Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1987-06-01; Traffic Safety Commission; ; Design Study report for Melrose Drive and Rancho Santa Fe
CITY OF CARLSBAD TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION COMMISSION REPORT OF: June 1, 1987 ITEM NO. 6A IDCATION: Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road INITIATED BY: City Council BACKGROUND: DATA: At the February 24, 1987 City Council meeting the Council authorized staff to retain Willdan Associates to prepare a design study report of alternatives for Rancho Santa Fe Road from a point approximately 500-feet north of Melrose Drive to Questhaven Road. The Alignment and Signalization Report prepared by Willdan Associates and dated May 15, 1987 has been completed and presents the results and recommendations of their study. Five (5) alternatives were investigated by Willdan Associates, Ultimate Alternatives 1 and 2, and Interim Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. A sketch of each alternate has been prepared and is shown in the attached report. Approval of the Tentative Map for CT 85-19 included a realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road to connect to Melrose Drive at the Corintia Drive intersection (Figure 5, Ultimate Alternative No. 2). Due to the high volumes of traffic on RSF at this time compared to Melrose Drive (18,000 versus 5,000) substantial out of direction trips would be made if this alternative were implemented. Access to the existing industrial park from Rancho Santa Fe Road would remain undesirable due to close driveway spacing. The 62 acres north of the existing industrial park would not have an adequate access point if Ultimate Alternative No. 2 is implemented. The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends that Ultimate Alternative 1 be implemented by the developer of Carlsbad Tract No. 85-19 as quickly as possible. This 1 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION COMMISSION REPORT OF: June 1, 1987 (Continued) ITEM NO. 6A alternative would curve Melrose Drive into Rancho Santa Fe Road northerly of the existing Melrose/RSF intersection and align with the most northerly driveway of the in- dustrial park located on the east side of Rancho Santa Fe Road. In the interim, Corintia Drive would connect to Melrose Drive but only have right turns in and right turns out of Corintia to Melrose Drive. A future extension of Corintia Drive from El Fuerte Street easterly to connect at La Costa Meadows Drive would allow Xana Way to be extended southerly to Corintia. This concept has been discussed with the Board of Directors for the Brook- field Subdivision Homeowners Association and met with their approval. BCE Development Corporation has indicated a willingness to immediately proceed with the design of Melrose Drive to connect to RSF as indicated in this alternative. Upon approval of the plans and final map, construction could begin immediately. RECOMMENDATION: The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends that Ultimate Alternative 1 be implemented as quickly as possible. NECESSARY COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council must approve the final map for CT 85-19 which would include the final alignment of Melrose Drive/- Rancho Santa Fe Road. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. ALIGNMENT AND SIGNALIZATION REPORT for RANCHO SANT A FE ROAD BETWEEN MELROSE DRIVE AND QUESTHAVEN ROAD May 15, 1987 Prepared by: Willdan Associates 6363 Greenwich Drive, Suite 250 San Diego, CA 92122 (619) 457-1199 JN: 36165:js .. I - T ABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Page 1 -Summary & Recommendations Page 3 Existing Conditions Page 5 Figure 1 (Vicinity Map) Page 6 ' -Figure 2 ( Existing & Forecast Daily Traffic Volumes) Page 9 Figure 3 ( Peak Hour Turns) Page 10 Ultimate Conditions Page 11 Figure 4 ( Ultimate Alternate 1 ) Page 1 2 Figure 5 ( Ultimate A lternate 2) Page 16 Interim Alternatives Page 18 Figure 6 (Interim Alternate 1 ) Page 19 Figure 7 (Interim Alternate 2) Page 21 Figure 8 (Interim Alternate 3) Page 24 Appendix INTRODUCTION In recent years, traffic volumes along Rancho Santa Fe Road between Melrose Drive and Questhaven Road have increased substantially ( 50% since 1984). This has been due in part to traffic for new intersections and increased industrial and residential development adjacent to the road segment. Portions of this corridor are located within three separate local jurisdictions -the City of Carlsbad, the City of San Marcos, and the County of San Diego. Some of the existing conditions causing concern within these jurisdictions include: o A skew of approximately 25 degrees at the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive intersection which affects the ability of motorists to turn onto northbound Rancho Santa Fe Road from Melrose Drive o Vehicle speeds on this portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road which exceed the existing posted 45 mile per hour speed limit (critical speed of 52-54 mph) o The presence of closely spaced and deficiently designed driveways serving an existing industrial park directly east of Rancho Santa Fe Road o The presence of vehicles traveling two abreast on Rancho Santa Fe Road adjacent to the industrial park, especially during peak hours o Wide travel lanes on Rancho Santa Fe Road, along the industrial park frontage, which further allows the above condition to occur o Intersection traffic volumes which presently warrant installation of signals, at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road with Melrose Drive, La Costa Meadows Road and Questhaven Road Many of these traffic concerns and others have been discussed by the Traffic Safety Commissions of the respective agencies over the past few years. The Carlsbad Traffic Safety Commission addressed this situation again at their February 2, 1987 meeting. Following considerable pub I ic testimony, the Commission recommended the retention of a traffic consultant to study the roadway conditions and to recommend improvement measures. The City of Carlsbad, along with the City of San Marcos and the County of San Diego, retained Willdan Associates to complete this report. This report includes a description of existing traffic volume conditions, a discussion of existing travel speeds, and the recent accident history in the corridor between the northern boundary of the existing La Costa Meadows Industrial Park and Questhaven Road. An analysis of the ultimate roadway configuration is then presented including forecast traffic volumes, levels of service, and estimated construction costs. Due to the high estimated cost of the ultimate improvements ($1. 7 million), it has been determined that an interim improvement project may be necessary. This study therefore addresses three potential interim projects which will I I l I alleviate to varying extents existing traffic constraints along the corridor. The two alternatiwes for the ultimate condition and three interim alternatives are described, with estimated construction costs included for each alternative. Finally, recommendations for both ultimate and interim improvements of this section of the Rancho Santa Fe Road corridor are presented. 2 I - ,- I - - - - .. - - - - SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report has has evaluated both the short term and long range needs for the Rancho Santa Fe Road corridor from north of Melrose Drive to Questhaven Road. We have first identified the ultimate conditions so that if feasible, any interim improvements could be constructed to become a part of the ultimate roadway configuration. Due to the high cost of the ultimate improvements, it is apparent that interim improvements may be necessary. We have identified three potential alternatives for interim improvements and presented a dis- cussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each of these. Based on travel forecasts prepared for both the Cities of Carlsbad and San Marcos by SAND AG, it is apparent that both Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Drive should be constructed as six lane prime arterials. Questhaven Road is planned to be constructed as a four lane major and La Costa Meadows Drive will remain in its present condition as a two lane industrial road providing access to the existing industrial park. Corintia Drive, A local collector road serving existing and proposed residential developments west of Melrose Drive , may be relocated, but will remain at its current classification . The primary concern in a determination of the ultimate configuration for this corridor is how Melrose Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road will connect. We have evaluated alternatives for either road "T-ing" into the other. While the forecast volumes on Melrose and Rancho Santa Fe Road to the north are relatively equal and either intersection configuration could operate at an acceptable level of service, we recommend that Melrose Drive continue to 11 T 11 into Rancho Santa Fe Road. This alternative provides superior access to both -developed and undeveloped properties on the east side of Rancho Santa Fe Road and causes only minor inconveniences to developments on the west side. The estimated cost for the ultimate improvement of the Rancho Santa Fe through the study area is approximately $1. 5 million. The agencies involved do not have the funding available to complete these improvements at this time, therefore,-it is apparent that .interim improvements should be constructed along the corridor. To address this, we evaluated three potential interim projects, as fol lows: 1. Restripe Rancho Santa Fe Road to define the use of the entire paved width and signalize the existing interim Melrose Drive/ Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. 2. Restripe Rancho Santa Fe Road to define the use of the entire paved width and relocate the existing Melrose Drive to approximately its ultimate configuration and signalize that intersection with Rancho Santa Fe Road and remove the existing portion of Melrose. 