Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-01-16; City Council; 5714-1; Traffic Signals at El Camino Real and Tamarack. I I. CITY OF CARLSBAD - Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. 57 /% */ Dept. Hd. -. DATE : January 16, 1979 C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Eng i nee r i ng A. C. Mgr. J Subject: TRAFFIC SIGNAL - EL CAMINO REAL AND TAMARACK AVENUE Statement of the Matter At its January 2, 1979 meeting, the City Council heard from a resident of the Woodbine neighborhood concerning what could be done to accelerate tion schedule for the above proposed signal. he construc- A staff memorandum is attached which addresses signal warrants for tion as well as the issues brought up at the January 2, 1979 Counc Exhibits I . Memorandum dated January IO, I979 f rom Transportation Engineer 2. Memorandum dated January II, 1979 from City Engineer 3. Letter of December 15, 1978 from Ramona Finnila. this loca- , I meeting. Recommendations See recommendations of Exhibit 2. Council action: ‘1-16-79 Council made the determination that it is the appropriate time to install the signal at El *Camin0 Real and Tamarack Avenue, and directed staff to take the appropriate steps necessary, to call the outstanding obligations in order to accomplish the matter. MEMORANDUM TO : City Eng i neer FROM : Transportation Engineer DATE: January IO, 1979 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL - EL CAFllNO REAL AT TAMARACK AVENUE This report is in response to the questions raised at the January 2, 1979 Council meeting and supplements the staff memorandum of December 22, 1978. The report is outlined as follows: 1. Traffic signal warrants I I. School protection warrants I I I. Speed zone data IV. Signal costs and installation timing estimates A. Design B. Construct ion V. Financing A. Carlsbad Pal isades B. Woodbine C. Lake Calavera Hills D. Alternative financing from other City projects VI. Permits and rights-of-way A. E.I.R. B. County of San Diego C. California Coastal Commission D. Property dedication VII. Operation of traffic signal VIII. Other signal locations I. Traffic signal warrants As a general policy, the City tries not to install a traffic signal at an intersection unless "traffic signal warrantsf7 are met for that lo- cation. There are several warrants which can be met (see "Traffic Sig- na I Warrants" sheet - Appendix "A1') : I. minimum vehicular volumes 2. interruption of continuous traffic 3. minimum pedestrian volume 4. school crossings City Engineer - 3- January IO, 1979 E. Construction - a minimum of four months would be necessary to in- stall the traffic signal and make the necessary street improve- ments; and this is based on the fact that all of the signal hard- ware is readily available. Sometimes a controller is not avail- able for more than six months. Another month would be needed to send out construction proposals and select a contractor to in- stall the signals. The estimated construction costs would be be- tween $50,000 and $80,000. If the entire job is handled by a private developer, such as the sig- nal installation at El Camino Real and Hosp Way,.a couple of months could be saved toward a completion date (see Part V. Financing). V. Financing The following sources provide available or possible methods of financ- ing: A. E. C. D. Carlsbad Palisades - a condition of its tentative map (CT73-8, Resolution No. 3178 on August 7, 1973) is that, "The applicant shall install a fully-actuated traffic signal at the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real, with reimbursement as pos- sible. On ?!ovember 6, 1974, an Improvement Agreement was accepted by the City from Douglass Southwest Corporation (Carlsbad Palisades). The amount is $30,000 to cover the cost of three-fourths of the traffic signal based on the 1974 estimate of $40,000 for the en- ti re cost. Woodbine - a bond for $lO,OOO (one-fourth of the signal was posted by the original developer of Carlsbad Meadows on the northeast corner (now known as Woodbine). This bond was "cashed out" by Standard-Pacific in November, 1975, for $12,500. Lake Calavera Hills - this development has no condition of its tentative map to contribute funding toward a traffic signal at El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue. However, the following con- dition is required (CT76-12, Resolution No. 5145 on August 4, 1977): "Tamarack Avenue right-of-way, including slope easements, shall be dedicated on the basis of an eighty-four foot street section and improved on the basis of a forty-two foot half street section, according to City of Carlsbad standards, from El Camino Real to the most northerly point of the subdivision." This dedi- cation and widening will not be guaranteed until the Final Map is recorded. Alternative financing - if there is difficulty in "calling the bond" the City could take steps to proceed with the work using the $12,50Q cash on deposit for the design and contract adminis- tration and transferring funds (temporarily) from another project in order to move the project ahead. If this method were necessary, I would suggest deferring the budgeted traffic signal at Elm and Roosevelt since this is within the Redevelopment Plan area, and an alternate traffic circulation plan is under staff consideration. A future agreement may be