HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-11-08; City Council; 3020-2; Tamarack Avenue Traffic Study.I
I
CITY OF CARLSBAD
I
AGENDA BILL NO. 30 2 0 -
DATE : November 8, 1977
Initial:
Dept . Hd 2@
C. Atty.
DEPARTMENT : Engineering C. Mgr.
Subject:
COUNCIL WORKSHOP - TAMARACK AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY
Statement of the Matter
The engineering traffic consulting firm of Mohle, Perry and Associates was contracted by the City to prepare a study to establish roadway geometrics of Tamarack Avenue supporting the projected traffic volumes resul ti ng from the ultimate devel opment of permi ttfd land uses.
Exhibit
Geometric Design Study - Tamarack Avenue by Mohle, Perry and Associates (on file in the Engineering Department)
Recommendation
If Counci'l concurs, accept and file the Geometric Design Study - Tamarack Avenue by Mohle, Perry and Associates
CITY of CARLSBA
geometric design stud
Tamarack Avenue
MOHLE, PERRY & ASSOCIATES
June 7, 1977
Mr. Ronald Beckman
Public Works Administrator City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attention: Mr. Tim Flanagan City Engineer
Gentlemen :
we are pleased to submit the final report for the Tamarack
Avenue Geometric Design Study. Included in the appendix are comments pertaining to some of the questions raised at the informal public meeting on May 4, 1977.
This project presented a professionally challenging experience that made the overall study enjoyable. Special
recognition should be given to Mr, Kent Whitson of your
staff for the assistance offered to Mr. Thayer Rorabaugh, the project engineer, during the conduct of the study.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to have been a part of this important study,
Res2ect f ully submitted,
MOHLE, PERRY &I ASSOCIATES
R. Henry Moale Vice President
RHM:jh Attachment
- MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
505 N. Tustin Ave.. Suite 121, Santa Ana, CA 92705 - (714) 834-0541 6055 E. Washington Blvd., Commerce, CA 90040 (213) 723-1452
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E AYE: CUT IVE S UMEllARY
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Alignment Description
Traffic Accidents
Traffic Volumes
Capacity and Level of Service
Speed and Delay
TRAFFIC GENERATION
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
CARLSBAD STATE BEACH
PARKING
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Introduction
Coastal Commission
Aesthetics
Air Pollution
Noise
Quality of Life
ALIGNMENT SELECT ION
Alternate 1
Alternate 2
COST ANALYSIS
EMINENT DOMAIN
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
PAGE -
1
1
5
7
11
14
18
21
25
28
29
32
35
35
35
36
37
37
37
38
43
46
47
48
50
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
FIGURE 1 - STUDY AREA 2
FIGURE 2 - TRAFFIC GENERATION SUBZONES 20
FIGURE 3 - DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF C.P.O. ZONES 23
OF STUDY AREA 24
FIGURE 5 - EXISTING AND FUTURE VOLUp4ES (A.D.T.) 26
FIGURE 4 - GENERALIZED DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
LIST OF APPENDICES -
1. APPENDIX A - AMTRAK SCHEDULE
2. APPENDIX 'B - TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SUMMATION
3. APPENDIX C - TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
-
- 4. APPENDIX D - DEFINITION OF A.D.T.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
10 .
11 .
12.
13.
14 .
APPENDIX E - DOCUMENTATION OF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AND PERCENTAGES
APPENDIX F - CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
APPENDIX G - LEVEL OF SERVICE EVALUATION
APPENDIX H - SPEED AND DELAY FIELD SHEETS
APPENDIX I - TRIP GENERATION BY SUBZONE
APPENDIX J - NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT SCHEDULE
APPENDIX K - LETTER FROM JACK P. WELCH, AREA MANAGER,
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
APPENDIX L - RIGHT OF WAY AND CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX M - DISCUSSION OF ONE-WAY COUPLET, TAMARACK/CHINQUAPIN
APPENDIX N - RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT AND FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The need for this report was generated by the City of
Carlsbad in an attempt to establish traffic volume projec-
tions on Tamarack Avenue from Carlsbad Boulevard to Highland
Drive which will dictate the future of Tamarack Avenue. Due
to time and staffing constraints, the City decided to retain
a consultant to provide the necessary documentation for this
with the adopted land uses was formulated.
-
-
- important study, thus a long-range development plan compatible
-
”-
A
THE STUDY OBJECTIVES
The main objective of this report is to outline the right
of way and curb to curb requirements capable of providing a
reasonable level of service to the users of Tamarack Avenue
and to assist the City in providing an orderly development
of the roadway. This was done in the following manner:
First, traffic volumes were generated by utilizing exist-
ing zoning in areas contributary to Tamarack Avenue. This
generated traffic was distributed and assigned to the roadway
network. Secondly, an analysis of traffic assignments and
existing traffic characteristics was combined with the first
primary elements to obtain a roadway cross section that would
serve the unique demands of Tamarack Avenue.
Tamarack Avenue provides a complex set of traffic services
in that it must serve residential access, commercial needs,
commuter requirements, and the through movement of traffic
destined for the State Beach. Subsequent sections of this
report describe the methodology used in the analysis and
development of the proposed cross sections.
METHODOLOGY
The inajority of Tamarack Avenue does not have curb and
gutter improvements with exception of that portion adjacent
to the freeway. The alignment is straight with varying
grades, has approximately 60 feet of right of way, and the
pavement section varies from 28 feet to 64 feet. Tamarack
Avenue has an interchange with 1-5 and serves the State Beach
at its terminus, Carlsbad Boulevard. Figure 1, page 2, shows
the general study area. This area was expanded when actually
calculating the traffic that would be contributary to
Tamarack Avenue, Figure 2, page 20.
Existing traffic counts were obtained from the City and
analyzed to determine the unique characteristics of traffic
volumes on Tamarack Avenue, Appendix E. These characteristics
were applied to the projected volumes which in turn provide
the data necessary for cross section determination.
Land use maps were obtained that reflected ultimate
zoning. From this traffic, volumes were generated by using
various generation factors and land use densities, Appendix I.
This generated traffic was then distributed and assigned to
<he street system.
To assist the consultant in establishing directional
distribution, data was obtained from the Comprehensive
Planning Organization (C.P.O.). This data was analyzed and
the direction distribution was established as shown on
Figures 3 and 4, pages 23 and 24.
Once the directional distribution was established, sub-
zones were prepared, Figure 2, page 20, for these areas con-
tributary to Tamarack Avenue.
traffic was generated, Appendix I, then assigned to the
From each of these subzones,
roadway network. Figure 5, page 26, illustrates the existing,
C.P.O., and future traffic volumes projected for Tamarack
Avenue .
These projections were subsequently analyzed and compared
to existing volume characteristics which yielded the criteria
for establishing the required cross section.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
After an extensive evaluation of established data with
due regard to the impacts of Carlsbad State Beach, page 29,
the following conclusions are expressed:
e Future projected traffic volumes for a 24 hour
period are: Figure 5, page 26.
Carlsbad Boulevard to Jefferson Street 12,900
Jefferson Street to 1-5 15,850
1-5 to Adams Street 19,000
Adams Street to Highland Drive 14,890
Q) A right of way width of 80 feet will provide for
these anticipated volumes. See cross sections,
page 44.
0 The curb to curb width of 64 feet is required to
satisfy projected volumes and intended street use
function. See cross sections, page 44.
0 On-street parking is needed for that portion of
Tamarack Avenue west of the freeway until such time
that the volumes have increased to warrant addi-
tional through lanes of traffic.
0 Two lanes for moving traffic in each direction will
be necessary for Tamarack Avenue between the freeway
and Highland Drive.
a Landscaping should be provided behind the side-
walk in tree planting easements.
0 Bicycle lanes and sidewalks are integrated as
part of the overall design.
RECOMIvENDAT IONS
Recommendations for the ultimate improvement of Tamarack
Avenue are as follows:
0 Adopt the suggested cross sections.
a Initiate an application for Federal funding.
0 Initiate the process of public hearings to establish
by ordinance the adoption of the alignment and pro-
vide specific future right of way lines as shown on
aerial photos at the end of the report.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Alignment Description
Tamarack Avenue is one of the major east-west arterial
roadways within the City of Carlsbad. This important roadway
connects eastern residential areas within the City to the
interchange at Interstate 5 . Tamarack Avenue continues
westerly to Carlsbad Boulevard and serves the State Beach
located westerly of Carlsbad Boulevard, Figure 1.
Tamarack Avenue serves a variety of land uses. On the
westerly end there are abutting residential properties which
include single family dwelling units and multiple family
dwelling units such as apartments, condominiums, duplexes,
etc. In the vicinity of Interstate 5, between Jefferson Street
and Adams Street, Tamarack Avenue serves general commercial
land uses such as gas stations, restaurants, and shopping
facilities. As Tamarack Avenue extends easterly, land uses
change to the single family dwellings. Tamarack Avenue is
somewhat unique in that it is the southerly most east-west
arterial that traverses the City north of Agua Hedionda
Lagoon. Other important aspects are the interchange with
Interstate 5 as well as a direct connection to Carlsbad State
Beach.
Tamarack Avenue has served local residences for many
years. These many years of usage and subsequent improvements
- have left Tamarack with various curb to curb widths and right
of way widths. Beginning at Carlsbad Boulevard, Tamarack has
- three lanes of which two are in the westbound direction and
one in the eastbound direction. The two westbound direction
lanes provide a right turn lane onto northbound Carlsbad
Boulevard and the through lane provides access to Carlsbad
State Beach as well as southbound Carlsbad Boulevard.
-
1
figure 1
STUDY AREA
2
Traveling easterly the right turn lane from Carlsbad Boule-
vard onto Tamarack is dropped and the roadway is reduced to
one lane in each direction, The pavement width along this
segment is approximately 28 to 30 feet. The first cross
street encountered is Garfield Street at which four-way
stop controls are present. Crossing Garfield and continuing
easterly, Tamarack Avenue remains at approximately 28 to 30
feet in width with one lane in each direction. Located
approximately 650 feet east of Garfield is the AtchiSon,
Topeka is Santa Fe railroad tracks. A Type 9 automatic gate
device crossing protection is provided at this location,
See Appendix A for a.m. track schedule.
Continuing easterly there are two local streets which
intersect Tamarack. The first one encountered is Hibiscus
Circle; the second one is Linmar Lane. Both provide local
access to R-1 residential areas to the south. It is expected
that Hibiscus will be constructed to the north by early 1977.
From Linmar Lane to Jefferson Street the width remains at
approximately 28 to 30 feet with one lane in each direction.
There is a crosswalk located on the west leg of the inter-
section which provides crossing protection to Jefferson School,
located north of Tamarack adjacent to Jefferson. The east
leg of Tamarack has two lanes on the approach to the inter-
section at Jefferson. There is one right turn lane with an
island and one through lane. At this point the curb to curb
width of Tamarack Avenue widens to approximately 64 feet.
Approximately 300 feet easterly of Jefferson Street are located
the southbound on and off-ramps to Interstate 5. From this
point easterly Tamarack has been constructed to 64 feet with
two lanes in each direction and left turning pockets are pro-
vided at both the southbound on-ramp and the northbound on-
ramp to Interstate 5, Continuing easterly the 64 foot curb
to curb width is provided which extends to approximately 240
feet east of Pi0 Pic0 Drive, at which point it narrows on the
3
north to Adams Street, At the intersection of Pi0 Pic0 and
Tamarack Avenue there is an actuated traffic signal which
controls the movement of vehicular traffic.
At the intersection of Adams and Tamarack there are
school crosswalks located on the west and the north legs.
This intersection is also controlled by a four-way stop.
Continuing easterly, the north and south sides of the street
have been improved; however, the improvements have only
netted a cross sectional width of 50 feet curb to curb. The
centerline of the roadway at this point is 20 feet south of
the north improvement or curb line with 30 feet on the south.
Continuing easterly, there are two streets which enter from
the north and "T" into Tamarack Avenue. The roadway has nar-
rowed to 28 to 30 feet at this point. The first street en-
countered is Margaret Way; the second is Polly Lane; These
are cul-de-sac type streets which serve the local residedtial
subdivision only. At Polly Lane the north side of Tamarack
has been improved so that the north curb line of Tamarack is
located approximately 32 feet north of centerline, From 150
feet east of Polly Lane, Tamarack Avenue narrows to approxi-
mately 28 to 30 feet where it meets Highland Drive where four-
way stop controls are in force,
Tamarack Avenue is only partially improved at this time;
however, the City has placed asphalt concrete sidewalks on
both sides of Tamarack between Carlsbad Boulevard and Jefferson.
Prior improvements which have been constructed subsequent to
the construction of Tamarack easterly of Jefferson have pro-
vided sidewalks. Sidewalks continue across the freeway and
extend to Adams Street. On-street parking is currently per-
mitted on most of Tamarack Avenue with the majority of this
parking occurring on unimproved shoulders .
4
*- A
Traffic Accidents
Traffic accidents along Tamarack Avenue were reviewed
for the years 1972 through 1976. See Appendix B. This
review did not net any typical patterns which exist along the
roadway. Many of the accidents which occurred are typical
of two-lane type roadways that carry the volumes and serve
the type of land uses inherent with this area.
Prior to 1973 there were accidents occurring at the inter-
section of Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue. These
problems were solved by the installation of the traffic signal
on May 17, 1973. Prior to the installation of the traffic
signal at this location, the intersection had an accident
history of 14 accidents for the three years 1969 to 1972. Of
these 14 accidents, 6 were fatalities. Since the installation
of this traffic signal, three years have elapsed and there have
only been 6 accidents with no fatalities. The installation of
this traffic signal has definitely reduced the accident fre-
quency at this intersection and the accidents that are occurring
are rear-end type collisions which are not uncommon to signal-
ized intersections.
The segment of Tamarack Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard
and Jefferson Street has had several accidents, such as
run-off-the-road type and accidents involving parked cars.
One accident invol’ved a vehicle backing out into Tamarack
from a single family dwelling being struck by a westbound
vehicle. Located just easterly of the tracks there were two
accidents, one involving a bicycle which was being ridden on
the wrong side of the road and a vehicle overtaking another
vehicle attempting to make a left turn. Just west of the
intersection of Jefferson Street, again one vehicle came
out of a private drive and was struck by an eastbound vehicle.