3. Restripe Rancho Santa Fe Road to define the use of the entire paved width and terminate Melrose Drive at Corintia Drive with an extension of Corintia Drive to Rancho Santa Fe Road. 3 l • l .J Each interim alternative provides varying amounts of relief to the traffic flow situation through the corridor. From a traffic flow standpoint, A lternate 2, which begi n s to build the ultimate roadway configuration, is the most des i r- able. It prov-ides the best location for an intersection between the two streets and h as the minimum impact to existing traffic. This alternative, however, cou ld take a substantial period of time (two years) to complete, since it wil l r equire negotiation with the developer of the adjacent subdivision and design and construction time. Thus, it may not be a feasible alternative to the immediate concerns. It is thus recommended that the three agencies participate in the restriping of Rancho Santa Fe Road to more clearly define the travel lanes and signalize the existing Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. This will help reduce delay at this intersection and since there is good sight distance and the accident rate is relatively low ( 2. 1 ace/million vehicles) should prove to be a viable interim improvement. This however shoul d not preclude the short term construction of the u ltimate intersection improvements . 4 I ' ' ' ' EXISTING CONDITIONS Rancho Santa Fe Road extends from north of Highway 78 in the City of San Marcos south through San Marcos, the southeastern portions of Carlsbad, and ends at Encinitas Boulevard in the City of Encinitas. The roadway has been in ·existence for a number of years, and was initially built as a county road with one travel lane in each direction and graded shoulders. Over the course of a number of years, various segments have been widened as development has occurred . For the most part, however, the roadway is two lanes in width, and through the study area, varies from two to three lanes with a painted median for turn lanes. The current average daily traffic volume (ADT) through this study area is 18,300 vehicles per day (1-87). It should also be noted that there are a substantial number trucks along th is • roadway due to the presence of the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park and the county landfill located on Questhaven Road east of Rancho Santa Fe Road. The City of Carlsbad's Circulation Element of the General Plan classifies Rancho Santa Fe Road as a six lane prime arterial. This classification was adopted by the City of Carlsbad in 1984. It had previously classified Rancho Santa Fe Road as a four lane major road. As such, some of the existing improvements which were intended to be built for ultimate conditions were built out for a four lane major road classification. The City of San Marcos' General Plan currently does not contain a prime arterial classification. San Marcos, however, is in the process of updating their General Plan and Circu- lation Element and are expected to reclassify Rancho Santa Fe Road to the same six lane prime arterial classification as in Carlsbad. Recent travel forecasts prepared by SANDAG for the Cities of Carlsbad and San Marcos have indicated future volumes at buildout on Rancho Santa Fe Road will exceed 55,000 ·vehicles per day south of Melrose Drive (San Marcos Study = 58,000, Carlsbad = 56,000). North of Melrose volumes will likely exceed 30,000 vehicles per day. These travel forecasts assume bui Id out of the General Plan areas within both the cities. Questhaven Road establishes the southern boundary of the study area. It is currently constructed as a two lane rural roadway and carries approximately 2,000 vehicles per day (1985). It currently serves the county landfill and the rural residential neighborhood of Questhaven Road and Elfin Forest. The previously mentioned San Marcos General Plan studies have indicated that Questhaven Road should be classified as a major roadway. It is projected in the San Marcos Study to carry 24,000 vehicles per day. La Costa Meadows Drive is located approximately 1,000 feet north of Quest- haven Road. It is built as a two lane industrial road which serves the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park. Daily traffic counts are not available for La Costa Meadows, however, based on peak hour counts ( 1987), it is estimated that the daily volumes are below 2,000 vehicles per day. A proposal has been submitted by BCE Development Corporation to the City of San Marcos to develop approximately 124 acres to the ·south and east of the 5 f .. l - - 1- • .. ' ' IU[IIIA VISTA UGOOIII AGUA M[OIONOA LAGOON PACIFIC OCEAN ♦ N IATIOUITOS LAGOON CITY OF CARLSBAD .CIRCULATION PLAN -+++-RAILROAD -FREEWAY -PR IME ARTERIAL _ MAJOR ARTERIAL i,, -SECONDARY ARTERIAL _.. .... COLLECTOR STREET V ICINITY MAP --1. ,-..r-, • I ,.. I I I I L. I I CAIILIIAO CITY LIMITS f_/ ---, I I '- FIGURE 1 w WILLDAN ASSOCIATES I I La Costa Meadows Industrial Park. This additional area would take access from both La Costa Mead.ows Drive and Questhaven Road. An analysis of this expansion has bJen prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates (9-87). This analysis has rec_ommended numerous improvements to the Rancho Santa Fe Road corridor . Since the proposed industrial project has not been approved by the City of San Marcos, we wil I not include it in our short term analysis. We will , however, consider its imp~cts in arriving at our recommendations. The next major intersection along Rancho Santa Fe Road is at Melrose Drive. Melrose Drive was recently constructed northwesterly from Rancho Santa Fe Road connecting with Alga Road. This connection was completed approxi- mately three y ears ago as a two lane roadway. Mel rose has just been widened by developers to a six lane prime arterial configuration. This widening, however, stops approximately 400 to 500 feet west of the actual intersection with Rancho Santa Fe Road. The current ADT on Melrose Drive is approxi- mately 5,000 vehicles per day ( 1987). Th is is composed primarily of pas- senger cars as it serves the predominately residential area of north La Costa. Melrose Drive is planned to extend northward through Carlsbad into the cities of Vista and Oceanside, where it will ultimately connect to Highway 76. Travel forecasts indicate that Mel rose wi II carry in excess of 30,000 vehicles per day ( San Marcos = 34,000, Carlsbad = 30,000) in the vicinity of Rancho Santa Fe Road. For purposes of this study, we have utilized the higher volumes forecast for the various street segments. This wi II present a worst case or construction analysis, which will result in a roadway design that could meet all anticipated conditions. In addition to these three intersections, there are four driveways which access Rancho Santa Fe Road from the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park. Peak hour counts were taken at each of these driveways as part of the study. None of the driveways is heavily used, and the total volume of inbound and outbound traffic on all four driveways is 61 vehicles in the morning and 68 vehicles in the evening peak hours. Sight distance at each driveway is generally sufficient, although due to their design, vehicles entering them must virtually stop before turning from Rancho Santa Fe Road. This does not appear to be causing problems in the current situation, as Rancho Santa Fe has adequate width to allow vehicles to slow outside of the primary travel lane. The posted speed I imit along Rancho Santa Fe Road through the study· area is 45 miles per hour. The City of Carlsbad's records, however, indicate that the critical speed through the project area is approximately 53 miles per hour. A concer n about this relatively high speed has been noted by several letters submitted to the Carlsbad Traffic Safety Commission at their February meeting. However, it does not appear to be the primary cause for the majority of accidents in the study area. All three street s intersecting Rancho Santa Fe Road in the project area are controlled by stop signs. Sight distance at each intersection is adequate, however, there have been many requests for traffic signals to be installed at each intersection . We, therefore, completed a signal warrant analysis at each location. Based on this analysis, we find that a traffic signal is warranted at the Melrose Drive intersection based on the minimum vehicular volume, 7 -.... • .. .. .... interruption of continuous traffic, and peak hour warrants. The La Costa Meadows intersectio~ would warrant a traffic signal based on the peak hour warrant only, 'and the Questhaven Road intersection would warrant a signal based on both _ the interruption of traffic and peak hour warrants. Meeting the warrants , however, does not necessarily mean that a traffic signal should be installed. It is merely a guide to indicate a traffic condition which war- rants further study and evaluation into the need for a traffic signal. Understanding this, we have looked at all three intersections, and it is our opinion that the installation of a traffic signal is appropriate at the Mel rose Drive intersection due to the volumes of traffic and expected near term increase in volumes along Melrose Drive, which will likely result in longer delays to vehicles on Melrose Drive. Due to the relatively low volume of traffic on both Questhaven Road and La Costa Meadows Drive, combined with the good sight distance and lack of accidents, we do not believe that signals would be appropriate at this time at either the Questhaven Road or La Costa Meadows intersections. It should be noted that traffic signals are generally installed to provide a positive right of way control, that the installation may reduce delay to side street traffic and may correct certain types of accidents (primarily right angle). The installation of signals, however, can increase delay to traffic on the main street, and may lead to an