Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-02; Traffic Safety Commission; ; Review the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe and investigate the installation of a traffic signalCITY or CARLSBAD TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION COMMISSION REPORT Of: February 2, 1987 ITEM N0.6-A LOCATION: Intersection of Melrose Avenue with Rancho Santa fe Road INITIATED BY: Ann Kulchin, Mayor Pro Tern BACKGROUND: Staff has been requested to review the intersection and investigate the installation of a traffic signal. DATA: Existing Conditions: Rancho Santa fe Road and Melrose Avenue are both designated as prime arterials on the Circulation Element of the General Plan. As such, each will ultimately have six (6) traffic lanes and an 18-foot wide median located in a right-of-way of 126-feet. At this time, however, these two roads are not constructed to prime arterial standards at the intersection. Existing conditions of this intersection are shown on the Condition Diagram, Exhibit 1. Rancho Santa fe Road 1s a rural two-way roadway having one northbound lane and one southbound lane, divided by a left turn lane located south of the intersection and a two-way left turn lane located north of the intersection. for southbound traffic there is a downgrade that levels off at the intersection. A speed limit sign of 45 MPH is posted south of the intersection , Additional intersections and driveway locations are indicated on the Condition Diagram. 6-A-1 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION COMM ISSI ON REP OR T OF: February 2, 1987 ITE M N0 .6-A Continued Melrose Avenue is a two-way roadway with one westbound lane and one eastbound lane divided by a median at the intersec- tion. The road is being widened at this time to prime arterial standards between Alga Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road, but not at the intersection with Rancho Santa Fe Road. For eastbound traffic, Melrose Avenue is controlled by two posted stop signs and painted stop bars at the Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. The existing intersection was constructed as a skewed "T" intersection, with a curvilinear alignment on two approach legs. This intersection is not at the ultimate location and is only considered temporary at this time. Construction plans have been designed for the ultimate (future) Melrose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection and will be discussed later in this report. The intersection of Melrose Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road represents only one portion of a complex roadway segment extending from approximately 5OO-feet north of Melrose Avenue to Questhaven Road. A recommended solution to correcting the deficiencies associated with this temporary intersection cannot be successfully undertaken without considering other inter-related aspects of this roadway segment that also require mitigation or correction. Traffic Data: A traffic count at this intersection was conducted for the forty-eight hour period of January 5, 1987 to January 7, 1987. The two-way volume on Rancho Santa Fe Road was 18,346 vehicles and the intersection approach volume on Melrose Avenue was 2,452 vehicles. Traffic count data sheets are attached. During 1986, there were five (5) reported accidents at the intersection, one of which resulted in a fatality. In 1984 and 1985, there were two (2) and one (1) reported accidents, respectively, at the intersection. A review of reported accidents for the past three (3) years indicates that the 6-A-2 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION COMMISSI ON REP OR T OF : February 2, 1987 I TEM N0.6-A Continued apparent cause of four (4) accidents was due to inattention, one (1) due to excessive speed, one (1) due to driving on the wrong side, one (1) due to violation of the right-of-way while driving under the influence, and one (1) due to a violation of the right-of-way. The accident pattern suggests driver error and that drivers are not recognizing the speed of vehicles on Rancho Santa Fe Road and the available gaps to enter the roadway. Sight distance is good for vehicles on Melrose Avenue waiting to t urn onto Rancho Santa Fe Road and is not a contributing factor in the accidents. The accident rate for 1986, expressed in the number of accidents per 1,000,000 vehicles entering the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Avenue was 0.659. By com- parison, the accident rate at the signalized intersection of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real during 1986 was 0.660. The latest available speed survey conducted near Melrose Avenue was at the La Costa Meadows Drive intersection with Rancho Santa Fe Road. Southbound traffic had a critical speed of 56 MPH and northbound traffic critical speed was 52 MPH. Intersection Control Alternatives: From the above, it is apparent that the operating character- istics of the existing street system is composed of a complex set of physical inter-relationships. Where the elements of the system come together at an intersection, and primarily due to continuing volume increases, it may be anticipated that there will be an increase in congestion and delay and a worsening accident experience. Since the intersection is a concentrated conflict point generally functioning at a lower level of service and lower capacity than other segments of the roadway, it is desirable to improve each intersection and approaches to the intersection. To accomplish this, the roadway segment from Questhaven Road to a point approximately 500-feet north of Melrose Avenue should be improved in a systematic manner. Isolated conflict points (spot improvements) cannot be independently improved to achieve the overall goal of moving traffic safely and efficiently through 6-A-3 TRAFFIC SAF ETY COMMISSION COMM I SS I ON RE PORT OF: February 2, 1987 I TEM N0 .6-A Continued this segment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Intersection controls are utilized to increase intersection capacity, reduce and prevent accidents and create and protect the major street. Based upon the volumes at the Melrose Avenue /Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection, the major street at this t i me is Rancho Santa Fe Road. There are no intersection controls along Rancho Santa Fe Road in the vicinity of Melrose Avenue. As a result, delays on Rancho Santa Fe Road are reduced, large volumes of traffic moves continuously and capacity is increased. However, Rancho Santa Fe Road operates basically as a through street and there is a high vehicular speed associated with Rancho Santa Fe Road and traffic attempting to cross or enter Rancho Santa Fe Road may be delayed for relatively long periods during peak traffic flow periods. Stop Signs: One method used to control conflicting movements at an inter- section is to install a multi-way stop. Once a vehicle is stopped, the driver must decide to proceed based upon the right-of-way rule. In the specific case of Melrose Avenue/ Rancho Santa Fe Road, the intersection would have a three-way stop s i gn i nstallation, if stop signs were placed on Rancho Santa Fe Road. An obv i ous disadvantage of this type of control is that all vehicles approaching the intersection are required to come to a complete stop before they can proceed through the inter- section. Traffic volumes on Rancho Santa Fe Road are significantly greater than volumes on Melrose Avenue at this time. Queues would build up quickly on both approaches of Rancho Santa Fe Road. Various problems would result and the potent i al for an increase in rear-end type accidents would be very high. Stop signs are generally not installed on the major road since those drivers do not experience unusual or unexpected conflicts, such as congestion at the intersection, due to significantly lower minor street traffic volumes. Drivers on 6-A-4 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION COMM ISSI ON REP OR T OF: February 2, 1987 I TEM N0 .6-A Continued the minor street enter