Transportation CommitteeMeeting MinutesFriday, September 05, 2025 at 1:00 P.m. - 4:00 P.m.SANDAG Boardroom 1011 Union Street, First FloorSan Diego, CA 92101Voting Members Present:Chair David Zito (North County Coastal)Vice-Chair Sean Elo-Rivera (City of San Diego)Mayor Pro Tem Jennifer Mendoza (East County)Mayor John Duncan (South County)Mayor Dane White (North County Inland)Deputy Mayor Patricia Dillard (Metropolitan Transit System)Mayor Esther Sanchez (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority)Supervisor Joel Anderson (County of San Diego)Councilmember Jewel Edson (North County Transit District)Voting Members Absent:Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe (County of San Diego)Commissioner Michael Zucchet (Port of San Diego)Other Members Present:Rafael Perez (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority)Melina Pereira (Caltrans)Chairman Eric LaChappa (SCTCA)1.Call to Order Public Comments: Chair Zito called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m.2.Non-Agenda Public Comments/Member Comments Public Comments: Public Comments: Purita Javier, Cesar Javier, Marco Espinosa, Alex Wong. Member Comments: Chair Zito. Chief Executive Officer Mario Orso provided an update on agency activities. 3.Consent Public Comments: Public Comments: Cesar Javier.Motioned by:Mayor SanchezSeconded by:Councilmember Edsonto approve consent agenda item nos. 3.1 and 3.2.The motion passed.3.1Approval of Meeting Minutes Attachments | Public Comments1.Meeting Minutes - TC 09052025.pdf3.2FY 2025 Transportation Development Act Claim Amendments Update Attachments | Public Comments1.Staff Report- FY25 TDA Claim Amendments Update - TC 09052025.pdf2.Att. 1 - Discussion Memo - TC 090525.pdf4.SANDAG Grant Programs: Quarterly Status Update and Section 5310 Program Amendment Request Attachments | Public Comments1.Staff Report - SANDAG Grant Prgrms Qrtly Status - TC 09052025.pdf2.Att. 1 - Grant Programs Performance Report - TC 09052025.pdf3.Att. 2 - HGH Extension Request - TC 09052025.pdf4.Presentation - SANDAG Grant Pgrms QS Updates and Sec 5310 Amend Req - TC 08052025.pdfPublic Comments: Cesar Javier, Blair Beekman.Motioned by:Mayor SanchezSeconded by:Mayor Duncanto approve an eight-month extension for the Home of Guiding Hands vehicle procurement project. The motion passed.5.TransNet Active Transportation Grant Program Project Amendment Attachments | Public Comments1.Staff Report - TransNet ATGP Project Amendment - TC 09052025.pdf2.Att. 1 - Rev City of Carlsbad Amend Req Letter - TC 09052025.pdf3.Presentation - TN Active Transport GPP Amendment.- TC09052025.pdfPublic Comments: Cesar Javier, Blair Beekman. Motioned by:Mayor DuncanSeconded by:Mayor Whiteto recommend that the Board of Directors approve the amendment request for the City of Carlsbad's Active Transportation Grant Program-funded Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue pedestrian improvement project, except that SANDAG shall only reimburse Carlsbad for construction costs and that all grand funds be returned if the project is not completed within three years. For (6)Mayor Duncan, Mayor White, Councilmember Edson, Deputy Mayor Dillard, Mayor Pro Tem Mendoza, and Mayor SanchezAgainst (1)Chair ZitoAbsent (3)Councilmember Elo-Rivera, Supervisor Montgomery Steppe, and Commissioner ZucchetThe motion passed. (6 to 1)6.Transportation Development Act Triennial Performance Audit Attachments | Public Comments1.Staff Report -TDA Triennial Performance Audit - TC 09252025.pdf2.Att. 1 - TDA Triennial Performance Audit Findings - TC 09052025.pdf3.Presentation - SANDAG TDA Triennial Perf Audit - TC 09052025.pdfPublic Comments: Cesar Javier.Motioned by:Mayor SanchezSeconded by:Supervisor Andersonto recommend that the Board of Directors authorize the Chief Executive Officer to: Transmit the performance audit report of SANDAG to the Caltrans Director as required; Certify in writing to the Caltrans Director that the performance audit of the transit operators located in the area under its jurisdiction have been completed; Implement the performance audit recommendations pertaining to SANDAG Transportation Development Act activities; and Transmit the other recommendations to the transit operators for implementation. The motion passed.7.The San Diego International Airport Updates Public Comments: Public Comments: Cesar Javier, Marco Espinoza, Alex Wong. 7.1San Diego International Airport Terminal 1 Phase 1 Opening Attachments | Public Comments1.Staff Report - SAN Terminal 1 Phase 1A Opening - TC 09052025.pdf2.Presentation - SAN Terminal 1 Phase 1 Opening- TC 09052025.pdf7.2Airport Transit Connection Project Update Attachments | Public Comments1.Staff Report - Airport Transit Connection Update - TC 09052025.pdf2.Presentation - Airport Transit Connection Update - TC09052025.pdfJack MoyleI strongly support the South Leg Automated People Mover. People Movers aren’t just for airports. Cities including Copenhagen, Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, and Vancouver have built entire rail lines using automated people mover technology to serve dense, urban areas entirely outside of airports. Under the people mover concept, Blue and Green Line would each have 50% more capacity than they would under the Airport Trolley concept. The Trolley tracks between Hawthorn Street and Santa Fe Depot can handle 24 trains per hour, per direction. The Airport Trolley would merge onto these tracks. This would create a bottleneck that would split the 24 trains per hour among the three lines, limiting them each to 8 trains per hour, or 7.5 minute frequencies. 7.5 min frequencies will be woefully inadequate. Mid-Coast ridership has grown so rapidly that MTS planned to double Mid-Coast frequencies from 15 min to 7.5 min by this June. And that’s before University City upzoned for 72,000 new jobs and 50,000 new residents near the Mid-Coast. By contrast, the people mover would not share tracks with existing Trolley Lines. Thus, the Blue and Green Lines would have the 24 train per hour capacity all to themselves, allowing each to run 12 trains per hour–50% more capacity than the 8 trains per hour they’d have under the Airport Trolley concept. I understand this would be a large capital expenditure. This is a time for big ideas to shape the future of San Diego. Gail Laurie FriedtI STRONGLY support the South Leg Automated People Mover. People Movers aren’t just for airports. Cities including Copenhagen, Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, and Vancouver have built entire rail lines using automated people mover technology to serve dense, urban areas entirely outside of airports. Under the people mover concept, Blue and Green Line would each have 50% more capacity than they would under the Airport Trolley concept. The Trolley tracks between Hawthorn Street and Santa Fe Depot can handle 24 trains per hour, per direction. The Airport Trolley would merge onto these tracks. This would create a bottleneck that would split the 24 trains per hour among the three lines, limiting them each to 8 trains per hour, or 7.5 minute frequencies. 7.5 min frequencies will be woefully inadequate. Mid-Coast ridership has grown so rapidly that MTS planned to double Mid-Coast frequencies from 15 min to 7.5 min by this June. And that’s before University City upzoned for 72,000 new jobs and 50,000 new residents near the Mid-Coast. By contrast, the people mover would not share tracks with existing Trolley Lines. Thus, the Blue and Green Lines would have the 24 train per hour capacity all to themselves, allowing each to run 12 trains per hour–50% more capacity than the 8 trains per hour they’d have under the Airport Trolley concept. Brandon DuranI strongly support the South Leg Automated People Mover. People Movers aren’t just for airports. Cities including Copenhagen, Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, and Vancouver have built entire rail lines using automated people mover technology to serve dense, urban areas entirely outside of airports. Under the people mover concept, Blue and Green Line would each have 50% more capacity than they would under the Airport Trolley concept. The Trolley tracks between Hawthorn Street and Santa Fe Depot can handle 24 trains per hour, per direction. The Airport Trolley would merge onto these tracks. This would create a bottleneck that would split the 24 trains per hour among the three lines, limiting them each to 8 trains per hour, or 7.5 minute frequencies. 7.5 min frequencies will be woefully inadequate. Mid-Coast ridership has grown so rapidly that MTS planned to double Mid-Coast frequencies from 15 min to 7.5 min by this June. And that’s before University City upzoned for 72,000 new jobs and 50,000 new residents near the Mid-Coast. By contrast, the people mover would not share tracks with existing Trolley Lines. Thus, the Blue and Green Lines would have the 24 train per hour capacity all to themselves, allowing each to run 12 trains per hour–50% more capacity than the 8 trains per hour they’d have under the Airport Trolley concept. Sam Borinsky APM technology has lots of utility outside of just serving airports. With the massive ridership on the Blue and Green lines, further downtown interlining is a nonstarter. With both of these in mind, the APM South Leg is the obvious choice. Additionally, if built as an APM it could be extended far easier to serve dense underserved corridors such as Market St. I support an APM to the airport. Additionally, please make provisions to allow for Alex WongI support the South Leg Automated People Mover. People Movers aren’t just for airports. Cities including Copenhagen, Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, and Vancouver have built entire rail lines using automated people mover technology to serve dense, urban areas entirely outside of airports. Under the people mover concept, Blue and Green Line would each have 50% more capacity than they would under the Airport Trolley concept. The Trolley tracks between Hawthorn Street and Santa Fe Depot can handle 24 trains per hour, per direction. The Airport Trolley would merge onto these tracks. This would create a bottleneck that would split the 24 trains per hour among the three lines, limiting them each to 8 trains per hour, or 7.5 minute frequencies. 7.5 min frequencies will be woefully inadequate. Mid-Coast ridership has grown so rapidly that MTS planned to double Mid-Coast frequencies from 15 min to 7.5 min by this June. And that’s before University City upzoned for 72,000 new jobs and 50,000 new residents near the Mid-Coast. By contrast, the people mover would not share tracks with existing Trolley Lines. Thus, the Blue and Green Lines would have the 24 train per hour capacity all to themselves, allowing each to run 12 trains per hour–50% more capacity than the 8 trains per hour they’d have under the Airport Trolley concept. Feel free to email me with further questions!8.Adjournment Public Comments: Chair Zito adjourned the meeting at 3:50 p.m. The next Transportation Committee meeting is scheduled for Friday, September 19, 2025. No Item Selected Attachments (0) | Public Comments (0)This item has no attachments.1.Meeting Minutes - TC 09052025.pdf1.Staff Report- FY25 TDA Claim Amendments Update - TC 09052025.pdf2.Att. 1 - Discussion Memo - TC 090525.pdf1.Staff Report - SAN Terminal 1 Phase 1A Opening - TC 09052025.pdf2.Presentation - SAN Terminal 1 Phase 1 Opening- TC 09052025.pdf1.Staff Report - SANDAG Grant Prgrms Qrtly Status - TC 09052025.pdf2.Att. 1 - Grant Programs Performance Report - TC 09052025.pdf3.Att. 2 - HGH Extension Request - TC 09052025.pdf4.Presentation - SANDAG Grant Pgrms QS Updates and Sec 5310 Amend Req - TC 08052025.pdf1.Staff Report - TransNet ATGP Project Amendment - TC 09052025.pdf2.Att. 1 - Rev City of Carlsbad Amend Req Letter - TC 09052025.pdf3.Presentation - TN Active Transport GPP Amendment.- TC09052025.pdf1.Staff Report -TDA Triennial Performance Audit - TC 09252025.pdf2.Att. 1 - TDA Triennial Performance Audit Findings - TC 09052025.pdf3.Presentation - SANDAG TDA Triennial Perf Audit - TC 09052025.pdf1.Staff Report - Airport Transit Connection Update - TC 09052025.pdf2.Presentation - Airport Transit Connection Update - TC09052025.pdfThis item has no public commentJack Moyle (For)I strongly support the South Leg Automated People Mover. People Movers aren’t just for airports. Cities including Copenhagen, Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, and Vancouver have built entire rail lines using automated people mover technology to serve dense, urban areas entirely outside of airports. Under the people mover concept, Blue and Green Line would each have 50% more capacity than they would under the Airport Trolley concept. The Trolley tracks between Hawthorn Street and Santa Fe Depot can handle 24 trains per hour, per direction. The Airport Trolley would merge onto these tracks. This would create a bottleneck that would split the 24 trains per hour among the three lines, limiting them each to 8 trains per hour, or 7.5 minute frequencies. 7.5 min frequencies will be woefully inadequate. Mid-Coast ridership has grown so rapidly that MTS planned to double Mid-Coast frequencies from 15 min to 7.5 min by this June. And that’s before University City upzoned for 72,000 new jobs and 50,000 new residents near the Mid-Coast. By contrast, the people mover would not share tracks with existing Trolley Lines. Thus, the Blue and Green Lines would have the 24 train per hour capacity all to themselves, allowing each to run 12 trains per hour–50% more capacity than the 8 trains per hour they’d have under the Airport Trolley concept. I understand this would be a large capital expenditure. This is a time for big ideas to shape the future of San Diego. Gail Laurie Friedt (For)I STRONGLY support the South Leg Automated People Mover. People Movers aren’t just for airports. Cities including Copenhagen, Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, and Vancouver have built entire rail lines using automated people mover technology to serve dense, urban areas entirely outside of airports. Under the people mover concept, Blue and Green Line would each have 50% more capacity than they would under the Airport Trolley concept. The Trolley tracks between Hawthorn Street and Santa Fe Depot can handle 24 trains per hour, per direction. The Airport Trolley would merge onto these tracks. This would create a bottleneck that would split the 24 trains per hour among the three lines, limiting them each to 8 trains per hour, or 7.5 minute frequencies. 7.5 min frequencies will be woefully inadequate. Mid-Coast ridership has grown so rapidly that MTS planned to double Mid-Coast frequencies from 15 min to 7.5 min by this June. And that’s before University City upzoned for 72,000 new jobs and 50,000 new residents near the Mid-Coast. By contrast, the people mover would not share tracks with existing Trolley Lines. Thus, the Blue and Green Lines would have the 24 train per hour capacity all to themselves, allowing each to run 12 trains per hour–50% more capacity than the 8 trains per hour they’d have under the Airport Trolley concept. Brandon Duran (For)I strongly support the South Leg Automated People Mover. People Movers aren’t just for airports. Cities including Copenhagen, Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, and Vancouver have built entire rail lines using automated people mover technology to serve dense, urban areas entirely outside of airports. Under the people mover concept, Blue and Green Line would each have 50% more capacity than they would under the Airport Trolley concept. The Trolley tracks between Hawthorn Street and Santa Fe Depot can handle 24 trains per hour, per direction. The Airport Trolley would merge onto these tracks. This would create a bottleneck that would split the 24 trains per hour among the three lines, limiting them each to 8 trains per hour, or 7.5 minute frequencies. 7.5 min frequencies will be woefully inadequate. Mid-Coast ridership has grown so rapidly that MTS planned to double Mid-Coast frequencies from 15 min to 7.5 min by this June. And that’s before University City upzoned for 72,000 new jobs and 50,000 new residents near the Mid-Coast. By contrast, the people mover would not share tracks with existing Trolley Lines. Thus, the Blue and Green Lines would have the 24 train per hour capacity all to themselves, allowing each to run 12 trains per hour–50% more capacity than the 8 trains per hour they’d have under the Airport Trolley concept. Sam Borinsky (For)APM technology has lots of utility outside of just serving airports. With the massive ridership on the Blue and Green lines, further downtown interlining is a nonstarter. With both of these in mind, the APM South Leg is the obvious choice. Additionally, if built as an APM it could be extended far easier to serve dense underserved corridors such as Market St. I support an APM to the airport. Additionally, please make provisions to allow for Alex Wong (For)I support the South Leg Automated People Mover. People Movers aren’t just for airports. Cities including Copenhagen, Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore, and Vancouver have built entire rail lines using automated people mover technology to serve dense, urban areas entirely outside of airports. Under the people mover concept, Blue and Green Line would each have 50% more capacity than they would under the Airport Trolley concept. The Trolley tracks between Hawthorn Street and Santa Fe Depot can handle 24 trains per hour, per direction. The Airport Trolley would merge onto these tracks. This would create a bottleneck that would split the 24 trains per hour among the three lines, limiting them each to 8 trains per hour, or 7.5 minute frequencies. 7.5 min frequencies will be woefully inadequate. Mid-Coast ridership has grown so rapidly that MTS planned to double Mid-Coast frequencies from 15 min to 7.5 min by this June. And that’s before University City upzoned for 72,000 new jobs and 50,000 new residents near the Mid-Coast. By contrast, the people mover would not share tracks with existing Trolley Lines. Thus, the Blue and Green Lines would have the 24 train per hour capacity all to themselves, allowing each to run 12 trains per hour–50% more capacity than the 8 trains per hour they’d have under the Airport Trolley concept. Feel free to email me with further questions!