increased number of rear end accidents. Thus, the installation of traffic signals should be care- fully evaluated and their installation should not _be done indiscriminately . A research of accident records indicates that in 1985, there was one accident at the Melrose Drive/ Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection and one at the Quest- haven Road intersection. Again in 1986, one accident was reported at Quest- haven Road and five accidents were reported at Melrose Drive. No other accidents were reported within the study area. While the number of accidents is not unusually high for these types of roadways, they do indicate a pattern of right angle accidents at the intersection of Melrose Drive with Rancho Santa Fe Road. The collision diagrams for the study area are included in the appendix. In 1986, there were two accidents involving eastbound vehicles on Melrose Drive being hit by southbound vehicles on Rancho Santa Fe Road and two other right angle accidents involving northbound vehicles on Rancho Santa Fe Road meeting eastbound vehicles on Melrose Drive. In all cases, the driver on Melrose was indicated to be in violation of right of way controls, as Mel- rose Drive is controlled by stop signs. A review of the accident reports does not indicate unusual conditions which would be contributing to the accident, but simply the drivers on Melrose Drive failure to either see approaching vehicles or to properly judge the speed of approaching vehicles. In reviewing the site conditions at the intersection, we find that Mel rose Drive is currently striped for a left turn and a right turn lane as it approaches the intersection with stop sign control. Rancho Santa Fe Road is striped for one travel lane in each direction separated by a two way left turn lane which provides a refuge area for northbound vehicles attempting to turn left into Melrose Drive and for vehicles on Melrose attempting to turn left to travel north on Rancho Santa Fe Road . As an interim measure, the City of Carlsbad, in cooperation with the County _ of San Diego and the City of San Marcos, have installed flashing beacons advising drivers on Rancho Santa Fe Road of the impending Melrose Drive intersection. 8 ' 1 I I . LEGEND: 000 EXISTING (000) FUTURE FIGURE 2 WWILI DAN ASSOCIATE EXISTING AND FORECAST CONSULTING INOINHIS AND ,LANNIIS DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 63630IIIHWICH,SUITl250.~DIIGO.C.02122 457-11" l l 1 1 I MELROSE DRIVE LEGEND: 000 -A.M. ,,_k Hour Counts (7:30-6:30 A.MJ (000) -P.M. ,,_k Hour Counta (4:45-5:45 P.MJ [COUNTS TAKEN MARCH,1987) FIGURE 3 PEAK HOUR TURNING . MOVEMENT COUNTS 8 .., -l3(14> ... "' "" l'ii (314) o-... "'-I t ~b t-+----DAIVEWAY • "' !N ... 8 :l: lu •"5 ~ .... ,_ 010) ( t !----DRIVEWAY ~ ,, -. ~a 0"' . "' ~· -ii 15 0 ;::: . ., "' _.If ... 152( 169) .A " l -., M Cl 119(67) "' :: ., ;::: l5 "'0 Cl 0 :~ _, ii '-.0130) _, N Cl .... ,-7( 4) t ..._,...;... __ DRIVEWAY lr ~;;; "' ... -.,_ Cl ii ~ Cl Cl ., . • • '-49(180) ., 0 t 't t--:-_r_2_21_10_8_> ____ _ ♦r ;:: . -... 0 ilg 0 ..... "' I f\l_ ...... ., ... il!l'5 "' "' • I... J 0 < 0 cc w u. < ... J 0 :z: (.) z < cc .; -0.., C) N ;::: : .; - l 0101 ro<2> lr ., N -., 0 ii ~ .., ... '-. 70(28) r 81122) ♦ ,.. ;::; -0"' ., . ii ;§ ., .., ., LA COSTA MEADOWS DRIVE DRIVEWAY QUESTHAVEN ROAD WILLDAN ASSOCIATES CONSULTING INGINIIIS AND PLANNHS &)t.l ~.sum :UO,SAH DIIGO, CA'2122 I -ULTIMATE CONDITIONS Before we can properly evaluate and recommend improvements to the inter- section, it is important to have a clear understanding of the future conditions so that any interim improvement can build toward the ultimate roadway design. Or , if this is not possible, that the potential cost for interim improvements and their removal can be evaluated by the appropriate decision makers. The first step in our analysis has been to evaluate the future conditions along Rancho Santa Fe Road and, in particular, the configuration of the Rancho Santa Fe/Melrose Drive intersection. As this area is on the border of San Marcos and Carlsbad, the ultimate configuration of the roadway has not been clearly defined by either city. For purposes of this study, we have assumed that Rancho Santa Fe Road will be constructed as a six lane prime arterial, which is consistent with the City of Carlsbad's General Plan and the proposed San Marcos General Plan. Questhaven Road is assumed to be a four lane major road pursuant to the San Marcos General Plan study recommendations. Melrose Drive is also assumed to be a six lane prime arterial. In this study, we have looked at two alternative configurations for the Mel rose Drive/ Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. The first is to maintain the existing roadway alignment and 11 T 11 Melrose Drive into Rancho Santa Fe Road. The second option is to relocate Rancho Santa Fe Road north of the existing Melrose Drive intersection so that it 11 T 1s 11 into Mel rose Drive. Mel rose Drive would then form a continuous connection with Rancho Santa Fe Road to the south . This alignment is as shown on the approved tentative map for Carlsbad Tract 85-19. Each of these alignments is discussed in detai I below, along with the potential opportunities and con- • strain ts associated with the alternatives. Another potential configuration for this intersection would be to have it grade separated. This would be very expensive ( structure costs are approximately 30 times more than the surface costs) and could have potential environmental constraints including noise and visual impacts. It would also require sub- stantially more right of way and could have substantial impact to access to adjoining property. A detailed analysis of this alternative has not been completed since the at grade intersection alternatives have been shown to operate at acceptable levels. The City of Carlsbad, through its Circulation Element and the approval of CT 85-19, has precluded the potential of extending Alga Road east to Melrose Drive. This alignment would have reduced traffic on Melrose at Rancho Santa Fe, but could have led to increased traffic on Alga Road through residential areas. Alternate One -Melrose Drive into Rancho Santa Fe Road This alternative will curve Melrose Drive into Rancho Santa Fe Road approxi- mately 350 feet north of its existing intersection. This . would align directly with the most northerly driveway to the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park, 11 I I ~' . ~, ~I ~I ol \ ~I : mj I FIGURE 4 ULTIMATE ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 I I \ I WILLDAN ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 6363 GREENWICH, SUITE 250, SAN DIEGO, CA 92122 457-1199 I I I I I ' ' I thus forming a four way signalized intersection. The easterly leg of the intersection could serve not only the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park, but also the 62 acre Uflcleveloped industrial property to the north of the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park. This would eliminate or reduce the need for an additional access point onto Rancho Santa Fe Road from that undeveloped property. Thus, all access to the east side of Rancho Santa Fe can be provided by signalized intersections. This configuration would provide full prime arterial standards for both Mel- rose. Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road, with the exception of the design speed on Melrose Drive. Due to the location of the existing Melrose Drive and the presence of CT 85-19, it is only possible to use an approximate 850 foot centerline radius for Melrose Drive. With a 5 percent superelevation, this would yield a design speed of 50 miles per hour, which is consistent with the City of Carlsbad standard for a major roadway. While this deviates from the prime arterial standards, due to the need for virtually all traffic on Melrose Drive to turn at Rancho Santa Fe Road, it is our opinion that this is not an unreasonable circumstance. With this alignment, the Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive intersection would operate at Level of Service "0" in the buildout conditions during peak hours. Off peak conditions would be better. Level D is generally the lowest acceptable level of service for buildout of suburban areas. This alignment assumes that Melrose Drive would have two right tarn lanes and two left turn lanes, with through traffic being allowed in the center (from one of the left turn lanes). Rancho Santa Fe Road would have three through lanes in each direction, plus dual left turn lanes and a free right turn lane from south- bound Rancho Santa Fe Road to westbound Melrose Drive. Due to the length of storage necessary for northbound to westbound turns ( up to 700 feet), it may be necessary to ultimately close the La Costa Meadows Drive intersection. According to travel forecasts, over 1,400 vehicles would be expected to make this turn during the peak hour. This would require a left turn storage bay approximately 700 feet in length. Since the distance from Melrose Drive to La Costa Meadows Drive is approximately 950 feet from centerline to centerline, it is doubtful that back to back turns could be allowed in the ultimate case. The intersection of Corintia Drive with Melrose Drive would be only about 300 feet west of Rancho Santa Fe and that would not meet design standards. In the ultimate case, it could be realigned from west of Xana Way to meet Rancho Santa Fe Road at La Costa Meadows Drive. During an interim period, Corin- tia could intersect with Melrose near its current intersection. This, however, should be limited to right turns in and out only, due to the short distance between intersections. The La Costa Meadows Drive intersection could remain open in an interim period. As traffic volumes build, it is likely that this intersection should be restricted to right turns in and right turns out only to provide the appro- priate intersection spacing along a prime arterial. The driveways to the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park