In 1976 a vehicle left the roadway and struck a rest home
5
4
causing a fatality to a resident. At Jefferson Street there
has been a series of accidents; however, most of them were
involved with the stop sign placed in the island. Of the
5 accidents occurring at this location, 3 of them struck
the stop sign and knocked it down.
From Interstate 5 easterly to Highland there have been
no major accident patterns developing. One slight pattern
which warrants review is traffic exiting from the northbound
off-ramp turning onto Tamarack. There was one accident that
occurred in 1974 and another in 1975 in which vehicles exit-
ing the freeway failed to yield the right of way to east-
bound vehicles on Tamarack Avenue. Accident rates have been
developed for Tamarack Avenue, both east and west of Inter-
state 5. These accident rates are shown in Appendix B
and reflect the rates for a five year period. These rates
are below average for this type street.*
The proposed improvements of Tamarack will help to main-
tain this rate into the future. The improvements that are
proposed will provide definite lane and roadway delineation.
The accidents occurring at Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack
Avenue are somewhat typical of signalized intersections and
will probably not improve with the improvement of Tamarack.
As land develops and traffic volumes increase along Tamarack
Avenue, traffic signals may be required at various locations.
such as Tamarack at Jefferson, Adams, and Highland. See
Appendix C, The first locations most likely to require
signalization will be Adams at Tamarack and the freeway off-
ramps.
and Jefferson should be reviewed periodically to determine
when warrants are met.
The remaining intersections of Tamarack at Highland
*19 75 Accident Rate Summary Study, CALTRANS Traffic Branch, Sacramento, by Dave Henry, Assistant State Traffic Engineer.
6
Traffic Volumes
For the purpose of this study various types of traffic
counts were provided by the City. These traffic counts in-
cluded manual counts, which included all turning movements at
the intersections of Carlsbad Boulevard, Jefferson Street,
at the on and off-ramps of Interstate 5, Pi0 Pic0 Drive, Adams
Street, and Highland Drive. Two-way volumes were obtained
through the use of pneumatic counters for various segments
of Tamarack. (See Appendix E.)
Traffic counts provided the basic data on which assump-
tions for traffic assignment and directional splits were
based. To enable the consultant to evaluate all relation-
ships of existing traffic, the City provided traffic counts
for the.-weekends as well as the week days. Since this street
is impacted by the beach, it was felt that traffic counts
would differ on weekends from those of typical working or
commuter type trips being conducted during the week. The
majority of the counts were obtained prior to the beginning
of summer. Thus, existing traffic counts conducted by the
City for past years were reviewed to reflect the increases of
traffic due to the summer season. Beach attandance could then
be applied to the existing volumes to obtain estimated traffic
volumes for the summer months.
Figure 5, page 26, shows the existing traffic volumes on
Tamarack Avenue versus the proposed traff-ic volumes which
will be discussed in subsequent sections.
The existing volumes show an interesting relationship
of traffic destined for the freeway to traffic destined for
the westerly end of Tamarack towards Carlsbad Boulevard.
Beginning at Carlsbad Boulevard the existing volume of average
daily traffic (ADT) (Appendix E) is 4,500. East of Garfield
7
this ADT rises to 6,300 vehicles per day. Approaching
Jefferson it is noted that these volumes rise once again by
approximately 800 vehicles per day to 7,070 vehicles per day.
Between the freeway and Jefferson the ADT takes a considerable
jump to 10,835 vehicles per day. The significance of these
ADT's is that much of the traffic coming from the freeway
is destined to the adjacent residential areas rather than
the beach. Thus, it is concluded that much of the traffic
traveling this segment of Tamarack Avenue is generated by
land uses in the vicinity of Tamarack.
Beginning at Highland Drive and continuing in a westerly
direction, the ADT is 5,650. Traffic volumes continue to increase
to 6,160 approaching Adams. When these relationships are
compared with the peak hour characteristics and directional
distributions, much of the traffic utilizing Tamarack Avenue
between Highland and the freeway is destined to the freeway,
thus demonstrating Interstate 5 is a very important traffic
corridor for commuters and residents of the City of Carlsbad.
One of the important characteristics of traffic volume
is not necessarily the total amount of traffic which traverses
a given segment of road in one day, but it is the peak hour
in which the highest hourly traffic movements occur. As the
peak hour percentage of daily volumes decreases, a better
utilization of the roadway occurs. This is because a greater
number of motorists utilize the roadway for longer periods
of the day. Once this percentage of peak hour traffic is
determined, the next important factor is to determine the
actual directional split which occurs during this peak hour.
It is these factors, when placed in relationship with the pro-
jected traffic volumes, that determine the requirements of a
proposed roadway.
The traffic volumes between Carlsbad Boulevard and
8
1.
Jefferson have a peak hour which is approximately 9 percent of
the total daily traffic, See Appendix E. This peak hour
usually occurs during the evening between the hours of’5:OO
and 6:00, As the freeway is approached, the peak hour volume
drops to approximately 8 percent, this segment of road being
Jefferson Street to the freeway. Easterly of the freeway this
peak hour volume which again occurs during the evening is
approximately 10 percent of the total daily traffic, This
is an interesting relationship when compared to the traffic
characteristics west of the freeway. A higher percentage of
people use the roadway for an extended period of time for
that portion of Tamarack west of the freeway, compared to the
- sharp peaking characteristics of traffic using that segment
of Tamarack east of the freeway,
- Observing the traffic that uses Tamarack Avenue between
Jefferson and Adams, it is interesting to note that during
the peak hour much of the traffic from the freeway east is
of a commuter type. This is characterized by the larger peak
-
- hour volume percentage. The difference in peak hour percentages
east of the freeway and west of the freeway is approximately
2 percent.
Commuter traffic is comprised of basically the home to
work type trips. These generally occur during two hours of
the day. The first is the a.m. or morning peak hour which
occurs between 7:OO and 8:00, The second is the p,m. peak
hour which occurs between 5:OO and 6:OO. Commuter traffic
tends to raise the percentage of peak hour volumes. Roadways
that are less affected by commuter traffic will show lower
percentages of peak hour volumes. However, volumes are
generally higher for other portions of the day. This rela-
tionship provides better utilization of the roadway compared
to roadways which serve primarily commuter traffic,
9
The traffic lane configuration is determined by the peak
-- hour and directional split which is generally greater than
the remainder of the day. These relationships are further
defined in the section of this report titled "Alternative
Alignments. "
-
I Traffic characteristics for the road segment of Tamarack
Avenue between Carlsbad and Jefferson differ slightly from
those easterly of the freeway between Pi0 Pic0 and Adams.
This is evident by the lower peak hour volumes as well as the
- directional split of traffic upon the roadway. This westerly
section of Tamarack Avenue has a peak hour volume approaching
approximately 9 percent of the total ADT and the directional
split of traffic is approximately 59 percent versus 41 percent.
The easterly segment of Tamarack has approximately 10 approach-
ing 11 percent peak hour traffic movement and a directional
split of 61 percent versus 39 percent for the'opposite direc-
tion, once again demonstrating the demand of commuter traffic
east of the freeway, In essence, this shows that during the
p.m. peak hour 61 percent of the traffic that is utilizing
Tamarack is destined for the residential areas, Thus, it is
the terminus of a work to home type trip.
--
The effects of the Tamarack extension to El Camino Real
on peak hour volumes on Tamarack is not considered significant.
This is due to several reasons; the first being the fact that
Interstate 5 is close and offers a good level of service to
motorists both north and southbound. El Camino Real is a
four-lane divided facility which is winding and has local
access, thus decreasing driveability.
Easterly of Adams the peak hour traffic volumes are much
like those for the westerly segment of Tamarack. The'peak
hour percentage has dropped to approximately 9 percent of
the total ADT, thus providing better utilization of the roadway
10
as well as establishing that this segment of the road is less
impacted by commuters.
relationships be established due to the fact that future
design criteria is based on these characteristics.
traffic has been generated for the proposed land uses for an
ultimate development of the City, these characteristics will
be applied to those volumes to determine the peak hour demands
for each segment of roadway.
It is extremely important that these
After
These existing peak hour characteristics are expected to
This is due to the land use inter- continue into the future.
pretations projected by the City, establishing much of the
same types of land uses currently existing. To state this
simply, if current residential areas were to be rezoned to
commercial or industrial, then these characteristics would
begin to change , thus creating a different relationship of
the peak hour volumes and directional splits. The develop-
ments which will occur subsequent to this study are in con-
formance with current land usages.
c
Capacity and Level of Service
When discussing capacities and traffic volumes, one must
realize that there are major differences. The capacity of
a roadway is defined as the amount of traffic that may pass
a given point for a given time interval. Usually this time
interval is a one hour period (vehicles per hour). There
are various conditions which affect this capacity figure .
These elements are the percentages of trucks and buses, road-
way width, lane width, the distance from the edge of the lane
to a barrier such as a bridge structure or edge of the roadway,
and the amount of turning movements which occur; that is, the
left turning movements and the right turning movements.
factors would include the percent of grade at any given por-
tion along the roadway segment.
Other
Capacity cannot be assumed
to be constant. Another factor which must be considered in
this analysis is the ease and comfort at which one drives
along the roadway. This is defined as "level of service."
Appendix F.
As the level of service increases, the motorist has more
flexibility to move about, change lanes, etc,, thus the
capacity of the roadway begins to decrease because a fewer
number of cars may pass that given point during the given
time period. Levels of service have been broken down into
six categories: A through F. Level of service "A" is
characteristic of free-flowing traffic while level sf service
"F" is characteristic of a force flow condition where traffic
delays are long and there is much stopping and starting.
Appendix F of this report defines each category of level of
service.
According to "Capacity of At-Grade Junctions," published
by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
the lane volumes for various levels of service are defined
as follows:
LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE VOLUMES (PCU PER HOUR) *
A 4 1,100
B 1,100
C 1,250
D 1,350
E 1,600
F 0 - 2,000
*Passenger Car Units per Hour
These lane volumes were established to represent flow of
uninterrupted traffic for one lane of traffic. Due to the
fact that traffic traveling along Tamarack Avenue is inter-
rupted by four-way stops at Jefferson, Garfield, Adams, and
12
c
--
.a-
,-'-
Highland, this will reduce the capacity by approximately half
because when capacity and level of service are computed, they
are generally based on one hour of 100 percent "green" or "go"
time. With these controls in existence, this 100 percent of
green time is reduced to approximately 50 percent of green
time because each motorist must always stop. If 50 percent
"green" time is assigned to Tamarack, the service volumes
would then be reduced to the following:
LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE VOLUMES (PCU PER 50% 'HOUR OF GREEN)
A
B
C
D
E
F
550
550
625
675
800
0 - 1,000
It should be pointed out that capacity and level of service
are basically .related; however, the capacity of a roadway does
not change. The capacity is based on the items mentioned
above, while the level of service is based on the quality of
traffic flow. The level of service currently being exper-
ienced by the users of Tamarack Avenue is approximately level
of service "B." This means that during most of the day vehicles
are free to drive at speeds they wish, within the law, and to
be able to make the turning movements without direct influence
of other vehicles. An analysis of this existing "per lane
volume11 is shown in Appendix G.
When compared to the level of service lane volumes per
car unit for 50 percent hour of green, this level of service
is within the realm of levels of service "B" to "A," The same
analysis was used in conducting level of service analyses for
other segments of Tamarack, Appendix G.
13
Speed and Delay
To determine Af congestion was apparent at any given
locations, speed and delay runs were conducted along Tamarack
Avenue.
to document these conditions. See Appendix H.
A two-man team equipped with stop watches set out
The run on Tamarack Avenue was set up between Carlsbad
Boulevard and Highland Drive. Study sheets were prepared with
the various intersections where delays were expected. As the
study team traversed Tamarack Avenue, the time was noted when
- each of the predetermined locations was passed. Any extra-
ordinary delay caused by traffic controls or excessive
I vehicle delay was also noted. Along with the running time
element the total delay and reason were also noted. By using
this method, the travel time could be determined between the
various predetermined points along the roadway. To determine e-
the delay caused by vehicles, the delay stop watch was activated
when the speed decreased to 10 mph. At the time this speed
increased greater than 10 mph, the watch was stopped and the
delay was recorded.
_-
I
During this exercise the study team did not pass any -
vehicles along this road segment. No unusual driver charac-
the segment, average speeds were also obtained. While travel-
ing this roadway in an easterly direction, the stop time
delays were mainly caused by four-way stop controls at the
intersections of Garfield, Jefferson, the traffic signal at
Pi0 Pico, and the four-way stop controls at Adams and at
Highland. These average stop time delays were approximately
3.5 seconds.
- teristics were noted by the study team and while traversing
14
The average speed for the entire run was approximately
21 miles per hour, The highest speed achieved along this
road segment in an easterly direction was 30 miles per hour.
This was located between the railroad tracks and Jefferson.
The average speeds along Tamarack Avenue between specific
locations are as follows:
Carlsbad to Garfield 14 mph
Garfield to R.R. Tracks 24 rnph
R.R. Tracks to Jefferson 30 rnph
Jefferson to Centerline of 1-5 28 mph
Centerline of 1-5 to Pi0 Pic0 22 rnph
Pi0 Pic0 to Adams 17 rnph
Adams to Highland 20 rnph
These are average speeds between these roadway segments and
this analysis was conducted while keeping with the flow of
traffic. Another point that should be mentioned at this time
is that these travel speed and delay runs were conducted dur-
ing the peak hours,
- The day selected was a Saturday, June 26, 1976, and the
peak hours began at 12:OO to 1:OO and the afternoon peak was
between the hours of 3:OO and 4:OO. This particular day was
selected because the consultant hoped to obtain a typical
- normal day in which much of the traffic would be destined for
Carlsbad State Beach. The weather during this day was sunny
I . and warm and much of the beach was occupied. The total travel
time in an eastbound direction along Tamarack Avenue beginning
at Carlsbad Boulevard and continuing to Highland was approxi-
mately 2 minutes, 53 seconds.