submitted as an alternative." Ci ty Engi neer - 4- January IO, 1979 We have been in contact with the subdivider of Carlsbad Palisades and they are researching their obligation with respect to the con- ditions of approval and the bonded traffic signal agreement. Mr. Mike Roston has indicated their willingness to meet their obliga- tions by having the signal designed and constructed similarly to to the way the existing subdivision improvements were completed, and the City could transfer the $12,500 reimbursement monies to them on completion of the signal installation. V. Permits and rights-of-way A. Environmental Impact Report - a negative declaration should be ap- plicable for this project. B. California Coastal Commission permit - since the Coastal Commission boundary line goes right down the middle of El Camino Real at its intersection with Tamarack Avenue, a permit from the California Coastal Commission will be necessary. C. County of San Diego - all of El Camino Real south of Tamarack Ave- nue is within the jurisdiction of San Diego County. The County would probably be unwilling to contribute any funding toward this intersection at this time because it has so many other intersec- tions that would warrant signals on a highler priority. Once a signal is installed at El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue, some kind of agreement could be attained between the County and the City for energy and maintenance costs such as that for the signal installation at the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. Additional annexation to the City is also probably, which would eliminate the County's responsibility. D. Property dedication - the final signal design may require some ad- ditional right-of-way on the southeast corner of the subject inter- section. In any event, additional right-of-way southeast of the intersection will eventually be necessary in order to construct Tamarack Avenue to its ultimate width and alignment. This addi- tional right-of-way will have to be obtained from a property owner whose entire parcel lies within the County of San Diego. VII. Operation of traffic signal The design for such an intersection should incorporate a signal opera- tion of six to eight phases, in order to facilitate left-turning movements. Only one crosswalk should be permitted across El Camino Real in order to consolidate pedestrian movements and minimize vehicular delay. VIII. Other signal locations The following is a brief update on what is happening at several other proposed signal locations in the City: A. Palomar Airport Road/Paseo del Norte - a traffic engineering con- sultant is now in the process of designing a signal and street im- provements at this intersection. City Engineer -5- January IO, 1979 B. Elm Avenue/lnterstate 5 - CALTRANS is completing its final design C. El Camino Real/Marron Road - a condition of the Plaza expansion and should have signals installed sometime this year. is to upgrade the control ler and signal hardware at this intersec- tion so that all of the signals on El Camino Real from State High- way 78 to Elm Avenue may be interconnected. D. Marron Road/Cinema Plaza Theatres - a new signal will be installed on Marron Road right in front of the Cinema Plaza Theatres, also as a condition of the Plaza expansion. El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road - the City has contacted the County to see what can be done to accelerate the design and in- stallation of signals at this location. The City has some finan- cial obligation for a traffic signal here from various developments (Waste Transfer Station - one-fourth of signal cost; Hughes Air- craft and Palomar Airport Business Park - contribution based on percentage of traffic contributed to intersection). The County Department of Transportation has no funds for this project in its 1978-79 budget, but are including it in their 1979-80 budget, which is now being prepared. Before annexation, approximately three- eighths of the intersection was in the City; five-eighths was in the County. Now that virtually all of the intersection is in the City, the County may wish to relinquish most or all of its previ- ous engineering and financial responsibility. the signal should be installed within the next six months as a con- dition of Frank Mola's development. the signal should be installed within the next six months as a con- dition of Frank Mola's development. H. El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road - this intersection lies entirely within the jurisdiction of the County, but the City has a bonded traffic signal agreement (Ponderosa Homes). Traffic volumes are high at this intersection and could possibly be the third highest priority intersection based on warrants (after Paseo del Norte/ Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road. I. Attached is a sketch depicting a rough estimate of how many signal locations there could be by 1995 (see Appendix rrDfr). E. F. Alga Road/El Camino Real - a final design has been completed and G. Dove Lane/El Camino Real - a final design has been completed and Kebt A. Whitson, P.E. Transportation Eng i neer KAW: VEB CC: Public Works Administrator Mi ke Roston, Sunset Bui I ders Ramona Finni la Traffic Safety Commission Chairperson . MIN. REQUIREMENT DISTANCE TO NEAREST ESTABLISHED CRWLK. 150 Feet N/E ft s/w ft 9 -4 SIGNALS AND LIGHTING TRAFFIC MANUAL * April, 1977 FULFILLED Yes a No 0 - DlST - co - RTE . Figure 9-1A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS - PM CALC DATE CHK DATE Major St: Critical Approach Speed mPh Minor St: Critical Approach Speed mPh Critical speed of major street traffic> 40 mph ------------- RURAL(R) 0 UREAN(U) - In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. -------- 0" WAR ;RANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume MINIMUM REQUl REMENTS 100% SATISFIED Yes a No a 80% SATISFIED Yes No 0 (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) ;RANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED Yes a No a 80% SATISFIED Yes No 0 I I 1 2 or more Both Apprchs. 500 350 600 420 Major Street (400) (280) (480) (336) Highest Apprch 150 105 200 140 Minor Street * (120) (84) (160) (112) APPROACH LANES NOTE: Heavier of left turn movement from Major Street included when LT-phasing is proposed a WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic IMINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 1 (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) 1-1 100%SATlSFlED Yes 0 No 0 80% SATISFIED Yes 0 No 0 I t NOTE: Heavier of left turn movement from Major Street included when LT-phasing is proposed 0 WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED Yes 0 NO CJ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED Yes CI NO How WARRANT 4 - School Crossings TS-1OA Not Applicable 0 See School Crossings Warrant Sheet 0 Hour Hour i 9-5 1 Apil, 1977 TRAFFIC MANUAL SIGNALS AND LIGHTING MINIMUM VOLUME REQUl REMENT ~OOVEH/HR c ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES ,, FULFILLED DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR VEH/HR - ---______-___-__T___-_--__.- VEH/HR YESO NOD DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS OF A SATURDAY AND/ OR SUNDAY c PART OF HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TFC CONNECTS AREAS OF PRINCIPLE TRAFFIC GENERATION RURAL OR SXBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING. OR TRAVERSING A CITY HAS SURFACE STREET FWY OR EXPWAY RAMP TERMINALS APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN - ---------_--- - - - -------------------.---- ----- ----- ---_-_-- ----------------- .- - -- - -- - -- - - - -- - -- - --- - - - -I -. ------------------------------.-----.__I_ c --- -- ---- - - - - Figure 9-16 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS REQUIREMENT WARRANT TWO WARRANTS 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC 3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRtAN VOLUME 80% WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement Satisfied Yes 0 No L FULFILLED YES0 NO0 - - MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS~ DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL I FULFILLED > 1000 it IN-, S-ft, E ft, W-ft lYES0 NO0 ON ISOLATED ONE WAY ST. OR ST. WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING & SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST _-c-------------------------------------- ON 2-WAY ST. WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING & SPEED CONTROL. PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience Satisfied Yes 0 No REQUIREMENT WARRANT OR SATISFIED WARRANT 2_ 1 I~TEJR_UUP_TT1_oN_O_F CO_NT~NUOUS-TEC- - - - - - - - - WARRANT 3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME I I1 SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW lo 0 on ADEOUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACC. FREO. ACC WITHIN A 12 MON. PER100 SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR>S2OODAMAGE _---------- ----- ---------------- MINIMUM REQUIREMENT l---’ NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS I I 5 OR MORE * NOTE: Left turn accidents can be included when LT -phasing is proposed WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant Satisfied Yes 0 Na c c WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants (Used if no one warrant satisfied 1OO%J Satisfied Yes 0 No 0 The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for signals. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown. TClDE t ' TR'AFFIC MANUAL c c c e c d c SIGNALS AND, LIGHTING 9 -7 April, 1977 Figure 9-1D SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS CALC. DATE CHK. DATE z) RURAL(R) Critical speed of approach traffic 2 40 mph - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In built up area of isolated community of 10,000 pop - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SfGNALS (All parts must be satisfied) SATISFIED AND PART B Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 35 rnph AN D PART C Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? Satisfied YES NO a Satisfied Yesn I: No 0 Sa: i s fi ed SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SlGNALS (Both parts must be satisfied) SATISFIED Yes D. No CI chool Age Pedestrians Crossing Street AND PART 8 1s nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? -- Satisfied Yes D Satisfied Yeso No0 2-75849 c .. :. . MEMORANDUM TO : City Manager. FROM: City Engineer DATE : January 11, 1979 SUBJECT: Traffic Signal Request for the Intersection of Tamarack Avenue at El Camino Real At the request of City Council on January 2, 1979, an engineering staff