the traffic stream when available gaps on the major street allow this maneuver to be performed safely. If the drivers on the major street perceive a stop sign as a nuisance regulation, instead of its primary intended function of assigning right-of-way, then driver observance and compliance with the stop sign begins to deteriorate and safety at that intersection can be compromised. Air pollution and fuel consumption greatly increase when vehicles are required to decelerate to a stop and then accelerate again. As queues build up in an approach to an intersection, emissions and fuel consumption increase even further compared to arriving at the stop sign directly, due to the vehicle joining the end of the queue and then moving towards the stop sign one vehicle length at a time. Because of existing intersection geometrics and the associated traffic volume distribution at Melrose Avenue/ Rancho Santa Fe Road, a three-way stop should not be installed. A reduction in the number of intersection accidents would not be expected at this location with a multi-way stop. Traffic Signals: A traffic signal is another form of intersection control and is used to alternately assign the use of the intersection to one stream of traffic and then to the other. Since the traffic signal assigns the right-of-way in a systematic manner to each competing traffic movement, there will be considerable delay to vehicles on all approaches to the intersection. To aid in the determination of whether a traffic should be installed, signal warrants are provided CAL TRANS Traffic Manual (attached). Traffic Signal No. 1 (Minimun Vehicular Volume) and Warrant (Interruption of Continuous Traffic) are both met Melrose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. 6-A-5 signal in the Warrant No. 2 at the TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION COM MISSI ON REP OR T OF: February 2, 1987 ITEM N0 .6-A Continued As previously stated, the existing geometric configuration at Melrose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road makes it difficult to achieve proper intersection control and a traffic signal would be difficult to design to operate effectively. Approaches on Rancho Santa Fe Road to the intersection are one lane in each direction that opens up to a wider pavement area between Melrose Avenue and La Costa Meadows Drive. The intersection needs to be narrowed and Melrose Avenue constructed in a more perpendicular alignment to Rancho Santa Fe Road to create a 90° nTn intersection. The existing width of the intersection could result in an increase in right angle accidents due to drivers attempting to "beat" the red 1 i gh t. Impacts of a traffic control device to the La Costa Meadows Drive i ntersection would have to be investigated prior to installation at Melrose Avenue. The intersection operation at La Costa Meadows could be adversely affected due to developi ng queues at Melrose Avenue if a stop sign or signal were installed. Proposed CT 85-19 Improvements: Previous studies and approvals from the City of Carlsbad has determined that the ultimate alignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road wi th Melrose Avenue to be as shown on Exhibit 2. The intersection will be signalized and constructed during Phase I of the Meadowlands residential project, CT 85-19. This project is a 1 1 6 subdivision located between Avenue. Intersection realignment is discussed Pringle & Associates, Inc. lot single family Rancho Santa Fe Road geometrics resulting in a report prepared (attached). residential and Melrose by this by Weston This residential project is located in Zone 6 of the Local Facilit i es Plan and is currently proceeding through the planchecking process in the Engineering Department. Once City staff finalizes the Facilities Plan for Zone 6, tentatively scheduled to go to the City Council for approval in April or May, the final map approval process could be 6-A-6 TRAFFIC SAF ETY COMMISSION COMMISSION REPORT OF: February 2, 1987 ITEM N0.6-A Continued completed. Dependent upon how quickly final map approval is obtained by the developer, the construction of ultimate improvements at this location could be scheduled, if determi ned appropriate at this time. Design Issues: At this time there are several major issues associated with the intersection and the previously discussed roadway segment from Melrose Avenue to Questhaven Road that need to be resolved. A temporary (interim) or permanent solution to the ultimate design of the intersection and roadway segment depends upon an adequate resolution of issues identified as follows: 1. Jurisdictional boundaries. Information in the City of Ca r lsbad files does not accurately locate the easterly Ci t y boundary in the vicinity of this intersection. It appears that three (3) agencies, the Cities of San Ma r cos and Carlsbad and the County of San Diego, have common interests at this location by virtue of boundary l i nes within a portion of the intersection. The ability of any one agency to make improvements to the intersec- t i on has a direct relationship to the locat i on of the app r opriate jurisdictional boundary line. Included are local access issues to each abutting property and dr i veway location on Rancho Santa Fe Road. 2. Realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road. As stated previously, CT 85-19 has been conditioned to redesign Rancho Santa Fe Road to intersect Melrose Avenue at Corintia Street to create a four-legged intersection. However, the extension of Melrose Avenue south of th i s new four-legged intersection has not been designed. In essence, the existing Melrose/RSF intersection would remain, thus creating several jogs within a short distance on a heavily travelled roadway. The ultimate ali gnment of Melrose Avenue from the proposed four- legged intersection south to the southerly City Limits is currently in the planning stages, with the final ali gnment expected within six (6) months. The final 6-A-7 TRAFFIC SAFETY CO MMISSION COMM I SS I ON RE PORT OF: February 2, 1987 ITE M N0 .6-A Continued design of Melrose Avenue requires a design effort with cost and input shared among all three agencies as appropriate. 3. The existing Melrose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road inter- section. Current widening of Melrose Avenue north of the existing intersection does not align with the existing, temporary i ntersection. A redesign and reconstruction of the existing intersection should be accomplished prior to opening up the newly constructed portion of Melrose Avenue. This redesign should attempt to align Melrose Avenue radially to the curvature of Rancho Santa Fe Road to create a 90° "T" intersection. The existing free right turn from RSF to Melrose Avenue l i kely could be eliminated by such reconstruction, however providing an exclusive right turn could be investigated at the proposed realigned intersection. Reconstruction of the existing intersection would reduce the large area of conflict available within the intersection, thus reducing hazardous vehicle movements. It would also provide more favorable conditions for drivers to judge relative positions and relative speeds of other vehicles and reduce the time of crossing the conflicting traffic stream. Until such time that the ultimate intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road with Melrose Avenue is constructed or modifications constructed from Melrose Avenue to Questhaven Road, several interim improvements have been completed and additional safety measures continued and/or investigated. 1. Continued and constant Police enforcement of the 45 MPH speed limit on Rancho Santa Fe Road. During 1986, 8.4% of all citations issued in the City of Carlsbad were on Rancho Santa Fe Road. 2. Existing pavement markings have been repainted in the vicinity of the Melrose Avenue intersection. 3 . A W7A, "Side Road" warning sign for southbound traffic 6-A-8 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION COMM ISSI ON REP OR T OF : February 2, 1987 ITE M N0 .6-A Continued 4. 5. on Rancho Santa Fe Road approaching Melrose Avenue has been installed. Several replaced. missing Discussions with taking place report. roadside delineators have been the City of San Marcos are currently regarding issues identified in this REC OMM END ATION: The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends that Rancho Santa Fe Road be given priority to improve safety and operational efficiency. A logical, systematic approach must be undertaken however, to accomplish this goal. Specific recommendations include: 1. A joint agency agreement to hire a consultant to prepare a design study report with definite recommendations and budgets to improve the Melrose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection and a segment of Rancho Santa Fe Road approximately 500 feet north of Melrose Avenue southerly to Questhaven Road. Coordination with the City of San Marcos and the County of San Diego should take place throughout this process. Once a design concept is approved by the three agencies, the project would be given to the City of Carlsbad Municipal Projects Division to hire a consultant to prepare design drawings and eventually to select a contractor to perform the work. Construction could then be budgeted in the 1987-88 Capital Improvement Program. 2. The Committee further recommends that the realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road with Melrose Avenue to create a four-way intersection at Corintia Street as part of Carlsbad Tract No. 85-19 not be constructed until such 6-A-9 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION COMM ISSION REP OR T OF: February 2, 1987 Continued ITEM NO.6-A time that traffic volumes indicate the need. Modifica- tion of the condition requiring this construction should be pursued. 3. A consultant should be hired to research the City boundary and accurately survey the boundary in the field. Each jurisdictional boundary should be identi- fied in the vicinity of Rancho Santa Fe Road within the roadway segment discussed in this report. 4. Signalization of the Melrose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road and intersection modifications should be given priority by the City Council in upcoming budget deliberations. The existing intersection should be immediately rebuilt to properly and safely function with the recently widened portion of Melrose Avenue. NECESSAR Y COUNCIL ACTI ON : The City Council must approve any changes to the Conditions of Approval regarding RSF/Melrose Avenue that were placed on Carlsbad Tract No.85-19, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission. If the City of Carlsbad is going to pay for intersection modifications, roadway improvements or traffic signals, Council approval must be obtained. 6-A-1O 1. Wl7, STOP SIGN AHEAD SIGN 6. 2. Rl, STOP SIGN WITH DOUBLE STREET NAME SIGN 7. 3. R7, KEEP RIGHT SIGN WITH YELLOW TYPE "N" HARKER B. 4. W4, 15MPH CURVE WARNING SIGN 9. 5. TYPE "L", EDGELINE MARKERS Clffi ' GUTTER ) 0/W W57, KEEP LEFT (ARROW LEFT) DIRECTIONAL SIGN WITH YELLOW TYPE "N" HARKER Rl, STOP SIGN Rl, STOP SIGN WITH DOUBLE STREET NAME SIGN R2, 45MPH SPEED LIMIT SIGN MOUNTED ON TOP OF TRUCK ROUTE SIGN NO SCALE CORINTIA C:T ___ ...::::G::.... ---:::.--'--c_c_um_~_GU_TT_E_R _____ z_~J ~ / EDGE a= PAVEM:NT ~ 4 / I 9. /A/C OCRM / 8. 3. ~LROSE AVE. A/C EER LA COSTA ~AOOWS RANa-0 SANTA FE RO EDGE a= PAVEM:NT st.11JIJ/l1/5/fl/./ t3ouJJOARi J ' _) Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING ~1 12.,m CHAPTER 9 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Signals-Basic Information and Warrants 9-01 9-41.1 lntrodudion Traffic signals are electrically powered traffic con- trol devices which alternately direct traffic to stop and proceed at highway and street intersections. Their purpose is the orderly assignment of right of way to the various traffic movements. ~en justified and properly designed, a traffic sig- nal installation may achieve one or more of the fol- lowing: l. Reduce the frequency of certain types of acci- dents; especially the right-angle type; 2. Effect orderly traffic movement; 3. By proper coordination, the continuous flow of a. platoon of traffic at a definite speed along a given route; 4. Allow other vehicles and pedestrians to cross a• heavy traffic stream; and 5. Control traffic more economically than by man- ual methods. Unjusti~ed, ~ll-<lesigned, improperly-operated, or poorly mamtamed traffic signals may cause: l. Increased accident frequency, 2. Excessive delay, 3. Disregard of signal indications, and 4. Circuitous travel by alternate routes. Con~ary to common belief, traffic signals do not always increase safety and reduce delay. Experience shows that the number of right-angle collisions may decrease after the installation of signals, but the num- ber of rear-end collisions will increase in many in- stances. The installation of signals may increase over- all delay an_d . reduce intersection capacity. Consequently, 1t 1s of the utmost importance that the consideration of a signal installation and the selection of equipment be preceded by a thorough study of traffic_ and roadway conditions made by an engineer expe_nenced and trained in this field. Equally impor- t'.111t 1s ~he need ~or checking the efficiency of a traffic s1~al m operation. This determines the degree to which the type of installation and the timing pro- gram meets the requirements of traffic. 9-01.2 Warrants The warrants for the installation of traffic signals are based on those stated in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. These warrants apply to both pre-timed and traffic-actuated traffic signals. When the 85-percentile speed of major street traf- fic exceeds 40 miles per hour, or when the intersec- tion lies within the built-up area of an isolated com- munity having a population less than 10,000, the location is considered rural. All other· areas are con- sidered urban. Since the installation of traffic signals may increase certain types of collisions, the decision to install signals should not be based solely upon war- rants. Consideration should also be given to such fac- tors as delay, congestion, approach conditions, driver confusion and additional evidence of need for right of way assignment above that which could be pro- vided by stop signs. The installation of traffic signals should be consid- ered if one or more of the warrants listed below are met: Warrant 1-Minimum Vehicular Volume. Warrant 2-Interruption of Continuous Traffic. Warrant 3-Minimum Pedestrian Volume. Warrant 4 -School Crossings. Warrant 5-Progressive Movement. Warrant 6-Accident Experience. Warrant 7 -Systems. Warrant 8-Combination of Warrants. 9-01.3 Warrant 1 -Minimum Vehicular Volume The minimum vehicular volume warrant is intend- ed for application where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for consideration of sig- nal installation. The warrant is satisfied when for each of any 8 hours of an average day the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher-volume minor street ap- proach to the intersection. Numb.:r of lan.:s for moving traffic on .:ach approach Vehicles per hour on major street (total of both approaches) Vehicles per hour on higher- volume minor- s tre et approach (one directi on only) (Minimum R equirements) Major Street Minor Street ~ Rural ~ Rural 1 -• ----• 1-------500 350 150 105 2 or more --I -------600 420 150 105 2 or more --2 or more --600 420 200 140 1 --• ----2 or more --500 350 200 140 ) ' ) 9-2 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 12-1979 The major street and the minor street volumes are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours the direc• tion of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours. Left tum movements from the major street may be included with minor street volumes if a separate signal phase is to be provided for the left tum move- ment. The left turn volume in the highest direction may be added to the minor street volume on the highest approach and the major street volume should be reduced by this amount. 9-01.4 Warrant 2-Interruption of Continuous Traffic The interruption of continuous traffic warrant ap- plies to operating conditions where the traffic vol- ume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or hazard in entering or crossing the major street. The warrant is satisfied when for each of any 8 hours of an average day the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher- volume minor street approach to the intersection, and the signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Vehicles per hour on major street (total of both approaches) Vehicles per hour on hiiher- volume minor- street approach (one direction only) (Minimum Requirements) Major Street Minor Street Urban ~ Urban fu!r!.! 1------~ 1------- 2 or more --1 -- - - - - -2 or more --2 or more -- 1 -------2 or more -- 750 900 900 750 525 630 630 525 75 75 100 100 53 53 70 70 The major street and minor street volumes are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours. and on the opposite approach during other hours. Left turn movements from the major street may be included with minor street volumes if a separate signal phase is to be provided for left tum move- ment. The left turn volume in the highest direction may be added to the minor street volume on the highest approach and the major street volume should be reduced by this amount. 9-01.5 Warrant 3-Minimum Pedestrian Volume The minimum pedestrian volume warrant is satis- fied when for each of any 8 houn of an average day the following traffic volumes exist: . 1. On the major street 600-Urban. ~Rural or more vehicles per hour enter the intersection (total of both approaches): or 1,000-Urban, 700 -Rural or more vehicles per hour (total of both approaches) enter the intersection on the ma- jor street where there is a raised median island four feet or more in width; and 2. During the same 8 hours as in paragraph 1., there are 150-Urban, lo.5-Rural or more pede- strians per hour on the highest volume cross- walk crossing the major street. A signal installed under this warrant at an isolated intersection should be of the traffic-actuated type with push buttons for pedestrians crossing the main street. If such a signal is installed at an intersection within a signal system, it should be equipped and operated to provide proper coordination. Signals installed according to this warrant shall be equipped with pedestrian indications conforming to requirements set forth in other sections of this Man- ual. Signals may be installed at nonintersection loca- tions (Mid-block) provided the requirements of this warrant are met, and provided that the related cross- walk is not closer than 150 feet to another established crosswalk. Curbside parking should be prohibited for a minimwn of 100 feet in advance of and 20 feet beyond the crosswalk. Phasing, coordination and in- stallation must conform to standards set forth in this Manual. Special attention should be given to the sig- nal head placement and the signs and markings used at nonintersection locations to be sure drivers are aware of this special application. Ml.6 Warrant 4 -School Cro11ing1 See Chapter 10. Ml.7 Warrant 5-Progre11ive Movement The progressive movement warrant is satisfied when one of the following is true: l. On a one-way street or on a street which pre- ponderantly has unidirectional traffic signifi- cance, adjacent signals are so far apart that the necessary degree of platooning and speed con- trol of vehicles would otherwise be lost or, 2. On a two-way street, where adjacent signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and speed control and the proposed and adja- cent signals could constitute a progressive signal system. The installation of a signal according to this war- rant should be based on the &>percentile speed un- less an engineering study indicates that another speed is more desirable. The installation of a signal according to this war- ) )- Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9- rant should not be considered where the resultant signal spacing would be less than 1,000 feet. 9-01.1 Wanant 6-Accident Experience The accident-experience warrant is satisfied when: l. Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the accident frequency; and 2. Five or more reported accidents of types sus- ceptible of correction by traffic signal control have occurred within a 12-month period, each accident involving personal,injury or property damage to an apparent extent of $200 or more; and 3. There exists a volume of vehicular and pedes- trian traffic not less than 80 percent of the re- quirements specified in the minimum vehicular -volume warrant, the interruption of continu- ous traffic warrant, or the minimum pedestrian -volume warrant; and ' 4. The signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. 9-01.9 Wanant 7 -Systems Warrant A traffic signal installation at some intersections may be warranted to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow networks. The systems warrant is applicable when the common intersection of two or more major routes has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 800 vehicles during the peak hour of a typical week- 12•191 dav, or each of any five hours of a Saturday and /a Sunday. A major route as used in the above warrant has on or more of the following characteristics: 1. It is part of the street or highway system tha serves as the principal network for through traJ fie flow; 2. It connects areas of principal traffic generatior 3. It includes rural or suburban highways outsid of, entering or traversing a city; 4. It has surface street freeway or expresswa: ramp terminals; 5. It appears as a major route on an official plai such as a major street plan in an urban are. traffic and transportation study. 9-01.10 Warrant 1-Combination of Warrants In exceptional cases, signals occasionally may b. justified where no single warrant is satisfied bu where any two of Warrants 1, 2 and 3 are satisfied ti the extent of 80 percent or more of the stated numer ical values for each of any 8 hours of an average day 9-01.11 Periodic Traffic Si9nal Studies To maintain the desirable operation of existin1 traffic signals, it is necessary to periodically conduc engineering studies to ensure that the desired opera tion is realized. In particular, engineering studie should determine whether the installation continue to be justified and that the signal timing in use meet the current traffic requirements. ) TRAFFIC COUN' •1 SHEET TS, Count Date l· CS · S? to I, -,. 8? Location: On R ~'F Time Period ~ ./21', -r/4e 0000-0100 "'3~ 0100-0200 -z. \ 0200-0300 \ G, 0300-0400 ,, 0400-0500 'Z.B 0500-0600 I'+\ 0600-0700 t.,q~ 0700-0800 Be:>~ 0800-0900 ~ \ \. 0900-1000 c;ss 1000-1100 5i.4 c; "!> \ 1100-1200 cs~~ '?°'~ 1200-1300 G,0\4 u:; \ 1300-1400 ~?S l,C::»\ 1400-1500 ~a;o '?~'3 1500-1600 ?~~ .,,,, 1600-1700 ?LIG. ?&5 1700-1800 ?o&, (,~(4- 1800-1900 4-z.CS '38eii 1900-2000 t.?B ""4 2000-2100 ,z.-,4 -z. -, c:::., 2100-2200 'Z'3S 'Z. ~ \ 2200-2300 ' \ -z._ \O~ 2300-2400 ~\ ?4 TOTAL( S) c.,,7-;s c=:\,t,W) PEAK HOUR(S) PEAK FLOW(S) Data Reduction by ~?'=' Date I• Cl\· s-, a.... A \.. """-Co.~~ \G,,IC' (btwn/at) r-,4,. IY'•~C--(and) L,N,L.~ ~ Day/Direction w ---'"' '-+4 te \0 I~ -z.e 'c::_,~ l#"!>~ ~\Lr (, -z. e i:;t, ~ -t..6?4 Special conditions or remarks=-----'-----------"".::----- Ve. ~. / z. ~°'Y ~\~=-19, z 89 ' t _) TRAFFIC COUN1 ) ., SHEET Count Date PS, 8? to l·J· 8? Location : On fZ ~ F° Time Period no,/4e ..,.../~e 0000-0100 'Z'- 0100-0200 ,-, 0200-0300 ,~ 0300-0400 'Z ":!> 0400-0500 c;e 0500-0600 ZCS':::> 0600-0700 u'Z.Cl 0700-0800 ?q'? 0800-0900 v3~ 0900-1000 c:;,3~ 1000-1100 CS~il ~z.~ 1100-1200 c:;s;-z_ ~':,C:::, 1200-1300 '?'3? ~'Z'?> 1300-1400 4qo c:::;'33 1400-1500 677_ ?73 1500-1600 ?aq &?"Z 1600-1700 ?40 ?14 1700-1800 ~~-'-l?'? 