-
.-
15
_- A
e
L
. -
The same procedure as described for the eastbound direc-
tion was followed when traversing Tamarack in a westbound
direction. The speeds attained between the same given seg-
ments of road were approximately the same and the total time
to traverse this road segment was 2 minutes, 54 seconds. The
average dif ferenc'e in traversing Tamarack Avenue in an easterly
and westerly direction is approximately one second. The
significance of this is that traffic was flowing generally
in equal amounts in both directions and there were no major
obstructions or geometric inconsistencies which would pre-
clude these times from being somewhat equal.
To establish a comparison for these travel times and
speeds along Tamarack, the study team traveled Elm Avenue the
same day during the same peak hours. Elm was selected due
to the improvements which have occurred on the street and
the types of land uses adjacent to this roadway. These road-
ways are somewhat different in that the adjacent land uses
on Elm are commercial and retail for the majority of the study
travel length and the land uses that front Tamarack are mixed
and range from R-1 residential to commercial and retail
facilities.
The same terminus was used for Elm Street (that being
Carlsbad Boulevard to the west and Highland Drive to the east).
The roadways are somewhat equal in length with Tamarack being
approximately 5,325 feet in length and Elm being approximately
5,016 feet in length, the net difference being approximately
300 feet. The average time to traverse the limits of Elm in
an easterly direction was approximately 2 minutes, 32 seconds.
The average speed obtained was 22 miles per hour. The delays
incurred were mainly at the intersection where traffic signals
16
were present. Traffic signals exist at State Street and at
Harding Street. The other delays incurred were at stop sign
controlled intersections such as Highland Drive.
While traversing Elm in a westbound direction the delays
incurred were approximately the same. The average time was
2 minutes, 37 seconds and the average speed was 21 miles per
hour. The consistency of these two travel 'times and speeds
relate that there are no significant roadway characteristics
that would preclude traffic in one direction being signifi-
cantly different than traffic in another.
When the two roadways are compared, Tamarack Avenue and
Elm Avenue, there is only approximately a 2 mile per hour
difference in the average travel speed between the given
boundaries. The speeds were slightly greater on Elm Street
due to the improvements that have been made, providing four
through lanes for traffic from Harding Street easterly to
Highland and providing left turn lanes for Interstate 5 westerly
to Carlsbad Boulevard. In essence, these two roadways on
June 26, 1976, between the hours of 12:OO and 1:OO and 3:OO
and 4:00, were somewhat equal in speed and travel time.
There were no major differences or driver characteristics on
either of these two roadways. At the time of this review,
pedestrian and bicycle traffic was not a problem inherent with
Tamarack. Traffic moved very well along both study routes
with no major hesitations or operational problems encountered.
It was anticipated that in the vicinity of the residential
areas traffic backing onto the highway would present some
short delay. However, none of these delays were ever incurred.
The parking that is located in downtown Carlsbad along Elm
Street again was not a problem. As noted, the average speeds
and travel times on both of these streets are operating at
. approximately the same level of service.
17
T EZAFF I C GENE RAT ION
One of the major elements of this study was to generate
the traffic for all proposed development in the City which
would be tributary to Tamarack Avenue. This would represent
a "worst condition'' situation. This task was accomplished
by utilizing the current zoning established and provided by
the City and applying generation rates to determine the total
amount of traffic being generated from those zones tributary
to Tamarack Avenue.
A base map of the City was used and overlayed with sub-
zones which divided the areas contributing to Tamarack into
workable units (Figure 2, page 20). Traffic was generated
within each of these subzones with respect to each of the
proposed land uses shown on the zoning map. These generation
rates were selected from past studies conducted by the
Department of Transportation and were mutually agreed upon
by the City and the consultant. The rates* are as follows:
Single Family 10 Trip Ends/Dwelling Unit
Multiple Family 8 11 11
Mobile Homes 7
Agriculture 14 It
It II
Comer ci a 1
Schools
Parks
13/1000 G.F.A. or 600-700/Acre
50/Acre
35/Acre
*Based on trip generation studies conducted by the State of California Department of Transportation and the Institute of Transportation Engineers and in concurrence with City staff.
18
To supplement this data, input was received from the City
Planning Department as to the various number of dwelling units
per acre for various densities of residential zoning. RLM
(low density) zoning was calculated at 4 dwelling units per
acre; RM (medium density) had a range of 4-10 dwelling units
per acre. For the purpose of traffic generation, the 10
dwelling units per acre was used, The RMH and RH (medium high
and high densities) zoning had two ranges of density. The
first was 10-20 dwelling units per acre; the second was 20-30
per acre, The 20 dwelling units per acre figure was used in
all cases,
For example, an RLM zoned parcel approximately 5 acres
in size would be multiplied by the density of development
(provided by the Planning Department). This yields the total
number of dwellings for that 5 acre parcel. This number in
turn was multiplied by the generation rate in trips per dwelling
unit:
Total Trip Ends = Parcel Size per Acre x Density x Generation Rate
Total Trip Ends = 5 Acres x 4 Lhits/Acre x 10 Trips/Dwellhg Unit
Total Trip Ends = 200 (5 x 4 x 10)
Figure 2 is a graphic display of the subzones selected
for this study. These zones were selected by merely using
streets and City zoning boundaries as perimeter lines. Traffic
was then generated for each subzone. Table 2 indicates the
amount of traffic generated by each of the subzones, Appendix I.
To obtain a more meaningful relationship of the total
volume of traffic generated by these subzones, they were
compared to the traffic volumes geverated from the three
19
figure 2
TRAFFIC GENERATION
SUB ZONES
t
20
.-
.-
corresponding zones covering the same study area used by the
San Diego Comprehensive Planning Organization (C.P.O.). The
data provided by C.P.O. was in the form of home to work, home
to shop, home to other, work to other, and other to other
type trips. The total number of trips by type was listed in
table form by zones. This printout designates the number of
two-way trips between each zone, thus no directional distri-
bution is assigned.
The total generated traffic for all trip types was
analyzed, distributed, and assigned. Due to the impacts
of the beach, a separate analysis was conducted and included
in the total generated traffic. This portion of the study is
discussed in Traffic Generation, page-18. This data was analyzed
to determine the number of trips to and from each of these
three zones to other zones in the County and a directional
distribution established. This directional distribution is
discussed in the following section.
The total amount of traffic generated by all the sub-
zones was 107,972. Various subzones which fell outside the
zones used by C.P.O. were subtracted from the total for com-
parison purposes.
subtracted from the total to leave 67,122. The total amount
of traffic generated by C.P.O. for the same area contributing
to Tamarack was 31,083. The net difference of these figures
is primarily due to the consultant making a micro analysis
of the areas in which land uses were more acutely defined,
thus providing more consistent data.
Vehicle trips representing 40,850 were
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
To determine the distribution of traffic before assign-
ment to the street network, a basis had to be established.
The computerized printout obtained from C.P.O. was used to
21
-
generate a distribution of traffic from all other zones
- within the County to the three zones directly contributary
to Tamarack Avenue (Figure 3., page 23) .
-
This data was used because it provides future 1995 traffic
projections for the entire County. The program makes assign-
ments from one zone to another taking into consideration
zoning, travel desires, trip lengths, etc. From this print-
out, an assignment was made by the consultant to the master
planned street network. The directional distribution is
shown on Figure 3. This enabled the distribution of ultimate
traffic generated for the City with respect to current land
use planning.
To determine a general distribution for each of the
three C.P.O. zones, each one was analyzed individually. Zone
7408 (Figure 3) adjacent to the coast included areas outside
of those tributary to Tamarack so consideration had to be
given to that inconsistency. The distribution conducted by
the consultant verified that approximately 50 percent of the
traffic was oriented north, 36 percent south, 5 percent west,
and 9 percent were trips which never left the zone. Zone
7410 had 43 percent oriented northerly, 9 percent westerly,
34 percent southerly, 7 percent easterly, and 7 percent of
the trips were intra-zone. Zone 6701 had 41 percent oriented
northerly, 34 percent southerly, 11 percent easterly, 7 per-
cent westerly, and 7 percent of the trips were intra-zone.
The results of the individual zones were compared to
obtain the overall distribution as noted on Figure 4. This
was necessary to provide the consultant a basis for directional
distribution of ultimate generated traffic. The C.P.O. model
was used judiciously in the determination of this directional
distribution. Value judgment on the part of the consultant
was exercised in the development of this distribution with
P
.C external trips + internal trips
figure 3
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION
C.€?O. ZONES
23
I
J I
J
J I
figure 4
OF STUDY AREA
GENERAL IZD DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION
\
24
considerations given to types of proposed land uses, commer-
cial and recreational facilities.
The assumptions used in this task are extremely import-
ant due to the fact that the assignment of the generated
traffic is directly related to the directional distribution.
TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT
To determine the cross section dimensional requirements
of the roadway for the various segments of Tamarack Avenue
between Highland Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard, "traffic
assignment" is one of the most important considerations. The
assumptions made during this phase of the study will have the
greatest effects on the recommendations, with respect to
costs and user benefits.
The assignment of traffic to Tamarack Avenue was con-
ducted in two phases. The first phase was the assignment of
traffic from the data obtained from the C.P.O. Desire lines
from all other zones were drawn to each of the three zones
contributing to Tamarack Avenue. Desire lines represent a
graphical analysis of trip distribution from one location
to another and are used to show the need for various corri-
dors of traffic movement. To these desire lines, the link
volumes were placed, then assigned to the street network.
Figure 5 shows the existing and projected traffic volumes
assigned to Tamarack Avenue. It was interesting to note
that volumes adjacent to the freeway were higher than the
others along Tamarack Avenue. This was not surprising due
to the fact that Interstate 5 is the major traffic corridor
from the northerly portion of the County to the southerly
portion.
When assigning projected traffic to the street system,
25
c
26
a certain amount of judgment had to be exercised.
stance, it is obvious that all the traffic south of Carlsbad
would not use Interstate 5. There are three routes which
could be used: Carlsbad Boulevard, Interstate 5, and El
Camino Real.
and distances, For the daily home to work commuter, the
fastest route would be selected.
For in-
Other aspects to consider were travel times
The second phase of traffic assignment to Tamarack pre-
sented a larger problem. The trips generated by each sub-
zone within the area tributary to Tamarack Avenue have to
be assigned giving consideration to the directional distribu-
.- tion mentioned in the foregoing section. Unlike the assign-
ment of traffic from zone to zone conducted by C.P.O. which
included directional distribution in the original model, the
assignment from subzone areas to the street system to areas
outside of these selected zones was conducted by considering
this directional distribution.
-
-
Traffic from each of the subzones was assigned to
Tamarack by taking into consideration as to where that zone
lies within the overall tributary area. For example, trips
assigned to the network from subzones 1, 2, 13, and 14 would
follow’ the directional distribution shown on Figure 3, where
trips from zones 45, 46, and 52 would have to be modified
due to the ocean located directly to the west. Once again,
this assignment was accomplished to attempt to reflect the
desires of the users.
It should be pointed out that this assignment assumed
that Tamarack would be constructed to El Camino Real, the
Park Drive extension would be completed, and Cannon Road
would be constructed to El Camino Real. If these assumptions
change, a larger demand will be placed on Tamarack Avenue.
A separate analysis would have to be conducted to establish
these relationships .
27
-
.-
I_
The volumes west of the freeway assigned to Tamarack
Avenue are somewhat consistent with those of the C.P.O. esti-
mations; the only exception is that the cons'ultant's were
a slightly higher. A quite different picture develops east
of the freeway. The projected volumes are approximately twice
the C.P.O. projections (see Figure 5, page 26). An explana-
tion of this is as follows,
When traffic was generated from the zones south of
Tamarack between the freeway and El Camino Real, a precise
plan that had been prepared for the City by Alan M. Voorhees
and Associates was used. This plan outlined the land use
elements more precisely, thus giving a more accurate defini-
tion of area development. This allowed the consultant to
generate from this area a more realistic amount of traffic
which would in turn be assigned to the street system. The
C.P.O. model was set up without the aid of this valuable in-
formation.
The assumptions used for this area, which included the
future roadway construction outlined above, would subject
the area to an increased amount of development, As pointed
out in the Voorhees report, if these alignments were not
completed as master planned, the demands on Tamarack would
increase. Once the traffic assignment was completed, these
volumes could be analyzed by using existing peaking condi-
tions and characteristics to determine the cross sectional
requirements,
.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
The newly established North County Transit District is
continually reviewing the existing bus routes in the Carlsbad
area. See Appendix J for existing routings. During conver-
sations with the Transit District it was mentioned that
28
budgeting constraints have required the schools to cut bus
service. This should increase the demand for public trans-
portation.
In the future, public transit will play an important
role for beach patrons. As areas in the east and southeast-
erly segments of the City develop, public transportation
will be an important mode of transportation for those who
cannot drive, do not have private transportation available,
or discover that good parking is not available.
CARLSBAD STATE BEACH
One of the major considerations of this study is the
vehicular impact to Tamarack Avenue created by the beach.
Beach patronage, parking, and size was reviewed to provide
insight to those impacts.
Discussions were held with an official representing the
Carlsbad State Beach area and other individuals dealing with
traffic problems related to beaches which fall into their
jurisdictions. * It was determined that "beach capacity" is
calculated on a 10' x 10' or 100 square foot area per person.
As the beach patronage increases, this 100 square foot area
may decrease to 64 square feet per person. For the purpose
of this study the 100 square foot figure was used.
According to Mr. Jack Welch, Department of Parks and
Recreation, San Diego Coast Area, the State Beach is approxi-
mately 5,400 feet long and 75 feet wide. This computed to
approximately 405,000 square feet of usable beach. San Diego
Gas & Electric recently negotiated with the State to provide
*City of Huntington Beach and Department of Parks & Recreation
29
an additional 2,000 feet of beach for public use,
add approximately 150,000 square feet to the existing 405,000
square feet, upping the total to 555,000 square feet. Due
to the location of this additional beach, it is not considered
to have a direct effect on Tamarack traffic volumes.
This will
To establish a realistic relationship of existing volumes
to future volumes, the existing figure of 405,000 square feet
of beach was used. To obtain "beach capacity" this figure is
divided by 100 square feet, Thus, it is possible that there
would be 4,050 persons at the beach at one given tine period.