report dated January 10, 1979 has been prepared concerning the proposed traffic signalization of the subject intersection. In addition, there is information on the status of other traffic signal projects in and adjacent to the city. Some items that the Council should consider in evaluating traffic signal priorities include : 1. Significant staff time is currently being expended on traffic signals that are requirements of shopping centers now under construction. engineering staff hours are required for each signalized intersection designed and constructed by private developers. Approximately 100 Shopping center projects with traffic signals anticipated to be completed by October 1979 include: a. b. C. d. e. f. Hosp Way/El Camino Real (Handyman Shopping Center not yet completed; 15 staff hours remaining). Marron Road/El Camino Real (Plaza Camino Real - major upgrade and revisions; 80-100 staff hours remaining). Marron Road/Cinema 5 (Plaza Camino Real - new traffic signal; hours remaining). Marron Road/Monroe (Plaza Camino Real - new traffic signal; 100 staff hours remaining). El Camino Real/Dove Lane (Mola Development Shopping Center - new traffic signal required prior to occupancy; 40-50 staff hours remaining). El Camino Real/Alga Road (Mola Development Shopping Center/Spinnaker Hills Subdivision; 40-50 staff hours remaining). - signal energized but 100 staff 2. Current budgeted city traffic signal projects include: a. Paseo del Norte/Palomar Airport Road - under design by consultant; 60 staff hours expended - 200-250 staff hours remaining. b. Carlsbad Boulevard/Elm Avenue - signal modifications; replace controller, add left turn phasing, new mast arms, etc. staff hours remaining. 75 hours expended - 150-175 c. Elm Avenue/Pio Pic0 Boulevard - new traffic signal in conjunction with CalTrans project 1-5 off ramps; 50 hours expended on CalTrans portion; 200 staff hours remaining. d. Elm Avenue/Roosevelt - proposed traffic signal in Redevelopment Area; 200 staff hours remaining (Redevelopment Plan may propose an alternate location for the signal. Should be deferred until Redevelopment Plan is reviewed by City Council). e. El Camino Real - traffic signal interconnect (Highway 78 to Hosp Way); 50-100 staff hours remaining. 3. El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road - proposed traffic signal; 100-300 staff hours remaining. 4. The intersection of El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road (currently totally in the County but serving the Rancho Ponderosa area) has experienced significant increases in traffic congestion and meets warrants for consideration for traffic signalization. The City has a bonded traffic signal agreement for this intersection; 100 staff hours remaining if selected as a high priority project by the County. 5. Design and construction of a traffic signal normally takes 9-12 months as a City Contract project. It could be done as quickly as 6-9 months as a private contract if the private contractor is properly motivated (i.e. dead- line for shopping center occupancy, etc.) Significant chronological time can be saved by private contractors, public contract, primarily in the areas of design consultant selection and contractor negotiation. 6. A traffic study has not been completed on the intersection of El Camino Real and Tamarack, but preliminary indications are that the intersection may not meet Warrants for installation of a traffic signal. It appears that at least two or three other intersections in or adjacent to the city may rank higher in priority for traffic signalization when compared to the statewide accepted Warrants test . RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that with respect to traffic signal installations the City Council direct staff to do the following: 1. Continue with the signalization project at Paseo del Norte/Palomar Airport Road as the highest traffic signal priority. 2. Continue to coordinate efforts with private developers for traffic signals necessary for occupancy approvals of the various commercial developments. 3. Defer any engineering work on the budgeted signalization project at Elm Avenue and Roosevelt Street until such time as the Redevelopment Plan is adopted. -2- 4. Direct staff to take the necessary steps to require the developer of Carlsbad Palisades to install the traffic signal within a reasonable time frame of one year from the date the Traffic Safety Commission determines the minimum Warrants for the installation of a traffic signal are met. JA4!! Tim Flanagan City Engineer v TCF: pab cc: Public Works Administrator Transportation Engineer Chairperson, Traffic Safety Commission Mike Rosten Ramona Finnila -3- . 4615 Trfeste Drive Carlsbad, California ' . December 15, 1978 Members of the City Coucil, I respectfully request that the following toplc be placed on the January 2nd agenda with reserved speaking time for me, At that time 1 would also like to su11m-l.t petitfons on its - behalf. .. - Topic :' ' Woodbine residents requost &hac the stop Ifgbt - proposed &for the intersection of. Tamarack and ZX Carnliio Real be installed ahead of.' scbedule to pe-pan1.t; the safe cross€ng . of p-edestrians and vehicles especially now that Kelly School .. will be open in September of 19790 . Ramona Finnila 72 7- 4- 7 .-. -. c. Please call'and confirm .. b .. .