1800-1900 z-z.4 -z. \ \ 1900-2000 Iii? , l#"Z. 2000-2100 IZo ·~~ 2100-2200 JOB )O I 2200-2300 ,. ?Z. 2300-2400 6& e, TOTAL(S) ~.s;~ &1?'3: PEAK HOUR( S) PEAK FLOW(S) Data Reduction by 1-Q? (btwn/at) t-J\.L)yo7C, Day/Di rec ti on &v/4e -z.. c::, ,~ 14 'ZO c::,~ ZC:.,9l B~ ~~-, -J-,7Cf .:::., \ \ 3,U6 Special conditions or remarks : _________________ _ V~~-/ Z.. r-:>~y -r-:==>(!..v,od = 1-,, 4o I ) TRAFFIC COUNT ) ,. SHEET TS# --- M,4-\Yo ML Av¢ (./D t7,e, ►KMO > ~ J:i ~ Street(s) Count Date J.,;. 97 to I·?• 97 Location: On l'V\C! lvolpt Time Period r,/~ T /kl~ 0000-0100 , 0100-0200 -, 0200-0300 ~ 0300-0400 I 0400-0500 '? 0500-0600 ~~ 0600-0700 ' 'ii- 0700-0800 -zc;~ 0800-0900 "2.~ 0900-1000 ) l,-Z. 1000-1100 ,~q 1c;-z.. 1100-1200 14G. Is:-:, l 1200-1300 \-Z.t-,-,-, 1300-1400 l~~ l '4n 1400-1500 I l# ':) ,of 1500-1600 ,.,.., Z,Z,'Z., 1600-1700 I <-10 llPS 1700-1800 I l ~ PSI 1800-1900 q-z_ l "?.- 1900-2000 c;" C::,'? ' 2000-2100 t;o 4-Z.. 2100-2200 -:S""! -z.~ 2200-2300 ~6 -z..q 2300-2400 I 'J ) l, TOTAL(S) I, LIStJ 'Z.,~"5~ PEAK HOUR(S) PEAK FLOW(S) Data Reduction by ""? ', Date I• Cl• e-, (btwn/at) t?~t (and) Co,-:,rii.no,. Day/Direction w/411!!1 9 Lt "3 -z._ -==-:, ~e I G. I '?. ?? 'Z "'?>I 1 l,,O eoao Special conditions or remarks: ________ ~--------- V E:=,. H-. I Z..'t.:>°"Y ~Yt~d=-4,~c,3 w .,. dttl + ~ p -- ~ A ·' D ) ) RECEIVE We6bm Ptwtget tu«l A33~ JUL 2 5 1985 ' ~ I TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATIO~ ENGINEERING July 25, 1985 Mr. Bill Hofman DAON Corporation 5150 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Hofman: This letter summarizes our review of future geometric needs at the Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Avenue intersection in the City of Carlsbad. The review \otas based upon information provided by you and previous studies. Built-out traffic projection developed by SANDAG for the City were utilized as the basis of the study. Daily volumes of 44,700; 43,600; 65,400 and 4,300 were projected for the north, east, south and west legs of the intersection. Since these are two-way volumes, it was assumed that an equal directional split would occur. It was further assumed, that the peak hour would be ten percent of the daily volume. These assumptions were utilized to estimate peak hour turning movement volumes for the intersection. A study of conditions with Alga Road extended from Melrose to Rancho Santa Fe provided data relative to traffic flow patterns in the area which was utilized to determine turning movement estimates. The estimated peak hour volumes are as follows (Melrose is North-South): Northbound Left 105 Eastbound Left 55 Northbound Through 1700 Eastbound Through 50 Northbound Right 1475 Eastbound Right 85 Southbound Left 625 Westbound Left 1635 Southbound Through 1540 Westbound Through 70 Southbound Right 75 Westbound Right 485 2651 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE • SUITE 110 • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 I I ) -2- These volumes were then utilized to calculate an Intersection Capacity Utilization(ICU) value for the intersection with standard geometrics. The resultant ICU value of 2.20 was unacceptable and indicated that a modified intersection would be required. The mod ified intersection is illustrated on Figure 1. It includes dual westbound left turn lanes with a third optional left or through lane. All northbound right turns were assumed to remain on the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road alignment and not enter the intersection. An ICU analysis was completed for the intersection as illustrated on Figure 1 with the estimated volumes. The ICU calculation is surrmarized in Table 1 and indicates an ICU value of 1.04. While this ICU value is higher than normal, there are additional factors to consider. This value does conform to the recent criteria proposed by the City Engineer which would allow higher ICU values at critical intersections during peak hours. The projected volumes in the SANDAG model tend to be on the high side and actual volumes would be lower. Finally, the general alignments of both Mel rose and Santa Fe have been established and the proposed geometrics maximize the use of these alignments. In summa ry, geometrics have been developed for the Melrose Avenue/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection which would accorrmodate future traffic volumes. The analysis included assumptions which were based upon previous studies and knowledge of traffic characteristics in the area. Figure 1 illustrates the recorrmended intersection configuration. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES ~~ Weston S. Pringle, P.E cc Mr. Clyde Wickum Table 1 \ J -3- TNTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: MELROSE/ RANCHO SANTA FE -CORINTIA MOVEMENT UL TI MATE UL TI MATE ULTIMATE ULTIMATE LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C NL 1 1600 105 0.07 NT 3 4800 1700 0.35 * NR FREE 1475 SL 2 3200 625 · 0.20 * ST 3 4800J 15401 0.34 SR 0 75 EL 1 1600 55 0.03 ET 1 160~ 501 0.08 * ER 0 85 WL 3 48001 16351 0.36 * WT 0 70 WR 1 1600 485 0.30 NORTH/SOUTH CRITICAL SUMS= 0.55 EAST/WEST CRITICAL SUMS= 0.44 CLEARANCE= 0.05 ICU= 1.04 LOS= F N=NORTHBOUND,S=SOUTHBOUND,E=EASTBOUND,W=WESTBOUND L=LEFT,T=THROUGH,R=RIGHT * DENOTES CRITICAL MOVEMENTS MLRSF-Cl CORINTIA EAST -WEST SPLIT PHASING w (/) 0 er _J w ~ A i i \ \ \ t t t PROPOSED GEOMETRICS .. WESTOM PRIMGU AMD ASSOCIATES -~-N~ NO SCALE RANCHO SANTA FE '-- 7 ✓ ~ ✓ - -- ( FREE RIGHT TURN FIGURE I Ll U LLI 0 I UN i<C>,,.·,"'--.,"",, t-~ O l'--A...d--'-Y C7· CIT Y 0~ CARLSBA D OIAWN IY M TR AFFI C ENGIN~ERIN G SECTION NO. ACCIDENTS TIA■ TOT4L I HJUIT s l l I I ,.o _;/ __________ ____._ 0 ::J VRW-t~ J '- '1 .fl ·) vl N UJ 10 ·Jf I 3 -: z.. 7-e:,tp Y\<'.'-'V-1 >-.\Ai"'\ '9ct';iQ l'2.-17-S,(.:, DS\ Z..\ v~ e,,-;i-z..o c::,,, ' \-~-6G:, \Go: z..5 ZZ-37 ~'--V\<.VV-1 NA'N'° ?Zt...t, '7-l'S-S& 1S ·, Z.'? \ LEGEND ... VEH. WOVINQ AHEAO ~ HCAO•ON ( (( .. VEH. l!ACICING UP ◄ HE40•0N SIOES'#IPE ---• PEOESTR14N --..0--REAR ENO TRAIN 7 .. OVERTAKING SIO(SWll'E c:::> PAR KEO V(HICL[ ~~~ RIGHT ANGLE □ F'IX(O OIJECT Al'PPIOACH ru,o• 0 PROPEP!TT DAMAGE ONLT ~ OV(RTAKINO TUAN © IHJ\JRT ACCIOU<T ~ OUT o, CONTROi. • FATAL ACCIOCNT -Due-. VEHICI.[ TURHEO OVER r111011 llOHT CONST CONSTRUCTION ZONE OPO ORIVER ~YSICAL oEn:cr ov DEFECTIVE VEHtCL! ES EXCESS SPEEO f'TC F'OLLOWll>jG TOO CLOSE HBO HAO BEEM ORIMKING H·R HIT ANO ><UN ILC IWPROP(R LANE CHANGE ,,. IMPROPER PAS SING IT IWPROP(R TURN INATT INATT (NTION MIC WO TOIICYCL( IISS RAH STCP SIGN OJI SIGNAi. SFP STOPP(O O" SLOWING FOl'I •(C(S T~I AN VO VISIBILITY ORSTRU~~EO VRW VIOLA I (0 ~•GMT 0# ••• noLLl01p"1 !J \Ji U it O!AG \OCATIOM CITY OF CA RLSBA D l-o-.-.-.,.,.,M-,-----r----.-------,----...--,r-1-10_0 __________ _ IY TRAFF IC ENGi!~ E f:R ING SECT ION DArl NO. ACC !CENTS BY TYPE TIAI "'Er -z._ \ \ \ 0 \ c::::;:J __ j LE G EN D CONST CONSTRUCT ION ZONE ~ OPO DRIVER PHYSI CAL DEFECT ... VEH . WOVING AHEAD H!AD•ON DV DEFECT IVE VEHICLE ((( ► VEH. BACKING UP .. () HEAD -ON SIDESWIPE ES EXCESS SPEE D ... ----• PEDESTRIAN ~ REAII ENO FTC FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE r:: ~80 HAO BEEN ORIN KING ► TRAIN {) OVERTAKING SIDESWIP[ H-R HIT ANO RUN c:::::> f'AflKED VEHICL( ~~ RIGHT ANGLE ILC IMPROPER LANE CHANGE □ FIXED OBJECT APPRO ACH TURN IP IMPROPER PASS INO IT IMPROf'(R TURN 0 PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY ~ OVERTAKING TURN !NATT INATTENTION ® INJURY ACCIDENT ~ OUT OF CONTROL W/C MOTORCYCLE • FATAL ACCIDENT -61)~ VEHICL!: TURNED OVER ASS RAN STOP SIGN OR SIGNAL SFP STOPPED OR SLOWING FOR PfUESTRIAN VO V15'81LITT ODS TRUCTEO VRW V10LAT£i) Rlt;llf or WIIT w~ ..,15in,-u~ C:1t''\£'" nr t:Tlllit r 'f' LlULLl0IUN UlA bK;' CITY OF CA RLSBAD . . . TRAFF IC ENGIN ~ER ING SECTION NO. ACCIDENTS SY TYPE TIAI TOT AL ,_o,. OA .. AG I I NJUIY llOHT OAll WI T c::::> \ c::::::> \ 0 \ 0 \ ,, VRvv-1)-JA..-rr SZ-G-\ 1K' '7-10-2,~ 13~~ LEGEND CONST CONSTRUCTION ZOHE ~ Of'O ORIVER ~YSICAL DETECT ... VEH. MOVING AHEAD HCAO•ON DV DITECTIVE VEHICLE ((( ... V[H. BACKING UP ... () HEAD·ON SIOESWIPE ES EXCESS SPEE D • ---• PEDESTRIAN --.0--REAR ENO f'TC FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE = 1<80 HAO BEEN DRINKING TRAIN ! l OVERTAKING SIDESWIPE H-11 IIIJN ~ HIT ANO c=:> PARKED V(HICL( .. ~ RIGHT ANGLE .. ILC IMPROPER LANE CHANG( D FIXEO Ol~ECT Al'Pl'IOACH TURN JP IMPROPER PASSINO 0 ~ IT IMPROP(R TURN PROP(l'ITY DAMAGE ONLT OV(RTAICINQ TURN !NATT INATTENTION ® INJURY ACCIO(PfT ~ OUT o, CONTROL 111/C IAOTORCTCL( • FATAL ACCIDENT 6<'.J ... V(HICL( TURHEO OVEl'I RS! RAN STCP SIGN 011 SIGNAL SFP STOPP(D 0" SLOWING FOA O(D(STRI AN VO V1S181LITT ORSTRUC~EO VRW VIOLATED RIGHT 0# WAY ~-_D,-,.._.,-r ., ~ --............ January 14, 1987 Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Bob Johnson, Traffic Engineer 619/744-4020 RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD -LA COSTA MEADOWS DRIVE INTERSECTION Gentlemen: '·"'-!'";-. -~-~-, .Jh :, -..., ,:.,.,/ We understand your staff is working on traffic improvements at Rancho Santa Fe Road -Melrose Drive intersection and have been requested by interested citizens to consider improvements at Rancho Santa Fe Road -La Costa Meadows Drive intersection. We have been requested to consider stop signs or a traffic signal system at the Rancho Santa Fe Road -La Costa Meadows Drive intersection. Our review of Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFC) and City of San Marcos actions leads us to the conclusion that the city limit of San Marcos is along the easterly line of the old County Rancho Santa Fe Road (Road Survey 454). We have enclosed LAFCO description of April 5, 1976 and San Marcos Ordinance No. 82-585 of September 28, 1982 which is our basis of reaching said conclusion. The best information we have concerning the City of Carlsbad's city limit line is Rick Engineering Co., Proposed Annexation 2. 19 to the City of Carlsbad, dated 1-22-74. This data indicates it was approved by the LAFC on January 7, 1974. We read this to establish Carlsbad city limits to be along westerly right-of-way of Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Avenue, 126 foot wide. Based on the above, our opinion is the San Marcos city limit is along easterly line of old County Rancho Santa Fe Road right-of-way and Carlsbad city limit is along westerly right-of-way of Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Avenue at La Costa Meadows Drive intersection. Such city limit locations would leave a strip along Rancho Santa Fe Road in the County. Our opinion is illustrated on enclosed layout sheet dated January 13, 1986. -'i • ~.. :_: ; Please confirm or correct our information concerning Carlsbad's city limit location. •. ··"'· • -• '._,._ • lA~ • . .,,: .. ., ,:A:r-:~i? •. . L 1 oyd B. Hubbs Page 2 January 14, 1987 If our current data is accurate, the County may retain some jurisdiction on Rancho Santa Fe Road. Therefore, we are sending C.M. Hurt,.County Traffic Engineer, a copy of this correspondence. We are collecting traffic data at the Rancho Santa Fe Road -La Costa Meadows Drive intersection. This data will be shared with your office and the County to assist in reaching a mutually acceptable traffic regulatory system at the La Costa Meadows Drive intersection as well as the nearby Melrose Avenue and Questhaven intersections with Rancho Santa Fe Road. It is our understanding your staff report will go to Carlsbad's Traffic Safety Commission on February 2nd. Please include this correspondence with said report. Cordi ally, FR7~ Assistant City Engineer vm CC: C.M. Hurt, County of San Diego w/enclosures Anthony J. Nisich, City Engineer Kent A. Whitson, Consulting Transportation Engineer Kevin K. Lindell, Assistant Civil Engineer. 0170A ~ ! . .; ,,: •.. :,.' ~ /);(_>-~ .. ;-.• :-7' \.~ ~:::--,. f ~ -~- -a \\ • .. ~-0 ,.. c; ~-~ -..::-... -:.; •.,o -CITY OF SAN MARCOS BOUNDARY RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD AT QUESTHAVEN ROAD 1 Nl£M,r£D ,r: erl' 111Ar1t1S /MU: JAN. IS, INT • COLLISION DIAGRA --LOCATION: RANCHO SANTA FE IAD -Northerly of La Costa Meadows Drive CITY OF SAN ~IARCOS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ..,_;;-~~-----..;...,g.-.,....,..-........,.......,-....._ _ _. Year Total 1980-1986 6 ACCIDENT HISTORY 1986 0 1985 0 1984 0 1983 1 1982 1 1981 2 1980 2 Total 6 NOTE: Melrose Drive is outside San Marcos' city limits. IIDOK f Q LI\ COSTA t1EADOW$ LEGEND ----►~ Veh. Moving Ahead~ Head-On )}) ► Vch. Backing Up .. <) ► Head-On Sideswipe - -_. Pedestrian ~ Rear End ---=al►► Train c > : Overtaking Sideswipe c:::::> Parked Vehicle ~ 0 Fixed Object ~ Right Angle Approach Turn Overtaking Turn Out of Control 0 Prop. Damage Only~ ® Injury Acc i dent • Fatal Accident ~ Vch. Turned Over CONST DPD DV ESS FTC !IBD H-R ILC IP IT INAIT M/C RSS SFP vn thru Dark Wet 4 2 Construction Zone Driver Physical Defect Defective Vehicle Excess Speed Following Too Close Had Been Drinking Hit And Run Improper Lane Change Improper Passing Improper Turn Inattention t-lotorcycle • Ran Stop Sign Or Signal Stopped or Slowing For P Visibility Obstructed ••• • .. •-• •· _r,., __ ., SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Resolution of the Governing Board TITLE : TRAFFIC SAFETY LIGHT NUMBER 86-32 On motion of Member Katz, seconded by Member Brown, the following resolu tion is adopted: WHEREAS, the intersection at Melrose and Santa Fe Road has been the site of a number of ser1ous and fatal traffic accidents, and; WHEREAS, this dangerous intersection is frequently traversed by studen ts, parents, and employees of La Costa Meadows Elementary Schoo 1; NOW THEREFORE, the Governing Board requests the immediate placement of a traffic light at said intersection so that La Costa Meadow s Schoo 1 students, parents, and emp 1 oyees may be properly protected from harm as they travel to and from school. PASSED AND ADOPTED th i s 12th day of January, 1987 by the Governi ng Board of the San Marcos Unified School District by the fo 11 ow ing vote: AYES : NO ES : AB SE NT: Brown, Gross, Katz, Preston, Trigas None None STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO) I, Sec retary of the Governing Board, San Marcos Un ified Sc hoo 1 District, San Diego County, California, do hereby cert ify t hat t he foregoi ng is a true copy of a resolution adopted by sai d Board at the regul ar meeting thereof held at its regular place of meeti ng at the t ime and by the vote stated, which resol ution is on f ile i n the o~id Board. ~ ( .~/\~\ ~ "'-~ Secretary of tne Governing Board ~~ ~~ tr<!, r:.,-"' 00 Sari CJJieguito Publi~Jr.e~ 1910 Diamond St. San Marcos, CA 92089 Safety :ommittee , ::ity of -=:arlsbad 1200 r,_;1m Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 ;)ear People: (819) 744-0910 12 I am writing to you with reference to a dangerous road con- dition that exists between the intersection of the ~uesthaven and ~ancho Santa Fe Road and the intersection of ivi elrose and rt ancho Santa Fe Road. £arlier I had met with ~ichard :.ivygant, Public Works J irector for the city of San Marcos . He told me that most of this area was within the confines of the city of ,:.;arlsbad. jvhen turning left . from La '.:: osta IVieadows to :,ancho .Santa Fe :,.D ( g oing so uth) you turn into a single lane . iVIany cars southbound are traveling at a high rate of speed. You must floorboard y our auto to keep from being rear-ended. ·rhis is a nightly thrill for myself and employees. ~fter passing the Dump road (southbound) you go up an incline on a curve which is a blind corner for the outside lane . I 've seen your police place flares for stalled autos. Should you decide to go to the coast utilizin~ Alga (via Melrose) you are in s tore for another thriller. ~vhen you turn right from, La :osta Meadows onto RSF Road, you have a short distance to cut across to get into the reading lane to turn onto Melrose. Many of the oncoming autos are doing 50 to 60 or better. You sit in this lane amid frequent buffeting from oncoming traffic. Pi real test of courage . Many times there is a problem getting into the Melrose loading lane. Northboud cars (who may have been held up by trucks going to the dump) hit their throttles when they hit the two lane just north of the ~ump road--and they sirrp..y scream across this stretch of road. I am an oldtimer who cut my driving teeth on the old three lane highway 101--"Bood Alley", "Murder ~ow". 'rhis stretch of road, for its limited length is more dangerous than old 101. ~e know that this road will be the scene of more carnage . You have big trucks , crazy high speed driving youngsters, people . 1. in a hurry to g et home. You have four intersecting roads along this stretch with absolutely nothin.g--nothing to s l ow this traffic down--a man-made environment for death . Can you please do something to alleviate this situation? _ Sine erely , ~ _/, WE B OFFSET• TYPESETTING• PRINTING• PUBLICATIONS ?/p--f"~<:-- January 11, 1987 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad,CA 92008 Honorable City Council of Carlsbad Dear Sirs: cl)/ s r. L__O L 'C...,-~ f!__L...R ~/( <!,~ /h~, "7C/T7£/G~ ~ RECEIVED J ,, ~ • """'7 Mt ... • ~ I~; CIT O CA S ENGINEERING : ;' ~--NT, I am writing concerning the hazardous traffic situation which exist·s where Rancho Santa Fe Road intersects Melrose Ave- nue and La Costa Meadows Drive. My place of employment is located near those j unctions, and in the brief six and one half months that I have worked there, four accidents have occurred. The most recent resulted in the death of a young mother and injuries of her two daughters, one who is in critical condition . WHY does it so often take the loss .of a life which so angers local citi ze ns that they feel compelled to badger city officials to Dd SOMETHING to lessen the danger of our roadways?? This is an URGENT APPEAL to install traffic signals that would slow t raffic and consequently reduce the chance of serious injury and f urther loss of life. Thank you for your attention. Very trul y yo urs, Lynne Werner cc: San Diego County Board of Supervisors Mrs. Lynne Werner 3526 Simsbury Court Carlsbad, CA 92008 u TAIYO YUDEN (U.S.A.), INC. 1 no La Costa Meadows Drive, San Marcos, CA 92069 Telephone: (619) 744-8953 FAX: 619-744-1673 i)1 ;f-. (c«-<--<.,'- {' /.:; 7 /J·yt. (•l.~ .t. k )/l .1/ y ,,,, i , January 6, 1987 City Council of San Marcos City Council of Carlsbad Board of County Supervisors As an employer in the Rancho Santa Fe Industrial Park I strongly urge you to take immediate action on the issue of installing a $ignal at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and La Costa Meadows Drive. As mentioned in Tom Anthony's letter of 12/29/86, we have witnessed numerous accidents at this intersection, not to mention the "near misses" we all experience daily while trying to enter or exit La Costa Meadows Drive. While this situation has gone from bad to worse over the past few years, with the increase in traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road, it has now reached the. stage of being unbearable. On· behalf of myself and my 54 employees, I urge you to take prompt action on this matter before another unfortun ate tragedy occurs. AN II l(JNY bWU.). tv1ANUI AL I UWING 1 945 5 . RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD , SAN MA~COS. CA 92069 December 29, 1986 Honorable City Council of San Marcos Honorable City Council of Carlsbad Board of County Supervisors 16 I 9 1 744 -4 763 How many deaths must we have before something is done to improve Rancho Santa Fe Road with "signalization" or at least a STOP sign?? I have witnessed 3 deaths, and 2 lamp posts, 2 fire hydrants, 3 mail boxes (Post Office had to change location) demolished and 3 lar.ge landscape boulders split all at or near the intersection of La Costa .Meadows Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Al so, there have been numerous incidents and a couple of deaths less· than two blocks away. To say that a STOP sign on Rancho Santa Fe Road would "slow" traffic "too much" or that one will be corning at Questhaven Road is , in my opinion, flirting with the imminent probablility of more deaths. If the drivers of the trucks and autos knew they had to stop (the roadway would be posted) they would not fly through here at ?0 and 70 mph. With the hills on toth sides it is easy to reach 50 to 60 mph if you just let your foot off the brake . Ple~se ... let's do something TODAY. My Partners and I have already c ontributed $140,000. in road improvements in this area; (the Co unty tore some of this up when the bridge was built) and if need be, we are willing to help a little more to get the job d one NOW. A couple of STOP signs just might save a few lives. Thank you. Sincerely, Thomas L. Ant ny LA COSTA MEADOWS INDUSTRIAL CENTER cc: Lo ca l Media Own e rs & Tenants Rancho Santa Fe Industrial Park VJ '=' , t t-1 '=' u rI c: :-:-=· i -:. r, '=' d , b '=' i •1 ,:i r. '=' ; ,:i h b ,:, r· ·=· ='· r ,j _/ or ,:, t h er ,.,.: 1 = :- ,: ,:, n C e r n e d p e r· =· 0 n =· ' d ,; h e r e b )" r e s p '=' C t f u 1 1 y r e q u e s t t r1 e C i t y C O '..: :-, ,: i 1 an d t h e Tr a f f i c ~-n d Sa f e t y Comm i : : i on , b c, tr, of. t h e C i t y of Car 1 ~-bad , t o g i v e t h '=' i r i mm e d i a t e a t t e n t i on t ,:, t h e h a:: ~-r d c, u =· tr .;,.ffic cond iti ons ~.t tr1>:-i nter:.O?ction c,f Rancho Santa Fe F:oad an d Melr ose Av,nue, where a fata l; ~Y occurred on Wedn':'sday morn i n9, Dec emt, ... r 1 7, 1 j •;::.::,. ~rJo ,e,W c.f ~CA£j±, 1~3s-S -~~ S~ g:-11. Rd. FULL NAME 1 ADDRESS CITY PHONE 1-t_LiuA._.£c::t1~~~---./Q!-5...;iA.&.t.J~Q1.:-5.!!/J./J!Jy_~~----5¥JZ:lb59 __ !~_s_qT.Q ___ !# J_~ ?J!rb.?~iJA_llu6!-_ ller. _ _E_ __ bt:g~~d ~ ¥izv i _rctf\..lLl..E.iJ~f}ilW=, ___ gJS._1 Ef'.)N\&[t.0.1&\LE~-Q~Sl.f)t=._ __ 3_~ 7;}J. 3:+2 '-{.jj~_)_~--~~]-~_llA~T'~-!Jl~~-C1_f?_o_~j __ 47/-;)~7J, /J~_t)__J/~--l~fl:~f_o_$_._~~~i~J_~_?'_s_'"=-CJ_~c/.,_l_~7 _f'_/j: __ ~,21J!i. __ ~~----4.J_K__J_~ ___ <{~G,_, __ .J:.~~-~ ttw- ~U~Sh.nJ~_c_l[:ij::,_\__UJ&S\.Cttkf.:_~'--\.~~j~-1S:,t~_(;\ 21 c.. lo ~~~c~_a_~J«~~-~-;;_:=-idp.~~4-d/j~_c~ __ ldd~];~f}'f.)~ !~lk _hjtr_-f2Ci4-~JJC(L'_D.tf1U4. J!tl_('f!c«l.ui.D-Cii-fZOzf:-7 i/3-8~! 5 'IJ)i-cr~-"-_ I-_/ "TJ,-,,-q __ ,, do __ #'-/I YI-_ ) • ,_7 ,-_ _(7 ';-7;;, o L _ 7 ['f o (,, I / -~-juLr._~ __ t~~c¼L~1-~~)J.5h.eid.C1Q:s7-£(._f;_{I_C[1~G.d0_<_!1-i_:9J_Q)J rn -8~ )~ ~--~------qq:2 _}tl{.~~ -Sv~~~~~A:;~;? 1~1-3Xlc1 --~~-~~----\SS ~ ---------------------~------------ ~-~ _ . ~//-df4/-~ ~~~-'f] P _I_ ~.i:Yl g J.~6'-~!. g~g ____ e?_ ~_/.t:t:'1_ ~02,s:-... _G:47 _ _2-2--O $"" L . - ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1· 1· 7'7V ~ cJrnt ~?J'r/ -~ P-Y"JPJ717ni/ ~p--r;J?7Y ~ ,f ~~so~"?' ~ ~v~Jll -!nan, .,--p7 ~~--7 7Y'T • vrr/7 7-?k1 :,~ ~ p~ ~ ~.in: 07 -nl?p UJ ✓1·r e/-oJr ~ -~if -p -:r.,,~~ ;rr7J 777trr. ~ 77 • :rl,~ _/?"lU/ ~ -P,-r£ (r-1?l , rP'?7/-,,,_,~ ~~ p-,rv1'7' ~ ~ ~ 1 rvnr --vn~ ~ r-rp~ ~ ~ ~-p ~') ,-P-,,-n-rn ~ ~ • ~ f?->?'W/7~,u/ -~p--(JcJY SI(,/ _:;,--n l4.fl7 T7 I -xfl~j17 ~-,;,Pt(/ .~ ~,-, hr1-- ·o1JL(1 y,~ 7 v~l-7 ~ -~ .., J-w_-•7?-y:] ·~ ~/~ ; ~i) L~ r----...t.oy-m or Traffic and Saf ety Commission, City of Carlsbad City Engineering Department Robert T. Johnson, Principal Civil Engineer, P.E. 2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, CA 92008-4859 Dear Mr. Johns on: 1108 Pheasant Ct. San Marcos, CA 92069 9 January 1987 As a concerned citizen of San Marcos and a mother, I am very upset about the traffic accident which occurred on Wednesday, December 17, 1986, at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Avenue and which resulted in the unfortunate fatality of a young mother, as well as one of her child- ren being seriously injured. I have lived in San Marcos for almost eight years and I travel Rancho Santa Fe Road frequently. The traffic problem has greatly increased in the past few years and it 's about time we slow down the traffic on this dangerous road. Too many large trucks travel RSF Rd., every day and very few drive at a safe speed. Traffic has increased at this crucial intersection espe- cially since t he opening of La Costa Meadows Elementary School, located west of Rancho Santa Fe Road. My daughter is a kindergartener at La Costa Meadows and rides a bus to and from school, traveling much of the way on RSF Rd. Ev ery day her bus, and other buses as well, must face that horrible intersect ion. Making a left turn onto RSF Rd . from Melrose is often very difficult due to the increas- ed volume of thr ough traffic on RSF Rd. I am concerned for her welfare as well as the welfare of all the other school-age chi ldren who must travel Rancho Santa Fe Road to get to school, whether on a bus or in a car. We need a traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Avenue . We NEED it now. Since all the trash trucks and other large trucks must travelalong RSF Rd., something must be done to slow them down and at t he same time slow down all the traffic on this road. This signal is long overdue! It is tragic and sad that it takes a death to bring this subject to the attention of so many who mi ght otherwise be uninformed. Since this intersection is under the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad I urge you to resolve this situation as soon as possible by approving a signal for i t . The need for this signal not only affects the res idents of San Marcos, but also the residents of Carlsbad, as well as residents of nearby communities since Rancho Santa Fe Road is used as a thorough-fare. Petitions are being circulated now and will probably be given to you at the next Traffic Commission Meeting to show we want something done about this treacherous intersection. As Thomas L. Anthony put it in his letter of January 8, 1987, in the San Marcos Courier, "How many deaths must we have before something is done to improve Rancho Santa Fe Road with 's i gnaliza- tion'? A Concerned Mother of Two Ya v J a . ji?_ .;~ Karen A. Pavone DAVID MILLER 2814 LUCIERNAGA STREET CARLSBAD , CALIFORN IA,92008-51 53 DECE~IBER 8 , 1986 MAYOR LE\.JIS 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD , CA ., 92008 DEAR ~1A YOR LEWIS: THE BEST OF LUCK IN YOUR TERM OF OFFICE . PERHAPS YOU MIGHT I3E ABLE TO HELP IN THE TWO THINGS THAT BOTHER ME AND OTHERS IN THE NORTH LA COSTA AREA. #1: THE INTERSECTION OF ~ELROSE AND RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD IS ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE IN TH MORNING . RANCHO SANTA FE TRAFFIC IS TRAVELLIN DOWNHI LL IN BOTH DIRECTIONS AT HIGH SPEEDS AND YO SOMETIMES HAVE TO WAIT 5 MINUTES UNTIL TRAFF THINS OUT TO MAKE THE LEFT TURN TO GO TOWARD SN MARCOS. MAYBE A STOP SIGN FOR TRAFFIC GOING NOR H ON SANTE FE WOULD HELP, THIS IS ONE OF THE WO ST INTERSECTIONS THAT I HAVE ENCOUNTERED. #2 : CAN YOU TELL ME HOW TO GET A BUS ON ROAD . THE POPULATION IN THE AREA HAS BECOME LARGER IN THE LAST 3 YEARS AND WE CERTAINLY CA1 USE SOME PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CLOSER THAN EL CAMINO REAL . I KNOW THAT YOU ARE VERY BUSY BUT I JUST HAD TO UNBURDEN~ THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I REMAIN (j z CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Ca rlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Sir or Madam: January 6, 1987 J:) I 5> r • (c., /~ 4' < u {),✓, /hf;, {! L€"/2k Th ere have been numerous traffic deaths , along with the destruction of several fire hydrants, lamp posts and mail box es at the intersection of La Costa Meadows Drive and Ra ncho Santa Fe Road. I believe these many accidents are due to the fact that traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road is very heavy and it tra- ve ls at high speeds , particularly during the evening and mo rning commute. The majority of drivers do not slow down because there is no stop sign or traffic light for a long stretch of road. I feel that, while traffic accidents canot be eliminated , they can be greatly reduced and this requires the instal- lation of a traffic signal or stop sign on Rancho Santa Fe Road. I would appreciate your immediate action in this matter. LL /hkr 1960 DIAMOND ST. • SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 • (619) 744-2324 K-PkAISE 1210 AM San Diego's Christian Radio Station City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Honorable City Council: January 6, 1987 In March of 1986 we began broadcasting from studio's located at 1635 South Rancho Santa Fe Road. Our second story studio overlooks the intersection of South Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose. l '~~,.,w c..l'c_ (!/·-// /J l() ✓..:.. (/L~·-R ,< Just before the end of the year all of us witnessed a tragic accident at this intersection. An accident that took the life of a young mother, left her oldest daughter in a coma and hospitalized her youngest daughter. This was not the first accident. We have witnessed many and are greatly concerned that many more will die if appropriate action is not taken to install stop lights or stop signs at the intersections along Rancho Santa Fe Road . The primary need is at Melrose and Rancho Santa Fe Road. The volume of traffic using Rancho Santa Fe Road and poor road design in the area adjacent to La Costa Meadows combine to make access very dangerous f ,rom cross streets and drives. Right of way from Melrose is seldom granted and cross traffic must traverse an extraordinarily wide stretch of road to merge either north or south of Santa Fe. Causal observation from our offices will convince the most skeptical person of the need for stop signals or signs at this intersection. I want to personally invite you to KPRZ studios and witness these conditions. We're convinced that folowing your visit you will do everything in your power to save lives by working with the necessary government agencies to facilitate immediate installation of stops signs at this intersection followed by signals as soon as possible. Can we count on you? David Ruleman General Manager KP~ DR/pd (619) 471-1177 (800) 843-1210 ------------KPRZ. SAN MARCOS, CA 92069------------ Rla?-eX s INDUSTRIES, INC. Automatic Pool Cleaners I Pool, Spa & Tub Accessories Polaris Vac-Sweepe Anzen Blowers & Fittings Saturn,. APC SpaWand January 5, 1987 City Council of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Honorable City Council of Carlsbad: Only YOU can stop the slaughter on Rancho Santa Fe and La Costa Meadows Drive. Please install a 4-way traffic signal or stop signs before any more accidents or near accidents occur. We understand traffic signals are extremely costly, but Stop signs surely can't put the budget in the red. A study is also unnecessary --just count the accidents and deaths. HELP SAVE LIVES TODAY Thank you, tJ_t:2-?-J~ L -. ~.a-- Candace E. Lyman Manager -Admini stration cc: Traffic Commission CEL:sal 1709 La Costa Meadows Drive. Post Office Box 1149 • San Marcos, CA 92069 • (619) 471-0129 • Telex: 510-600-6159 FRANK ODDO ASSOCIATES Dear Si r : f ' • ' _ .. _ -i. • ,· .... -, '-' ,' ' .. ; ·_; .J . ; • ., I .. ' --_: • ·.\. • 4 0 ·-·. 4 January 5, 1987 How many deat hs mu st we hav e before som~thing i s done to improve Ra n c ho Santa Fe Road with "signalization," or at least a STOP sign? We have witnessed 3 deaths , p lus t he demolition of 2 l amp posts , 2 f i re hydrant s , 3 mail boxes (the Post Office had to change location), and t he splitt ing of 3 large l andscape bou lders ... all at or near the inter section of La Costa Meadows Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road. In add ition, t her e have been n umerou s nea r -miss incidents a nd a couple of deaths t wo blocks away. To s ay that a STOP sign on Ra ncho Santa Fe Road 1,m ul d "s l ow" traffic "too much ," or that one will be comin g at Qu esthaven Ro ad is, in our opinion, fl irting with the imminent p r obability of mo re deaths . If the drivers of t he trucks a nd a uto s knew t hey had to stop (the r oad - way would be posted), they wo uld not fly through here at 60 a nd 70 mph . Wi t h the h ill s on both sides , i t is easy to reach 50 to 60 mph if you just t ake your foo t off the brake ! A couple of STOP s igns just migh t save a few lives ... but a STOP LJ GPT is the def initive answer t o safer d r iving conditions for everyone . PLEASE ... let 's do somet hing TODAY ! Frank A. Oddo FRA~K ODDO AS SOCIATES , INC . 1905 Diamond Street. Suite B • San Marcos. CA 92069 • (619) 471-2330