Mr. Welch estimated that the average length of stay is 3 hours,
Appendix K. This represents a possible turnover of all
available space every 3 hours during a 9 hour day (1O:OO a.m.
to 7:OO p.m,), thus the person demand at capacity for the
beach during any day would be 12,150.
To determine if this assumption of 100 square feet per
person -is correct, a comparison was made with actual beach
counts provided by the Parks and Recreation Department
(letter from .Parks and Recreation Department (Appendix X ) .
For the months of June, July, August, and September the total
beach attendance was 771,777. Assuming average daily attend-
an ce
into
there are 122 days during those months, This is divided ~
the total attendance to obtain the average attendance.
This average attendance per day is divided into the total
square footage of beach to obtain the average space required
per person. These computed figures do not consider a turnover
rate.
BmcH *AL AREA = sq:Ft.&Je. _I 75'X5f400' = 64 Sq.Ft./Person SurrYtrtr ATTE"CJ3 PER DAY 6,326
I-
_-
Average for Year mrAL 13F?r's
30
- Considering the 64 square feet per person would be saying
that all 6,326 persons were at the beach at one time. To
accurately assess beach demand the turnover rate of 3 would
have to be applied to the 6,326, thus 2,109 persons would be
at the beach at one time period. Thus,
Amrage for Year m, ws
BEAM AREA = 75'x5,4OO1 = 400 Sq.Ft./Person
3.026 lxrn"m PER DAY -. --- 3
AS expected, the demand presented by the summer months
is much greater than the average for the entire year. How-
ever, the basic assumed figure of 100 feet per person is
somewhat accurate when computing beach capacity. Since it is
not economically feasible to design for ultimate usage, the
figure of 100 square feet will be used. As mentioned earlier,
a demand of 12,150 people per day exists for the State Beach.
Disregarding the people who walk in, which is approximately
22 percent of the total taken from attendance figures, and
assuming that all would arrive in a vehicle, this would
generate approximately 5,063 trips per day.
These generated trips must be assigned to Tamarack Avenue
and the north and south legs of Carlsbad Boulevard. From
*This occupancy was determined by observations made by the consultant and estimates by the Department of Parks and Recreation.
31
existing manual counts taken at the intersection, the direc-
tional distribution is as follows:
IN
61%
- OUT
54%
-
'.24%TamarackAm~e I State Beach 424% State Beach
15% 22%
To relate the expected growth in the southeastern portion
of the City, the directional distribution is as follows:
45% Carlsbad Boulevard North
A -40% Tamarack V
15% Carlsbad Boulevard South
It is projected that the demand for the beach from Tamarack
will increase, reflecting the increase in percentage assigned
to Tamarack. Thus, 2,025 trips will be distributed to Tamarack,
2,278 trips will be distributed to the north leg of Carlsbad
Boulevard, and 759 trips will be distributed to the south.
The projected demand for the beach is a realistic con-
sideration when considering the beach only. There are addi-
tional factors which enter into the evaluating process. Once
these volumes arrive, where are they going to park? This
will be discussed in the following section.
The impacts created by the State Beach to Tamarack
Avenue will depend largely on the amount of parking available.
The estimated attendance figures discussed in the preceding
section assume that adequate parking is provided. An inven-
tory of available parking indicates that there are approxi-
mately 475 spaces. The inventory is as follows:
32
IXICRTIoN
1, Below Jetty (3 lots @ 40 each)
2. Encina Fishing Area
3. TamarackIat
4. New Developmnt at Tamarack
5, Pine Street (north end)
6. QI-street (Carlsbad Boulevard)
TOTAL
SPACES
120
60
120
70
35
100
475
Discussions with the City and the State Parks and Recre-
ation Department suggested that all open space available for
parking is currently being utilized and there are no immed-
iate plans for providing additional facilities , Considering
the current parking provisions, the proposed or generated
figure of 5,063 vehicle trips is somewhat unrealistic,
The beach patronage turnover rate of 3 was used; there-
fore, it is estimated that the demand for parking will be
1,688 spaces.
5,063 3 = 1,688
Existing spaces subtracted from the projected demand would net
1,213 additional spaces needed. If additional spaces are not
provided, motorists destined for the beach will seek parking
on adjacent residential streets.
Summing up the above data, the projected volumes based
on total beach capacity are not likely to be met due to the
fact that sufficient parking to meet the projected demand may
not be provided.
There are several options which the City and the State
Parks and Recreation Department could take to improve the
quality of parking in the general area. The first is exploring
33
vacant parcels adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard for additional
parking facilities. These vacant parcels would make ideal
locations for parking and provide the needed facilities as
projected growths in vehicular volumes are experienced,
Another possible option would be to encourage the Transit
District to provide low cost beach transit for many of the
people who reside beyond walking distance to the beach.
The third option could be utilization of the existing rail-
road right of way located approximately half way between
Garfield and Jefferson. The right of way on the north side
of Tamarack is approximately 200 feet in width. The westerly
portion of this right of way is currently being used as
access for the dwellings on Redwood, Hemlock, and Juniper.
The Santa Fe railroad could be approached and an encroach-
ment permit obtained to utilize a portion of this right of
way for a parking facility. It is close enough to the beach
which would allow people to park and walk to the beach.
Another possibility would be to provide some type of a
shuttle bus which would take individuals from this lot down
to the State Beach. The City of Laguna Beach currently uses
this approach during the summer months when there is a great
demand for the beach and downtown facilities.
The parking situation for the beach is currently some-
what of a problem and as the demand for the beach increases,
the parking situation is going to become critical, In sub-
sequent sections on Design Alternatives, pages 43-46, one
of the design criteria considered for Tamarack Avenue is the
provision for parking. Generally speaking, parking should
not be provided along arterial roadways. However, in this
situation where Tamarack Avenue serves local access as well
as providing for the through arterial movement of traffic,
combined with the close proximity of the beach which gener-
ates the demand for parking, this design concept was incor-
porated into the cross sectional area for the proposed
'34
widening of Tamarack Avenue. Although the parking which will
be achieved through the widening of Tamarack Avenue will be
of a parallel type, it will not totally satisfy the needs for
the demands created by the beach. However, with this parking
provided, it will assist in diminishing a small portion of
the parking requirements as well as providing parking in
front of the residential housing fronting onto Tamarack
Avenue .
The cross section selected for this portion of Tamarack
has the capability of providing two through lanes with
parking plus bicycle facilities or four through lanes with-
out parking plus bicycle lanes. Projected volumes suggest
the need for a two-lane facility which will provide addi-
tional parking; however, if in the future additional lanes
are needed, this parking will be eliminated.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
Introduction
Many controversial subjects are involved with the en-
vironmental considerations of a construction or improvement
project.
strued as an Environmental Impact Statement. It merely pre-
sents an overview of potential problems which may be encoun-
tered when the proposed project is implemented.
This section of the report should not be miscon-
Coastal Commission
The Coastal Commission is concerned with providing var-
ious types of constraints to provide an overall scheme which
would consider all types of users.
construction of residential and commercial properties in
concert with aesthetics and individuals wishing to use the
This would include the
35
-
.I
c
beaches via vehicles, bicycles, and foot traffic. It is in
the interest of the Coastal Commission and the City of
Carlsbad that these requirements be met. The restrictions
set forth by the Coastal Commission for development along
and adjacent to Tamarack Avenue were due to the fact that
there have been no plans for ultimate improvement of Tamarack
Avenue. The demands for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian
traffic on Tamarack were not known. It is through this
report that traffic was generated, distributed, and assigned
to Tamarack, thus providing insight as to what future demands
e will be. This report should establish a base that both the
Coastal Commission and the City of Carlsbad can utilize for
their decisions on proposed developments adjacent to Tamarack
Avenue.
-
Aesthetics
The proposed widening of Tamarack Avenue will have a
direct effect on the aesthetics of the area. Due to the
required roadway width, most of the existing trees which
line Tamarack Avenue on either side will have to be removed
or relocated. The improvements proposed for Tamarack Avenue
will include curbs, gutters, and sidewalks as well as trees
adjacent to the roadway. Where much of Tamarack has earth
shoulders adjacent to the paved roadway, curbs and gutters
will define street limits, thus improving the aesthetics
of the roadway by defining the exact limits of the road.
To reduce the impact of this widening project, provisions
for trees and landscaping have been made, These trees will
be located behind the sidewalk in tree planting easements.
During the rainy season, much of the water that currently
ponds will be carried away by curbs, gutters, and storm drains.
These improvements will be made during reconstruction of the
roadway.
36
Air Pollution
Wherever the probability of future development exists,
an increase in air pollution is inevitable. However, these
impacts can be minimized by providing safe and efficient
movement of traffic through well designed roadways in which
stopping and starting, slowing, and idling will be reduced
to a minimum. Other mitigating measures would be the pro-
vision of public transit which would lower the total number
of vehicles utilizing this roadway. This is especially
true during the summer months or Santa Ana wind conditions
when air pollution problems are intensified.
Sound levels will be increased for all the residences
along this corridor due to the projected increase in traffic
volumes.. The street right of way comes very close to indi-
vidual dwellings at several locations along the proposed
increased. Improvements to the homes, such as insulation
be installed. In some locations it may be necessary to pro-
vide block walls to reduce the sound levels produced by the
projected traffic volumes.
to the railroad, increases in noise level intensity due to
- alignment. At these locations the noise levels will be
- and windows specially designed to reduce noise levels, may
I
For the houses in close proximity
the projected traffic will not be higher than those currently
caused by the railroad. However, due to these increases
in traffic volumes, noise levels will exist for longer dura-
tions throughout the day.
Quality of Life
Some of the residential housing, in which the road
passes very near the structure itself, will notice some
37
decrease in general quality of living. At these locations
these individuals will no longer be able to park their cars
in driveways or park on the street. Due to the noise impacts,
those affected individuals may notice an increased noise level
for extended periods of the day.
Generally, the improvements of Tamarack Avenue will pro-
vide safe and efficient movement of traffic for ingress and
egress to all those private parcels fronting Tamarack as
well as the arterial movement of traffic. Arterial traffic
is referred to as commuter type traffic, the home to shop
type traffic, as well as home to other which would include
the recreational traffic destined for the beach, parks, etc.
There are two houses which will have to be removed and
several others that will be affected due to the nearness of
the proposed alignment. It is the opinion of the consultant
that the benefits gained by the motoring public through
safety, roadway efficiency, reduction in energy consumption,
and other environmental considerations will overcome the
initial and continuing impacts to the parcels mentioned above .
ALIGNMENT SELECTION
Many things were considered when establishing the cri-
teria for a street configuration which would serve the
demands and the needs of the roadway users. The first and
most important task was to determine the quantity of
vehicles using the roadway. After this task was accomplished,
the volumes were analyzed to determine the operating charac-
teristics which are directly related to the design criteria.
Consideration was given to all forms of transportation:
pedestrian,’bicyclist, and vehicular traffic. The City’s
master plan of bike trails does not include a bikeway facility
38
I
-.
.-
a.
along Tamarack over the freeway. Due to the demand that
will be placed onto Tamarack, it was felt that it would be
somewhat unrealistic to exclude bicycle traffic from any
portion of Tamarack.
Tamarack also emphasizes the need to establish provisions
for bicycle traffic.
The State Beach located at the end of
Pedestrian facilities were a major consideration for
the ultimate improvement of Tamarack. Tamarack, due to
various schools and specifically the beach, has a rather
high demand for pedestrian facilities. In all of the
following alternatives, pedestrian facilities are recom-
mended with only minor changes in cross sectional elements.
Medians were considered to improve the aesthetics of
Tamarack as well as provide channelization and ease of
movement for vehicular traffic. With the installation of
median islands, side friction caused by vehicles driving
adjacent to one another is reduced considerably. However,
due to right of way constraints, particularly between
Carlsbad Boulevard and Jefferson Street and the need to pro-
vide access to local residents fronting Tamarack, raised
medians have been ruled out as a viable alternative.
Landscaping and lane widths were considered for each
of the alternatives. The selected driving lane width is
11 to 12 feet with a 10 foot left turn lane provided along
the entire length from Carlsbad Boulevard to Highland Drive,
To determine lane configuration, the existing and pro-
jected volumes must be carefully analyzed,
of only the 24 hour traffic volume for lane determination
is inadequate. This is only a secondary feature when con-
sidering design criteria for a roadway. Two other elements
of the ADT must be analyzed: the peak hour percentages and
Utilization
39
distribution of the peak hour traffic. Peak hours, when
analyzed, will display various characteristics of a roadway.
A normal peak hour for commuter type traffic, which
includes the home to work trip, will generally amount to
10-12 percent of the average daily traffic. A typical pro-
file of the daily volumes would be as follows. The a.m.
peak would occur between 7:OO and 8:OO and would amount to
approximately 8-10 percent of the ADT. After the morning
peak, the percentages would drop to approximately 3-5 percent.
As 12:OO noon approaches, the percentages begin to climb
then fall off around 3:OO and once again build to the p.m.
peak which generally occurs between 5:OO and 6:OO.
usually the highest peak in which 10 to 12 percent of the
ADT occurs. This picture begins to change when looking at
the traffic which occurs in a downtown area.
This is
A morning peak still occurs; however, the volumes do
not drop to the level as they would with the commuter
traffic.
higher levels. The p.m. peak hour tends to be a bit lower,
between 8 and 10 percent, but in essence both streets could
have the same ADT. The important part of this discussion
is that better utilization of the roadway occurs with the
downtown condition.
Throughout the day traffic volumes maintain at
When considering the design elements for a given street,
the controlling factor is the design direction peak hour.
In the above example, it is conceivable that both could
have the same ADT but, due to the differences in peak con-
ditions, one roadway may require two lanes in one direction
while the other could efficiently handle its volumes with
one lane in each direction.
As mentioned in a prior section of this report, traffic
40
.c
,---
A
counts were conducted by the City for the purpose of this
study. The road segments between Carlsbad and Jefferson
have peak hour percentages of 9 percent. This percentage
will be applied to the projected volumes shown on Figure 5.
It should be pointed out at this time that the peak hour
percentages will probably not change. The reason for this
is twofold. Much of this area is currently developed. There
are no major changes in land uses, only in land use densities.
