefore it
is calculated as a reciprocal of the others by dividing the cost effectiveness of all routes in the same category
for the same service day by the cost effectiveness of the individual route. For example, the average net cost
per passenger for all corridor routes operating on weekdays is $4.37. The category average is equated to a
numerical rating of 1.0, meaning that routes that have a lower-than-average net operating cost per passenger
have a rating above 1.0 while routes with a higher-than-average net operating cost have a rating below 1.0. The
higher the rating, the more cost effective a route is considered to be. Cost effectiveness is weighted as one-
third of the overall RPI.
Similar to productivity and utilization, the net operating cost per passenger is measured against other routes
within route categories (i.e., Corridor, Local, Commuter) and by service day (i.e., Weekday, Saturday, Sunday).
Composite Route Performance Index Rankings
The sum of the individual ratings of service productivity, utilization and cost effectiveness are refected in a
single numerical value with 3.0 identifying a route that is average in the combined three categories. Routes
with better than average performance score higher than 3.0, while lower performing routes score less than
3.0. The RPI range for routes in each of the three categories are summarized in Table 15 by service day. The
values for routes in each group of varies, but the ranking within each group is a strong indicator of how the route
performs relative to its peers. As noted earlier, detailed RPI ratings are shown in the tables in Attachment A.
H-16
14 NOVEMBER22,2010
Table 15 - RPI Ratings by Route Category and Service Day
Route Category Service Day /
Time Period RPI Range
Number of Routes
3.0 or Above
Corridor
Weekday 4.32 1.75 4 of 12
Saturday 5.05 1.15 4 of 10
Sunday 5.25 1.15 4 of 11
Local
Weekday 3.92 0.55 5 of 13
Saturday 5.24 0.74 4 of 8
Sunday 3.50 0.39 2 of 5
Commuter
Weekday 4.87 1.97 3 of 4
Saturday NA NA
Sunday NA NA
4.3 Fixed Route Bus Passenger Amenity Guidelines
Installation of passenger amenities at bus stops such as shelters, benches, passive and real-time schedule
information displays is generally guided by passenger volumes supplemented by considerations of equity,
safety and comfort. TCRP Report 19 offers general guidance in terms of the following utilization warrants for
shelters and benches while acknowledging that the decision to install a shelter is a result of systemwide
policy among transit agencies.
Rural stops = 10 boardings per day
Suburban stops = 25 boardings per day
Urban stops = 50 to 100 boardings per day
Beyond boarding volumes, other criteria may be used to evaluate the potential for providing a shelter, including:
Number of transfers at a stop
Availability of space to construct shelters and waiting areas
Number of older adults or physically challenged individuals using the stop
Frequency of service
Adjacent land use compatibility
Availability of shelter from other sources (e.g., building entrance, awning)
Other street furniture such as benches can be provided at bus stops as appropriate when shelters are not
provided. Priority should be given to those stop locations, which are frequented by a signifcant number of
senior citizens or persons with disabilities.
Accurate and complete information concerning NCTD transit routes and services, bus stop and fare information
should be made available to all service area residents. Current route maps and timetables should be available
at Coaster and Sprinter stations, bus transit centers, selected community locations, and aboard all NCTD
buses. Route information should be available by telephone whenever NCTD buses are in operation and the
volume of incoming calls exceeds fve per hour.
H-17
15 NOVEMBER22,2010
5.0 Community-Based Transit Service Design, Performance,
and Amenities
Community-based transit is the term selected to characterize an array of services that respond to local transit
needs, generally in areas where traditional fxed-route transit utilizing standard transit coaches does not work.
This includes fexible services such as dial-a-ride, route deviation (or fexroute), and shared ride taxi services.
According to TCRP Report 140 A Guide for Planning and Operating Flexible Public Transportation, many
agencies that have implemented fexible public transportation services have realized real benefts while others
have attempted this approach and abandoned the effort after several months or years. Often, in rural and small
urban areas, fexible public transportation services can serve senior citizens and persons with disabilities at
a lower cost than demand responsive service. Also, in suburban communities, a fexible public transportation
service with small buses may encourage frst-time public transit users to leave their cars at home and use the
service to connect with regional transit services to reach nearby destinations.
For the purposes of the TCRP report, the concept of fexible public transportation services included the
following:
Route Deviation vehicles operating on a regular schedule along a well-defned path, with or without
marked bus stops, which deviate to serve demand-responsive requests within a zone around the path. The
width or extent of the zone may be precisely established or fexible.
Point Deviation vehicles serving demand-responsive requests within a zone and also serving a limited
number of stops within the zone without any regular path between the stops.
Demand-Responsive Connector vehicles operating in demand-responsive mode within a zone, with one
or more scheduled transfer points that connect with a fxed-route network. A high percentage of ridership
consists of trips to or from the transfer points. This concept is similar to the former NCTD FAST Demand
Response services.
Request Stops vehicles operating in conventional fxed-route, fxed-schedule mode and also serving a
limited number of undefned stops along the route in response to passenger requests.
Flexible-Route Segments vehicles operating in conventional fxed-route, fxed-schedule mode, but
switching to demand-responsive operation for a limited portion of the route.
Zone Route vehicles operating in demand-responsive mode along a corridor with established departure
and arrival times at one or more end points in the zone.
While community-based transit services may include fxed-route, fxed schedule elements, they differ from
traditional fxed-route transit typically on three accounts: one, use a smaller, purpose built bus with a seating
capacity often less than 20 passengers; two, attain productivity/ performance of something less than 15
passengers per hour; and three, operate typically in a community setting rather than on major arterials.
The following table provides a summary of community-based transit services, all of which would be ADA
compliant. Further options include provision for a hybrid of the service types described below that may
include specifc provision to accommodate ADA eligible passengers. This may negate the need to provide
complementary ADA paratransit services.
H-18
16 NOVEMBER22,2010
Table 16 - Community Based Transit Service Options
Type Route/Schedule Stops Vehicle Market
ADA
Compli-
ant
1
Route Deviation
Fixed, But Deviates
Between Stops.
Deviations Require
Reservations (May
Be Exclusively For
Ada Eligible)
Fixed along
arterials,
collectors,
deviates to curb
at destination
Cutaways, 25-30 Foot
Buses
General
Public,
Seniors, Ada
Eligible
Yes
Community Dial-
a-Ride
Many-To-Many,
Demand Response
Curb or door
Cutaway, Modified Van
Chassis
General
Public,
Seniors, Ada
Eligible
Yes
Shared Ride Taxi
Many-To-Many,
Demand Response
(May Be Exclusively
For Ada Eligible)
Curb or door
Sedans, Minivans,
Wheelchair-Equipped
Vans
General
Public,
Seniors, Ada
Eligible
Yes
ADA Paratransit
(LIFT)
Many-To-Many,
Demand Response
Curb or door
(LIFT is curb-to-
curb)
Sedans, Minivans,
Wheelchair-Equipped
Vans, Purpose-Built
Buses
ADA Eligible Yes
1
Satisfes ADA requirements and does not require a separate complementary service.
Figure 2 - Typical Community Based Routing Options
H-19
17 NOVEMBER22,2010
Each of the community based options is described in more detail below.
Route Deviation: Route deviation service (also called fexroute) combines features of traditional fxed route
bus service with demand response elements. The bus follows a defned route, picking up and dropping off
passengers at designated stops, which are usually located farther apart than on a traditional fxed route. The
bus can also fex off its route: the driver will re-route the bus to locations within 3/4 of a mile of its usual route
when a passenger has made a reservation in advance. The reservation is usually required a day ahead of time,
although some fexroute services try to accommodate day of requests.
Opportunities for a hybrid scenario may include route deviation, door-to-door service provided exclusively for
ADA eligible passengers, while maintaining select stop access for the general public.
In order to maneuver off of the main arterials, smaller buses, less than 30 feet long, are usually required. The
maximum allowable size depends upon local community tolerance and the turn radius required negotiating the
particular streets involved. Some slack is added to the schedule to facilitate deviations. If deviations are not
made, then the driver is instructed to slow down or to hold at time points. If the stops on the initial route prove
to be less popular than anticipated and particular points prove popular for deviations, the route can easily be
reconfgured. Thus, route deviation also serves as a dynamic demand probe for establishing routes.
In addition to serving scheduled time points, some fexroute services allow passengers to fag down the bus
or be dropped off at any safe point along the route. From the side of the road, passengers simply wave to the
driver with enough time for the bus to stop safely.
Flexroute services have several advantages over more conventional transit. First, especially in sparsely
populated areas, they fulfll the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement for transit services for the
disability community without creating a separate complementary paratransit system. Second, fares are
generally lower for fexroute than for dial-a-ride services, encouraging higher ridership. Lastly, fexroute service
is able to accommodate increasing demand without increases in capacity, service hours, and annual costs.
Community Dial-a-Ride: Dial-a-ride is a curb-to-curb, demand response, shared ride paratransit service. Dial-
a-ride services are generally designed to be ADA complementary services, serving disabled passengers and
seniors who cannot use conventional fxed route transit. In some communities, dial-a-ride is available to the
general population. Passengers call the dispatcher to reserve a ride. Phone reservations are generally required
at least one day in advance, although some dispatchers will attempt to accommodate same day requests.
Subscription trips, also called standing orders, are trips that are made on a regular, predictable basis (work
trips, for example), and do not require individual reservations for each trip.
Shared Ride Taxi: Shared ride taxi services are a way to incorporate taxis into public transportation often
providing feeder service to fxed route transit services. Transit agencies contract with taxi companies to provide
the service. As with regular taxi service, passengers call ahead to request door-to-door transit. Unlike regular
service, the taxi will pick up other passengers in the same general area. Trips take longer than with a regular
taxi, as the taxi must service multiple different destinations, but are often faster and more convenient than
conventional public transit and signifcantly cheaper than normal taxi service.
Shared ride taxi trips usually need to be arranged at least one day in advance. In most cases, agencies will
attempt to accommodate same day requests. Customers call ahead to reserve a taxi, providing their name,
pickup address, destination address and phone number, number of passengers, phone number, and need
for a wheelchair accessible vehicle. As with dial-a-ride, many shared ride taxi services will accommodate
subscription trips.
ADA Paratransit (i.e., NCTDs LIFT): The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires public
transportation agencies to provide paratransit services (which complement regular fxed route bus service)
for individuals who do not have the functional ability to ride public transit buses. ADA paratransit is to be
provided within 3/4 mile of fxed-route transit services. Dial-a-Ride ADA services provides shared ride public
transportation that complies with these requirements.
H-20
18 NOVEMBER22,2010
5.1 Community-Based Transit Service Design Criteria
Several communities in the NCTD service area may not support traditional, fxed-route transportation. Unique
density and travel patterns may require transit programs tailored to the needs of the community. Small capacity
fexible service strategies will allow NCTD to provide mobility options for people who live or work outside the
fxed route service network.
Non-fxed route transit service should only be considered in cases where there is suffcient potential ridership
to support approved non-fxed service standards but insuffcient ridership to support Breeze fxed route service
performance standards. Non-fxed route service can also be considered in service areas with street patterns
and widths that will not accommodate the safe and effective operation of fxed route transit service. Proposed
service design criteria are summarized in Table 17.
Table 17 - Community Service Design Guidelines
Type of Service Criterion Target
Route Deviation
Density Requirements 4 to 6 du/acre, 7,000 to 10,000 persons/sq.mi.
Service Area Configuration
Defined O/Ds along a corridor;
Deviate as required (to expand service coverage)
Span Of Service
Operate during hours when average farebox recovery
does not drop below 20%.
Frequency
Weekday Peak - 30-60
Weekday Off-Peak - 90
Weekend - 90
Community Dial-
a-Ride
Density Requirements 3.5 to 6 du/acre, more than 1,000 persons/ sq.mi.
No viable trip attractors/generators
Opportunity for connections to higher order transit
Span Of Service
Frequency Variable
Shared Ride Taxi
Density Requirements Less than 4 du/acre, less than 1,000 persons/ sq.mi.
Service Area Configuration Low trip & population densities
Span Of Service
Frequency Variable
ADA Paratransit
Lift
Density Requirements LIFT service area will include all NCTD fixed route origins
and destinations within the NCTD service area. This area
shall also include an area with a mile radius at the end
of each fixed route with a mile width or buffer on each
side.
Span Of Service
Same hours and days of service as NCTDs fixed route ser-
vice for each route area.
Frequency Variable
H-21
19 NOVEMBER22,2010
5.2 Community-Based Transit Performance Targets
Performance targets provide a framework for measuring the performance of NCTD services and are used
as a part of a service evaluation process. Such a process may be used to determine whether an individual
existing service performs at acceptable levels and to evaluate potential service changes. Further, as in the case
of possibly introducing new community-based services, performance targets are also used to compare the
projected performance of proposed new services to prioritize the allocation of resources within the system.