should ultimately be closed with access to the park provided from the extension of Mel rose Drive, La Costa Meadows Drive and a secondary access to Questhaven Road. This would result in the closure of three driveways. However, this would now only affect 12 vehicles in the morning peak hour, and 43 vehicles in the 13 1 ... .. -- ... • • • .. .. ca .., eC2: cw,, Y 13 evening peak hour. It would also require some additional track maneuvering on site. This w9uld p·articularly affect the first building north of La Costa Meadows Drive, •where delivery trucks would need to back in or out of the outside drives. The minor inconvenience to these drivers due to the closure of the driveways is, in our opinion, more than offset by the increased ability for the roadway to carry traffic and reduce intersection delay. Th is concept is also consistent with the intended function of the roadway and the Citys' General Plan guide! ines for prime arterials . Moving south, Rancho Santa Fe Road would continue as a prime arterial, with a second three lane bridge being constructed over San Marcos Creek. This bridge, located east of the existing bridge, would provide three northbound lanes, with the existing bridge hand I ing the three southbound lanes . It is our understanding that the relocation of the Questhaven Road/ Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection is being considered by the City of San Marcos and discussed as part of the proposal from BCE Development Corporation. They are proposing to relocate Questhaven Road slightly to the south. This relocation would increase the spacing between Melrose Drive and Questhaven Road from its approximate 2,000 foot spacing to 2,600 feet. This would be consistent with prime arterial standards, and should have a minimal effect on the operation of Rancho Santa Fe Road. It could, however, help to bring Questhaven Road into Rancho Santa Fe Road at a more perpendicular angle, which would assist turning movements at that location. Due to the current discussions between the City of San Marcos and the developer relating to this intersection, we have not provided a final design for this location. It is our opinion that an intersection design combining the prime arterial status of Rancho Santa Fe Road with a major road alignment for Questhaven Road would be signalized and provide appropriate level of service at that intersection. Our estimated cost for these ultimate improvements from Questhaven to north of Melrose Drive is $1.5 million dollars ($906,000 from La Costa Meadows north). This alternative provides several opportunities. It eliminates the severe skew of the existing Melrose Drive/ Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection, provides intersection spacing along Rancho Santa Fe Road approximating the prime arterial standards, and restricts access to a limited number of points which could be controlled by traffic signals, thus providing a positive means of right of way control. It also could be implemented in stages, as it utilizes much of the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road right of way. Another major benefit to this alternative is the fact that the Melrose Drive intersection could also serve the undeveloped 62 acre parcel directly north of the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park, thus reducing or eliminating the need for an addi- tional intersection on Rancho Santa Fe Road north of Melrose Drive. This alternative does have constraints. However, they are relatively limited and in our opinion, can be adequately addressed. The primary constraint is that Corintia Drive could not be connected to Melrose Drive as it currently exists and still meet design criteria. This would require residents of the existing subdivision to travel north on local streets to Alga Road or provide for a new connection from Corintia Drive south to ultimately connect with Rancho Santa Fe Road in the vicinity of La Costa Meadows Drive. This could be accomplished as part of the development of the land on the south side of Corintia Drive. The development of · which could also incorporate the land 14 • • • I I I I I I ·--------- area which would lie between the existing and proposed locations of Melrose Drive. This alter[lative ·also restricts to some extent access to the La Costa Meadows lndustriAI Park but, as indicated, would affect a very small number of vehicles . Alternate Two -Rancho Santa Fe Road Into Melrose Drive Th is alternative would follow the general alignment of Mel rose Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road as shown on the tentative map for CT 85-19. Rancho Santa Fe Road north of Melrose Drive would bend to the west to intersect with Melrose Drive opposite Corintia Drive. Melrose Drive would then con- tinue in a southerly direction from Corintia Drive to connect directly with Rancho Santa Fe Road at approximately La Costa Meadows Drive. From La Costa Meadows Drive south, the alignment would be the same as Alternate One. This alternative would provide approximately 1,000 feet of spacing between La Costa Meadows Drive and Corintia Drive. Due to the reduced number of left turns along Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive, the left turn stacking length would not be an issue in intersection spacing. With the provision of free right turn lanes for northbound traffic and dual left turns for southbound traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road, the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road /Melrose Drive/Corintia Street could operate at Level of Service 11 D II during the peak hour as with the first alternative. The presence of CT 85-19, however, restricts the curve radius on Rancho Santa Fe Road to approximately 800 feet at the centerline. This would thus require a 6 percent superelevation to maintain a 50 mile per hour design speed, which is desirable for a major street, but is less than the prime arterial standards. Again, most of the traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road would be making turns at Melrose Drive, and thus the 50 mile per hour design speed should be acceptable. The estimated construction cost for this alternative is about the same as the first alternative, $1. 7 million dollars with the cost for improvements north of La Costa Meadows being $850,000. It should be pointed out that neither of these estimated costs include right of way acquisition costs, which could affect the overall cost substantially. The opportunities for this alternative are similar to Alternate One in that it eliminates the skew at the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive intersection, and would operate at an acceptable level of service. If the La Costa Meadows Drive intersection were signalized in this alternative, the spacing of intersections along Rancho Santa Fe Road between Questhaven Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road would be approximately 1,000 feet, thus reasonable signal progression could potentially be maintained. This spacing, however, does not meet design standards for either Carlsbad or San Marcos. As volumes increase along Rancho Santa Fe Road, however, it may be neces- sary to restrict access to La Costa Meadows to right turns in and right turns out only, which could substantially impair access to the industrial park. This alternative has several additional constraints over the first alternative. First, it does not provide access to the undeveloped 62 acres north of the existing industrial park, which would necessitate an additional point of access to Rancho Santa Fe Road. This would likely occur near a curve and be spaced too close to Melrose Drive to allow good signal progression. Secondly, it provides reduced access to La Costa Meadows Industrial Park, as the only 15 FIGURE 5 ULTIMATE ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 : 1.J ii · i I I· 11 I ' !: 11 :i ii I ,, 1: I Ii WILLDAN ASSOCIATE CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 6363 GREENWICH, SUITE 250, SAN DIEGO, CA 92122 457-1199 l l - l - l - l .. l - I • l - I .. I • I • I • I • I - - • "" access would be from La Costa Meadows Drive or Questhaven Road and the potential exists _for restricting La Costa Meadows Drive to right tur~s in and right turns otlt only. In order to provide additional access to the existing industrial park and undeveloped land, a cul-de-sac driveway could be con- structed. This could utilize a portion of the existing Rancho Santa Fe right of way and access Melrose Drive midway between Rancho Santa Fe and La Costa Meadows Drive. This connection, however, would not meet City design standards. Additionally, the project cannot be constructed in stages, since it utilizes a new alignment. If this new alignment were implemented today, it would result in a substantial number of out-of-direction trips, as the volumes on Rancho Santa Fe Road (18,000 ADT) are three to four times those on Mel rose Drive (5,000 ADT} . Recommendation Based on our analysis, we recommend that the ultimate design of the roadway segment be consistent with Alternate On e. This will provide good traffic flow as the cities bui Id out, and wou Id allow interim implementation of the improve- ments so that the roadway could be widened to accommodate the progressive increase in traffic and not become a b ottle neck until substantial funds are available to complete t h e full widening of the project. This will require some renegotiation with the developers of CT 85-19, however, it will not affect any of their approved subdivision lots. 17 - • - .. • .. .. .. I INTERIM ALTERNATIVES Due to the substantial cost ($1.5 million), for the ultimate improvements and lack of capital improvement budgeting to provide that funding immediately, it is apparent that an interim improvement project will be appropriate for this co·rridor. We have reviewed three different alternatives which could be con- sidered to reduce the problems associated with the Mel rose Drive/ Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. These include: 1. Signalizing the existing Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersec- tion and restriping Rancho Santa Fe Road to better define the lanes. 2. Providing an interim relocation of Melrose Drive consistent with the recommended ultimate alignment . 3. Terminating Melrose Drive at Corintia Drive and extending Corintia Drive to Rancho Santa Fe Road . As with the ultimate alignment, each of these interim conditions will be dis- cussed in the following paragraphs and appr0priate recommendations and conclusions discussed. Interim Alternate One -Signalized Existing Intersection In this alternate, the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive inter- section would be signalized, and the signs on the recently installed advanced warning beacons be changed to reflect a signal ahead condition as opposed to the advance intersection warning signs. Rancho Santa Fe Road could be restriped to provide one travel lane in each direction with a center turn lane and bicycle lanes. The intent of this would be to define the use of all of the paved width so vehicles do not travel two abreast. The driveways into the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park on either side of Melrose Drive should be closed, as these would be too close to the intersection to allow turning movements from them. Additionally, the existing island at the northwest corner of the intersection should be removed and a right turn lane from southbound Rancho Santa Fe Road to westbound Melrose Drive be constructed. The widening of Melrose Drive should be continued to the intersection to provide three eastbound lanes (one right and two left) and three northbound lanes on Melrose Drive. The estimated cost for this improvement would be approximately $141,000., and it could be implemented within six to nine months. The primary advantage of this is that it provides improved lane geometrics along Rancho Santa Fe Road and positive right of way control at the Melrose Drive/ Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. As previously indicated, this intersection currently meets signal warrants based on traffic volumes. Based on field observations, it is our opinion that a signal is appropriate at this location at this time. 18 FIGURE 6 INTERIM ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 ' I r . I/ I, I• ;1 I' I \ --·----~ WILLDAN ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 6363 GREENWICH. SUITE 250, SAN DIEGO, CA 92122 457-1199 I I I I I I I The two primary constraints to this alternative would be the minor impact to the industrial park with .the closure of two driveways and the potential con- flicts from south~ound traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road turning west on Melrose Drive and then making a left turn onto Corintia Drive, conflict ing with traffic from _ northbound Rancho Santa Fe Road that has turned onto Melrose Drive. This weaving distance is relatively short (approximately 400 feet). It is our opinion, however, that this should not pose a substantial problem due to the relatively light left turn volumes into Corintia Drive , combined with t he fact that left turns from Rancho Santa Fe Road would be con_trolled by a left turn phase, and thus restricted to a relatively short part of the signal cycle. It should be not ed that that if a signal is installed at this location, it should be designed so that the equipment could be reused at an alternative location, since this is not the ultimate street intersection. Due to the existing roadway width, it is likely that the signal poles and controller could be designed so that they cou ld be relocated to the La Costa Meadows Drive intersection if an interim signal were to be installed at that location. Interim Altern ate Two -Melrose Drive Relocation This alternate assumes that the improvements generally following the ultimate roadway configuration would be constructed as part of the improvements for CT 85-19. In terms of cost, it is approximately the same construction cost as would be incurr ed by those developers if they reconstructed Rancho Santa Fe Road to 11 T 11 into Melrose Drive. This cost, including subdivision work, would be approximately $288,000. This interim alternative would widen Rancho Santa Fe Road to an approximate paved width of 60 feet, consistent with the tentative map. It would construct Melrose Drive in its ultimate location, however, it could be at a slightly reduced width and could be ~onstructed with AC berms instead of concrete curb gutter and sidewalk to minimize costs. This alternative would allow two travel lanes in each direction on Rancho Sant a Fe Road, plus a center turn lane and bicycle lanes, thus improving the capacity at the intersection. It would also provide a right turn in and out connection for Corintia Drive to Melrose Drive. The advantage of this alternate over the CT 85-19 proposal is that it would maintain the ex isting predominate flow of traffic without rerouting a sub- stantial number of vehicles. With this alternative, we also recommend the closure of all driveways to the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park except the driveway opposite the relocated Melrose Drive, which would be incorporated into the signal ized intersection and, of course, La Costa Meadows Drive would remain open and unsignalized in this interim alternative. The only substantial drawback to this alternative is the potential timing for its construction . Due to the requirements for subdivision dedication and likely requirement that it be developer funded, the timing would be dependent on the construction schedule for CT 85-19. While improvement plans have been submitted for plan checking, no definitive construction schedule has been submitted by the developer. It is likely that this alternative could take up to two years to implement, and thus would not alleviate any of the current traffic needs in the near term. 20 \ I I ~ -I I . J I r, FIGURE 7 INTERIM ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 '/ \ I I JI '1 ·, 'I I ' 1, ' ' I I' 'I : I ' ' \' . \ I / l,,,, -- c--1 ,_ < ,\.... ''- \ 1, LA 90s_rA MEADows DRIVE W WILLDAN ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 6363 GREENWICH, SUITE 250, SAN DIEGO, CA 92122 457-1199 I I I I I I l ' • • ... - As with the first alternative, this interim alternate does not recommend any modifications to the traffic controls at the existing Questhaven Road/ Rancho Santa Fe Raap-intersection. That intersection does not appear experiencing substantial traffic congestion or accident problems. With the current lane configuration ,. there is a free right turn both in to and out of Questhaven Road. The presence of a traffic signal at Melrose Drive in either alternate would provide additional gaps to allow improved left turn accessibility from Questhaven. It is our opinion that no additional traffic controls are war- ranted at this time, but should be implemented in conjunction with the antici- pated development of the property surrounding that intersection. Al tern ate Three -Corintia Drive Extension This alternative is similar to Alternate Two in that it provides a relocation of Melrose Drive at its intersection with Rancho Santa Fe Road. This alternate however, would terminate Melrose Drive at Corintia Drive and extend Corinti~ Drive to Rancho Santa Fe Road north of the existing La Costa Meadows In- dustrial Park. This intersection of Rancho Santa Fe with Corintia Drive would be signalized, however, the signalized intersection would not provide access to the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park. Rancho Santa Fe Road would be restriped as with the previous alternates, thus traffic flow along Rancho Santa Fe Road would be improved to the same extent as Alternates One and Two. Traffic flow along Melrose Drive, however, would be substan- tially impacted by the presence of the right angle turn at Corintia Drive, which wou ld have a major impact on traffic flow. The estimated cost for this alternative is $168,000. Aside from traffic flow considerations and lack of access to the industrial park, a major drawback to this alternate is that it does not conform to the ultimate conditions, and all of the improvements associated with it would have to be removed with the implementation of the ultimate design. Additionally, because of its location, it could substantially hamper the ability to construct the ultimate improvements without substantial disruption to traffic flow. Interim Recommendations The three interim alternatives provide differing improvement value to the traffic flow conditions along Rancho Santa Fe Road. Interim Alternate Two appears to be superior in terms providing maximum benefit in combination with minimizing future improvements and disruption to traffic flow when the ultimate improvements to the Rancho Santa Fe corridor are are implemented. If timing were not a consideration, this alternate would be recommended immediately. However, with the substantial concern which has been ex- pressed at the Traffic Safety Commission meetings, it is clear that a more immediate improvement should be presented. We thus recommend that the City of Carlsbad discuss Interim Alternate Two with the developers of CT 85-19, and i f it can be implemented within a reasonable period of time ( 6 to 18 months), that Alternate Two be implemented. Should this not be feasible, we recommend that the Cities of Carlsbad and San Marcos, along with the County of San Diego, proceed with Alternate One, the signalization of the existing intersection, and continue to pursue the ultimate realignment of 22 • • • ·11 .. .. • • Melrose Drive. It is our understanding that a portion of the funding for Interim Alternat~ One ·has been committed by the County of San Diego and funds may be hvailable from both Carlsbad and San Marcos to complete this work in a relatively short period of time . 23 FIGURE 8 INTERIM ALTERNATIVE N0.3 \ '· ,.._) \ \ I \ / ~WILLDAN ASSOCIATES \A/ CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 6363 GREENWICH, SUITE 250, SAN DIEGO, CA 92122 ,57. 1199 ..L - l~ 1= • j = J = 1= 1= ,- J _ 1= i = , -APPENDIX I -I i - i - i -,- i - I - 1 ,- 1 I I -r r I - - - - - - - - - - ACCIDENT DIAGRAMS 1 • • • • ----·- CITY 0~ CAi<LS2Au TRArr :c E'-IG :N : =~l~JG SECi:CN NO. ACC1CENTS l 11 '"o} __________ __, Q ,'} t ~: ... ---• V(H V(M J ' --- '\,,'t"<'.Vv'-! "-IA~ ~Cl!~ 1 z.-17-E'-<.:, oe ·. z..\ v~ e,~-z.o •ov••a a .. c.10 -+--:-+- S&C••"C i.;, "E:.sr,i1a11 -=- LEGEND "(&0•011 "(&0•C• ,1C(S'tllll'( •( &II ("0 T•••" CV E • h ,w,o SIC( sw,I'( c:::> ,a•~co v(,.tCI.C _,., .... ••CHT &,oCL.C C ~ T'.11'"1 ,,1co 0 1.lCT •"""0&CH 0 "•c•c•r" oa .. ac( ""'-' -:i ovc,iu., .. a T~• _, ® 1"1,/1,;ln ac:,cu<T ~ ~T o, CCNTAO\,, • rara1. ac:::0c •T ou-V(MICI.( rv•,.co O'w(II I ,. .,oo ~ I \ · eG:, -c:..i l.l'.,. ~ c:~H c:--.s ~•1..:c.••,:"' ::-<( =---> c•,vr• ·-•IT~ ::.il :er!:· CV cr•t~··,r Y! -,: .. ! cs (IC(~, s I'[!:) PC rC L.L.:••"C .. ~::, ~~:st '"1!0 ... 0 !EE" :~, ..... -.Q .... "' T u,o """ 11., 1•l'•CP( I L ,U11£ ~l"ANG( '" , ..... 0"(" J&SS ,.,Q ,r ''""•~r• ru•" IN&TT IN&TT[.,r,o,. lll/C WO TCf'C•C~( •H .... S TCJII s,c .. 0 11 s,c.,,1. s," 5T01'11(0 :i• 51..:w11111c; (C)III ~!:t':. .. 11, ..... vo ,_.,<1llln it • ............ -- COLUS!C:l n' •• ',,~I' : l.dH], .. ,1,l t.0(.AflO• \ ~ ~~~"!--'!,.- CIT Y oc C~~~S~AO TRA FF IC F.:;:,,1 .E~:1 :~i C, ~::c-:-·c:~ _j 'I 1100 , .. I /-/ -f'-4 -o .. -, r~o. ACC:SE NTS e;y TYPE 'I• I f TO t • l ,,..,, 0 6 Ill. C, f , • 1ul , I.Ar .l l ~IC,• , = ••• •I , "'..;-_..•..:..:.. -z._. ,,,,,-: c.,; \ ,..-"""1 __.. (.~ .. --::"-;, \ 0 \ 0 '\ c:::> C ~ ~ 1 \ t: ?vAv~ T A LE G E ND ,: .. ;r C01<STR1,~• Cl< :CNt CPO Qll1V(II ~151CAL OEF[~T V(H .. o,,, .. G AH( AO ~ H[AO •ON :JV cc• Ecr .-c ,[.,,CL( ((( ... V(" ,.,., .. o UI' .. H(AO ·ON ,,c c S••"( C, (tC(SS SP((O ... --..:-n c ,OLLO••"G ·oo c~osc ----• l'(~(STAIAN II( All ("0 .. ,o NAO I C~" 0"'"·'"0 , .. ,,. :,i,,, Ov!IIT&••"() SIO(SWII'( .... .. ,, Al<O RU" -~ ~Arh(O "(,olCL( --~~ IIIGHT &"GL( ILC ""'"CP( II L A"( , ..... ,c D Tull" ,,. '"'""0"(" ,,~c::",o ,,.co OIJ(CT Al' ... OAC,o IT IWl'IIO,O( II ,..,.,. 0 l'AOP(IIT f O&W&G( O"LT i;,0 avc•rac,,.o ''-""" '"•TT IOl&TT( .. 1,0 .. © '"J\Jll'f ACCIO(NT ~ OVT o, co.,r•°'-.. 1, .. oro•c•cLC ,s, .... H OI' s,,,. 0 " S1G.,6L • rAf.AL ACCIO("T 61:)-"("•CL( rv•.,co O"(" STOPl'(O 011 s,,. ~0 -1N(l ,c," Pl' ... 't. ~ f •• I VO v1~•9•l1'" co"·•••:·. , ·CITY 0~ CARLSBA u TRAFF IC ENG:N==R ING SE CT IC~~ V , NO. AC~IDENTS =.Y TYPE -. , .. I Of&I ,. 0 , 0 .... c;' I I N I I.If,-'.'.' l 10Nf I O.a 11 . ' • \ C\8G. f ~ \ c::::> ~ \ I ~ -- \~~'? \ \ u v \ 0 - 1-I]\ & 1' rJ 1-/ -N \ t-J u' . • /v ~ ci t \/ - r---j / \j'\ ~ V~v.../-I ~A..""TT c:; z_ c:::-\ J ' i<' "?-I(,;)-2:,(.-13: 15:::.) 6 j Q \JI\ • LEGEND CO"ST COHST•vcrio .. ?ONC 0"') o••vc• ,...,~1C.AI. 01:l'ECT -V[H 11ov,,.o u,c•o -+<:...-M(AO•ON ov OCY(CT IV[ "(""'•Ct..! rn --ll[H IACJI IH(l ~ ~ "[AO •0,. SIO[SWI"( cs execs , s,u::, --..:-,re ro1.1.o•,,.G TOO Cl.OH ---• "(OCSTIIIIAN 111[&111 l"O ,-90 ... o !CE" 011" .. '"ii T!IA,,. -OV(!ITUIIIG s10csw,,c -M•III MIT ... o .,,. . . c:::> l'AIIK(O V(HICI.( ____ ., IIIIGMT ••Cl.( 11.C IW"IIIOP( II L A>,[ C"AIIC[ □ Ola(CT _..,.., + TullN ,, '"'""0"(" ,ass, .. o ,,xco &1'""0ACH ~ IT ,.,,.•~c• ru11 .. 0 ,,.o,.c11r,. oawac;c o .. ,., -:) OVCIIIT.u, .. a Tl.'111 lltlATT , ... nc11nc11 ® ACCIOl:,ff ~ c.JT o, C01t1TAOI,, 11/C WO TOl'CTCL( INJUIIIT ~ . ,, .... SfC" s,c;,; 011 s,c; .. ai.. • fATll. ACCIO(HT 60-Y[HIC;.( n,11,.co 0',1[111 ,,, src,•co o• ~o•,,.G ro,o •c:CS"'A1a.-. vo v1s111,1.11T o"~r •u~·c::i ---............... .. ---. . r I I I I I COLLISION DIAL _--~•" LOCAT I 0:1: RANCHO SAN'1 A fE ~lead o.,,,·s Dr i ve CITY OF SAN ~\ARCOS ENGINEE RIKG DEPART~tE~,- Year 1980 -198 ACCIDENT HISTORY 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 Tota l 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 6 NOTE: Melrose Dr i ve is out s i de San Marc os ' c ity l imits . LEGE~O ► Veh. Mov ing Ahead~ ))~ ► Vch. Back ing Up .. () .. __ .,. Pedestrian ~ ► Train () : C> Parked Vehicle ~ D Fixed Ob ject 0 Prop . Damage Only~ ® Jnjury Accident _,.._.._ Head-On Head -On Sideswipe Rear End Overtaking Sideswipe Ri,ht Angle Approach Turn Overtaking Turn Out of Control )AD -Northerly of La Costa thru Dark 4 2 IIOOll CO~ST Constructi on Zone DPD Driver Physical Defee DV Defective Vehicle ESS Excess Speed FTC Followi ng Too Close 11B0 Had Been Drinking H-R Hit And Run ILC Improper Lane Change IP Improper Passin~ IT Improper Turn IN~TT Inattention • ~t/C ►totorcyc 1 e RSS R~n Stop Sign Or Sigr SFP Stopped or Slowing Fe - - - -CAPACITY ANALYSIS ' - - - - - l 1- 1· 1- r· r- ' - - - - - - -- t Mel r ose D r ive 3581 Assu me: 193 164 1./"'l r-r-N n - N 0 1./"'l Rancho Santa Fe Road Melrose D r ive 1487 2 + 1127 3 + 268 2 Buildout Conditions Melrose into Rancho Santa Fe Alternate 1 PM Peak Hour 0 0 1./"'l °' °' ~ "O (,:j 0 ~ ~ ti.. (,:j .... C (,:j (/) 0 ..c:: u C (,:j ~ 2 It + 3 through + SB free right 2 It + 2 right = 1253 ---LOS D ~WILLDAN ASSOCIATES - - - -- - Assume: Melrose Drive U"\ r--r--N r'"I N 0 U"\ N 0 0 U"\ Rancho Santa Fe Road 268 2 + Buildout Conditions 1487 3 Rancho Santa Fe into Melrose Drive Alternate 2 Peak Hour + 1127 2 r---co U"\ "<t" "<t" 0-, 0-, "<t" ... Cl V Cl.) 0 ... V ::::; Rancho Santa Fe Road 2 lt + 3 through 2 lt + free rt = 119 3 ---LOS D ~WILLDAN ASSOCIATES -- - - - - - ,... .... • ... .,gnalized 'T ' Intersection Capacit ... u,alion Form 11 rl lnlC!",CCl1on &+-i_~_..5-.......n-A R-Ro,oi.t>7/fv'l ~E: D ~ 1 ~:) f"-<; "1.·, 23 Y o\~~ Lu1:a11on Pl..n Count, ,.,i C>~ ~ A-----,,r-'---------,--------------8 ~ I~ (' ---RA~ s-n-.-. ~ Sup I Strp 2 tc~""'•....ac::,-5,w- Hourly Dcnwid Traffic Volumes from ::f!:!!:-to e, ~ . -~ m Mn"Vemcn1 pch ....... 1..N.· 1, IU&hl Tum from C Conll1c11n1 Flow\ • M11 .. !fmm Fie I I Cn11,al Gap fmm T;iblc ~ T, ., C;iparny from F1J. 1 • Stw-cd unc -See S1e0 ., No Stw-ro Lane: Demand a A"Va,lable Re'-C,-.,e • Dcla)' & u"Vel of Scr,,1ce (Table 31 uft Tum from 8 Cont!icung Flo"'1 • MH • (from F1a. I I Cnucal Gap from Table 2 T, • Capacity from F,a . 2 .. Dcmand • CaplCII) u ~d .. lmped&nce Factor from F,g . ) • A"Vail;ible Ruer.·e • Delay & U"VCI of Service (Table )J Left Tam from C Cont!1c1ma Flows • MH 0 Cfrom Fi1 I) CnucaJ Gap from Table ~ T, • Capacit y from Fia 2 • Adjust for Impedance No Shared Lane A"V■tlablr Re1e,-.,e • Delay & u"Vel of Scr,,1ce (Table 31 Sh■rcd Lane Dcma.nd • Slw'cd Lane 1111th lt1gh1 Tum C~ac11y of Sharw Line ., Av&Jlahle Re!IC,-.,e ., Dcl,y & u~el of ~rvice CTabl~ 3J 11l A. ♦ A, - --♦ ~-,. _60~_.,.. ~:E?. ~, c.c ~,.,. M1 -C••~,.,. -'-A__;_;v:...c..r.=-.::~,=.....t:::::=.~:::1.~ ! C:.. I A,. -- 81 r + A, • + ~ .. hC?B _ 5 3... i.cc M_,,a M1"' s-70 ..-• Bt • ___§,~_ ..-. ' 100 (Bt!M,1,. _\_\_._I_~ P, • o ,9>2- M, -Bt'" ~ .... L-:rtl~./Nc D~ [6] c, ' 't'J A• + A, + Bt + Br • ::::::_.~.~♦-~-~- 6.A-ICC M.,..• _ b o ..-• M,.. x P, • M1 • ~ ..-• Ct• 1~7-... . M1 -CL '" < C7 -... . -------· -----·· --- Da1c .... ________ _ O il) . ______ .... __ .. Time I_~-"' -:_~?.o_~. Conirol ~~9'..e..~'.""...M--:,lC"DS,,e. Prc,ali1nt1 SrccJ 4?. ..!!!p.b . o n ~d-..o ~ +.if -Ko~ "";3 -+ "'°e + ~ = 62.3 l I -=- -rop e:-.. ~ ''A 11 (+_.-~-;:>"'----s--~.I..s) ~ sss • 623 I~ ~6 1... <=>F '5~1C..E ''A" ~ l A St~p I ' - I - I Supl I l I 7 Stq, J IJ 17 11 •',R..tla/ OK:t-,,. ~,Cl~d.~ ------- A,.-<t5 ~ Hourly DelTWld Traffic Volumts from .::r.::::= 10 5 ..-. ---=f-m Approiiich ~~ B 7 C -v Movement Ar -". ...... R, r Br -c, \ c. r ~ Volume i:;~4( 14-o l,A 4' '--b '""<3 97 pch ,~,· T..,.k , , ---~ IUpt Tum from C Conft,cung Flolo\·, • MH = (fmm F11 11 Cnt1cal G;ip from Tahlc:? T, = C~tty fmm Ft(t . :? • Shll'Cd unc -Sec Seep J No Shared Lane Available RcltCl'VC • Ocnwid - Delay & Level of Scrvac, !Table 3 I Lrf\ Tumrrom B Conft1'11ng Flow, • MH • ((mm FtJ. 11 Cntteal Gap from Table 2 T, • Capacity from F,1. 2 • Dem.and• Capactt) U~d • Impedance Fac10r from Fis 3 • Available Rcscl'Vc • Delay & Ltvcl of Scl'Vice <Table 31 Ltn Tum from (' Conftic11ng Flows = MH ., (fromF,g II Cntical Gap from Table 2 T, • Capacity from Fig. 2 • AdJUSt for Impedance NoSh~Lanc Available Rescl'Ve • Dcmiiind., DcJ.1y & Ltvcl of Scl'Vicc (Table J) Shared Lane Demand • Shued Lane wtth R,Fht Tum C1p.te lt) of Sh.ired Ldnt' c A11&1lii1blc Rc1Crvc "' Delay & Level of Service ITable 3 t l'57 \~ ~ '-'I A• + Ar "' - + ~ • S,;?4-,_ ~,'-'!ICC M, ... M, = .Ak.,... c ... ~ ..... M,-c.-~ ..... --=~~.....c...-:;..,....::=~-ufil e, r A• + Ar • _.::::=::._ + ~ .S.9.....,_ _. S-.3 sec M_ •• • M1 ., 'S~c::> ,... BL -J.?--2 .... 100(81./M,J • ~ ~ P,•~ M, -BL -4-33 .... Li-c\: e2 i-J-~ C6:J 'llA• + Ar + 81. + 8, • .=:_ +~,._,.is, +'-'b • ~ • B .4-.ec M.-. ..1::£....,... M.,. )( P1 • M1 • '3.Z. ..,. C1.•~ .... M, -C1. • <.o ..,. Da> _______ ·--______ _ 4-A-5-5,12. T,mc ---~ ___ f -~ __ Conirol~Tc>P~-~!~ Pr,,11lin1 SpttJ ~-~\:I._ e-,....., ~s~l "R...oac& ~ S~4 1'-~ l -\ -\-+ \.:: '::'>CG \I II "1'1:>P O'F ......,~ B . I o oo ) r-- 1~ 1..1:?vE-\-CF S e,::i...v I c:.,E::: ' I 1:, I/ =- l 1· 1·. I -- I - I - I - I .. I -- I g I -• I .. r ,_ Ill • ... Sttp I Appro~h A "" Movement Ar -Aa ' Volume b17 12--\ pch,~,-r..,.i.-1, --------- IUpl lum from C Connic11na Flow,• Mlf c 1rmm F1J 11 CnlKiil Gap from Table;: T, = C.1p.1ci1y fmm F,, 2 • Shared um: -Sec S1eo :I NoSh&mlL~ Ava11.t>lc Rocr,e • Demand = Delay & ~vel of Scr,,ce /Table J, Sttp 2 Ltft lum from B Slq,J Conn1c1rn1 Flows• Mlf • (from F11. 11 Cn11c1l Gap from Table 2 T, • C~11y from F11. 2 ., Demand., Capacity Uscd c: l~c Factor from Fia J • Available Rese,-.,e • Delay & Level of Sc,-.,icc (Table 3) un nrm rrom c: Conn1c11n1 Flow~ = Mlf • (from Fia I I CnticaJ Gap from Tible 2 T, • Capacity from Fig. 2 • Ad1us1 for Impedance No Shared L&nc Available Rescr,e • Delay & Level of Scr,icc (Table .l I Shared Lane Demand • Shared L&nc w11h R,,h1 Tum C.ipac11y uf Sh.irc-d Linc "' Available Rescr,e ,. Delay & Level or Scr,icc IT able J, a-; c-Y- R, r Br -c,' c. r -z.o+ 4e4 ~ ~ 2'24 i----24 5+ 'i'i A1 + Ar c: '=>I +bit .b7s ~ (,,, ~ ~, M ,. C M 1 -3 &,,O - C • c: __!2.± - M,-c.-~- 7 ..._ rt P.---\ ?"':_:? s ail B, r A1 + Ar • -~·~-~-<;;, 3 l,C(' M,,• M,. ne.__ BL -zz.-1:_.,,.. 100 !BJM1J • ~'7 <:t P, • P , '1--Z- M, -B, • Z"'b -~""""'"1'"= r::....\g~ 1 c... I c, ' 1i'i A1 + Ar + B, + Br • ~•~+UA-+~-~- ~.4-ICC M,,. • -~ - M,., x P1 • M1 • _Z=2. - ~ "'-fl,:,,a1r-i.A} 2z I + \ + -== lz.-o4) -+-[33,) ➔ {z'2...') _ 'Sb3 ~ ~ ~ -f \.-, ---~J ~.J -rt:> f' P;::.. L,..C>', A ' · '65S .) 5b3 ,s l...e-,,E-\...e,'{:-~-.Z.,'1~ ''A'' - A Step I ~ 1~ ~---~ ..........,.._..,.._ ~'--( . '-' c.c,,s.,-.... M"""-J>'C> ~ B Houri) Demand Trafhc Vulu~s from ~ 1o 5_~ . -3/-m ApproJ,h A ' ,1,"cmcn1 Ar -A.. ' \ulumc <::.O? '2--.3 pc.:h , ... \ r,.,-.i, 1, ---------- Riaht Tum from C ConflKltng Flo"', =-MH = (fmm Fig I I Cni,,al Gap from Tahir~ T, ~ Capaury fmm hg ~ = Shared Lane -Sec S1cp ., ."-o Shared Lane Avijilablc Re!>Crvc = Demand = Ocl.iy & Level of Service rTable-') B 7 (' --y- A, r I B, -c, \ c. ,- 4--3 I ~4-t lo'='-100 4--71...------------117 l~S c. ,- '': A• • Ar I 2--+ ~p !;, ~ ,_b \CC c. = l;)f:2_ ,.,.. M, -C• = ~ ,.,.. --@ Sttp 2 l~ft Tum from 8 A, r Step J Conflicting Flows = MH = ((rum Frg I> Cntn:.il Gap from T.iblc ~ T, .. Capac11y from Fig . 2 = Demand = CapaCII) U'.>Cd = lmpcdl&llce Factor from Fig . 3,. A,.idablc Reserve = Delay & Lc.,eJ of Service <Table)) !Aft Tum frum < • Contl1c11ng Flo"'·~ = MH = (from Fig. I) Cntrcal Gap from Table 2 T, = Cap.icily from Fig 2 "' AdJUSI for lm~cc No Shared Lane Avail.ible Re5oerve = Demand= Delay & Level of Service (Table 3> Shared Lane Demand = Shared Lane with Righi Tum Capacity of Shared Lane = Available Re5,Crve = Delay & Level of Service <Table J) A• • Ar c -~2-+ ~o-S = ~z_e,..., _';?_: 3'.' !>CC M,0 = M2 = ~c ..-• BL= _47 .... I 00 ( B LIM I J = ~ 'l P, .. O .~~ M,-BL=~ .... -~~=4~1..!'......,1~~-G£l 'l'JA• + Ar + BL + Br = \-Z. +"oS+~ ~41 -~ .... ~5,CC MN, --5.? ... . M.~. X P, c M3 c ~ ... . CL-=4--... . Ml -CL I: <:-o ... . -,--..?"f" 0 ,-=:-l-,C>S "A//• g,S,S ,./ 7b5 ,., L.&-J~ cf s,.~v,~~ ''A/' ~ - • A ,, f='\. ... 1Ie.:t • c::::,....;!:--" ~, ~ (7--~~~---8 "J (_"L-~-,~•I "'"'N -r \ '"'-t-,cz.r seer:,..._., ---r ~"' ~ Hourly Demand Traffic Volumes from~ 10 .f2::::.. ~ m Strp I Approach M o,emenl Volume: RJahl Tum from C Conflic11ng Flow~ = MH = Cfmm Fig. I) Cn11c al Gap frnm Tahlc :! T, = Capa,,I) Imm Fig :! = Shared Lane -Sec Srcp ~ _L ~o Shared Lane Available Re!ICrve = Demand= Delay & Level of Scmce !Table JI Strp 2 l~ft Tum from 8 StrpJ Conflic11ng Flows = MH = (from Fig . 11 Cn11, .. 1 Gap from Tahle 2 T, = Capaci1y from Fig. 2 -= Demand = Capaciry Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. J • Available Res.crve ., Delay & Level of Service <Table 3) Lrft Tum rrom (" Conflicting Flows ., MH "' (fromfig I) Cntical Gap from Table 2 T, • Capacity from Fig. 2 "' AdJUSI for Impedance No Shared Lane Avai lable Res.crve -= DclTWld = Delay & Level of Ser.ice <Table 3 I Shared Lane Demand ., Shared Lane wi1h Righi Tum Capacny of Shared Lane = Available Res.cr.e -= Delay & Level of Ser.ice <Table 3) r B, --C, \ C • ,- s, r - ~-~ !.CC M.Yt"' M,= ~ .... 8 L "' _.z !!, ~ 100 (BdM,l = ~ ~ P,•~ M,-BLc~- L.i..\:t\~ IC),,, j)-e,,( [A] 112 Aa + Ar + BL + Br "' _::_+~+':513+~-~- ~!,CC M~, • _.:::2..£_ """ M .Yo X P, c Mi"'~ 11<• OD Da~ T ime 7 ~-_E;,3---=' ~ Con1ml ~.;::,r:' ~ q..,..,..:; t h.,...,...,., Pre, ad1n1,1 S~ed 4-S_""f h c:>-v-. ~Sao ~FE:. ,, A ,, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 ~__, [ I I 1- I I r A----_--------:;7-~,~--(------~.~.-~-,---_,,,-_---B ,•.p..._1\J ~...,$",, ~ --i__ Strp I Strp 2 Ste-pJ __r . u:. (" &? .., _......._,_,....,. -,-1 ..... -t-,crsc-c!t'I~ 4S <\:S Hourly Demand Traffi c Volu~s from ~lo ~. -f m Approach A , B 7 C -Y- Volume RJaht Tum from C Confl1c11nll Fl01w\ = MH = tfmmhl! II Cnlll'al Gap from Tahlc ~ T, = Capa-il) from F1~ 2 = Shared Lane -Sec S1co ., :--Oo Shan:d Lane AvAilable Re'iCr.c = Demand= Delay & Level of Scr.-1cc /Table)) Ld'l Tum from B Confl1c1ing Flows "' MH = (frumF1g . I) Cn11cal Gap from Table 2 T, = Capacity fmm Fig. 2 = Demand= Capacil)' IJ..cd = Impedance Factor from Fig . J • Available Re'iCr.·c "' Delay & Level of Service /Table)) I.Aft Tum from < • Confl1c1ing Flow\ .., MH = Hrom Fig I l Cn1ical Gap from Table 2 T, "' Capacity from Fig. 2 .. Adjust for Impedance No Shared Lane Available Reserve "' DclTlMld= Delay & Level of Service /Table 3 J Shared LatlC Demand = Shared Lane with Rit?hl Tum CapaClly of Shared Lme = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service /Table)) 'l'i A11 + Ar -... -02:: _'9".,__b \CC M,0 = M1 = ~P-_ ..-• B, , A1t • Ar -+ ~2--6=2-,. ~~sec M.-.'"' M2• ~,... Btc:_e,,.:2_...., 100 (Bt/M1) = -11:.+-'l: p1 • o,:po M,-Bt •~,.... L.-~ e ~ [bJ 'hA• + Ar + BL + Br • .::::_ ♦-Cz.+&'5>+"-2....2-~- 8,4-sec M,-. • .-2..!Z......., M.~. X P, -M, .. 4-? .... Ct•~,... M,-cL-~ ..... ✓ c.r'/ Lo!Yj ~a::?.s [El ' I J - J - f J - r - r - r - 1- 1- r- SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS ,- i 1- • I -I I J 9-4 12-1979 J - J - I - TRAFFIC SIGNALS ANO LIGHTING Traffic Manua l DI ST co RTE Figure 9-1 A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS C.t.LC CHK 0.t.TE O.t.TE Maier St : Minor St : Rancho Sa nta Fe Melrose Drive Critical Approach Speed Critical Approach Speed 53 NA mph mph Critical speed of ma jor street traff ic 40 mph In bu i lt up area of isolated community of .-10 ,000 pop. n OR D RURAL (R) 0 URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 -Minimum Vehicul ar Volume .t.PPRO.t.CH L .t.NE S 130th Aµprch5. MilIor Stree t Highest Apprct Minor Strert • MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 180 ' SHOWN IN SRACi<ETSI u R u R 2 0< more 500 350 600 420 '400 ' 1280: 141101 13361 150 105 200 140 1 1201 84 160 ' r 1 121 6-7a 1325 146 259 100"/c SATISFIED 80% SATISFIED 234 177 180 Yes (] No D Yes O No D 201 222 168 • NOTE Hcav,c, of lcU /u1n 1··ovcme111 tror,, l,fa;ur Srrcet ,nclude<i wl,en L T·p/Jas,ng ,s p 111p,1~cd 0 WARRANT 2 -Interruption of Continuous Traffic MINIM! 11.1 '1E0L'lll( M[N 1 S 100% SATISFIEC Yes [] No D 180 • Sr-.O'tlrM 1M 8AACKE TS ' 800,{ SATISFIED Yes D No D II H l l n APPRO A CH 1 ? ()( ~)(Jrt• 1-2011/ 6-7/m I I I I I L .t.NE S Uoth Ap(HChS. 7~ f>2S 900 630 M..1 Ior Sir"r.! '600 4 2_~ .._!~}_ ~~~· 1184 11,ghcs: f1pprcr, i '..J :,_J 100 /(, Minor Stre!'I • 160 4 2: so · '561 140 WA RRANT 3 -M1n1rnurn Pedestrian Volun:e ,00°· SATIS FIEC Ye s O No O MINIMUM llLOUIRlMLN t S 80"'. SATISrlED Yes D No D '80 ~MO'illfH IM 8FU CK['!SI u R I I I I I I I 1!0111 Apprch.5 . No Mcd1;m 600 420 MaIor Street 1'801 13361 Vo lume R;i,sed 1000 700 4 Mcd;,1n 11100: '560 ' Ped s On Highest Vo lun-c l !j() 10~ X-Willk x,ng M."t JOr Slre!CI 1120) 114 ' I F MI DBLOC K SIGN.t.L PROPOSED D ""'" R(OUI R(M(NT Ot STANC[ TO N[AR[ST ESTA8l •SHED CR•L• FUl r lLLfO 150 Feet NI E ___ tt S IW _______ ft Yes D No 0 WARRANT 4 -School Cross ir1gs Not Appl icable [J See Sct1ool Crossings \'/arrant Sheet O TS-10A Hour t ,,,,ir li01Jr , _ ' -· Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9:19 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 5 - Progress ive Movement Satisf ied Yes D No D M I N I M U M REQUIR E M ENTS ! OIST"-N CE TO NE"-RE ST SIGN"-L F UL•ILLE D 1000 ft IN s ft. E ft. w ft YES□ NO D OH ISOL ATED OH[ WAY ST OR ST WI TH OH[ WJ.Y TR AF FI C SIGNIFIC AN CE AOJAC(NT SI GHAL S AR( SO FU APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONI NG & SP[(O CONTROL WOULO BE LOST ----------------------------------------- - OH, 2-WAY ST. WH[R[ AOJAC(NT SIGNALS 00 NOT PROYIO[ NE CESSARY PLHOONING & D D SPEE O CONTROL. PROPOS ED SIGNA L S COULO CONSTI TUTE A PROGRESSI VE SIGNAL SY STE"' WARRANT 6 -Accident Experience Sat isf ied Yes D No 0 REQ UIR EMENT W"-RR"-N T \ F UL F ILLED OH[ WARRANT WARRAN T 1 -M INIM UM V[H ICUL AR VOLUME X - -1:!R--- -- - - - --- ----------------5 ATI SFI(0 WARRAN T 2 -INTERRUPTION OF CO NTINUOUS H C ,...X --~--------------------------YES (]J □ 80 ' WARRAN T 3 -M INIM UM P[O[STRI AN V0t.Ur..4[ NO SIGNAL WH.L NOT SERIOUSL Y DISRUPT PROGRESSI Y( TRAFFIC FLOW rn D AO(OUATE TRI AL OF LESS RESTRICTIY( RE .... (Ol (S HAS FAILED TO R[OUCE ACC FREO. D D ACC 41 1 T H1 H A 12 "'ON. PERICO SUSCEPT IBL E OF CORR & INVOLVING I NJURY OR S200 OA,.,.AGE ---- -------7-- - - --- - ----------------- MI NIM UM REQ U I REMENT NU MBER O F "-C C IOEN T S 5 OR "'0RE • I 4 D (X] • NO TE Left flJfn t1Cc 1dc nts cdn t.>e ,ncludco .vllcn LT LJ''·'·',:rH) ·~ µruJ1U::,L·tl WARRANT 7 -Systems Warrant Sat isf 1ed Yes 0 No D M I NIM U M '✓O L UME E N T E RIN G VOLU ME S -A L L APPROAC HE S F UL FI L:..ED REQUI REM E NT \ OUR I HG TYPICAL W([lt0 AY P[Alt MOUR V[H1HR aoo V(H I HR ---------------------- ------OU R: NG [ AC H OF AN Y ~ M~S Of A SATURt:AY .,t.p,,jQ/ OR SU,..OAY YES □ . V[H ... ·-. .. C HAR"-C T ERISTI CS OF MAJOR ROUT E S MAJOR! ST "''NOR ST PART OF HWY SYSTEM SERYI MG AS PRINCIP L E M(f WOR" r QR ! H RO 'JG ~I H C - - ---- - - -- - - - --- ---------------- ------- CONNE CTS ARE AS OF PRINCIPLE TRAFri c (i(M[RATiON - - -- -- - ---- - - -- - ---------------~ ----- - RURAL OR SUBURBAN H~Y OU TS IC( OF ENH R,N(. OR TRAV(RSHH , A (I T Y ... -- ---- - - - - - ---- - - - - - -- - ----- -------- - HAS SURFACE ST REC T FW Y OR (XPWAY R,U,AP f (JH,,4 1NALS ~ - -- -- --- - - - -- - ---- - - - - --- ----- - - - - - APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AM o rFl (I A L P l A,_. ANY MA.JOA ROUTE ~HARACT [RI STICS """'[T BOTM STS D WARRANT 8 -Combinat ion of Warrants /Used ,r no one warrant sar,sf •cd roo , Sat isf ied Yes O No D NO D D REQUI REMENT #"-ARANT I. F UL F I LL E D TS.I08 TWO WARAANTS 1 -M I NI M UM V[~l(ULAA VOlU M[ 5AT1SFl[O 2 -INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFI C ao·. 3 -M INI M UM P[Q[STA IAJli VOL UM( YE.SO NO Q The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessari ly 1ust1f1c at1on fur s ignals. Del.iy. congestion, confus ion or other evidence of tho need for ugh/ of way assignment must be shown. 9-5 12-1979 :D a, < w a, "' • ,, • iii • LA COSTA MEADOWS/RANCHO SANTA FE • FIGURE 4-6. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT -• -• (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) I a.. > I 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES I 400 ~~-----l ---r ---r I _,---i tu ~ 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE ~ ~ 300 .........,...~-+----3-"C-t---~P,,.... I-a.. , • · ~--'"""-t:----P,,.,e--+-~:-+----t---+----,.-----tt---t--1-"-tSa tis (/) a.. ,._ ¼ 251 200 >--- z ~ ~::) ~ 100 >-----t > +I I CJ I 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 110 11200 1300 I-Z..L\t., MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -VPH • NOTE . 100 VPH APPLIFS AS THE LOWER THRrSHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO on M OR E LANE S AND 75 VPH APPLIES A S THE LOWER THR ES HULf) VOLUME FOH A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 75 VPH NOT SAITISF1ED IN AM HOURS. SATISFIED IN PM HOUR S. ~ II -• -• ,.... • n I -- :D "' < w a, a, I QUESTHAVEN/RANCHO SANTA FE FIGURE 4-6. PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) I a.. > I I t-U W<! wo a: a: f-a.. (/) a.. a: <! Ow z ~ 2 ::J __J 0 > I (.'.J I 2 OR M ORE LANE S & 2 OR MORE LA ES ·~-----r --I I .--L---J 2 OR M ORE LANES & 1 LA NE 300 _,.__-+-~..,+----,..,Ll~..,---~---+----------+-1 -1~--+--1-------------. 1 LA N E & 1 LANE 200 1---- , -~, !----t----t---+--~~==--+---:::::-..=-__::=,,--.:::--t--t,t--be-1~--r 100 1-----1-----------1---l---+=--d------==i~-..+-,:J:::..~--* ---+---+:J::::-.--.. ~% 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 110 1200 1300 I 1 2.1 MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES ·--VPH • NOTE. 100 VPH APPLIE S AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A M INOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO on M ORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LO W ER THRE SHOLD VOLU ME FOn A MINOR STREET APPROACH ING WITH ONE LANE . 75 VPH NOT SATISFIED I N PM HOURS . I l [ [ [ URBAN RURAL X 1. MINIMUM VEHICUµR Satisfied Not Satisfied X -- Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street 18 000 1 ............. , ..... 1 ... .1.,~PP ....... 2 or more .......... 1 ............... 2 or more .......... 2 or more ....... 1 .................. 2 or more ....... 2. INTERRUPTION OF TRAFFIC Satisfied X Not Satisfied Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street 1 __ .. _ ... ___ _1.8. ,.o.o_o_ 1 ... _1_,_s_op ....... 2 or more .......... 1 ............... 2 or more .......... 2 or more ....... 1 .................. 2 or more ....... 3. COMBINATION Satisfied Not Satisfied No one warrant satisfied but follow- ing warrants fulfilled 80% or more ... SOURCE: 1 2 CAL TRANS Traffic Manual Figure 9-lC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS RANCHO SANTA FE/QUESTHAVEN Minimum Requirements EADT Vehicles per day on major street ( total of both approaches) Urban Rural 8,000 5,600 9,600 6,720 9,600 6,720 8,000 5,600 Vehicles per day on major street ( total of both approaches) Urban Rural 12 .ooo 8,400 111, IIOO 10,080 111,1100 10,080 12,000 8,400 2 Warrants Vehicles per day on higher-volume minor street approach (one direction only) Urban Rural 2,400 1,680No 2,1100 1,680 2,1100 2,2QO 3,200 2,21m Vehicles per day on higher-volume minor street approach (one direction only) Urban Rural 1. 200 850 1,200 850 1,600 1,120 1,600 1,120 2 Warrants FIGURE A -1 ~ WILLDAN ASSOCIATES - - - PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES I l Ill II Ill II II Ill 1111 • • • • • • ; ULTIMATE INTER IM - COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY Rancho Santa Fe Alternate 1 La Costa Meadows North to $906,000. Alternate 2 La Costa Meadows to 500 north of Mel rose Rancho Santa Fe : Questhaven to La Costa Meadows Interim Alternate 1 Interim Alternate 2 Corintia Connection $858,000. $808,000. $141,000 . $288,000 . $168,000. II II . ,.... [_ r L- -- ' . COST ESTIMATE ITEM DESCR IPTION ESTIMATED UN IT UNIT TOTAL No. . QUANTITY COST COST f GRADING 5,000 CY 3.00 $ 15,000. AC PAVEMENT 123,000 SF 1.95 239,800 CURB & GUTTER 3,400 LF 11 .00 37,400 SIDEWALK 16,000 SF 2.70 43,200 MEDIAN CURB 3,500 LF 10.00 35,000 MEDIAN LANDSCA PE 21,000 SF 3.00 63,000 STREET LIG HTS 7 EA 2,900.00 20,300 UELROSE/LA COSTA MEADOWS .SIGNAL LUMP SUM 65,000 MELROSE/RANCHO SANT A FE LUMP SUM 65,000 SIGNING/STRIPING LUMP SUM 6,000 CURB INLET 4 EA 3,000.00 12,000 18" RCP 100 LF 50.00 5,000 LUG 3 EA 77.00 2,300 AC OVERLAY (1 ½") 41,000 SF 0.55 22,600 CORINTIA RELOCATION LUMP SUM 192,000 TOTAL: 832,600 PLUS 10-., CONTINGENCY 82,400 906,000 Prepared by Preliminary/Final Cmt EstimJte .. WILL DAN ASSOCI ATES lit~~ \A ·,, Checked hy Reviewed by ~ft~./Project Ultimate Alt. 1 ' ~ Date • Job No. Page of P.igrs 6363 Greenwich Drive, Suite 250 San Diego, CA 92122 (619) 457-1199 L . COST ESTIMATE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIM ATED UNIT UNIT TOTAL No . -QUANTITY COST COST f GRADING 6,200 C Y 3.00 $ 18,600 AC PAVEMENT 124,200 SF 1.95 242,200 CURB & GUTTER 5 ,900 LF I l .00 64,900 SIDEWALK 26,500 SF 2.70 71 ,600 MEDIAN CURB 5,000 LF 10.00 50,000 MEDIAN LANDSCAPE 20 ,600 SF 3.00 61,800 ST REET LIGHTS 11 EA 2,900.00 31,900 Rancho Santa Fe/Lacosta Md w. s·ignal LUMP SUM 65,000 Ra nc ho Santa Fe/Melrose Signal LUMP SUM 65,000 SIGNING/STRIPING LUMP SUM 6,000 CURB INLET 7 EA 3,000.00 21 ,000 18" RCP 140 LF 50.00 7 ,000 -LUG 4 EA 770.00 3 ,1 00 AC OVERL AY (1 ½") 91,500 SF 0.55 50 ,300 PAVEMENT RE MOVAL 54,000 SF 0.40 2 I,600 TOTAL: $780,000 PLUS 10" CONTINGENCY 78,000 $858,000 Prepared hy Pre I im inary ,OCiKal~)(J{iXiX!e A Will DU ASS DC I A TES Checked hy Cli ent \ .' Reviewed by XrXcX~./Project Ultimate Alt. 2 ' • Date Job No. Page of Pages 6363 Greenwi ch Drive , Suit e 250 Sa n Diego, CA 9 2122 r -(619) 457-11 99 • CuST ESTIMATE l ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED UNIT UNIT TOTAL No . QUANTITY COST COST -!, PA VF.MENT REMOVA L LUMP SUM $ 10 .000 AC PAVEMENT 19 ,000 SF 1.95 37 ,050 AC BERM l, 350 LF 7.20 9 .720 MELROSE/RA NCHO S/1NTA FE SIGNA L Llf.vlP SUM 65.000 STRI PING/SIGNING LUMP SUM 4 .000 MEDIAN PAV ING 2,000 SF 1.40 2,800 TOTAL : s 128,570 PLUS 10% CONTING ENCY: 12.830 s 14 l , 40 0 Prepared by Pre I iminary /IXOOXl~JO'.~ ,:Jtl(~)( --~-A / Will DAN ASS OCI A HS Checked by Client \ __ "_ , Reviewed by Xt'fX~/Project JNIER JM AJ I ERN AI E l Date Job No. Page of Pages 6363 GREENWICH DRIVE, SUITE 250 • SAN DIEGO, CA 92122 • (619) 457-1199 -. • II •• ... .. . .. • • • • • • II • • • t COST ESTIMATE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED UNIT UNIT No. QUANTITY COST GRADING 2,500 CY 3.00 AC PAVEMENT 68,200 SF 1.95 AC BERM 1,600 LF 7.20 1,IEDIAN CURB 1,690 LF 10.00 MEDIAN PAVING 3,000 SF 1.40 STREET LIGHTS 3 EA 2,900.00 MELROSE/RANCHO SANTA FE SIGNAL LUMP SUM SIGNING/SIGNING LUMP SUM CURB INLET 2 EA 3,000.00 18" RCP 40 LF 50.00 LUG 1 EA 770.00 TOTAL: PLUS IO~ CONTINGENCY: Prepared by Pre I im inary /~X."-KIX~~ -~.,,.. Will DU AS SOC IA TE S Checked by Client Reviewed by ~~~-/Project Interim Alt. 2 Date Job No. Page of 6363 Greenwich Drive, Suite 250 San Diego, CA 92122 (619) 457-1199 TOTAL COST $ 7,500 133,000 11 , 500 16,900 4,200 8,700 65,000 6,000 6,000 2,000 800 $261,600 26,200 287,800 P.ige s Ill Ill • • • OST ESTl~ATE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED UNIT UNIT TOTAL No. QUANTITY COST COST . - GRADING 1 I 120 CY 3.00 $ 3,400 AC PAVEMENT 30,200 SF 1.95 58,900 AC BERM 1,450 LF 7.20 10,400 STREET LlGHTS 1 EA 2,900.00 2,900 CURB INLET 2 EA 3,000.00 6,000 BARRlCADE 2 EA 330.00 700 STRIPING/SIGNING LUMP SUM 5,000.00 5,000 CORINTIA/RANCHO SANTA FE .SIGNAL LUMP SUM 65,000 . TOTAL: $152,300. PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY 15,200 $167,500. Prepared by ____ _ Prrlirninary/lKdfi~;J(~ , A / \A 1 WlllDAN IS SDCI AUS Checked by ____ _ Client _____________ _ Reviewed by ____ _ DJte ------- 6363 Greenwi ch Drive, Suite 250 San Diego , CA 92122 (619) 457-1199 1'Xl@b./Project Interim Alt. 3 Job No. ________ _ -CuST ESTIMAfE ITEM· DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED UNIT UNIT TOTAL No. QUANTITY COST COST ~ GRADING 1,200 CY 3.00 $ 3,600 AC PAVEM ENT 32,600 SF 1.95 63,600 CU RB & GUTTER 1,300 LF 11.00 14,300 SIDEWALK 6,500 SF 2.70 17 ,600 MEDIAN CURB 1,560 LF 10.00 15 ,600 MEDIAN LANDSCAPE 800 SF 3.00 2,400 ST REET LIGHTS 4 EA 2,900.00 11 , 600 MELROSE/QUESTHA VEN SIGNAL LUMP SUM 55,000 BRIDGE 8,000 SF 65.00 520,000 CURB INLET 2 EA 3,000.00 6,000 18" RCP 60 LF 50.00 3 ,000 AC OVERLAY 40,000 LF 0.55 22,000 SUBTOTAL: $734,700 PLUS 10~ CONTINGENCY 73,500 TOTAL: $808,200 l - [_ Prepared by Preliminary/Final lo~t Estinld tt \A · Will DAN ASSOCI ATES Checked by Client RSF : Qu~srnaven t:o Reviewed by 1'*~./Project La Costa 1vfeadows Date Job No. Page of Pdgcs 6363 Greenwich Drive, Suite 250 San Diego, CA 92122 (6 19) 457-1199 RECEIVEu MAY ~ 6 1987 CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT May 22 , 1987 City of Ca rlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859 ATTN: Robert T. Johnson, Jr. P.E. rrr FLUID COMPONENTS, INC. 1755 La Costa Meadows Drive, San Marcos, CA 92069 (619) 744-6950 • Toll Free (BOO) 854-1993 TELEFAX 619-744-8095 • TELEX: 695-092 RE: Intersection -Rancho Sante Fe Rd. and Melrose Gentlemen: The intersection at Rancho Santa Fe Rd. and Melrose is of particular c oncern to us. FCI employs approximately 115 people, o nly a small percentage of the total numbers imployed in the Industrial Park. The recently installed flashing yellow lights are not effective . The speeding in both directions on Rancho Santa Fe Rd. is still excessive. The speeding and the amount of traffic on that road makes it difficult and dangerous to turn left at that intersection, or from La Costa Meadows Dr., particularly during peak hours and at lunch time. There are near misses and close ·calls every day. A stop light at the intersection would seem to be the optimum solution to both speeding and turning problems. Sincerely, s~~ sue Whitney Facilities Ma nager SW:nr