This will tend to increase the ADT as shown by Appendix D,
"Existing and Future Volumes," but the peak hours will in-
crease proportionally, thus the peak hour percentage will
remain consistent. The second is the demand for the beach
will remain as it is today, percentage-wise.
The peak hour volume of 9 percent of the highest pro-
jected volume for this roadway segment, which is 12,900
vehicles per day, is 1,161 vehicles. The next step in
determining the cross sectional needs is to review the
directional split of these 1,161 vehicles. Again, the exist-
- ing volumes were analyzed and it was determined that approxi-
-- direction during the peak hour and 42 percent in the other.
Fifty-eight percent of the projected 1,161 peak hour vehicles
will net 673 vehicles. This is the number of vehicles that
Tamarack should be designed to carry between Carlsbad Boule-
vard and Jefferson Street in one direction for one hour.
There will be times when this volume will be exceeded; how-
ever, this situation will only occur occasionally, and the
benefit gained from constructing a road for its highest peak
hour of the year is negligible.
mately 58 percent of this traffic was traveling in one
-
-~
-
Level of service is a term used for describing the ease
and comfort in which one can drive along any portion of a
given roadway. As mentioned earlier in the report, the
capacities for a roadway with the characteristics of Tamarack,
41
according to "Capacity of At-grade Junctions, I' published by
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
lane volhes for various levels of service are as follows:
LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE VOLUMES (PCU/H) *
A e 1,100
B 1,100
C 1,250
D
E
1,350
1,600
8 These lane volumes were established to represent the
flow of uninterrupted traffic for one lane of traffic. This
will reduce the assumed 100 percent green time of the above
volumes to approximately 50-60 percent due to the right of
way being assigned to the cross street. If 50 percent of
the green time would be assigned to Tamarack, which would be
a minimum, the volumes would be reduced to the following:
*
LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE VOLUMES (PCU/50% HOUR
OF GREEN)
A -= 550
B 550
C 625
D 675
E 800
Based on this analysis, a two-lane roadway (one lane
in each direction) would provide a conservative level of
service "D" for the projected volumes of 685 vehicles for
the p.m. peak hour utilizing Tamarack Avenue between Carlsbad
Boulevard and Jefferson Street.
*Passenger car units per hour per lane for 100% green.
42
.- A
As shown on Figure 5, page 26, the projected volumes east
of the freeway are much higher than those west of the freeway.
It was determined from existing counts that the peak hour for
this road segment was 10 percent and the directional split
was slightly higher at 61 percent and 39 percent. Ten per-
cent of 19,000 is 1,900 and 61 percent of 1,900 is 1,159,
This is the design volume for this roadway segment,
_-
.. .
..I
L
The 1,159 vehicles per hour exceed the volumes shown
above; therefore, a two-lane facility should be designed to
facilitate this increase. This would net an approximate lane
volume of 580 vehicles, thus providing a level of service
jected to carry 14,200 vehicles per day. The same analogy
is used to determine the number of lanes for this segment.
So (14,890) x (-09) x (-56) equals 750 one direction which
is in the realm of level of service "E" but would be un-
acceptable to the roadway users, This would require a
four-lane facility to be constructed to Highland Drive.
The segment between Adams and Highland is pro- IIB I1 to 1) C. I!
The following table represents the peak hour volumes and
levels of service for the projected traffic volumes on Tamarack
Avenue :
EXISTING %
PROJECTED PEAK DIRECI!ICNAL
STREET SEGMENr WLUMES HOUR DISTRIBUTION
Carlsbad Blvd. to Jeffersan St. I2 , 900 9% 5 8%
Jefferson St. to 1-5
1-5 to Adams St.
pdams St, to Highland Dr.
*2 lanes, one direction -
Alternate 1
Alternate 1 shown
on the 40 scale aerial
I5 , 850 8% 61%
19,000 10% 6 1%
14,890 9% 56%
m
PEAK HR. LENEt OF
WLUMES 5xxvIcE
1,160 D
1,270 A*
1,900 C*
1,340 A*
at the back of this report and drawn
photos is the alternative recommended
43
..--
A
by the consultant to serve the projected volumes, provide
adequate facilities for the residents, and be the most cost-
effective alternative for improvement of Tamarack Avenue.
A uniform section of 80 feet of right of way and a 64
foot curb separation is proposed for Tamarack from Carlsbad
Boulevard to Highland Drive. This was selected because it
conforms to all the requirements of the projected volumes
and meets the criteria needed for Federal funding. Federal
funding is anticipated to be sought to assist in the con-
struction of this roadway. In order to obtain Federal fund-
ing, certain criteria are required. Eleven to 12 foot travel
lanes and 10 foot parking lanes are encouraged to be used.
These considerations have been incorporated in the fo4lowing
recommended cross sections.
TAMARACK AVENUE Carlsbad Boulevard to Jefferson Street
The segment of Tamarack east of the freeway has a differ-
ent cross section than that of Tamarack west of the freeway.
By deleting parking but providing two lanes in each direction
-
44
c
As mentioned in an earlier portion of this study, a - four-lane roadway is necessary to meet the projected demands
To stay within a 64 foot curb to curb width it will be
necessary to reduce the lane widths to 11 feet and remove
on-street parking. -
One of the major functions of Tamarack is to serve
residential dwellings fronting this roadway. To provide
for the safe and efficient movement of traffic, a two-way
left turn lane is proposed along the entire length. This
will remove left turners from the through lanes, thus allow-
ing through traffic to move without interruption. There
will be 8 feet allotted for the parkway and sidewalks, The
segment of Tamarack between Carlsbad Boulevard and Jefferson
Street will allow parking on both sides of the street.
Adjacent to the parking lanes will be located an exclusive
bicycle lane which will be delineated by a solid white line.
There is no plan to change the existing traffic controls
along this segment of roadway at this time, At such time
projected volumes are approached, the intersection of Jeffer-
son and Garfield should be reviewed periodically to determine
when signalization is warranted. (See Appendix C)
Several locations along Tamarack have been improved to
ultimate conditions. These will not be affected by the
proposed alignment. There is, however, one section in front
of the Safeway Shopping Center at Adams which will be affected,
To minimize the impacts on the residential housing east of
Adams, the street west of Adams will have to be realigned to
a limited degree. This will require a minimum amount of
curb removal in front of the shopping center.
Due to the recommended changes in roadway widths,
45
c
c
c
modifications to the existing striping will occur throughout
the length of Tamarack within the study area. This striping
includes delineation for parking, bicycle lanes, through
lanes, and left turn lanes. Consideration should be given
to bus turnouts at bus stop locations.
Alternate 2
The cross sections recommended for Tamarack Avenue will
remain consistent for all alternatives. The only difference
in the two alignments is the position of the roadway within
the physical constraints of the right of way. The second
alternative is basically the placement of the roadway
symmetrical to the existing centerline. There are some
locations along Tamarack which are improved and the right
of way take is off one side only.
There-were only two alternatives prepared on the 40
scale aerials; however, other alternatives were studied in
detail. These were not shown because of the right of way
takes and anticipated construction problems that might be
encountered, plus the adverse impacts on existing properties.
Consideration was given to an alternative route. The
concept involved a one-way couplet scheme using Tamarack
Avenue and Chinquapin Avenue. A brief discussion of this
possibility is included in Appendix M.
This study was needed to provide necessary input to
the City and various other agencies and to identify the
future needs of Tamarack Avenue. It is not the intent of
this study to provide a preliminary design of Tamarack Avenue.
However, the intent is to show the needed geometrics to
efficiently move the projected traffic volumes.
46
COST ANALYSIS
Detailed
alternatives,
rc
cost estimates were prepared for the selected
Appendix L.
To obtain the true land values of the parcels fronting
Tamarack, several realtors were contacted and comparisons
were made. It was determined that the true value was approxi-
c mately 200 percent that of the Assessor's values.
Appendix L gives preliminary construction costs with -
the right of way costs included. The construction estimates
are preliminary and a detailed breakdown of each item which
would contribute to the actual construction is not included.
The segment of Tamarack Avenue between Carlsbad Boule-
vard and Interstate 5 will probably be constructed before
the second segment between Interstate 5 and Highland Drive.
To reflect this, the cost estimates are shown for both seg-
ments of Tamarack and both alternative alignments.
Total roadway costs* are shown below:
ALTERNATE 1
Right of Way $ 383,150
Construction 991,400
TOTAL $1,374,550
ALTERNATE 2
Right of Way $ 508,700
Construction 991,400
TOTAL $1,500,100
*Costs reflective of January 1977
47
EMINENT DOMAIN -
There have been recent changes in the eminent domain
laws. Eminent domain is the right of a government to take
private property for public use by virtue of the superior
domain of the sovereign power over all lands within its
jurisdiction. The changes are as follows:
-
1. A 4/5ths vote of the Council is required for
all condemnations.
2. Condemnation resolutions require a noticed public
hearing at least fifteen days in advance of
Council action. The affected propertyowners
must be noticed and the Council must make certain
findings before adopting their resolution. Under
the new law such a resolution will still be con-
clusive but the Court's ability to review the
findings in support of that resolution through
a mandamus procedure allows a propertyowner
to attack the taking itself, which contains
potential serious delays in the project.
3. Findings are required for Council actions in
regard to condemnation so care must be taken to
see that the staff report and the engineer's
report on the project contain a full justification
of the project and a full justification for the
taking of the particular piece of property.
Project implementation can be affected primarily by the
changes in the rules governing the orders of immediate
possession. Prior to changes in the law it was possible to
get an order of immediate possession within twenty-one days
48
after the filing of the lawsuit. Thirty days after the
Council passed the condemnation resolution the project could
proceed notwithstanding that the .case might not be resolved
for several years. That period has been extended to thirty-
one days for vacant land: all other condemnations now require
a ninety day waiting period before the order of immediate
-_ possession can be effective.
Furthermore, previously it was not possible for a prop-
ertyowner to contest an order of immediate possession.
There is now in the law a "hardship" standard that allows
the Court to intervene and delay the taking of the property.
Not only can the Court extend the time for effecting the
order of immediate possession, but they also can attach
conditions. What this means in practical terms is that if
developed property is being taken and the owner wishes to
employ counsel to fight the project, there is the potential
for serious delays. Thus, projects involving developed
properties should be acquired before the project goes to bid.
49
e-
-
I
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Kent Whitson
Tim Flanagan
Ron Beckman
Dana Whitson
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Jack Welch
Nello Greer
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Gordon Loots
Dennis Thompson
COASTAL COMMISSION
Chuck Dam
Daniel Gorfain
Civil Engineering Assistant
City Engineer
Public Works Administrator
Ass is t ant P lanner
Beaches and Parks
Cooperative Projects, CALTRANS
Comprehensive Planning Organization
Comprehensive Planning Organization
Administrative Anal.yst
Assistant Executive Director
NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT - Oceanside
Dan D'amico
50
APPENDIX A
AMTRAR SCHEDULE
LOS ANGELES - SAN DIEGO
Id Down (Pacifk limo) Read Up
The Sun Diegans
Ammt senice
++ 778 I 776 I 774 I 772
1 lop
PP Milu C--lypeolSrrk~ PPW -- --:. -- 7300 0 Dp .... LOS ANGELES,CA .... Ar 935a l2lOp 33% 70% IOWp 8050 25 . . . ..~ull~rtan/Dlrno*yIandJ. .... 9000 11 35a 3Qop 6sop 93% Ella 36 .......... SantaAna .......... 8400 lllOa 240p 61% 91% I 58 ..... SanJuanCapistronoO ..... I 0l8a E1048a I E 848p
850a65 ........ SanU.m.nh0 ..... ... I' I 1lOpS4Op 9100 07 .......... Ouansido .......... 7490 10190 149p 51% 81%
9320 105 ........... DdMarQ ......... 7300 lOOOa i3Op 500, 8-
10100 128 Ar ...... SANDIEQ0,CA .... Dp 7000 930a lap 43Op 730p
I
11 lo0 128 Dp.Son Dhga, CA (Ambok Sta.lA?
11 l5p 144 A?. njuana, 1. Cfa. (Downhn) . Dp
1145aI 345p
1040a 240p - 1 10 3Oa 128 Dp.Son Dbo, CA (Amhk StaJAr I1 350 350p 65Op
1 1 050 144 A?. njuona, 8. Cfa. (Downtown). Dp 11 000 3 1Sp 4 1Sp
(L::: I
The Sun Diegans Lor Angela - San Olego
Ught Moa1 and Bevera e Sorvice-Amdinorro Coach & rvlca-Unreserved Suta
handled on Nos. 772 and 795 at all stations except Sin Clemente. Checked baggage handled on Nor. 771 and 776 at Los Angela and San Diego only: no checked sewlce frovided by thew trains to 8nd tom intermediate potnb.
Bamago S.rviCo-Check.d b8 gag0
SAVE WITH AMTRAK'S ROUND-TRIP EXCURSION FARES
Ask Amtmk or our tmvd agont about CDAY EXC&RJION FAR= on the Voncouver-S.orrl.-Por,land lines, and CDAY EXCURSION FARES on the Son looquin. Tickets must bo pur- chased before boording train.
+-the Caltrak bins am Nor 773,774,776 and 779. Swvico financed in pad through funds mad. avoilable by the Skk of Califomie
For cystoms idomation, su roveno si&
c
APPENDIX B
TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SUMMATION
I
f 8 4, 1 4
i I
/-
2
cm m z
L n m
0
+-7
II
'I
'I
II
'I
1
I
APPENDIX C
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
Various criteria must be established on which the
justification for traffic control devices can be based,
In this instance, warrants that were taken from the State
Traffic Manual and are consistent with Federal standards
can be used for future evaluation.
The traffic signal warrants which follow take into
consideration traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes,
interruption of continuous traffic, traffic accidents,
and other data. Thus, the need for a traffic signal
is not based on one specific requirement.
1 I -
9-4 SlGNALS AND ILLUMINATION Traffic Manual
August, 1972
c
.-
I
- co
Figure 9-1A
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
PM
CALC DATE
CHK DATE
Major St: Critical Approach Speed mPh
Minor St: Critical Approach Speed mPh
RURAL (R)
URBAN (U)
Critical speed of majorstreet traffic 2 40 mph - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In built up area of isolated community of < 10,OOO pop. - - - - - - - - a
WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume
NOTE: Left turn movements from Major SI. included when LT-phasing IS proposed 0
WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Satisfied Yeso No 0
-%
NOTE: Lett turn movements from Major St. included when LT-phasing is proposed c]
WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume
Satisfied Yeso No 0
-%
WARRANT 4 - School Crossings
See Chapter 10
Not Appilcable 0
0 See School Crossings Warran! Sheet
Hour
Hour
- c -
Traffic Manual SIGNALS AND ILLUMINATIOI' 9-5
August, 1972
c Figure 9-1B
ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING & SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST
ON 2-WAY ST WHERE ADAJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING &
SPEED CONTROL.
------- - ------------ -------------- -------- -
PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
Fulfilled
c
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW
ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACC. FREQ
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement Satisfied Yeso No 0
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
00 00
> 1000 ft 1 N-, S -ft, E-ft, W-ft i Not Satisfied 0
ON ISOLATEO ONE WAY ST.OR ST. wiin ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AOJACENT SIGNALS I ,-, ~
REQUIREMENT
TYO a:t:r,&
I SATISFIED
t
WARRANT
1 -MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME I x
% 2 - ~NTCRRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFid
3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUYE I %
Satisfied
WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience Yes No on
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant Satisfied Yeso No 0 I MINIMUM VOLUME
REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES Not Satisfied
c
The satisfaction ot a warrent is not necessarily justification for signals. Delay, congestion,
contusion or other evidence of the need lor right 01 way assignment must be shown.
APPENDIX D
DEFINITION OF A.D.T.
Average daily traffic (A.D.T.) is a term which describes a
general condition of the roadway. Traffic volumes are sampled
during the year to reflect the various seasonal changes, etc.,
then averaged. These volumes obtained are for more than one
day but less than one' year, or 365. Ultimately, the A.A.D.T.
(Annual Average Daily Traffic) is the best figure to use if
available because it considers every day during the year.
However, it takes a master count station to yield this
valuable data. For the purpose of this study a small sample
was obtained then combined and averaged.
APPENDIX E
DOCUMENTATION OF PEAK HOUR
VOLUM?3S AND PERCENTAGES
4
fE
P
I
I
$1
Is I
I
I
I
c
\
c1
VI
Y)
7) x.
<
D <
2 C m
m
I s il x
-I D iz D I)
x
fE 5 z c rn
1 : z c rn
APPENDIX F
CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVI.CE
"LEVEL OF SERVICE" EXPLANATION
The term "level of service" as used in this report is
defined as a means of describing operating conditions on an
arterial street. The term was derived for use in the 1965
"Highway Capacity Manual" to express a qualitative measure
of the effect of a number of factors, which include speed
and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver,
safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs.
As stated in the "Manual," "In practice, selected specific
levels and defined in terms of particular limiting values
of certain of these factors."
A particular section of arterial street or intersection
will operate at many different levels of service as the
flow varies during the hour, and as the volume varies during
different hours of the day, days of the week, periods of
the year, and during different years with traffic growth.
For the purpose of this report the afternoon peak hour
was selected for level of service measurement. Following
are the level of service factors used in this report.
LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR URBAN
ARTERIAL STREETS
Traffic Flow Conditions
(Typical Approximations, Not Rigid Criteria)
\
Average
Level Overall
of Travel Service Description Speed (MPH)
A Free Flow (relatively) 5 30
B Stable Flow (slight delay) 525
C
D
E
F
Stable Flow (acceptable delay)
Approaching Unstable Flow
Unstable Flow
Forced Flow (jammed)
(tolerable delay)
(congestion; intolerable delay)
520
5.15
Approx.
15
45
~
LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR DOWNTOWN STREETS
Traffic Flow Conditions
Leve 1
of Service Description
Average
Overall Speed
(MPH)
c
A Free Flow (relatively; some stops will occur)
B Stable Flow (delays not unreasonable)
C
D
E
Stable Flow (delays significant but
Approaching Unstable Flow (delays
Unstable Flow (congestion not due to
acceptable)
tolerable)
back-ups ahead)
52 5
520
5 15
5 10
Below 10 but moving
S top-and-go F Forced Flow (jammed)
,-
LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR STOPPED
TIME DELAY
Level of
Service
Average
Individual Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
-
A
B
C
D
E
5 15
530
545
560
-60
c
APPENDIX G
LEVEL OF SERVICE EVALUATION
Total AI;Tr x % Peak Hour Volurre x Directional Split
Total N&r of Lanes Lane Volurne =
For instance, the traffic volume between Jefferson Street and
Linmar Lane of 7,070 will be used:
EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE - TAMARACK AVENUE
Limits Veh/Hr Level
Carlsbad Boulevard to Garfield Avenue 2 15
Garfield Avenue to R.R. Tracks 330
R.R. Tracks to Jefferson Street 32 0
Jefferson Street to S/B Off-Ramp 265
N/B Off-Ramp to Pi0 Pic0 Drive 360
Pi0 Pic0 Drive to Adams Street ' 510
Adams Street to Margaret Way 2 85
Polly Lane to Highland Drive 310
of Service
A
A
A
A
A
A-B
A
A
APPENDIX H
SPEED AND DELAY FIELD SHEETS
Location Cause
SPEED 4 DELAY STUDY c i t yb-~ Trip No.
Trip started at ‘7 I? A.N. At a\b&!bu 0 P.b1. (Locarion) ‘TbIileaRe)
Trip cridcd at 7 7 ;7 c I. - A.bl. At cw%-
P.bl. (Loca t ion) ( I1 i 1 e a R e 1
Locat ion sc c 011 LIS
Stoppcd Cause
t---I-
-A-
!
I ,
Total Trip Lcngth3?2?% Total Trip Time Average Speed
Runn.ing Time Stopped Time -
Syml)ols of Dv1;iy Cnu~c: S-Trafiic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
I’K - Parked (::I rs l~P-ikliii> IC Parking - T-General Congestion
Route 7.hMA-p Uirection
Trip started at I?- ‘!-I A.bl. At C0rQ);sFSO
Trip cndcd at -7.q -. 7 - - A.bl. At ~\(G,L&L-
P.N. Location) (Mileage)
I.’. bl . ( kl i 1 e age) ( Loca t ion)
Locat ion E Locat i on Cause I Cause I
I
4 Rea - .
Y .-.---
I
I -I CIR
L-. !
-
.... . ._
-
I . . . . ....
c)
I
I-
I I /
1 I
I
I
I ~
1 L I Average Speed /eL>,’/ 4 Total Trip Length ad^-) l’otal Trip Time
Running ’rirnc Stopped Time
Symbols of Uc 1;iy C:iiisc: S-l’rarfic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left ?’urn
I’h‘ - 1’3 rkctl [::I rq 111’- Iloiibl c Parking T-General Coiiges tion
I ,
._
'2 SP.EED & DELAY STUDY c i t Y&akE5c*p Trip No.
Route: bF Di re c t ion-
Trip startcd at A.M. At at&Au =
P.M. (Locarion) (Pt i le age j
P.M. (Location) (E.1 i 1 e age) Trip cndcd at A.M. At ca%-
Location Seconds I S t oppcd Lo c a t i on Cause 4 Cause
t->- I I-- - .- . - . I
I
I
Total Trip Lciigth 5?i?"s Total Trip Time Average Speed
- Stopped Time - Run 11 i 111: T i me
3 SPEED 6 DfiLAY STUDY c i t Y CQi2ksS%sQ Trip No.
Route 7AW.V Direction EL%
Trip started at A.N. At C-ESSX~ -
P.bl. Locat ion) (bl i 1 e age)
P . bl . (bt i 1 e a Re) - Trip ended at A.b1. At u\((?J,L-
( Loc a t ion)
! -
1
I
I
I L
1
--
I L
I --I I_____ ---- I
Location Cause
i! 2;-:
I ? 'I..' I -. I
Total Trip Lcngth 5z,ya5f Total Trip Time Average Speed
Kun 11-i 11 g 'r i mc Stopped Time-
S).inl)ols of L)c~l;ly Caus;: S-'l'raffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
3 SPEED 6 DELAY STUDY
City Trip No.
Route T- be D i re c t i on&%
Trip startcd at A.F1. At h\4Al40 =
P.81. (Location) (Mileage)
Trip cridccl at A.N. At c-9- P.M. (Locat ion) ( bl i 1 e a Re ) 7 Cause Sc c on Js s toppcd Cause I Locat ion
.... Tt __ ......... -6 - -_ ! 4 -> ....... - ........
.- i ’ ! ,‘;
....
I - ......
...........
‘7
__.- 2. -
‘7 .
-- ............
---_--I
-._.
I Total Trip Lcngth 5?‘251, Total Trip Time Average Speed
Run 11 i 11 g T i m c Stopped Time -
Symliols of I.)~~l;iy C:IUSP: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
Ph‘ - 1’:1rkcd (::ITS I~P-Ik-Jiiblc Parkjng - T-General Congestion
7 SPEED 4 DELAY STUDY
City Cwh?b?!, Trip No.
Route TA- F Direction EL-
lrip started at . A.N. At e--
Trip cndcd at
P.bt. Locat ion) (Mileage)
A.M. At U[&L$L- P.M. (Location) ( bl i 1 e a Re) _- I Cause
r-
Location
-
-. - i . -\
Loca t i 011 Cause
--_---I_- h--; -.,
-_ __ . . . . . . .. .
, . I- ,,
-_
L
I I 1. -
I
I I I - Total Trip Lcngth 5'-:'-'-;% 'i'otal Trip Time Average Speed
Running Timc Stopped Time
I~P-Ik~~il~ IC Parking T-General Congestion
Location Cause
SPEED 6 DELAY STUDY
Trip No.
w+ sblileage) P.kl. (Location
Trip cndcd at A.M. At c-3- P.M. (Location) ( Ft i 1 e age)
Trip started at t 1 7. --3 A.M. At h\&h
Cause I Loca t i on
r-- ..- I
, -.
I
I
I Total Trip Length53255 Total Trip Time Average Speed
Runn-ing Timc Stopped Time
Syml)ols of Uclay Cnusc: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
I’K - Pa rkcd (::I rs I)\’- 1)oiih 1 c Park . . i.np -- T-General Coiiges t ion
4 SPEED & DIILAY STUDY
City CdL3E5fsm Trip No.
Trip started at . A.bl; At CWZb- P.bl. ' (Location) (Mi lcage)
Trip cndcd at A.bl. At .~\G.,L$L~ P.bl. *- (Pli lcage) 7 Location Loca t i on I Cause Seconds Stoppctl Cause
1 .- .
!
PI
..
, I L
I L Total Trip Lcngtfi 5?l'2-3% Total Trip Time Average Speed
Kunn.ing Timc Stopped Time - I - Symbols of Uc1;iy C:IUSC: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
PK - Pnrkcd (::irs I~P-Ik~iih IC Parking . . -.-. T-General Congestion
-
-..
-
c-
y
c
.-
! --
I
I
I
I
1- I
I !-
1 /-
I I-
I
1
-
I
L
L
I
Trip started at A.N. At cobQ)FsI%CsD
Trip cndcd at A.M. At U[~,L&L- P.b1. Location) (Mileage)
1' . B1 . (Location) (Plileage)
. _------- I
I
I
Cause
k '-
Locat ion Cause
Total Trip Lcngtli 5!$2-5f Total Trip Time Average Speed
Running Timc Stopped Time
Symbols 01- I)cl;iy Causc: S-Yralfic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
Ilk' - P:I rkrd [::I rs 111'- ikitib I c Parking T-General Congestion
I.
I-
SPEED 4 DELAY STUDY
City Trip No. i,’ c !
RoU t c-hr,\b b3F DirectionA/B-
Trip started at A.N. At- a\b&u =
P.CI. (Locarion) (bt i 1.x
P.M. (Location) (Pli 1 cage)
Trip cndcd at A.N. At ca.%-
Sc c on Js I Location I Cause -4
____-- I
---I
Location Cause
I 1 I I
I Total Trip Lcngth 55255 Total Trip Time Average Speed
Runn-ing Timc Stopped Time -
(Symbols or Delay Cause: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
Locat ion
-1 L'
--) ;;
Cause
Trip started at A.N. At h\(e)A- 0 .
P.bl. (Location) (bl i 1 e a g e)
P.N. (Location) (Ni lenge)
Trip cndcd at A.M. At c-*-
Location Scconds Stoppcd Cause
. ----- ' i ., I.' ;
I
~. . - --
7 7 'I I i ---,
L --
I- I
I I
I
-
I
I I L
I
Total Trip LcngthZ?jZJ* Total Trip Time Average Speed
Runti-ing Timc Stopped Time -
Symbols of l)cltly Cnusc: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
PK - I1:i rkcd (::I rs 111'- lloith 1 e Park i.np T-General Conpes t ion I . .. -
Trip started at A.N. At cW2b-
Trip ended at P.bt. Location) (Mileage)
A.bl. At u\(G,~&Lor3~) P.N. (Locat ion) ( bli 1 e age) I Cause
?
Location Cause 1,oca t i on
I , I ,. f , -;i ,i.
1
. -. . - - .. . .
_- ... ..
_. . . .. .
I
I I ,- I 1 I L
..--
i I L lot31 Trip Lcngth 52.7-3& Total Trip Time
Kunni ng 'Ti mc Stopped Time
Average Speed
-
- ~~~ ~ ~
ISyinIinls of l)cl;i)r C;iusc: S-l'ralfic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
(I'K - Par-ked C:irs l~l~-lh~~l~l~ Parking -. T-General Congestion
e
.. - SPEED 6 DELAY STUDY C i t Y.C?EL Trip No. f.
Route Th- Direction E/'
Trip started at . A.N. At CW2bm
'Trip cndcd at
P.N. Locat ion) (Mi lcage)
A.N. At U;&L$L- P.M. (Location) ( Fli le age)
Locn t i 011
"& L
Cause
3 .___- 1
.--
I
Locat ion Cause
r---- I I
--
-+
I Total Trip Lcngth 5zB2-3% Total Trip Time Average Speed
Running Timc Stopped Time
Symbols or Dc1;iy C;IUSC: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
i'h: - l':~rkcd (::ITS l~l~-lk~~~l~lc Parking -_ T-General Congestion
-
- I.
SPEED & DELAY STUDY
CitY&&-i Trip No. :. , , ‘i’
Trip started at A.N. At ht+Au T3.
P.N. (Locarion) (blileage)
P.M. (Location) (Ni 1 e agey
Trip ended at A.Ff. At c-!*w
I Cause I S c c 0 ri d s s toppcd Cause Location
’ s- I
-
I
I
I---------- -. I ,- ! ’ :a
..
; i f.
__-_..._-- I- -
I 1 c Total Trip Length 35’251, l’otal Trip Time Average Speed
Runn-ing Ti mc Stopped Time -
Total Trip Length 35’251, l’otal Trip Time Average Speed
Runn-ing Ti mc Stopped Time -
Symbols oL‘ UCIily Cnusc:: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
I’h‘ - I’n rk~d (::I rs ill1- Ihtil, 1 c Park i.ng -_ ‘T-General Cotiges tion
Route Gb'! Direction U/B
A.M. At - 1'. bl . (Location) (Mileage)
A.M. At
1' q h1. (Locat ion) (bli lengcy
- c __ -7 Trip started at -, -~ -.,
Trip cndcd at -- e-
--
-
I Cause Cause SC? c 01) d 5 s t ol'pccl Locat ion
-
-1- \ : .
==I -..
1
I
I-
t
--.--?--I
A_
f 1- I
I Total Trip LcngthsGI!,! k Total Trip Time
Running Timc - Stopped Time
Average Speed
Synl)ols 01' I)c>loy C;IUSC*: S-Tralfic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn I II'K - Parkc-J C:irs l~I'-lhiih IC Parking . . .-. T-General Congestion
(1 ---. SPEED 6 DELAY STUDY ci Trip No. ’ ;>c.-. ”-
Route Direction E/-
Trip started at . . A.N. At
P.M. (Location) (bl i 1 e a Re)
Trip cnded at A.M. At P.bl. (Location) (blileage) -
i
Locat ion F I Seconds 1 Cause s t opl’cd Cause r .-
e
L .--. . /: -<
1 i- /- PAL&-- 1
I L
1
1 1 I c I
I L
1 I - Total Trip Lcngth 50 \(d’ LTotal Trip Time Average Speed
Running ’I’imc Stopped Time
Syml~ols of l)c-I;iy Cause: S-’l’raffic Signals SS-Stop Sip LT-Left Turn
I
I’K - I’nrkc>d Cn rs DP-Ihiib IC Parking - . .- T-General Congestion I
I -
Locat ion Cause
SPEE.D 4 DELAY STUDY 'I c i t y CGV&H-%,F~
Route Gb4 Direction u/&
Trip No. -
c Trip started at A.M. At P.bl. (Location) (Mileage)
Trip cnded at A.N. At
, PJ. (Location) IblileaRc) c
Lo c a t i on Cause
I't I.-
A
.^
-, c j' I
P--
1
I &-- I
i I G
I Total Trip Lcngth*~C,I:.-, Total Trip Time Average Speed
Running Timc Stopped Time
Symbols of L)c-l:iy Carisc~: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
I'K - P:irkcd C:i rs DP-Ihiil~ IC Parking -- T-General Congestion
I -
SPEED DELAY STUDY
CityL 1 2 Trip No. I
Route Direction E'/m
Trip started at . A.N. At
Trip ended at A.N. At
P.N. (Location) , (Nileage)
P.bl. (Location) (bli leagc)
Locat ion I== I Cause Location Cause
t- ---I I
c p- -
! P-- .... . - - .
- .. . - . . .
I I11
t I- I_ t
-
i- .--
I------ !-
!
I 1.-
t
Total Trip Lcngth 50 \b'LTotal Trip Time Average Speed
Runn i ng T i mc Stopped Time
Symbols of Uvlay Causc: S-l'raffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn i
Pk' - I'nrkcd Cn rs 111'- Ihrih 1 c 'Parking - T-General Congestion
-- L7 ?‘rip started at . i 5 -. A.M. At ’ -7
1’. h1. (Location) (Ni leage)
P.M. c (Location) (PI i 1 e a Re )
Trip cndcd at A.N. At
I Cause Cause =I Seconds
Stoppcd Locat ion k Location I
-1
!
c P--- ... . - ._ -_.-. . . . . . . - .
-_ . .- . . . .
- -----I
I __-_ .- . - . __ - ._ . . . . .
‘7 -- =I I
L. I
F
I--
1 ,L l’otal Trip Lcngth 50 \la’ 4Total Trip Time
I<unning Timc Stoppcd Time
S\-mbols of Uvlay Cnusc: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
I’K - Pn rkcd Cnrs I~P-Ih~iblc Parking - . --- T-General Congestion
Average Speed.
SPEED 4 DELAY STUDY city - CQ;~A~-,F, Trip No. c
Route GLq Direction
.-7 Trip started at .’ A.M. At
P.bl. (Location) (Mileage)
Trip cndcd at A.M. At
’ P.M. (Locat ion) (blileaee) I. I r
Locat ion Cause sc con ds I s t oppcrl . Location I Cause
- .
I I ., . _-- t-
I Total Trip Lcngth~(.jIb 5 Total Trip Time
Running Timc Stopped Time-
Average Speed
! Syrihols of Dr1;iy Causc: S-TraIfic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn I
i
.-
IPK - 1’:irkc-d C:irq l~l~-ik~~il~I~ Parking T-General Congestion I
- SPEED 4 DELAY STUDY
/ Trip No. City C.GZ\~B~~ a
Route GLw Direction E/,
Trip started at . A.M. At
1'. bl . (Location) (bl i 1 e age 1
Trip ended at A.M. At
P.N. (Location) (blileage) L
Sc con ds s t Or)/)Cd Cause I Location k Cause I
I I
--__--_-
I
!
-- . .- . . . . .
1 /' '. - !
I
1 1- I--- !
I I G
I
1
I
i L l'otal Trip Length 33 \(dl +Total Trip Time
Runniiig Timc Stopped Time
Average Speed.
Symliols of L)c.I;iy Cnusc: S-lralfic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
I'K - I'nrkcd Cn rs 111)- Ilo~ih 1 c Parking ~ . . - .--. T-General Congest ion
L
c
Route GLq-4 Direction u/a
Trip started at . A.N. At
Trip cndcd at A.M. At
P.bI. (Location) (Mileage)
'P.M. (Locat ion) (blileage) *-
I Cause ' I Seconds Location I Stopprd Location Cause
6' L !
, -.. d7 UWL,
t-- I I I
---. 1 -- -_- - I -- I
_. .. . . I- I
.
,= ,. r---
===I
I Total Trip LcngthsOIb f- Total Trip Time Average Speed
Running Timc I Stopped Time -
S)ml)ols of L)clay Causc: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
I'K - 1':trkcd Cnrq l)P-lh111~ IC Parking -- T-General Congestion
..-- SPEED fi DELAY STUDY
c c i t y Cl;s <-A#--,-& g,! >
Route GLM Direction
Trip started at . A.N. At
Trip cndcd at A.M. At
Trip No. -
P.bl. (Location) (bl i 1 e age 1
P,FI. (Locat ion) (bti le age) ,-
Location I Cause I sc c 011 ds s t 0 ppc tl Location Cause
z. a,-
I Total Trip Lcngth%uIC,r f. Total Trip Time
Running Timc Stopped Time
Average Speed
I 1SpI)ols of l)cl;iy Causc: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
I l)K - P:i rkcd C:i rs I)P- Ihirh le Parking -- T-General Congestion I
SPEED & D€LAY STUDY c i t y C QXLL~B~~ Trip No. 3
Route Direction E/B
Trip started at A.N. At
Trip cndcd at A.F.1. At
P.N. (Location) (Mi 1 eage)
P.F.1. (Location) (blileage) c-
I Cause I Lo c a t i on I I Sc c o ti cis s t opl'cd Location Cause
-I
c
<;-- ;--.
!
-. . -_ . . . . . . . - .
I I
I
I i t------ ------ I
1
--- *I I ~ --; 'I . I
I 1
,J-
I L
--
I L lotal Trip Lcngth 50 \(,=,'f.Total Trip Time Average Speed
* Runn i ng Ti mc Stopped Time L Symbols of Llc.l:iy Cause: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn
! I'K - 1'3 rkcd Cn rs 111'- Ih11b I c Parking T-General Congestion I . ..--
APPENDIX I
TRIP GENERATION BY SUBZONE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
SUBZONE UNITS
1 2.86 AC
119 DU
2 111 DU
11 DU
3 11 DU
32 DU
64 DU
16 DU
61 DU
30 DU
29 DU
56 DU
7 DU
32 DU
11 DU
112 DU
48 DU
120 DU
18 DU
23 DU
30 DU
52 DU
142 DU
121 DU
22 DU
24 DU
17.6 AC
11 AC
81 DU
63 DU
20 DU
10 DU 18
TRIP GENERATION
LAND
USE
c-1
R- 3
R- 1
R-1-10
R-1-15
R- 1
R- 3
R-1-15
R- 1
R-1-15
R-1-15
R-1-15
R-T
R-W
R-1-10
R- 1
R- 1
R- 1
R- 1
R-1-10
R-1-15
R- 1
R- 3
R- 1
R- 1
P-c
0-s
0-s
R- 1
R- 1
R- 1- 15
R- 1
GENERATION
,FACTORS
600/AC
81DU
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
8/DU
10/DU
1O/DU
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
1O/DU
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
8/DU
10/DU
10/DU
8/DU
50/AC
5 0 /AC
10/AC
10/AC
10/AC
1O/AC
GENE RATED
TRAFFIC
1,716
952
1,110
110
110
320
512
160
6 10
300
290
560
70
32 0
110
1,120
480
1,200
180
2 30
300
520
1,136 '
1,210
220
192
880
550
810
6 30
200
1,000
- SUB 2 ONE
19
20 -
21
22
23
c
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
UNITS
92 DU
8 DU
54 DU
34.7 AC
16 DU
20 DU
165 DU
70 DU
60 DU
144 DU
23 DU
68 DU
5.2 AC
98 DU
18 DU
70 DU
48 DU
144 DU
285 DU
22 DU
107 DU .
215 DU
137 DU
110 DU
152 DU
24 DU
730 DU
49 DU
74 DU
269 DU
362 DU
15 DU
143 DU
176 DU
LAND GENERATION US E FACTORS
R-l&R-1-10 lO/DU
R-1-10
R- 1
0-s
R- 1
R-1-10
R- 1
R- 1- 10
R- 1
R- 3
R- 3
R- 1
0-s
R- 1
R-1-10
R- 1
R- 3
R- 1
R-A-10
R- 1
R-A-10
R- 1
R- 1
R-1-9
R-1-10
R-1-15
P-c
R-1-15
R- 1- 10
10/DU
10/DU
5 O/AC
10/DU-
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
8/DU
8/DU
10/DU
50/AC
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
8/DU
10/DU
14/DU
10/DU
14/DU
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
10/DU
8/DU
10/DU
10/DU
R-1-8&R-1-10 10/DU
P-c 8/DU
0-s 50/AC
R-A-10 14/DU
R- 1 10/DU
GENERATED
TRAFFIC
920
80
5 40
1,736
160
200
1,650
70
600
1,152
184
6 80
260
9 80
180
700
384
1, 4.40
3,990
220
1,498
2,150
1,370
1,100
1,520
2 40
5,840
490
740
2,690
2,896
750
2,002
1,760
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
SUBZONE UNITS
43 145 DU
44 136 DU
45 .37 AC
24 DU
25 DU
1,038 DU
606 DU
14.5 AC
964 DU
12 AC
369 DU
45 DU
23 DU
138 DU
8 DU
242 DU
7.8 AC
138 DU
1.4 AC
39 DU
21 DU
646 DU
110 DU
.2 AC
29 DU
155 DU
LAND
USE
R-A-10
R-1-9 . 5
c-2
R- 1
R- 2
R- 3
R- 3
M
R- 3
0-s
R- 2
R- P
R- 1
R- 3
R- 1
RD-M
0-s
R- 2
c- 1
R- 1
R- 2
R- 3
R- 1
c-2
R- 1
P-c
Beach
-
GENE RAT I ON
FACTORS
10/DU
10/DU
600/AC
10/DU
8/DU
8/DU
8/DU
78/AC
8/DU
50/AC
8/DU
10/DU
lO/DU
8/DU
10/DU
8/DU
50/AC
8/DU
600/AC
10/DU
8/DU
8/DU
1O/DU
600/AC
10/DU
8/DU
C.P.O.
SUBZONES SUBTRACTED FROM TOTAL
20 23 27 30 34 37 40 43
21 24 28 31 35 38 41 44
22 25 29 32 36 39 42
GENERATED
TRAFFIC
1 , 450
1,360
222
240
200
8,304
4,848
1 , 131
7 , 712
600
2,952
450
2 30
1,104
80
1,936
39 0
1,104
840
390
16 8
5,168
1,100
120
290
1,240
5,063
107,972 - 40,850
67,122
31,083
.-- I
APPENDIX J
NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT SCHEDULE
.-
c
Local Route 21 Monday thru Saturday Service
To: Downtown - Lan i kai Mobile Homes
DeDarts From: Minutes Past Hour
Lake Shore Gardens :00
Paseo Del Norte 8 Camino Del Parque :05
Tamarack 8 Pi0 Pic0 :10
Harding 8 Elm :13
Grand 8 Washlngton 0 :15
Harding 8 Elm :17
Tamarack 8 Pi0 Pic0 :20
Tamarack 8 Carlsbad Blvd. :23
Los Robles 8 Cerezo :26
Lan i kai Mobile Homes :30
To: Downtown - Lake Shore Gardens
DeDarts From: Minutes Past Hour
Lan i kai Mobile Homes :30
Los Robles 8 Cerezo :34
Tamarack 8 Carlsbad Blvd. :37
Tamarack 8 Pi0 Pico :40
Harding a Elm :43
Grand a Washington 0 :45
Harding 8 Elm :47
Tamarack 8 Pi0 Pico :50
Paseo Del Norte 8 Camino Del Parque :55
Lake Shore Gardens :oo
First bus leaves Lake Shore Gardens at 800 am.
Last bus leaves Lake Shore Gardens at 8:OO p.m.
First bus leaves Lani kai Mobile Homes at 6:30 a.m.
Last bus leaves Lan i kai Mobile Homes at 8:30 P.m.
I
Effective December 1976
ac t"
Y w -I
Local Route 20 Monday thru Saturday Service
To: Plaza Camino Real - Laguna Riviera
DeDarts From: Mlnutes Past Hour
Grand Ave. 8 Washington St. @
Forest Ave. 8 Highland Dr.
Plaza Camino Real :00 Kelly Or. 8 Hillside Dr.
Chestnut Ave. 8 Monroe St.
Tamarack Ave. 8 Pi0 Pic0 Or.
Roosevelt St. 8 Chestnut Ave.
Grand Ave. 8 Washington St.
To: Laguna Riviera - Plaza Camino Real
DeDarts From; Mlnutes Past How
Grand Ave. 8 Watihington St. 0 :15
:25 Aoosevelt St. 8 Chestnut Ave.
Tamarack Ave. 8 Pia Pic0 Dr, :30
:35 Chestnut Ave. 8 Monroe St.
Kelly Dr. 8 Hillside Or. :40
Plaza Camino Real !50
:45
:52
:10
:15 :a
:25
:35
._ -
:58
:05
Forest Ave. 8 Highland Dr.
Grand Ave. 8 Washington St.
First bus leaves Grand 8 Washlngton at 635 a.m.
Last bus leaves Grand 8 Washington at 745 p.m.
Effective December 1976
Estimate Time for In Between Locations a 6
bQUM Riviua
APPENDIX K
LETTER FROM JACK P. WELCH,
AREA MANAGER,
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
SlATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
- DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION RECEIVED
San Diego Coast Area P. 0. Box 38 JUN 17 1976 -Carlsbad, California 92008 (714) 729-8947 B M s p ASSOCIATES
June 15, 1976 Ref. BMSP #051-001
Mr. R. Henry Mohle
Principal
Berryman, Mohle, Stephenson & Perry, Inc.
2030 East Fourth Street, Suite 230 . Santa Ana, California 92705
Dear Mr. Mohle:
We have these answers to your questions regarding Carlsbad
State 6each:
1. Average number of people per car, summer months - 2.4 2. Average number of people per car, winter months - 1.9 3. Length of average stay for a day-user is difficult to
4. Peak traffic congestion time adjacent to the Tamarack
5. Attendance:
determine. I would estimate three (3) hours.
intersection occurs approximately 1 :30 P.M.
Date Vehicle Persons Walk-in Persons
June, 1975
July, I'
Aug. ¶ Sept., I'
Oct.,
Nov.,
Dec., Jan., 1976 Feb.,
II
II
II
II
II
98,628
271 ,368
111,408 100,248
49,272
17,632
20,577
36,670 29,474
24,418
51,680
76,562
27,165 68,104 38,968 55,888
6,408
4,389
5,519
8,943 11 ,486
25,122
24,709
39,946
Totals . 787,937 31 6,647
I hope this information will help in your study. If you have
any other questions, I'll be happy to help.
Sincerely, 5LL JACK P. WELCH
Area Manager
JPW:rc cc: Whitehead
4.
APPENDIX L
RIGHT OF WAY AND
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
A.C. Paving & Excavation
Clearing & Grubbing
Tree lWmval& Landscapjng
curbs & Gutters
Drivewq Approaches
Sidewalks
Block Wall (Retaining)
Drainage
Utilities Relocation
street Lighting
Traffic Striping & Signing
Railroad Crossing Gates (Relocation)
Q-m UNITPRIrn mw
170,272 S.F. 1.00 $170,270
Lrrmp sum L.S. 10,800
L\nrp sum L.S. 12,500
5.00 27,450 5,490 L.F.
33 Each 200.00 6,600
27,450 S.F. 1.00 27,450
170 L.F. 25.00 4,250
L.S. 25,000 L\nrp sum
Lq sum L.S. 200,000
Lq sum L.S. 2,000
Lump sum L.S. 20,000
15% EN-G 79,000
20% CCmINm- 105 350
mAL msTRrJcr10N & ENGI"G $7U, 070
R/tJ (PER ASSESSOR) 108,502
150% (FE?G VALUE)* 162 , 750
$2 71,255 suBmAL R/tJ
SPECIAL CS3ME'ENSATIoN 43,500
$314,750 TcYlxJ R/tJ
$1,025,800
1,200.00 20,400 17 Each
msTRm10N mfAL $526,720
PmlEcT mAL
mse estimates are based on a amparison of Assessor's val=s and actual values of various parcels in the Carlsbad area.
Unit prices based an Jan- 1977.
A.C. Paving & Excavation
Clearing & Gruhbing
Tree mvd. & LandSCaphg
curbs & Gutters
Driveway Approaches
Sidewalks
Block Wall (Retaining)
Drainage
utilities Relocation
street Lighting
Traffic Striping & Signing
41,485 S.F.
Lq sum
Lq sum
2,550 L.F.
14 Each
12,750 S.F.
150 L.F.
Luanp sum
LLmp sum
LLmp sum
9 Each
UNIT PRICE
1.00
L.S.
L.S.
5.00
200.00
1.00
25 . 00
L.S.
L.S.
1,200.00
L.S.
~NsTRucrIoN mAL
15% ENGINEERING
20% mmm-
TWTAL ODNSTRUCTICM &
ENGl”G
€3/W (PER ASSESSOR)
150% (RIULI WALUE)*
smAL Fm
SPECIAL a)MPENSKCION
*These estimates are based on a Ccmparison of Assessor’s
actual values of various parcels in the Carlsbad area.
rplit prices based m Janw 1977.
values and
AmW
$ 41,500
3,600
8,700
12 , 750
2,800
12 , 750
3,750
10,000
100 , 000
10 , 800
1,000
$207,650
31 , 150
41 , 530
$280 , 330
26 , 380
39,570
$ 65,950
2,448
$ 68,400
$348 , 730
mm 2
COST ESTIMATE
TAMARACK AVENUE
CAFGBAD BOULEVARD TO 1-5 FREEWAY
CITY OF CARLSBAD
A.C. Pahg & Excavation
Clearing & Grubbing
Tree Femwil& Landscaping
curbs&Gutters
Driveway Approaches
Sidewalks
Block Wall (&taining)
Drainage
utilities Rzlocation
Street Lighting
Traffic Striping & Signing
QUANTITY
170,272 S.F.
Lmp sum
Lunp sum
5,490 L.F.
33 Each
27,450 S.F.
170 L.F.
Lq sum
Lmp sum
Lunp sum
17 Each
Railroad Crossing Gates (&location) Lq sum
1.00
L.S.
L.S.
5.00
200.00
1.00
25.00
L.S.
L.S.
1,200.00
L.S.
L.S.
CONSTFEJCCICN WAL
15% ENGINEFXNG
20% mINGENm
TOTAL msTRucT10N 6
ENGINEERING
R/W (PER ASSESSOR)
150% (REAL vAuIE)*
SUBTOTAL Md
mcAL Md
PmIEcT TOTAL
SPECIAL ~J!4PENSA!I'ION
*These estimates are based on a Carparison of Assessor's values and actual values of various parcels in the Carlsbad area.
$170,2 70
10,800
12,500
27,450
6,600
27,450
4,250
25,000
200,000
20,400
2,000
20,000
$526,720
79,000
105,350
$7ll,070
167,602
251,403
$419,000
15,000
$434,000
$1,145,070
unit prices based on January 1977.
ALmm 2
COST ESTIMXCE
TAMARACK AVENUE
1-5 FREEWAY TO HIQFLAND AVENUE
CITY OF CARISBAD
A.C. Paving & Excavation
Clearing t Grubbing
Tree Wval & Landscaping
Curbs t Gutters
Driveway Approaches
Sidewalks
Block Wall (Wtaining)
Drainage
Wlities &location
street Lighting
Traffic Striping & Signing
QUANTITY UNIT PFUCE
41,485 S,F. 1.00
Lmp sum L.S.
Lunp sum L.S.
2,550 L.F. 5 -00
14 Each 200.00
12,750 S.F. LOO
Lmp sum L.S.
Luarp? sum L.S.
9 Each 1,200.00
Lmp sum L.S.
150 L.F. 25.00
CCNSTRUCI'ION WAL
15% ENGINEERING
20% mINmcIEs
TcrrAL CDNSTRUCI'ION &
EN-lUNG
R/t.r (PER ASSESSOR)
150% (REYAL VALUE) *
SUBTOTAL R/t.r
TmmJ R/t.r
SPECIAT; ~MPENWI~
PIIIxsEcr Turm
%ese estimates are based on a caparison of Assessor's values and actual valEs of various parcels in the Carlsbad area,
AmuNT
$ 41,500
3,600
8,700
12,750
2,800
12,750
3,750
10,000
100,000
10,800
1,000
$207,650
31,150
41,530
$2 80,330
28,900
43,350
$ 72,250
2,448
$ 74,700
$355,000
unit prices based on January 1977.
APPENDIX M
_-
DISCUSSION OF ONE-WAY COUPLET,
TAMARACK/CHINQUAP IN
MOHLE, PERRY & ASSOCIATES
May 18, 1977
Mr. Tim Flanagan
City Engineer
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Tamarack Alignment Study - Consideration of One-way
Couplet Utilizing Tamarack Avenue and Chinquapin Avenue
Dear Mr. Flanagan:
At the May 4 public meeting concerning the Tamarack Avenue alignment
alternatives, members of the audience requested that consideration be
given to the possibility of a one-way couplet scheme utilizing
Tamarack Avenue and Chinquapin Avenue as an alternative to the widen-
ing of Tamarack. In accordance with your request, the following
comments are intended to enumerate some of the main conclusions re-
sulting from our cursory review of the proposed couplet scheme.
Circuity of Travel
Assuming that Tamarack was converted to a one-way street in the
westbound direction and Chinquapin was one-way in the eastbound dir-
ection, circuity of travel for circulation within the area would be
significantly increased over two-way operation. For example, a
motorist originating from property northerly of Tamarack Avenue on
Jefferson Street wishing to utilize the. freeway for a southbound
trip would travel approximately 800 feet on Jefferson from Tamarack
to Chinquapin, then easterly on Chinquapin some 1,400 feet to Adams,
then northerly on Adams approximately 800 feet to Tamarack, and
finally westerly 1,000 feet on Tamarack to the southbound on-ramp.
This is a total distance of 4,000 feet compared to a travel distance
of 400 feet if the motorist could have gone directly from Jefferson
to the on-ramp by way of Tamarack.
On his return trip from the south his travel distance would be the
same as with the two-way operation.
reversed in direction, the motorist would have no additional travel
distance in getting to the southbound on-ramp; however, his return
trip would be approximately 2,800 feet longer than with two-way
operation.
If the one-way couplet were
MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
505 N. Tustin Ave.. .Suite 121, Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714) 834-0541
7
6055 E. Washington Blvd.. Commerce, CA 90040 (213) 723-1452
Mr. Tim Flanagan
May 18, 1977
Page 2
Many other examples of typical trips could be illustrated; however,
the net result would be that because of the rather wide separation
of 800 feet in the legs of the couplet, the cumulative added travel
distance necessitated by utilization of the couplet scheme would be
extremely significant in our opinion and especially considering the
increased emphasis on fuel conservation.
Street Class if i cation
The conversion of Chinquapin to one of the legs of a one-way couplet
would have an effect on the character of the street as far as residents
are concerned. At the present time Chillquapin is a local collector
street compared to arterial status, which Tamarack has had for many
years. The change in utilization of Chinquapin would be a very
important consideration in conversion to one-way operation. It is
our opinion that the residents on Chinquapin would not be fully
receptive to utilization of their street for arterial traffic service.
Construction and Ripht of Way Considerations
At the present time Chinquapin does not cross the AT&SF railroad
tracks. There is also an approximate 170 foot jog in the alignment
of Chinquapin at the railroad tracks.
converted to one-way operation, a crossing of the railroad tracks
would be needed and, based on our understanding of the Public Utilities
Commission's rulings as well as the feelings of the railroad, a grade
separation crossing would be required, which would cost in excess of
one million dollars. 1n.addition to the acquisition of right of way
for the installation of the grade separation, right of way would be
required to eliminate the jog situation.
If Chinquapin were to be
Because of the grade problems and the minimum distance to the Carlsbad
Boulevard bridge over the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon Inlet, it is conaidered
not practical to connect Chinquapin to Carlsbad Boulevard. Thla would
present a definite limitation in the service that the one-way couplet
could achieve if the connection were practically possible. Without
this connection Garfield would have to be used as the connecting street
to Tamarack and Tamarack, between Carlsbad Boulevard and Garfield,
would by necessity operate as a two-way street.
Width and Interchange Considerations
A
Chinquapin is currently 60 feet wide In right of way and has only a
separation at the freeway. Kecognizing the importance of the State
Beach to regional traffic and the fact that the freeway interchange
design is for Tamarack only, it is our conclusion that from a freeway
operation and regional transportation viewpoint the consideration of
the one-way couplet scheme has definite limitations for use by persons
b
c
Mr. Tim Flanagan
May 18, 1977
Page 3
outside the immediate area. Use of two-way operation along Tamarack
is much simpler from a traffic operations point of view than con-
sidering the one-way couplet scheme, especially because of the design
of the existing interchange.
Conclusions
It is concluded that while the one-way couplet scheme could reduce
the right of way and construction costs on Tamarack, the construction
and right of way problems together with street classification and
land use considerations of converting Chinquapin to arterial use
are factors that cannot be overlooked. In total, it represents a
situation that, based on this review, clearly indicates that the
one-way couplet scheme has many more disadvantages than advantages;
and therefore it cannot be recommended as a viable alternative to the
widening and improvement of Tamarack Avenue as a two-way street.
I would be happy to discuss these comments with you in more detail
at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
MOHLE, PERRY & ASSOCIATES
R. Henry Mohle
Vice President
RHM: jh
APPENDIX N
RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT AND
FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY