Port Commissioners Endorse Route for Trolley Extension

Commissioners of the San Diego Unified Port District on Tuesday strongly and unanimously endorsed a route for the proposed Bayside extension to the San Diego Trolley, which would link Lindbergh Field with the convention center planned for Navy Field.

The route favored by the commission is one of two under consideration by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board. The board has asked the port district to pay for about $10 million of the Bayside Route--its share of the portion of the extension that would serve port properties.

Tuesday’s vote did not include a promise to help pay for the trolley line, but it gave a clear message to the transit development board that this route would be the only one acceptable to the port district. Tuesday’s vote was the strongest indication to date that the port district favors a Bayside trolley--as long as it follows a route the commissioners favor.

The transit development board will choose one of the two routes at its April 24 meeting.

City Councilman Dick Murphy, transit development board chairman, told the commissioners at a recent meeting that the line probably could not be built in this decade unless the port commission assists with the funding.

The proposed trolley line would cross port land, including the convention center and accompanying hotels, Seaport Village, the Santa Fe Railroad station and the airport. The route chosen by the commission would extend from the trolley stop next to the train station southerly on Kettner Boulevard and along the upland side of the Santa Fe tracks.

Total cost of the line is estimated at between $40 million and $60 million, and Murphy has said neither state nor federal funds are likely to be available for the project. Transient Occupancy Tax funds from the City of San Diego probably would supply the remainder of the construction funds, according to current transit development board plans.

Port Director Donald Nay said the route endorsed by the commissioners is “far and away the best, from the port’s standpoint. Commissioner Louis Wolfsheimer said the route is “the only logical choice.”

The alternative route, Nay said, would jeopardize plans for Seaport Village because it would bisect land where an expansion of the popular tourist development is planned. Nay said it also would put the port at a “disadvantage” because it would twice cross the existing Santa Fe tracks, snarling freight train traffic.

A port district staff report says the route endorsed by the commissioners “skirts potential congested areas (and) minimizes potential losses of efficiency in the functional capacities of major streets and intersections to handle automobile, truck and pedestrian movements . . . .

“Potential trolley stations are within close proximity to major developments, and no real problems are seen for providing public transit to patrons and especially employees of these activity centers,” the study says.

At the meeting, the commissioners also unanimously agreed that the port would split with the transit development board the cost of a $10,000 study by consultants preparing a Centre City Transportation Action Plan.