Adherence to the performance targets will ensure that NCTD provides quality transit services that meet the
needs of the riding public and that are consistent with all enabling legislation and other external mandates, such
as the States Transportation Development Act (TDA). The performance targets to be used to evaluate these
services is summarized in Table 18.
Table 18 - Community-Based Transit Services Operating Effciency & Effectiveness Performance Targets
Description Measure
Proposed Target /
Variation by Service Type
Net Operating Cost
Per Passenger
Operating Cost/ Completed One-
Way Trip
(Function of Specifics of Deploy-
ment Strategy)
Service Type
Net Operating Cost Per
Passenger*
Route Deviation $4.00 - $8.00
Community Dial-A-Ride $8.00 - $15.00
Shared Ride Taxi $10.00 - $15.00
Ada Paratransit (Lift) $25.00 - $30.00
Passengers /
Revenue Hour
Completed One-Way Passenger
Trips/ Scheduled Revenue Vehicle
Hour
Service Type
Passengers Per Revenue
Hour*
Route Deviation 10 12
Community Dial-A-Ride 5 10
Shared Ride Taxi VARIABLE
ADA Paratransit (Lift) 2 2.5**
Maximum Vehicle
Loading
Number Of Passengers Divided By
The Seating Capacity
100% Of Seating Capacity
* to be determined annually as part of budget (and contract provisions/negotiations)
**current actual is 2.02 trips/hour
H-22
20 NOVEMBER22,2010
Table 19 - Community-Based Transit Service Quality Performance Targets
Description Measure Proposed Target
On-Time Performance / Schedule Adherence
Community Dial-
a-Ride
Actual departure time
compared to scheduled
departure time
No bus should leave early and no bus should leave later
than 5 minutes beyond the scheduled pick-up time window,
98% of the time.
Route Deviation
departure time
than 5 minutes from the time point, 98% of the time.
Shared Ride Taxi
departure time
No taxi should leave early and no taxi should leave later
than 5 minutes from the time point or scheduled pick-up
time window, 98% of the time
Ada Paratransit
(Lift)
departure time
than 5 minutes beyond the scheduled pick-up time window,
100% of the time.
On-Time Performance/ Scheduled Pickups
% of pick-ups within plus or
minus 10 minutes
90% of all pick-ups will be within plus or minus 10 minutes
of the scheduled time
Complaints
Number of complaints per
1,000 one-way passenger
trips
1
5.3 Community-Based Transit Passenger Amenity Guidelines
Passenger amenities are typically not provided for non-fxed route services. An exception may be tribal transit
services/remote areas if using designated pick-up locations. In these cases, standards for shelter and bus stop
placement as discussed for fxed route service would be noted as an exception to address unique situations.
Similarly, amenities at fxed route transit stops and transit centers would be available to community transit users
if they connect to fxed route services at these locations.
H-23
21 NOVEMBER22,2010
6.0 Ongoing Performance Monitoring and Reporting
The performance targets described in this report will be used to monitor and improve system performance.
The design guidelines will be used when services are modifed to respond to operational issues, or when
improvement programs are developed. The amenity guidelines will assist in developing capital improvement
programs.
The performance of the services in meeting their targets will be reported to the Board and the committees
on a quarterly and annual basis, and will be incorporated into the Service Improvement Plan annual submittal
to SANDAG. The report will be based on the performance targets developed for each service type. The
fxed route analysis will focus primarily on the Route Performance Index, describing performance in the
current period, changes in performance compared to previous periods, and actions proposed to address
underperforming services. A summary table listing the targets for each type of service is provided in
Attachment B.
Attachments:
A Route Performance Index (RPI) Tables
B Summary Table of Performance Targets
H-24
Attachment A - Route Performance Index (RPI) Tables
WEEKDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE INDEX rev. 102910
Average Revenue Passengers Average Daily Revenue Bus Daily Passenger Operating Daily Average Daily Net Net Cost Cost- Percent
Weekday Vehicle per Productivity Trip Passenger Vehicle Seating Seat Miles per Utilization Cost per Operating Fare per Farebox Operating per Effectiveness Farebox INDEX
Route Alignment Boardings Hours RVH Index Distance Miles Miles Capacity Miles Seat Mile Index Revenue Mile Cost Passenger Revenue Cost Passnger Index Recovery
CORRIDOR ROUTES
303 Oceanside - Vista via Mission 4,244 138.6 30.6 1.4 3.6 15,279 1,730.7 35.4 61,268 0.25 1.0 8.32 14,400 1.05 4,456 9,944 2.34 1.93 30.9% 4.32
302 Oceanside - Vista via Vista Way 2,144 71.3 30.1 1.4 4.7 10,076 961.7 35.4 34,044 0.30 1.2 8.32 8,001 1.05 2,251 5,750 2.68 1.68 28.1% 4.24
305 Escondido - Vista via Mission & RSF 1,686 72.3 23.3 1.1 3.4 5,733 979.5 19.0 18,610 0.31 1.2 6.91 6,768 1.05 1,770 4,998 2.96 1.52 26.2% 3.82
101 Oceanside - UTC via Hwy 101 2,690 121.6 22.1 1.0 7.8 20,979 1,798.2 35.4 63,657 0.33 1.3 8.32 14,961 1.05 2,824 12,137 4.51 1.00 18.9% 3.33
306 Fallbrook - Vista via Mission 711 37.5 19.0 0.9 6.9 4,903 560.3 35.4 19,834 0.25 1.2 8.32 4,661 1.05 746 3,915 5.51 0.52 16.0% 2.55
304/404 Encinitas - San Marcos via Rancho SF 824 46.1 17.9 0.8 5.5 4,532 638.7 35.4 22,610 0.20 0.8 8.32 5,314 1.05 865 4,449 5.40 0.84 16.3% 2.45
347 Escondido - Palomar via CSUSM 357 27.1 13.2 0.6 4.0 1,429 324.3 19.0 6,161 0.23 0.9 6.91 2,241 1.05 375 1,866 5.22 0.86 16.7% 2.39
388/389 Escondido - Pala 576 31.3 18.4 0.8 14.9 8,582 853.4 35.4 30,210 0.28 1.1 8.32 7,100 1.46 841 6,259 10.87 0.42 11.8% 2.39
309 Oceanside - Encinitas via El Camino Real 1,980 121.8 16.3 0.7 6.3 12,477 1,833.9 35.4 64,920 0.19 0.8 8.32 15,258 1.05 2,079 13,179 6.65 0.68 13.6% 2.19
395 M-Th Oceanside - San Clemente via Pendleton 171 12.8 13.4 0.6 15.7 2,685 297.2 35.4 10,519 0.26 1.0 8.32 2,472 1.05 180 2,293 13.41 0.34 7.3% 1.96
308 Escondido - Solana Beach via Del Dios 592 42.5 13.9 0.6 9.0 5,331 774.1 35.4 27,402 0.19 0.8 8.32 6,440 1.05 622 5,818 9.82 0.46 9.7% 1.87
315 Oceanside - Pendleton via Vandegrift 449 32.6 13.8 0.6 6.0 2,694 477.1 35.4 16,888 0.16 0.7 8.32 3,969 1.05 471 3,498 7.79 0.37 11.9% 1.75
Total 16,424 755.4 21.7 1.0 5.8 94,698 11,228.9 376,123 0.25 1.0 8.16 91,586 1.06 17,481 74,105 4.51 1.00 19.1% 3.00
LOCAL ROUTES
356 Escondido via Morning View, El Norte, Escondido Bl. 470 16.3 28.8 1.3 2.0 941 150.5 35.4 5,329 0.18 0.8 8.32 1,253 1.05 494 759 1.61 1.77 39.4% 3.92
350 Escondido TC - Del Lago P&R 2,035 66.0 30.8 1.4 3.2 6,512 786.9 35.4 27,857 0.23 1.1 8.32 6,547 1.05 2,137 4,411 2.17 1.31 32.6% 3.83
351/352 Escondido Circulator 1,595 60.0 26.6 1.2 2.4 3,828 557.3 35.4 19,728 0.19 0.9 8.32 4,637 1.05 1,675 2,962 1.86 1.53 36.1% 3.66
318 OTC - ECR via Oceanside 269 13.7 19.6 0.9 1.8 484 111.5 19.0 2,118 0.23 1.1 6.91 770 1.05 282 488 1.81 1.57 36.7% 3.54
354 Escondido via Mission, Lincoln & Midway 770 31.6 24.4 1.1 2.7 2,080 380.4 25.2 9,566 0.22 1.0 7.44 2,829 1.05 809 2,020 2.62 1.09 28.6% 3.22
325 Carlsbad - Oceanside N via College 684 44.6 15.3 0.7 4.6 3,145 539.5 19.0 10,250 0.31 1.2 6.91 3,728 1.05 718 3,010 4.40 1.03 19.3% 2.95
332 Vista Busniess Park 564 23.6 23.9 1.1 4.5 2,538 333.3 35.4 11,798 0.22 1.0 8.32 2,773 1.05 592 2,181 3.87 0.74 21.4% 2.84
313 Oceanside - Town Center N via Mesa 664 30.2 22.0 1.0 3.8 2,523 392.6 30.9 12,128 0.21 1.0 7.93 3,114 1.05 697 2,417 3.64 0.78 22.4% 2.77
333 Oceanside N - Vista via Old Grove & Oceanside 423 29.4 14.4 0.7 2.9 1,228 305.6 19.0 5,807 0.21 0.8 6.91 2,112 1.05 445 1,667 3.94 1.15 21.1% 2.65
358/359 Es condido via N Broadway, Country Club, El Norte 236 15.7 15.0 0.7 3.0 708 164.0 19.0 3,116 0.23 1.1 6.91 1,133 1.05 248 885 3.75 0.76 21.9% 2.51
334/335 Vista Circulator 570 30.4 18.7 0.9 3.6 2,052 320.9 35.4 11,360 0.18 0.8 8.32 2,670 1.05 599 2,071 3.63 0.78 22.4% 2.49
319 Mira Costa - Rancho del Oro via RDO 135 13.4 10.1 0.5 1.3 175 129.1 19.0 2,453 0.07 0.3 6.91 892 1.05 141 751 5.57 0.51 15.9% 1.31
331 Buena Creek - Kaplan via University 41 13.7 3.0 0.1 1.2 49 74.0 19.0 1,406 0.04 0.2 6.91 511 1.05 43 468 11.39 0.25 8.4% 0.55
Total 8,457 388.6 21.8 1.0 3.1 26,263 4,245.5 122,915 0.21 1.0 7.77 32,969 1.05 8,879 24,090 2.85 1.00 26.9% 3.00
COMMUTER ROUTES
317 Oceanside North - Rancho del Oro via College 188 7.7 24.4 1.4 2.8 528 106.3 19.0 2,019 0.26 1.3 6.91 734 1.05 198 536 2.85 2.13 27.0% 4.87
321 Carlsbad Village - Palomar via Legoland 357 18.4 19.4 1.1 5.5 1,963 246.6 32.9 8,124 0.24 1.2 8.11 2,000 1.05 375 1,625 4.55 1.33 18.7% 3.68
444/445 Carlsbad Poinsettia Coaster Connection 114 5.3 21.5 1.3 4.4 502 75.3 35.4 2,666 0.19 0.9 8.32 626 1.05 120 507 4.45 1.37 19.1% 3.57
386 Escondido - Ramona 232 20.7 11.2 0.7 7.3 1,695 392.4 27.2 10,672 0.16 0.8 7.62 2,988 1.05 244 2,744 11.82 0.51 8.2% 1.97
Total 892 52.2 17.1 1.0 5.3 4,687 820.6 23,481 0.20 1.0 7.74 6,349 1.05 936 5,412 6.07 1.00 14.7% 3.00
System Total 25,772 1,196.1 21.5 1.0 4.9 125,649 16,295.0 522,520 0.24 1.0 8.03 130,904 1.05 27,297 103,607 4.02 20.9% 3.00
Productivity Utilization Cost Effectiveness
H-25
SATURDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE INDEX rev. 102910
CORRIDOR ROUTES
303 Oceanside - Vista via Mission 2,209 68.4 32.3 1.7 4.1 9,055 890.5 35.4 31,522 0.29 1.07 8.32 7,409 1.05 2,319 5,090 2.30 2.26 31.3% 5.05
302 Oceanside - Vista via Vista Way 1,979 65.7 30.1 1.6 4.6 9,102 878.6 35.4 31,101 0.29 1.09 8.32 7,310 1.05 2,078 5,232 2.64 1.97 28.4% 4.67
388/389 Escondido - Pala 443 31.7 14.0 0.7 16.9 7,487 426.5 35.4 15,100 0.50 1.85 8.32 3,549 1.46 647 2,902 6.55 0.80 18.2% 3.39
309 Oceanside - Encinitas via El Camino Real 1,259 58.4 21.6 1.1 6.3 7,934 872.9 35.4 30,902 0.26 0.96 8.32 7,263 1.05 1,322 5,940 4.72 1.11 18.2% 3.21
305 Escondido - Vista via Mission & RSF 971 65.4 14.9 0.8 4.0 3,884 861.6 19.0 16,371 0.24 0.89 6.91 5,954 1.05 1,020 4,934 5.08 1.03 17.1% 2.70
101 Oceanside - UTC via Hwy 101 1,672 110.7 15.1 0.8 7.9 13,212 1,618.1 35.4 57,282 0.23 0.86 8.32 13,463 1.05 1,756 11,707 7.00 0.75 13.0% 2.41
306 Fallbrook - Vista via Mission 473 29.9 15.9 0.8 6.3 2,982 431.2 35.4 15,263 0.20 0.83 8.32 3,587 1.05 497 3,090 6.53 0.41 13.9% 2.05
308 Escondido - Solana Beach via Del Dios 335 24.0 13.9 0.7 10.2 3,412 464.4 21.6 9,324 0.37 1.37 7.14 3,314 1.05 351 2,963 8.86 0.59 10.6% 2.70
395 Oceanside - San Clemente via Pendleton 355 46.8 7.6 0.4 17.3 6,146 1,057.3 19.0 20,088 0.31 1.14 6.91 7,306 1.05 373 6,933 19.52 0.27 5.1% 1.81
315 Oceanside - Pendleton via Vandegrift 272 28.5 9.5 0.5 5.6 1,521 421.0 35.4 14,904 0.10 0.43 8.32 3,503 1.05 285 3,218 11.85 0.23 8.1% 1.15
Total 9,968 529.3 18.8 1.0 6.5 64,734 7,922.2 241,856 0.27 1.00 7.91 62,657 1.07 10,648 52,009 5.22 1.00 17.0% 3.00
LOCAL ROUTES
351/352 Escondido Circulator 714 25.6 27.9 1.4 2.5 1,785 238.0 19.0 4,522 0.39 1.67 6.91 1,645 1.05 750 895 1.25 2.13 45.6% 5.24
350 Escondido TC - Del Lago P&R 868 25.6 33.9 1.7 3.4 2,952 295.2 35.4 10,451 0.28 1.19 8.32 2,456 1.05 912 1,545 1.78 1.50 37.1% 4.45
356 Escondido via Morning View, El Norte, Escondido Bl. 235 10.1 23.2 1.2 2.0 470 91.2 19.0 1,734 0.27 1.15 6.91 630 1.05 247 384 1.63 1.64 39.1% 3.98
354 Escondido via Mission, Lincoln & Midway 232 10.1 22.9 1.2 2.4 557 118.9 19.0 2,258 0.25 1.04 6.91 821 1.05 244 578 2.49 1.07 29.7% 3.30
318 OTC - ECR via Oceanside 151 12.7 11.9 0.6 1.9 287 103.5 19.0 1,967 0.15 0.62 6.91 715 1.05 159 557 3.69 0.73 22.2% 1.96
333 Oceanside N - Vista via Old Grove & Oceanside 234 25.4 9.2 0.5 3.0 701 264.9 19.0 5,032 0.14 0.52 6.91 1,830 1.05 245 1,585 6.78 0.77 13.4% 1.78
331 Buena Creek - Kaplan via University 47 10.7 4.4 0.2 1.0 47 58.1 19.0 1,104 0.04 0.18 6.91 402 1.05 49 353 7.56 0.35 12.2% 0.76
325 Carlsbad Village - Oceanside N via College 39 9.7 4.1 0.2 4.6 182 128.7 19.0 2,445 0.07 0.28 6.91 889 1.05 41 848 21.48 0.24 4.7% 0.74
Total 2,520 130.0 19.4 1.0 2.8 6,980 1,298.5 29,513 0.24 1.00 7.23 9,389 1.05 2,646 6,743 2.68 1.00 28.2% 3.00
TOTAL 12,488 659.3 18.9 1.0 5.7 71,714 17,142.8 271,369 0.26 1.00 4.20 72,045 1.06 13,294 58,752 4.70 1.00 18.5% 3.00
H-26
SUNDAY ROUTE PERFORMANCE INDEX rev. 102910
CORRIDOR ROUTES
303 Oceanside - Vista via Mission 1,759 68.5 25.7 1.81 4.3 7,566 890 35.4 31,522 0.24 1.18 8.32 7,409 1.05 1,847 5,561 3.16 2.25 24.9% 5.25
302 Oceanside - Vista via Vista Way 1,405 66.0 21.3 1.50 4.5 6,323 879 35.4 31,101 0.20 1.00 8.32 7,310 1.05 1,475 5,834 4.15 1.71 20.2% 4.22
388/389 Escondido - Pala 406 31.6 12.8 0.91 16.0 6,496 427 35.4 15,100 0.43 2.12 8.32 3,549 1.46 593 2,956 7.28 0.98 16.7% 4.00
309 Oceanside - Encinitas via El Camino Real 929 58.1 16.0 1.13 6.8 6,317 873 35.4 30,902 0.20 1.01 8.32 7,263 1.05 975 6,287 6.77 1.05 13.4% 3.19
305 Escondido - Vista via Mission & RSF 740 65.4 11.3 0.80 4.3 3,180 862 19 16,371 0.19 0.96 6.91 5,954 1.05 776 5,177 7.00 1.02 13.0% 2.77
101 Oceanside - UTC via Hwy 101 1,310 110.8 11.8 0.83 9.0 11,787 1,618 35.4 57,282 0.21 1.01 8.32 $13,463 1.05 1,375 12,088 9.23 0.77 10.2% 2.62
395 Oceanside - San Clemente via Pendleton 295 46.9 6.3 0.44 18.4 5,437 1,055 19 20,051 0.27 1.34 6.91 7,292 1.05 310 6,982 23.63 0.30 4.3% 2.08
306 Fallbrook - Vista via Mission 401 29.9 13.5 0.73 6.7 2,690 431 35.4 15,263 0.18 0.77 8.32 3,587 1.05 422 3,166 7.89 0.37 11.8% 1.87
308 Escondido - Solana Beach via Del Dios 262 23.9 11.0 0.77 9.9 2,597 464 19 35,923 0.07 0.36 6.91 3,209 1.05 275 2,934 11.19 0.64 8.6% 1.77
333
Oceanside N - Vista via Old Grove &
Oceanside 166 25.4 6.5 0.46 3.2 531 265 19 5,032 0.11 0.52 6.91 1,830 1.05 174 1,656 9.98 0.71 9.5% 1.69
315 Oceanside - Pendleton via Vandegrift 189 28.2 6.7 0.36 6.0 1,131 421 19 7,999 0.14 0.62 8.32 3,503 1.05 198 3,305 17.53 0.17 5.7% 1.15
Total 7,862 554.5 14.2 1.00 6.9 54,054 8,185.1 266,546 0.20 1.00 7.86 64,369 1.07 8,422 55,946 7.12 1.00 13.1% 3.00
LOCAL ROUTES
350 Escondido TC - Del Lago P&R 664 25.6 25.9 1.40 3.6 2,390 295 35.4 10,451 0.23 1.00 8.32 2,456 1.05 697 1,759 2.65 1.09 28.4% 3.50
351/352 Escondido Circulator 467 26.3 17.8 0.96 2.9 1,331 238 19 4,522 0.29 1.29 6.91 1,645 1.05 490 1,154 2.47 1.17 29.8% 3.42
356
Escondido via Morning View, El Norte,
Escondido Bl. 177 10.1 17.5 0.95 1.9 337 91 19 1,734 0.19 0.85 6.91 630 1.05 186 444 2.51 1.16 29.5% 2.95
354 Escondido via Mission, Lincoln & Midway 165 10.1 16.3 0.88 2.8 462 119 19 2,258 0.20 0.90 6.91 821 1.05 173 648 3.92 0.74 21.1% 2.52
331 Buena Creek - Kaplan via University 18 8.7 2.1 0.11 1.2 22 48 19 904 0.02 0.10 6.91 329 1.05 19 310 17.15 0.17 5.8% 0.39
Total 1,491 80.9 18.4 1.00 3.0 4,542 790.9 19,869 0.23 1.00 7.44 5,881 1.05 1,566 4,315 2.89 1.00 26.6% 3.00
TOTAL 9,354 635.3 14.7 1.00 6.3 58,596 8,976 286,414 0.20 1.00 7.83 70,250 1.07 9,988 60,262 6.44 1.00 14.2% 3.00
H-27
25 NOVEMBER22,2010
Attachment B - Service Performance Targets
Service Type Performance Indicator Target
Rail
Coaster
Net Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.25
Passengers Per Hour 225
Sprinter
Net Cost Per Passenger Mile $0.60
Passengers Per Hour 100
Fixed Route Bus
Breeze Route Performance Index (RPI) 3.0
Community-Based Transit
Route Deviation
Net Operating Cost Per Passenger $4.00 $8.00
Passengers/ Revenue Hour 10 - 12
Maximum Vehicle Loading 100% Of Seating Capacity
Community Dial-A-Ride
Passengers/ Revenue Hour 5 - 10
Shared Ride Taxi
Passengers/ Revenue Hour Variable
Ada Paratransit (Lift)
Passengers/ Revenue Hour 2 2.5
H-28

APPENDIX I
MTS BUS MAINTENANCE PLAN

100 16
th
Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel 619.238-0100
Fax 619.232-8351

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System

Bus Maintenance Plan

December 13, 2011

Prepared By:

J ulio Ortiz
Director of Maintenance

I-1

J ulio Ortiz
Director of Maintenance
Thomas Frantz
Assistant Manager
Socorrito
Grabowski
Admin Assistant I
J erry Stafford
Maintenance
Analyst
Tim Burrie
Division Manager
IAD
AM Foreman
J . Chaney (Shop)
J . Garcia (P.M.)
M. Mitchell (P.M.)
G. Story (Floater)
Night Foremen
G. Ledesma (Shop)
S. Perez (Lanes)
Swing Foremen
D. Ellis (P.M.)
R. Leal (Shop)
E. Cota (Lanes)
Kearny Mesa Division Imperial Avenue Division
Bus Maintenance
Swing Foremen
D. Buck (Shop)
W. Thomas (P.M.)
R. Poynor (Lanes)
AM Foremen
M. Silva (Shop)
E. Valdez (Body)
S. Shoemaker (P. M.)
Night Foremen
F. Navarro
Salvador Avila
Division Manager
KMD
Claire Spielberg
COO Transit Services
6
:
3
0

A
M

-
3
:
0
0

P
M
2
:
3
0

P
M

-
1
1
:
0
0

P
M
1
0
:
3
0

P
M

-
7
:
0
0

A
M
7
:
0
0

A
M

-
3
:
0
0

P
M
3
:
0
0

P
M

-
1
1
:
0
0

P
M
1
1
:
0
0

P
M

-
7
:
0
0

A
M
3
3
1
4
3
2
Rosa Gallegos
Maintenance Clerk

I-2

VEHICLE MAINTENANCE PLAN
Revised: December 13, 2011
INTRODUCTION

This vehicle maintenance plan provides standards for performance, facilities descriptions,
employee ratios and preventive maintenance schedules. There are two facilities located
throughout San Diego that perform preventive, corrective maintenance, cleaning and storage of
vehicles. These facilities are called (IAD) Imperial Avenue Division and (KMD) Kearny Mesa
Division. Both Divisions provide repairs for all major components of the bus including engine
overhaul, transmission and major body shop repair from accidents. The KMD facility is
equipped with a state of the art painting booth. For further information on this plan contact the
San Diego Metropolitan Transit Systems Director of Maintenance.
OBJECTIVES

Standards for performance for the Maintenance Department are as follow:

1 ENSURE MAXIMUM UTILITY FROM REVENUE VEHICLES

A. Maintain condition of fleet for long-term reliability to achieve up to 15 years
of service from each revenue vehicle.

B. Develop Maintenance procedures and practices to achieve and maintain a
spare fleet ratio of 20 percent.

C. Improve average miles per chargeable roadcall to at least the following
standard for year FY12, 10000 miles between breakdowns

D. Active SDMTS Bus Fleet:

Bus Series Year Model Engine Fuel Type #Active
300 2008 New Flyer 40LF Cummins ISLG CNG 50
400 2005 New Flyer 40LF Cummins C8.3G+ CNG 7
500 2009 New Flyer ISC
G35LF Hybrid
ISE Hybrid Drive GAS/Hybrid 12
600 2010 New Flyer 40LF Cummins 8.9 ISLG CNG 26
1000 2008 NABI 60 FT BRT Cummins 8.9 ISLG CNG 26
1900 2001 New Flyer 60LF DD Series 50 Diesel 13
TOTALS 236
I-3

E Maintain condition of revenue vehicles to allow 99.0 percent completed
trips.

F. Maintain a fleet minimum of 100 percent of heaters and air conditioners
in working order.

G. Maintain passenger lifts to a 100 percent successful operations level.

2 MAINTAIN A QUALIFIED AND DEDICATED STAFF

A. Increase availability of training programs and encourage personnel to
enter our apprentice program

B. Continue and improve recognition and incentive programs for
maintenance staff.

C. Develop leadership skills of management personnel.
3 OPERATE EFFICIENTLY

A. Continue development of "team effort" within the department.

B. All shifts to enforce rules, procedures and safety standards.

C. Continue to reduce absenteeism.

D. Maintain a close working relationship with labor union officers.

EMPLOYEE RATIOS

The approved work force for the Maintenance Department in FY 12 is 149
employees. The total number of mechanics for FY12 is 101 plus 48 service men. Out of
the 101 mechanics (22) are dedicated to body repair and (3) are dedicated to
radio/cameras/destination sign repair, and (3) mechanics are dedicated to brake kit
fabrication, and there are currently (11) Apprentices in the program. The total
dedicated mechanics to maintain our fleet is 73.

During FY 12, San Diego Transit will maintain 236 revenue vehicles. The
maximum peak bus requirement will be 193 revenue vehicles. With a total of 73
mechanics, this results in the following employee ratios:

REVENUE VEHICLE
PER
PEAK BUSES
PER
Mechanic 3.23 2.64
Servicemen 4.92 4.02

I-4

FACILITIES DESCRIPTION:

San Diego Transit operates two maintenance facilities: one at 100 16th Street,
referred to as Imperial Avenue Division (IAD), and one at 4630 Ruffner Rd., referred to
as Kearny Mesa Division (KMD).

IMPERIAL AVENUE DIVISION:

This site was the sole maintenance facility for San Diego Transit since it became a
publicly owned corporation in 1968. In 1972, a new building for bus maintenance and
administrative offices was opened. Presently, there is a mix of this 32-year-old facility
with a recently completed CNG/Diesel state of the art facility that opened in December
2000.

The new running repair area has 14 bays, twelve of which have hoists and one a pit
for suspension and front-end work. Most of the hoists are utilized for brake, wheelchair
lift and transmission/engine minor repairs. The F.A.C.E. (Farebox, Air-conditioning and
Electronics) department also works out of this garage.

The new storeroom was design to allow expansion and houses thousands of parts.

The service lanes have three service lanes/islands, which have the capability to
service 25 buses per hour. A bus washer is also in this area.

The body and paint shop has one bay area to repair glass, body, rubber, and
upholstery. It has one hoist able to accommodate a standard 40-foot bus.

The tire shop is outside with sheds for tool/equipment storage. Tires and personnel
are operated by GoodYear contractors.

KEARNY MESA DIVISION:

The Kearny Mesa Division (KMD) is designed to be modern, efficient, and a well-
equipped CNG/Diesel facility.

The facility consists of a 52,000 square foot maintenance building, which includes
a 16,000 square foot warehouse and a 10,000 square foot body and paint shop, and a
transportation building for bus drivers containing approximately 8,000 square feet. It has
a three-lane service island, a bus washer, a tire shop, and a brake inspection pit. Also
included are parking spaces for 175 employees.

I-5

Staff studies have indicated a substantial monetary saving is achieved by the
reduction of deadhead time and mileage for buses in utilizing KMD. Approximately (98)
buses are operated out of the facility.

Maintenance performed at KMD includes servicing and cleaning, preventative
maintenance, running repairs, and body and paint repairs.

Along with the 98 buses, there are twelve (19) support vehicles maintained at the
facility.

Body and paint repairs are a major function at KMD. Most personnel and
equipment were relocated from IAD. The shop is more productive as a whole because a
"production line" type work method can be initiated. The "production line" work method
enables work to be done progressively.

COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS BUSES

Currently, SDTC operates 211 CNG buses, the Imperial Avenue division is a 100%
Alternative Fuel Division operating CNG and advanced Hybrid Electric Gasoline buses.
Kearny Mesa Division only operates 13 Diesel buses in addition to its fleet if 85 CNG
buses. Both Divisions are equipped with fast fill compression stations.

CONTRACT SERVICES

Currently SDMTS oversee the contracting of route and maintenance service from
VEOLIA and First Transit for Para-transit services.
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULES

Scheduled preventive maintenance at San Diego Transit is on mileage intervals.
Each series of bus has a P.M. schedule derived from manufacturer's recommendations
experience. Table-1 identified San Diego Transit's Inspection by bus series.

SCHEDULED PM:

Scheduled preventive maintenance is done on mileage intervals.

Each series of buses are assigned mileages for different types of
inspection/PM. The types of inspections/PM are:
I-6

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
MILEAGE INSPECTION SCHEDULE
Table -1

Inspection

MST# 8006 8012 8018 8024 8030 8036 8042 8048 8054 8060 8066 8072
Std J ob Name Insp6 PM12 Insp18 PM24 Insp30 PM36 Insp42 PM48 Insp54 PM60 Insp66 PM72

GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK GBRK
GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF GLOF
GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM GPM
GWC GWC GWC GWC GWC GWC
GAC GAC GAC GAC GAC GAC
GEL RADIO GEL GEL
GCL GCL GCL
GGF GGF GGF
GPM24 GPM24 GPM24
FBOX FBOX GPM72
FBOX
RADIO

NOTE: Individual bus mileages are tracked through
our computer system. A daily printout informs the
Maintenance Department Staff on the status of
inspection schedules for all buses in the fleet.

GBRK =BRAKE INSP
GLOF =LUBE AND OIL FILTERS
GPM =GENERIC PM INSPECTION
GWC =WHEEL CHAIR LIFT/RAMP INSP
GAC =AC INSP
GEL =ELECTRICAL INSP
GCL =COOLING INSP
GGF =GAS/FIRE SYS INSP
FBOX =FAREBOX INSP
GPM24 =OLD C INSP ( TRANS FLUID )
PM72 =OLD D INSP ( DIFF FLUID/DIAPHRAMS )
I-7

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

INSPECTION PROGRAM

a. The first part of this program is the bus inspection by our PM TEAM; the
team consists of a PM foreman, an Electrical and body shop mechanic C
plus a Mechanic A from the mechanical department.

The team is required to conduct a comprehensive inspection to ensure that the
vehicle is in safe, clean and reliable condition. If any item is found to be
unsafe, the inspectors will make an immediate report to Preventive
Maintenance foreman to generate a job repair for the vehicle.

The PM Foreman maintains an ongoing report of all defects while the vehicle
is being inspected. After the vehicle has been completely inspected all write-
ups are required to be documented in our ELLIPSE system (job repairs#), then
they are distributed to the PM repair team on the second shift. The PM
foremen will review this work and make a schedule of repairs based on
parts/manpower availability.

The report meets state law requirements and provides an adequate information
base that alerts the maintenance department of potential problems before a
failure happens. From time to time parts availability become a challenge that
is out of our hands, therefore we have established a limit of 10 buses held at
anytime before bringing more buses as the schedule of 10 per week requires.

When the vehicle has been completely inspected and repaired, it is signed off
by the two PM foremen, their teams and the Managers or the Assistant
Manager of Maintenance., only then is the bus allowed to be released for
service.

b. The second part of this program involves the bus servicers while
operating/servicing the vehicle. The servicers have inspection procedures to
comply with, and if they find items in need of repair, the vehicle is brought to
the garage for repairs before parking vehicle in the ready for service area.
They also file a report along with the vehicle and repairs are made and noted
on the report.

In conjunction with the services lanes procedures, certain vehicles at a
specified mileage go through a brake inspection/adjustment and undercarriage
inspection. A report is made for repairs.

I-8

RECORDS

Currently our software system is ELLIPSE and it keeps all history records of all
job repairs performed in our buses

Mileage is updated daily by way of each night's fueling. All consumables
information is loaded into the system and processed, whereby exception reports are
generated.

Road Call Action Order - Identification by categories, the cause, location, time of day,
vehicle number, and operator number.

Job Card Action Order - Deals with ten different series of buses owned by SDT and
five types of inspections based upon mileage; also allows historical documentation of
specific component performance/failure.

Foreman's Request Action Order - Generates repair order based on operator report of
inspection; interactive with Preventive Maintenance Action Order to coordinate with
maintenance schedule, thus reducing down time.

Accident/Damage Action Order - to repair damaged vehicles.

Service/Cleaning Action Order - Daily record of fueling, cleaning and brake
inspections.

Unit Rebuild Action Order - to schedule repair or rebuild of each vehicle components.

GENERAL RUNNING REPAIRS

General Running Repairs are initiated by Operator daily report, preventive
maintenance inspections, roadcalls, or Serviceman inspection. Most all of these types of
repairs are performed on the night shift. A mechanic C performs this type of work in
most cases.

The mechanic reads the reported problem and then identifies the problem. At that
point he/she may request a Repair Order from the shop foreman. Then the mechanic
performs the necessary work, signs off the action order that the work was completed, and
parks the coach in a ready lane. A mechanic A may perform some of the running
repair work, depending on the expertise required for the job.

MAJOR REPAIRS

Major repairs are performed by mechanic A's, and in most cases, take longer than
one day. San Diego Transit mechanics are capable of performing any job on a coach,
including everything from major engine and transmission overhauls, to accident body
I-9

repairs. We currently have ten (10) mechanics A's that are experts on repairing and
maintaining front door wheelchair lifts. San Diego Transit maintains an excellent record
of reliability on the 236 wheelchair lifts in our fleet

SERVICE AND CLEANING

San Diego Transit maintains a very detailed procedure for the service and cleaning
of coaches. The coach operator parks the coach on the lot, a cleaner/hostler or
serviceman boards the coach, checks the operator daily report for defects, closes all
windows, and drives the coach to the service lane. In the service lanes the farebox is
emptied, the inside of the coach is cleaned, fueled and all the fluid levels are brought up
to full. The next step is to cycle the wheelchair lift, and run it through the washer.

While the bus is being washed, the cleaner hostler mops the floor, wipes the seats
and ledges. The coach brakes are checked or adjusted if necessary while it goes through
an inspection pit, then the bus is parked ready for the next days sign-out. In addition to
our daily cleaning, MTS has partnered with a cleaning by the name of Association for
Disabled Citizens (ARC). ARC performs a magnificent job by deep cleaning all of our
buses before being released from the PM program.

WARRANTY TRACKING

The warranty tracking on new buses is under the responsibility of the Quality
Assurance department. All new buses go through an acceptance period and any defects
that get noted, are documented and submitted for reimbursement by the bus
manufacturer. Quarterly warranty reports are submitted to the Chief Operating Officer.

I-10

APPENDIX J
MTS/NCTD TRANSIT SECURITY POLICIES
J -1

APPENDIX K
MTS/NCTD LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN

K-1
1

MTS Language Assistance Plan
May 2013

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary... 2
II. Introduction.. 4
III. Identification of LEP Individuals....11
IV. Language Assistance Measures.....................22
V. Training Staff........31
VI. Providing notice to LEP persons.......32
VII. Plan Monitoring and Updating...33

K-2
2

I. Executive Summary

The following Language Assistance Plan (LAP) is based on a collaborative effort between
the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), the North County Transit District (NCTD), and the
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). That effort, conducted in early 2012,
included the development of the Four Factor Analysis.
Factor 1: The number or proportion of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons
eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by a program, activity, or
service of the recipient or grantee;
Factor 2: The frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with the
program;
Factor 3: The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided
by the recipient to peoples lives; and
Factor 4: The resources available to the recipient and costs.
Identification of LEP individuals
Following Department of Transportation guidance on Factor 1, multiple sources were used
to determine the number of LEP individuals in San Diego County. These sources included
the U.S. Census, the American Community Survey (ACS), U.S. Department of Labor,
California Department of Education, and the San Diego County Department of Mental
Health. According to these findings, over 230,000 people over the age of five in San Diego
County speak English less than well. This accounts for 8 percent of the countys
population.
For the purpose of this LAP, MTS refined the data to include only those areas within the
MTS jurisdiction. These findings show that there are 156,731 people over the age of five
who speak English less than well within the MTS jurisdiction, or 7.5 percent of the
population living within the MTS service area.
K-3
3

Language Assistance Measures
Both current and future language assistance measures are presented. Current language
assistance measures were compiled by interviewing key staff and reviewing relevant
material. Future language assistance measures were compiled through an extensive process
involving staff interviews, community based organization (CBO) interviews, focus groups
held with LEP persons, and intercept surveys conducted with LEP transit riders. These
efforts took place throughout the county with the assistance of NCTD and SANDAG.
Training Staff
Following DOT guidance, staff training will be implemented as a result of the Four Factor
Analysis and this LAP. Specific training elements are discussed in this report.
Providing notice to LEP persons
This LAP describes the ways that MTS provides notice to LEP persons. Additionally, this
process generated new methods that will supplement current practices.
Plan Monitoring and Updating
Lastly, to ensure compliance and practical implementation by all agency staff, this plan
details how monitoring and updating will occur.

K-4
4

II. INTRODUCTION

ABOUT MTS
The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) was created in 1975 by the passage
of California Senate Bill 101 and came into existence on January 1, 1976. In 1984, the
Governor signed Senate Bill 1736, which expanded the MTD Board of Directors from 8 to
15 members. In 2002, Senate Bill 1703 merged MTDBs long-range planning, financial
programming, project development and construction functions into the regional
metropolitan planning organization, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
In 2005, MTDB changed its name to the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS).
Board of Directors
The 15-member Board of Directors generally meets once a month. Members are selected
as follows:
Four appointed from the San Diego City Council
One appointed from each city council of Chula Vista, Coronado, El Cajon, Imperial
Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Poway and Santee
One appointed from the San Diego County Board of Supervisors
One San Diego County resident elected by other Board members to serve as
Chairman
Subsidiary Corporations
MTS owns assets of: San Diego Trolley, Inc. (SDTI); San Diego Transit Corporation (SDTC);
and the San Diego & Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railway Company, which owns 108 miles of
track and right-of-way. In addition, MTS provides administrative and support services to
San Diego Vintage Trolley, Inc., a non-profit corporation established to restore historic
Trolley vehicles.
K-5
5

Areas of Jurisdiction
The MTS area of jurisdiction is approximately 3,240 total square miles, with a population of
over two million San Diego County residents. The MTS service area includes 716 square
miles of the urbanized portion of its jurisdiction and the rural parts of East County, serving
1.96 million people.
Operations
MTS provides bus and rail services either directly or by contract with private operators. MTS
coordinates all its services and determines the routing, stops, frequencies and hours of
operation.
Light Rail
Light rail service is operated by SDTI on four lines (Blue, Orange, Green, and Silver Lines)
with a total of 53 stations and 102.6 miles of rail.
Bus
MTS bus service includes 93 fixedroutes, four demand response routes, and Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit service (branded as MTS Access).
Fixed-route bus service modes are Urban Frequent, Urban Standard, Express, Premium
Express, Rapid, Circulator, and Rural.
Operating Budget
MTS annual operating budget is approximately $250 million. Annual fare revenue is $105
million (FY 2012), making MTS 42% farebox recovery ratio one of the highest among
similar transit systems.

K-6
6

Ridership
MTS generates 90 million annual passenger trips, or 300,000 trips each weekday. MTS
provides approximately 1.9 million hours of service across 24 million miles each year
(FY12).
Planning and Scheduling
MTS is responsible for the service planning, scheduling, and performance monitoring of all
MTS transit services. Service adjustments occur three times per year and as needed to
improve efficiency and customer service.
Funding
MTS receives funding from various federal, state, and local sources. The primary sources
are the California Transportation Development Act (TDA), Federal Transit Administration
(sections 5307, 5337 and 5339), TransNet funds (local sales tax), and fares.
Taxicab Administration
MTS licenses and regulates taxicabs, jitneys, and other private for-hire passenger
transportation services by contract with the cities of San Diego, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La
Mesa, Lemon Grove, Poway, and Santee.
Coordination between SANDAG, MTS and NCTD
The roles and responsibilities of SANDAG, MTS, and NCTD are outlined in a master
memorandum of understanding executed on April 23, 2004. SANDAG is responsible for
transit planning, development, and construction while MTS and NCTD are responsible for
transit operations. MTS and NCTD also manage small construction projects with SANDAG
assistance. SANDAG is responsible for establishing the regional fare policy.

K-7
7

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Background
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) states that: No person in the
United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance. In the 1974 case
of Lau v. Nichols (414 U.S. 563), the Supreme Court interpreted Title VI to hold that it also
prohibits conduct that has a disproportionate impact on Limited English Proficient (LEP)
persons.
On August 11, 2000, Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons
with Limited English Proficiency, was signed by President Clinton. It directs federal
agencies to examine the services they provide and develop and implement a system by
which LEP persons can meaningfully access those services. Federal agencies were instructed
to publish guidance for their respective recipients in order to assist them with their
obligations to LEP persons under Title VI.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) published updated guidance for its recipients
on December 14, 2005 in the Policy Guidance Concerning Recipients Responsibilities to
Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons (US DOT, Volume 70, Number 239). The guidance
states that Title VI and its implementing regulations require that DOT recipients take
responsible steps to ensure meaningful access to the benefits, services, information, and
other important portions of their programs and activities for individuals who are Limited
English Proficient (LEP). The guidance also suggests that recipients use the DOT LEP
Guidance to determine how best to comply with statutory and regulatory obligations to
provide meaningful access to the benefits, services, information, and other important
portions of their programs and activities for individuals who are LEP.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) references the DOT LEP guidance in Circular
4702.1A, Title VI and Title VI-Dependent Guidelines for FTA Recipients, which was
K-8
8

finalized on April 13, 2007. Chapter IV Part 4 of this Circular reiterates the requirement to
take responsible steps to ensure meaningful access to benefits, services, and information
for LEP persons and suggests that FTA recipients and sub-recipients develop a language
implementation plan consistent with the provisions of Section VII of the DOT LEP Guidance.
The FTA Office of Civil Rights also released a handbook in 2007 for transit providers
(Implementing the Department of Transportations Policy Guidance Concerning
Recipients Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons [FTA 2007]) to give
technical assistance for the implementation of the DOT LEP guidance.
MTS supports the DOT guidance to provide meaningful assistance to LEP speakers. Each of
the mentioned resources was used to guide the Four Factor Analysis and this LAP.
MTS, in association with SANDAG, has developed this implementation plan to address the
needs of the LEP populations in San Diego County. Following DOT LEP Guidance, included
in this report are the following five sections:
1. Identifying LEP individuals who need language assistance
2. Providing language assistance measures
3. Training staff
4. Providing notice to LEP persons
5. Monitoring and updating the plan
Further included is a summation of the Four Factor Analysis. The LAP was shaped by the
Four Factor Analysis findings conducted by SANDAG in close association with MTS and
NCTD.

K-9
9

Four Factor Analysis
Factor 1: The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be
encountered by the transit service.
Factor 1 Analysis findings indicate that 7.5 percent of the population within the
MTS jurisdiction speaks English less than well. The top four languages spoken
other than English are Spanish (5.28 percent of the MTS jurisdictions total
population), Vietnamese (0.55%), Tagalog (0.31%) and Chinese (0.19).
Combined, these four languages include 84.4% of the LEP population in San
Diego.
Factor 2: The frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with the transit
service.
Based on Community-Based Organization (CBO) interviews, focus groups with
LEP individuals, staff interviews, and intercept surveys with LEP transit riders, it
was determined that LEP individuals are regularly coming into contact with MTS
services.

Factor 3: The nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the
recipient to peoples lives.
Using the information gathered in the Factor 2 Analysis, Factor 3 findings
suggest that access to public transportation is highly important for LEP persons.
Because public transit reaches such a large number of LEP individuals, results are
largely focused around the need for, and access to, public transit.

The Factor 4 Analysis provided suggestions for LEP outreach measures, as well as
consideration of the resources available for these efforts. Several key measures
will be implemented based on these findings.

K-10
10

III. IDENTIFYING LEP INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE
There were several key findings revealed in the analysis of the data:
38 percent of persons in the MTS jurisdiction speak a language other than English at
home. This is in-line with countywide numbers, which show that 17 percent of the
population speaks English less than very well (includes those that speak English
well, not well and not at all);
Eight percent speak English less than well (includes those that speak English not
well and not at all);
Spanish is the second most predominant language, other than English, spoken in the
MTS jurisdiction;
Of the languages spoken in the region, Table 1 shows the languages with over 1,000
LEP speakers;

K-11
11

Table 1: LEP Speakers by Language in MTS Jurisdiction
Language
LEP
Population
Percent of
All LEP
Speakers
Percent of
Total
Population
(Age 5+)
Spanish 110,356 70.41 5.28
Vietnamese 11,406 7.28 0.55
Tagalog 6,515 4.16 0.31
Chinese 4,064 2.59 0.19
Syriac 3,513 2.24 0.17
Arabic 2,553 1.63 0.12
Persian 2,307 1.47 0.11
Korean 1,976 1.26 0.09
Laotian 1,842 1.18 0.09
Japanese 1,573 1.00 0.08
Russian 1,258 0.80 0.06
Mandarin 1,180 0.5 0.04
Cambodian 1,018 0.4 0.04
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey PUMS data

LEP POPULATION SOURCES
Regional (MTS jurisdiction) analysis was performed using Public Use Microdata Sample
(PUMS) data, which is available at the Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) geography. San
Diego County is composed of 22 PUMAs, each with a minimum population of 100,000
persons. PUMS data is composed of untabulated records from the American Community
Survey (ACS). This allows for the creation of custom variables by cross-tabulating selected
K-12
12

combination of characteristics from the records (i.e. population over 5 years old that speaks
Spanish and speaks English not well or not at all).
A more detailed geographic analysis was performed using ACS language data at the
Census Tract level. ACS data is available as 5 year estimates in pre-tabulated categories for
at the tract level (5 year estimates are necessary in order to achieve a sufficient sample
size).
Census 2000 data on language is also available at the tract level (Census 2000 tracts).
Census 2000 used a longer form survey than 2010, and offers a more detailed language
proficiency breakdown without margin of error issues.

PUMS/PUMAs USED AS LEP POULATION SOURCE
For the purposes of the MTS Language Assistance Plan, PUMS/PUMAs were selected as the
source for LEP population for the following reasons:
Allow for the creation of custom variables
Provide more detailed population characteristics (population that speaks a language
other than English (total or for a specific language) and speaks English very well,
well, not well, or not at all).
Has a low margin of error due to large sample sizes
Other population sources ACS Census Tracts and Census 2000/Census Tracts have
limitations, including fewer language categories, smaller sample sizes and larger margins of
error, and data that does not capture shifts in population and immigration.

K-13
13

LEP POPULATION ANALYSIS
The DOT describes limited English proficiency as having a limited ability to read, write,
speak or understand English. The DOT and FTA (in both the LEP guidance and Title VI
Circular), define this population as people who reported that they speak English not well
or not at all. Table 2 shows this analysis for San Diego County. The table shows that the
overall LEP population in the County is 8.0 percent of persons age five years and older.
Table 2: Community Survey 2010, 1-year estimates, Age by Language Spoken
County
Total Population
Age 5 and Over
Speaks
English Only
Speaks English
Percentage Less
than Well
Well or
Very Well
Less Than
Well
San Diego 2,089,927 1,287,143 645,723 156,731 7.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Table B16004
The ACS data also includes information on languages spoken for 39 different language
groups (but not by ability to speak English as is available in the ACS data). Table 2 shows
the top five non-English languages spoken at home in the San Diego region in 2010
among the total population ages five and older (including both LEP and non-LEP
populations). While there were respondents from all 39 language groups, Spanish,
Tagalog, Chinese, Vietnamese, and German were the primary languages.

K-14
14

Table 3: Languages Spoken at Home in the MTS Jurisdiction
Language
Language Spoken
at Home for the
Population 5 and
Over
Percent of
Total
Population
Spanish 504,760 24.15%
Tagalog 81,954 3.92%
Vietnamese 33,386 1.59%
Chinese 20,611 0.99%
Arabic 12,915 0.62%
All Other 148,928 7.13%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Table C16001
The Figure 1 below shows the LEP Census Tracts using PUMA data. The map illustrates the
Census Tracts where the proportion of the population speaking English less than well is
greater than 7.5 percent, the service area average. Figure 2 shows the Census Tracts where
the proportion of LEP Spanish speaking population is greater than 5.7 percent, the service
area average; Figure 3 where the proportion of LEP Vietnamese speaking population is
greater than 0.55 percent; Figure 4 for Tagalog where the proportion is greater than 0.31
percent, and Figure 5 for Chinese where the proportion is greater than 0.19 percent.

K-15
15

K-16
16

K-17
17

K-18
18

K-19
19

K-20
20

In the preparation of the MTS LAP, other data sources were analyzed on a county-wide
basis to enhance the language list obtained by PUMA. These sources included The
California Department of Education (CDE) English Learner data and the San Diego County
Department of Mental Health database of interpreter services. Both of these sources
roughly correlate to the languages identified by PUMA data. Spanish, Tagalog, Vietnamese
and Chinese are on the top of all lists.

CONCLUSION
The analysis of PUMAs with the MTS jurisdiction corresponds closely with countywide data.
There are 13 specific languages in the MTS jurisdiction, as well as in San Diego County,
with more than 1,000 individuals who are limited English proficient (LEP). Those languages
and corresponding LEP populations were shown in Table 1 on page 12.

K-21
21

IV. LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE MEASURES
Current and future language assistance measures are outlined in this section of the LAP.
To gather all the current language assistance measures, staff who regularly work on
outreach efforts and in customer service or customer facing capacities were interviewed.
To gain insight for potential future language assistance measures, interviews of community
based organizations (CBOs) serving LEP populations and focus groups with LEP residents
were conducted in areas in the MTS service territory that were identified as having high
proportions of LEP persons. Additionally, intercept surveys were conducted at transit
centers known to have high concentrations of LEP riders.
Current Language Assistance Measures
Currently, MTS provides a variety of language assistance services including the translation
of all critical rider information. To date, translation has been primarily in Spanish due to the
high concentration of Spanish LEP individuals who utilize MTS services.
MTS utilizes a combination of agency and certified translation companies for translation
services. All materials are reviewed by internal native Spanish-speaking staff review
documents for accuracy, relevancy, and consistency. MTS also has internal staff with
Tagalog and Chinese fluency to review materials translated into those languages.
The following chart details the LEP public outreach components MTS currently has in place.

K-22
22

CURRENT LEP OUTREACH MEASURES
Program, Activity,
Service
LEP Component
MTS Public Meetings
Periodic English/Spanish translation service provided
Transit Planning Efforts
Public meetings/workshops
Bilingual English/Spanish staff attend public meetings
and workshops where public comment is requested
Fact sheets and comment cards produced in
English/Spanish
Community-based outreach program to secure
participation from underrepresented groups
Conduct periodic system-wide public opinion surveys in
English/Spanish
Rider Information
Materials (printed)
Public meetings/workshops
On-board communications, including Take One notices
for service announcements and quarterly rider
newsletter
All fare information printed in English and Spanish
All MTS service advertising printed in English and
Spanish
All How to Ride information on board vehicles and
on station platforms printed in English/Spanish
Timetables printed in English/Spanish
All collateral printed in English/Spanish
Critical Web information available in Spanish
MTS will translate any materials into any language upon
request.
K-23
23

Customer Satisfaction
Survey
Written customer survey produced in English/Spanish
On-Line customer survey available in Tagalog,
Vietnamese, and Chinese
Rider Information at Call
Centers (511 and
Telephone Information)
Bilingual English/Spanish IVR (Interactive Voice
Recognition) phone system
Bilingual English/Spanish operators
Printed materials (brochures, application forms)
produced in English/Spanish
Telephone Information
and Customer Service Call
Centers
Bilingual English/Spanish operators
Fare Collection Services
(Bus Farebox, Trolley
Ticket Machines)
Bilingual English/Spanish operators at Regional Transit
and Roadside Assistance service centers
General MTS
Bilingual English/Spanish receptionists on staff to
provide assistance on the phone and in person
Bilingual Bus operators
Bilingual Rail Ambassadors (to provide rider assistance)
Access to language line
Established contracts for document translation
Internal translation review by native Spanish and other
language speakers
K-24
24

The list below provides a more detailed review of all the tools utilized by MTS to
communicate with its LEP riders.
Written Language Assistance
Bilingual or multilingual versions of:
o How to ride brochures
o Spanish language fare payment instructions
o Spanish language system maps and timetables
o Printed Spanish language service change announcements
o Spanish language notices pertaining to upcoming events
As resources become available and materials are updated, more and more
Pictographs in stations and in vehicles are being implemented
Ticket vending machines with Spanish language functions
Oral language Assistance
Bilingual staff
Contracting for interpreters on an as needed basis
Utilizing community volunteers to interpret information
Transit Fares
Public notices printed in English/Spanish when fare
changes are being considered
Public comment period, public meeting dates, printed
in English/Spanish in regional and local newspapers
Fare Facts document printed in English/Spanish
Fare information on board all vehicles and on rail
platforms printed in both English/Spanish
Title VI complaint materials provided in English/Spanish
K-25
25

Using bilingual staff to interpret information on an as needed basis
Driver training to ask other riders for assistance when language services are required
Community Outreach
Spanish language TV advertisements
Spanish language radio advertisements
Spanish language newspaper advertisements
Advertisements in ethnic media, including Tagalog, Vietnamese and Chinese
Stations
Visible Spanish instructions on how to make fare payments
Visible Spanish schedules, route maps and information on how to use the system
Staff awareness regarding availability of translated materials
Bilingual Ambassador staff
Vehicles
Visible Spanish instructions on how to make fare payments
Visible Spanish schedules, route maps and information on how to use the system
Operator awareness that translated information is available
Bilingual bus operators
Customer Service
Bilingual customer service representatives
Ability to provide information in other languages through third-party interpretation
services
Community Outreach
Translators present at community meetings as needed
Opportunity for both oral as well as written comments
K-26
26

Press/Public Relations
Working relationships with ethnic media who translate press release content
Select translated information on website
Future Language Assistance Measures
Interviews with LEP individuals and community based organizations (CBOs) that serve these
populations brought to light a number of measures LEP communities would like to see
implemented. Many of the suggestions were repeated in the different language LEP focus
groups, making the case that the issue of access to information is fairly consistent
throughout different speaking LEP communities.
Efforts to include as many realistic suggestions as possible in this report have been made.
Available resources helped to determine the feasibility of the suggestions received. Of the
many suggested ideas, the condensed list below provides direction for MTS staff when
planning future LEP outreach efforts.
Thoroughly analyze LEP populations for specific areas and provide staff and written
materials specific to the LEP needs of each community.
Establish a self-monitoring mechanism for project managers to document LEP participation
at all community meetings through sign-in sheets
Create community specific guidelines and key partner contacts for MTS project managers
to use when working in neighborhoods with high concentrations of LEP residents
Maintain a CBO database to spread information through those networks
Increase usage of Spanish language radio and TV announcements when possible
Incorporate language into all grant agreements for federal sourced funds to ensure that
LEP requirements are met by grantees
For new transit construction, ensure that vital transit signage is translated or incorporates
design pictograms
o Provide any necessary telephone interpretation for 511 (through SANDAG),
FasTrak, Compass, iCommute, Service Patrol, Planning questions in different
K-27
27

languages. Use the Language Line for additional languages
Place multi-language information and notices in publications serving LEP populations to
demonstrate MTSs commitment to all stakeholders, to share service-related
announcements; and to increase comfort levels regarding access to information in a native
language
Provide Notice of Availability of language assistance for LEP populations
Update Public Participation Plan
Work with LEP serving CBOs to provide information/training on how to ride for LEP
populations
Define MTS vital documents and a system for ensuring on-going translation or oral
interpretation for these
Create staff Language Assistance Guidelines for how to interact and provide services to
LEP populations
Transit specific suggestions received through the public interaction process are included
below. The suggestions below will be implemented as budget allows.
Increase access to telephone interpreter services
Translate complaint/commendation forms
Increase usage of pictographs for information and instructions
Explore use of interactive electronic customer information signs at major transit
centers
Provide more robust translation on agency website
Translated electronic signs
Upcoming stop announcements in vehicles
Provide more translated information at bus stops in high LEP neighborhoods
Train drivers to provide loud and clear announcements, even in English, as any sort
of stop recognition is helpful
Provide LEP serving CBOs, community centers, temples, churches, etc. bus guides
and other transit information
Have transit information printed in ethnic newspapers and publicized on ethnic
radio
K-28
28

Partner with CBOs to conduct more trainings on how to use public transit for LEP
populations, allowing for greater comfort levels and encouraging use of public
transit
Provide drivers with customer service training on how to interact with LEP
communities
Publicize the availability and instructions for accessing information in languages
other than English

K-29
29

V. TRAINING STAFF
MTS has three internal training functions: Bus Operator Training, Trolley Operator Training
and Administrative Staff Training, which includes all customer service representatives,
management and administrative staff.
All three departments will integrate LEP modules into their overall training procedures.
The following will be implemented to ensure adequate training for all MTS employees
who interact with customers:
Revising required annual training to incorporate LEP training
Providing an initial Language Assistance Plan training to all staff
Conducting follow-up front line staff to ensure that they are utilizing LEP interaction
procedures covered in the training
Conducting periodic reviews to assess the effectiveness of LEP training video or other
LEP training material and update as necessary
Create LEP Language Assistance Guidelines for all staff to reference
The initial staff training on the Language Assistance Plan and how to work with LEP
individuals will be conducted by MTS training professionals. Training will include:
A summary of MTS responsibilities under the DOT LEP Guidance
A summary of MTS Language Assistance Plan
A summary of the Four Factor Analysis
A description of the type of language assistance MTS currently provides and
instructions on how staff can access these products and services
How to respond to calls from LEP persons
How to respond to correspondence from LEP persons
How to respond to LEP persons in person
How to document the needs of LEP persons
How to respond to civil rights Title VI complaints
K-30
30

Subsequent follow up with staff that interact with LEP individuals the most will be
conducted to ensure all necessary efforts are being made. This staff will include reception,
customer service and project manager positions. After the initial training, LEP training will
be incorporated into existing required annual Title VI training.

K-31
31

VI. PROVIDING NOTICE TO LEP PERSONS
As more thoroughly discussed in earlier sections of this report, MTS currently provides
notice to LEP individuals in a number of ways. These include:
Translated information for fare changes and other important notices
Translated project fact sheets documents
Access to multiple language customer service telephone line
Press release distribution to ethnic media, who regularly translate material for their
audiences
Interpreters at community meetings
Presence at community events with LEP attendees
Some web translations
Leveraging community partners to help disseminate notice of availability of
language assistance to LEP populations
Including notices in local newspapers in languages other than English
Moving forward, several other methods will be implemented to provide notice to LEP
persons, including:
Google translate on MTS website
Increased usage of multi-language newspaper, radio, and television advertisements
Creation of documents to notify people of the availability of language assistance to
be taken to MTS outreach meetings and distributed through CBO partners
Language regarding availability of language assistance to be added to existing
materials
Posting signs in MTS reception area specifying language assistance availability

K-32
32

VII. MONITORING/UPDATING THE PLAN
The Four Factor Analysis and LAP, upon implementation, will be monitored and scheduled
for review every four years.
The plan will be monitored using the following measures:
Assigning a staff person to provide day-to-day administration of the LAP to ensure
compliance and correct implementation
Seeking feedback from LEP communities and CBOs regarding the effectiveness of
the plan when possible
Seeking staff feedback to determine the effectiveness and usefulness of the LAP
Utilizing LEP Language Assistance Guidelines for all staff
The following is a list of the elements to be reviewed regularly:
Assessment of the number of LEP persons in the region
The frequency of encounters with LEP language groups
Nature and importance of activities to LEP persons
Availability of resources, including technological advances and sources of additional
resources, and the costs imposed
Assessment of the language needs of LEP individuals in order to determine whether
interpreters and/or translated materials are needed
Assessment of whether existing language assistance services are meeting the needs
of LEP individuals
Assessment of whether staff members understand LEP policies, procedures, and
how to access and carry them out
Assessment of whether language assistance resources and arrangements for those
resources are current
Feedback from LEP communities and community organizations about the LAP
K-33
33

Changes to the LAP will be made based on the input provided from staff, CBOs and LEP
persons.
K-34

2013
NCTD Language Assistance Plan
K-35
DRAFT
2

NCTD 2013
Language Assi st anc e Pl an (LAP)

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
Executive Summary
I. NCTD Background
II. Purpose
III. Title VI Policy Statement Summary
IV. NCTDs LEP Services Statement
V. Four-Factor Analysis
VI. Identifying LEP Individuals who Need Language Assistance
VII. Language Assistance Measures
VIII. Training Staff
IX. Providing Notice To The LEP Community
X. Procedure For Notifying The Public
XI. Conclusion
XII. Appendices
A. U.S. DOT December 2005 Guidance
B. FTA Circular 4702.1B
4
5
6
6
6
8
10
18
19
20
20
22

K-36
DRAFT
3

NCTD 2013
Language Assi st anc e Pl an (LAP)

LI ST OF TABLES PAGE

I. Table 1: LEP Speakers by Language in NCTD Jurisdiction

II. Table 2: Community Survey 2010, 3-Year Estimates Language
Spoken At Home/Abil ity to Speak English

III. Table 3: Languages Spoken at Home in the NCTD Service Area

10

11

12

LI ST OF FI GURES PAGE

I. Figure 1 Total LEP Population
II. Figure 2 Spanish LEP Population
III. Figure 3 Vietnamese LEP Population
IV. Figure 4 Chinese LEP Population
V. Figure 5 Tagalog LEP Population

13
14
15
16
17

K-37
DRAFT
4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following Language Assistance Plan (LAP) is based on a collaborative effort between the
North County Transit District (NCTD), the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), and the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Conducted in early 2012, included the
development of the Four Factor Analysis as follows:
Factor 1: The number or proportion of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons eligible
to be served or likely to be encountered by a program, activity, or service of
the recipient or grantee.
Factor 2: The frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with the program.

Identification of LEP Indi viduals
Following Factor 1 United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Guidance,
multiple sources including: the US Census, American Community Survey (ACS), US
Department of Labor, California Department of Education, and the San Diego County
Department of Mental Health were used to determine the number of LEP individuals in
the county. According to these findings, over 70,000 people over the age of five speak
English less than well in the NCTD service area, accounting for 9 percent of the service
area population over the age of five.

Language Assistance Measures
Current language assistance measures are presented. Current language assistance
measures were compiled by interviewing and surveying key staff who regularly work on
outreach efforts and customer service. These measures include the means of written,
oral, and customer service language assistance, resources and strategies for community
outreach, interface at NCTD facilities and on NCTD vehicles, and public/press relations.

Training Staff
Following U.S. DOT guidance, staff training will be implemented according to the Four
Factor Analysis and this Language Assistance Plan. Specific training elements are
discussed in this report.

Providing Notice to LEP Persons
Laid out within this Plan are the ways that SANDAG provides notice to LEP persons.
Additionally, due to this process, supplemental methods will be added. These are also
detailed in this report.

Plan Monitoring and Updating
Lastly, to ensure compliance and practical implementation by all agency staff, this Plan
details how monitoring and updating will occur.
K-38
DRAFT
5

I. NCTD BACKGROUND
The North San Diego County Transit Development Board (NSDCTDB) was created by
California Senate Bill 802 on September 20, 1975. The Board was created to plan,
construct and operate, directly, or through a contractor, public transit systems in its area
of jurisdiction.

On J anuary 1, 2003, a new state law was enacted (SB 1703) that essentially transferred
future transit planning, programming, development and construction to SANDAG, San
Diego's regional planning agency. The NSDCTDB, referred to as the North County
Transit District (NCTD), continued to operate the BREEZE, COASTER and SPRINTER.
In this new role, NCTD continues to provide integrated public transit service within the
North San Diego County region.

On August 30, 2005, the North County Transit District Act was amended to rename the
District to North County Transit District (NCTD), and this formal name change was
effective J anuary 1, 2006.

NCTDs services are a vital part of San Diegos regional transportation network. NCTD
moves nearly 12 million passengers annually by providing public transportation for North
San Diego County.

SERVICE AREA
NCTD provides 11.5 million passenger trips per year in North San Diego County. NCTD
provides service over a 1,020 square mile area with a population of approximately
842,000 people. Included in the service area are the cities of Carlsbad, Del Mar,
Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista. The service
area also includes areas of unincorporated North San Diego County.
The services provided by NCTD include BREEZE bus (with FLEX on-demand routes),
with approximately 7.7 million annual boardings; SPRINTER light rail, with 2.2 million
annual boardings; COASTER commuter trains, with 1.4 million annual boardings; and
LIFT paratransit service, which operates 34 vehicles certified under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.
NCTD riders also have access to other regional transit systems and transportation
services in San Diego County, Riverside County, and Orange County. These services
include: San Diego Metropolitan System (MTS); San Diego Trolley; Riverside Transit
Agency; Metrolink; and AMTRAK.

K-39
DRAFT
6

II. PURPOSE
The North County Transit District recognizes the importance of effective and accurate
communication between its personnel and the community that they serve. Language
barriers can impede effective and accurate communication in a variety of ways.
Language barriers can sometimes inhibit or even prohibit individuals with Limited English
proficiency (LEP) from accessing and/or understanding important rights, obligations and
services, or from communicating accurately and effectively in difficult situations.
Ensuring maximum communication ability between NCTD personnel and all segments of
the community serves the interest of both. LEP is a term used to describe people who do
not speak English as their primary language and who also may have limited ability to
read, write, or understand English.
The purpose of this plan is to establish effective guidelines, consistent with Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, for NCTD personnel to follow when providing services to, or
interacting with, individuals who are LEP.

III. TITLE VI POLICY STATEMENT SUMMARY
The North County Transit District (NCTD) gives public notice of its policy to assure full
compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all related statues. Title VI
requires that no person in the United States of America shall, on the grounds of race,
color, or national origin, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of,
or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which
NCTD receives Federal financial assistance. NCTD also assures that every effort will be
made to prevent discrimination through the impacts of its programs, policies, and
activities on minority and low-income populations. In addition, NCTD will take reasonable
steps to provide meaningful access to services for persons with Limited English
Proficiency.
NCTD has, as a normal part of doing business, committed to ensuring that publications
intended for public outreach or public involvement, where appropriate, will be also
offered in Spanish (NCTDs largest LEP population), Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese.
NCTD will continue to monitor requirements and add other languages when they meet
the required LEP threshold.

IV. NCTD LEP SERVICES STATEMENT
NCTD strives to provide effective, efficient, and equitable service to all individuals
regardless of their ability to speak, read, or write English. Service delivery options
(translation of publication, oral language assistance etc.) are available to LEP
K-40
DRAFT
7

individuals, enabling them to communicate effectively with the Authority in person, over
the phone, in writing, and through electronic media.

On August 11, 2000, Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons
with Limited English Proficiency, was signed by President Clinton. It directs federal
agencies to examine the services they provide and develop and implement a system by
which LEP persons can meaningfully access those services. Federal agencies were
instructed to publish guidance for their respective recipients in order to assist them with
their obligations to LEP persons under Title VI.

On December 14, 2005, the United States Department of Transportation (DOT)
published revised guidance for its recipients on the Implementation of Executive Order
13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is a term used to describe people who do not speak
English as their primary language and who also may have limited ability to read, write, or
understand English. The foregoing Executive Order states that Title VI and its
implementing regulations require that DOT recipients take responsible steps to ensure
meaningful access to the benefits, services, information, and other important portions of
their programs and activities for individuals who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) and
that recipients should use the DOT LEP Guidance to determine how best to comply with
statutory and regulatory obligations to provide meaningful access to the benefits,
services, information, and other important portions of their programs and activities for
individuals who are LEP.

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) references the U.S. DOT LEP guidance in
Circular 4702.1A, Title VI and Title VI-Dependent Guidelines for FTA Recipients, which
was finalized on April 13, 2007. Chapter IV Part 4 of this Circular reiterates the
requirement to take responsible steps to ensure meaningful access to benefits, services,
and information for LEP persons and suggests that FTA recipients and sub-recipients
develop a language implementation plan consistent with the provisions of Section VII of
the U.S. DOT LEP Guidance. The FTA Office of Civil Rights also released a handbook in
2007 for transit providers (Implementing the Department of Transportations Policy
Guidance Concerning Recipients Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Persons [FTA 2007]) to give technical assistance for the implementation of the U.S. DOT
LEP guidance.

Transit agencies that provide language assistance to persons with Limited English
Proficiency in a competent and effective manner will help ensure that their services are
safe, reliable, convenient, and accessible to those persons. These efforts may attract
riders who would otherwise be excluded from participating in the service because of
language barriers and, ideally, will encourage riders to continue using the system after
they are proficient in English and/or have more transportation options. Catering to LEP
K-41
DRAFT
8

persons may also help increase and retain ridership among the agencys broader
immigrant communities in two important ways: 1) agencies that reach out to recent
immigrant populations in order to conduct a needs assessment and prepare a language
implementation plan (pursuant to the DOT LEP Guidance) will send a positive message
to these persons that their business is valued; and 2) community outreach designed to
identify appropriate language assistance measures can also assist the agency in
identifying the transportation needs of immigrant and linguistically isolated populations
and ensuring that an agencys transit routes, hours and days of service, and other
service parameters are responsive to the needs of these populations. Additionally, transit
agencies that conduct outreach to LEP persons can increase their potential for recruiting
bilingual employees to better serve the needs of the community. In summary, serving the
needs of LEP persons is not only a good business decision; it fulfills the mission of the
transit agency to serve the public.

NCTD supports the goals of the DOT LEP Guidance to provide meaningful access to its
services by LEP persons. NCTD has resources to provide oral and written language
assistance services to LEP individuals. Each of the mentioned resources were used to
guide the required Four Factor Analysis performed by SANDAG and this Language
Assistance Plan (LAP).

NCTD has developed this LAP to address the needs of the LEP populations in the NCTD
service area. Following U.S. DOT LEP Guidance, included in this report are the following
five sections:

1. Identifying LEP individuals who need language assistance in NCTDs service
area as prescribed in SANDAGs Four Factor Anal ysis
2. Providing language assistance measures
3. Training staff
4. Providing notice to LEP persons
5. Monitoring and updating the Plan

Included is a summation of SANDAGs Four Factor Analysis which shaped the
development of NCTDs Language Assistance Plan (LAP).

V. FOUR FACTOR ANALYSIS
This section documents the research done to identify LEP populations in the NCTD
service area. For the purposes of this publication, individuals who do not speak English
as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or
understand English are considered LEP. NCTD used SANDAGs Four Factor LEP
analyses which consider the following:
K-42
DRAFT
9

Factor 1: The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be
encountered by the transit service.
Factor 1 Analysis findings indicate that 9.3 percent of the population within the
NCTD service area speaks English less than well. The top four languages
spoken other than English are Spanish (8.04 percent of the NCTD service
area population), Vietnamese (0.17%), Chinese (0.15%) and Tagalog (0.13).
Combined, these four languages include 93.5% of the LEP population in the
NCTD service area.

Factor 2: The frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with the transit
service.
Based on Community-Based Organization (CBO) interviews, focus groups
with LEP individuals, staff interviews, and intercept surveys with LEP transit
riders, it was determined that LEP individuals are regularly coming into contact
with NCTD services.

Using the information gathered in the Factor 2 Analysis, Factor 3 findings suggest
that access to public transportation is highly important for LEP persons. Because
public transit reaches such a large number of LEP individuals, results are largely
focused around the need for, and access to, public transit.

The Factor 4 Analysis provided suggestions for LEP outreach measures, as well as
consideration of the resources available for these efforts. Several key measures
will be implemented based on these findings.

K-43
DRAFT
10

VI. IDENTIFYING LEP INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED LANGUAGE
ASSISTANCE
There were several key findings revealed in the analysis of the data:
Approximately 34 percent of persons in the NCTD service area speak a language
other than English at home.
9.3 percent speak English less than well (includes those that speak English not
well and not at all);
Spanish is the second most predominant language, other than English, spoken in
the NCTD service area;
Of the languages spoken in the region, Table 1 shows the languages with over
1,000 LEP speakers;

Table 1: LEP Speakers by Language in NCTD Jurisdiction
Language
LEP
Population
% of All LEP
Speakers
% of
Total Population
(Age 5+)
Spanish 61,974 88.51% 8.04%
Vietnamese 1,308 1.87% 0.17%
Chinese 1,162 1.66% 0.15%
Tagalog 1,011 1.44% 0.13%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey PUMS data
LEP POPULATION SOURCES
This NCTD LEP analysis was performed using Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS)
data, which is available at the Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) geography. San
Diego County is composed of 22 PUMAs, each with a minimum population of
100,000 persons. PUMS data is composed of untabulated records from the
American Community Survey (ACS). This allows for the creation of custom variables
by cross-tabulating selected combination of characteristics from the records (i.e.
population over 5 years old that speaks Spanish and speaks English not well or not
at all).
A more detailed geographic analysis was performed using ACS language data at the
Census Tract level. ACS data is available as 5 year estimates in pre-tabulated
categories for at the tract level (5 year estimates are necessary in order to achieve a
sufficient sample size).
K-44
DRAFT
11

Census 2000 data on language is also available at the tract level (Census 2000
tracts). Census 2000 used a longer form survey than 2010, and offers a more
detailed language proficiency breakdown without margin of error issues.

PUMS/PUMAs USED AS LEP POULATION SOURCE
For the purposes of the NCTD Language Assistance Plan, PUMS/PUMAs were
selected as the source for LEP population for the following reasons:
Allow for the creation of custom variables
Provide more detailed population characteristics (population that speaks a
language other than English (total or for a specific language) and speaks
English very well, well, not well, or not at all).
Has a low margin of error due to large sample sizes
Other population sources ACS Census Tracts and Census 2000/Census Tracts
have limitations, including fewer language categories, smaller sample sizes and
larger margins of error, and data that does not capture shifts in population and
immigration.

LEP POPULATION ANALYSIS
PUMS/PUMA
The DOT describes limited English proficiency as having a limited ability to read, write,
speak or understand English. The DOT and FTA (in both the LEP guidance and Title VI
Circular), define this population as people who reported that they speak English not
well or not at all. Table 2 shows this analysis for the NCTD service area results in an
overall LEP population of 9.3 percent of persons age five years and older.
Table 2: Community Survey 2010, 3-Year Estimates Language Spoken At Home/Ability to Speak English
County
Total Population
Age 5 and Over
Speaks
English Onl y
Speaks English
Well or
Very Well
Less Than
Well
Percentage Less
than Well
NCTD Service
Area
779,776 511,002 187,648 71,417 9.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, Table B16004
K-45
DRAFT
12

The ACS data also includes information on languages spoken for 39 different
language groups (but not by ability to speak English as is available in the ACS data).
Table 2 shows the top five non-English languages spoken at home in the San Diego
region in 2010 among the total population ages five and older (including both LEP
and non-LEP populations). While there were respondents from all 39 language
groups, Spanish, Tagalog, Chinese, Vietnamese, and German were the primary
languages.

Table 3: Languages Spoken at Home in the NCTD Service Area
Language
Language Spoken at Home
for the Population 5 and Over
Percent of Total
Population
Spanish 197,026 25.3%
Tagalog 7,944 1.0%
Chinese 5,406 0.7%
Vietnamese 4,030 0.5%
Korean 2,558 0.3%
All Other 34,099 4.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Table C16001

The Figure 1 below shows the LEP Census Tracts using PUMA data. The map illustrates
the Census Tracts where the proportion of the population speaking English less than
well is greater than 9.1 percent, the service area average. Figure 2 shows the Census
Tracts where the proportion of LEP Spanish speaking population is greater than 8.04
percent, the service area average; Figure 3 where the proportion of LEP Vietnamese
speaking population is greater than 0.17 percent; Figure 4 for Chinese where the
proportion is greater than 0.15 percent, and Figure 5 for Tagalog where the proportion
is greater than 0.13 percent.

K-46
DRAFT
13

Figure 1 Total LEP Population
K-47
DRAFT
14

Figure 2 Spanish LEP Population
K-48
DRAFT
15

Figure 3 Vietnamese LEP Population
K-49
DRAFT
16

Figure 4 Chinese LEP Population
K-50
DRAFT
17

Figure 5 Tagalog LEP Population
K-51
DRAFT
18

VII. LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE MEASURES
The more frequent the contact with a particular language group, the more likely that
enhanced services in that language are needed. NCTD considers the frequency of
contact that patrons who speak different languages may have with NCTD services.
For example, frequent contact with individuals who speak Spanish and who are
also LEP may require bilingual staffing. Less frequent contact with other language
groups may suggest a different and less intense approach. For NCTD programs
where public outreach or public involvement is central to the mission, staff has and
will continue to consider whether appropriate outreach to LEP persons could
increase the frequency of contact with those groups, triggering a higher level of
language assistance.
NCTE offers a variety of resources/services in multiple languages including
Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc. These are provided at no cost to individuals.
Services include but are not limited to the following oral interpreters, written
language services, and translation of vital documents. Individuals may request
such resources and services by contracting NCTDs Customer Service,
Department.
SANDAG has published a Language Assistance Plan and NCTD provides the
following resources and services in languages other than English.

Written Language Assistance
Bilingual or multilingual versions of:
o Spanish language fare payment instructions
o Spanish language system maps and timetables
o Printed Spanish language service change announcements
o Spanish language notices pertaining to upcoming events
o NCTD mirror website in Spanish
As resources become available and materials are updated, more pictographs in
stations and in vehicles are being implemented
Ticket vending machines with Spanish language functions
Oral Language Assistance
Bilingual staff identified to answer inquiries
On Call translation and interpretation services
Contracting for interpreters on an as needed basis
Utilizing community volunteers to interpret information
Using bilingual staff to interpret information on an as needed basis
Community Outreach
Train the trainers availability for all CBOs on how to ride transit
Spanish language TV advertisements
K-52
DRAFT
19

Spanish language radio advertisements
Spanish language newspaper advertisements
Advertisements in ethnic media
Bilingual staff at all community outreach events
Translators present at community meetings as needed
Opportunity for both oral, as well as written comments
Stations
Visible bilingual English/Spanish instructions on how to make fare payments
Visible bilingual English/Spanish schedules, route maps and information on how
to use the system
Staff awareness regarding availability of translated materials
Announcements at SPRINTER station are recorded in English and Spanish
Vehicles
Bilingual operators (limited)
Visible bilingual English/Spanish schedules, route maps, and information on how
to use the system
Customer Service
Bilingual English/Spanish customer service staff
Bilingual English/Spanish IVR utilized
Press/Public Relations
Working relationships with ethnic media who translate press release content
Select translated information on website

Importance of Contact: Once NCTD has assessed what languages to consider by
looking at demography and frequency of contact, we will look at the nature and
importance our programs, activities and services that we provide to that population.
As a general rule, the more important the activity, information, service or program,
or the greater the possible consequences of the contact to the LEP individuals, the
more likely language services will be needed. If the denial or delay of access to
services or information could have serious implications for the LEP individual,
procedures should be in place to provide language assistance to LEP persons as
part of standard business practices.

VIII. TRAINING STAFF
NCTD will ensure that employees are knowledgeable about the Districts obligations
to provide meaningful access to information and services for LEP persons and will
ensure that employees having contact with the public have experience in the
following areas:
K-53
DRAFT
20

Policies and procedures of language access;
Resources available to determine the language needs of a customer;
Resources available to ensure that access is provided in a timely and effective
manner;
Working effectively with language interpreters; and,
Available documents that have been translated into languages other than
English, and Policies and procedures for "informed choice."
Types of language services available;
How staff can obtain those services;
How to respond to LEP callers;
How to respond to written communication from LEP persons and;
How to respond to LEP individuals who have in-person contact with staff.

NCTDs Title VI Officer will disseminate the LEP policies and procedures to all
employees likely to have contact with LEP customers and will work with community
organizations that are competent and experienced in such training and who are
known to NCTD. The Title VI Officer will introduce new employees to LEP policies
and procedures by placing a LEP fact sheet in the new employee orientation
packet.

IX. PROVIDING NOTICE TO LEP PERSONS
As more thoroughly discussed in earlier sections of this report, NCTD currently
provides notice to LEP individuals in a number of ways. These include:
Translated information for fare changes and other important notices
Translated project fact sheets documents
Access to multiple language customer service telephone line
Press release distribution to ethnic media, who regularly translate material for
their audiences
Interpreters at community meetings
Presence at community events with LEP attendees
Some web translations
Leveraging community partners to help disseminate notice of availability of
language assistance to LEP populations
Including notices in local newspapers in languages other than English
Moving forward, several other methods will be implemented to provide notice to
LEP persons, including:
Increased usage of multi-language newspaper, radio, and television
advertisements
K-54
DRAFT
21

Creation of documents to notify people of the availability of language assistance
to be taken to NCTD outreach meetings and distributed through CBO partners
Language regarding availability of language assistance to be added to existing
materials
Posting signs at the General Administration Offices (GAO) and other transit
centers as appropriate specifying language assistance availability. The signs
shall be in the most commonly spoken languages stating that interpreters are
available free of charge to LEP individuals.
Notification of the availability of translated forms and documents will be posted in
the public lobby of NCTD Headquarters and ride stores to inform LEP persons
about which forms are translated. In the case of illiteracy or languages into
which written materials have not been translated, such forms and documents will
be read to LEP individuals in their primary languages

Lap Plan Distribution
The LAP Plan will be:

Distributed to all NCTD staff that have direct contact with the public.
Available in the General Administration Office (GAO) of NCTD.
Posted on NCTDs website, www.gonctd.org
Explained in orientation and training sessions for supervisors and other
staff who need to communicate with LEP clients.

X. MONITORING AND UPDATING THE LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN
NCTD will monitor its language assistance program annually to assess the
following: the current LEP makeup of its service area, the current communication
needs of LEP applicants and customers, whether existing assistance is meeting
the needs of such persons, whether staff is knowledgeable about policies and
procedures and how to implement them, and whether sources of and
arrangements for assistance are still current and viable. It is NCTDs intent to
continually evaluate effectiveness and based on the results, make modifications
where necessary.
It is the responsibility of the Title VI Officer to ensure that on an ongoing basis,
whether new documents, programs, services and activities need to be made
accessible for LEP individuals, and provide notice to the LEP public and to
employees of any changes in programs or services. In addition, Title VI Officer
will consider whether changes in demographics, types of services, or other needs
require annual re-evaluation of NCTDs Language Assistance Plan.
K-55
DRAFT
22

The Title VI Officer will evaluate NCTDs Language Assistance Plan by seeking
feedback from the community, and assess potential plan modification based on:
Current LEP population in service area or population encountered or affected;
Frequency of encounters with LEP language groups;
Nature and importance of activities to LEP persons;
Availability of resources, including technological advances, additional resources,
and the cost imposed;
Whether staff know and understand the Language Assistance Plan and how to
implement it; and
Whether identified sources for assistance are still available and viable.
In monitoring compliance, an assessment will be made of whether the District's
procedures allow LEP persons to overcome language barriers and participate in a
meaningful way in the program activities and services. The program areas
appropriate use of methods and options detailed in this LEP Plan will demonstrate
their intent to comply with LEP requirements and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.

Current Efforts to Provide Services to the LEP Community
NCTD's LEP Plan addresses outreach efforts, including use of a variety of print
and electronic media outlets; meetings with advocacy groups; and preparation and
distribution of public information materials "targeted to the needs of the LEP
communities."
NCTD currently provides information in languages other than English through
signs, audio messages, and with NCTD staff proficient in languages other than
English. Certain NCTD information is provided in English, Spanish, Chinese,
Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Korean.

XI. CONCLUSION
Providing meaningful access to LEP persons to NCTDs services is an important
effort that will help enable the District to ensure equal access to transit and to deliver
safe, convenient, reliable and user-friendly transit service throughout NCTDs service
area. Working together with LEP persons will gain equal opportunity to benefit from
meaningful access to NCTDs programs and services.
K-56

APPENDIX A
U.S. DOT December 2005 Guidance

K-57
DRAFT
24

APPENDIX B
FTA Circular 4702.1B
K-58

MTS' 2012 Title VI Triennial Program Update (May 2013 Revision)

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

MTS' 2012 Title VI Triennial Program Update (May 2013 Revision)

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

TITLE VI

TRIENNIAL PROGRAM UPDATE FOR

No 65.4% 86.4% 0.42 1,679

No 78.7% 83.9% 0.85 197

No 83.5% 83.8% 0.99 375

OceansideBlvd.&CollegeBlvd. A 193.01 RosewoodDr.&SagewoodDr.

S.SantaFe&EscondidoAve. D 199.03 YorkDr.&KentPlace

E.CaliforniaAve.&N.SantaFeDr. G 181 CassidySt.&MyersAve.

PalaRd.&FrazeeRd. H 197.02 HaciendaDr.&VistaVillage

OceansideBlvd.&FoussatRd. I 203.06 TwinOaksValleyRd.&CravenDr.

UniversityDr.&SycamoreAve. J 204.03 W.FelicitaAve.&S.RedwoodSt.

N.AshSt.&E.LincolnAve. K 178.12 AviaraParkwayandPoinsettiaLn.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai