HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-11-18; City Council; 6386-1; Analysis of Carlsbad Village Center Circulation Plan and Parking Access. 0 e c CITY OF CARLSBAD
LE:mmt
Initial :
AGENDA BILL NO. L3#4 - &-a +/ Dept. Head t
DATE : November 18, 1980 C. Atty w
Engineering C. Mgr. 'L7/0' DEPARTMENT:
SUBJECT: ANALYSIS OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE CENTER CIRCULATION PLAN AND PARKING ACCE!
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER
At the request of the City Council, the Engineering Department arranged for ar
independent analysis of the circulation plan for the Village Area Redevelopmer
Plan. The consultant suggested that for the Village Area, the City accept a
design standard for traffic congestion that would give an average overall spec
of between 10 and 15 mph and would permit "tolerable" delays. Based on this
congestion standard, the consultant felt that ultimately two full lanes in eac
direction would be required for Village Area streets. He suggested that ini-
tially, parking could be permitted on-street, but at such time as delays and
of additional travel lanes. Finally, the consultant recommended that the Lit)
not yield control of existing right-of-way by street vacation, but allow onl)
narrowing of curb-to-curb dimensions and utilize excess right'of-way for land-
scaping and other improvements which would not preclude eventual widening.
Exhibit 1 is a summary of the consultant's recommendations. Exhibit 2 is the
consultant's detailed report.
congest ion become "intolerable" the on-street parking should be removed in fa\
F I SCAL I MPACT
The recommendations of the consultant would allow less on-street parking and
prohibit relinquishment of rights-of-way for building area. Therefore, less
area would be available for building and more would have to be set aside for
parking and right-of-way.
EXHIBITS
1. Summary of Consultant's Recommendations
3. Memo from Housing and Redevelopment Director
2. An Analysis of Carlsbad Village Center Circulation Plan and Parking Access
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council proceed with plans for Streetscape in the Village Area Redeve
opment Plan, utilizing the recommendations contained in the Analysis of the
Carlsbad Village Center Circulation Plan and Parking Access Study by Arnold To
of August 1980.
Council Action:
11-18-80 Council directed staff to proceed with the plans, as recommended by stal
m 0 &COMHENDATIONS
Either of the two concepts evaluated within this report can function tc
serve the expected demnds in the future (Refer to Figure 111). The
streetscape plan that assumes a solid divider on State Sr. and an architectuz
treatment dividing the two roadway directions of Grand Ave. where it meets
State St. has consequenceso
the width while at the same time keeping a symmetry to the arrangement of
lanes approaching and leaving the intersection parking would have to be
sacraficed under the ultimate demand.
Those consequences are that in order to minimie
An alternative that emphasizes minimizing curb to curb width employs
The use of a opposing left turn lanes at the intersection of State/Grand,
center fane in midblock to ease any eongestion with one fane in each
direction, permits parking and the posibility of a landscaped treatment in tl
street to separate the left turn lane from the midblock center lane. d
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - STEETSCAPE PLAN
Grand Avenue - Create a facility that is 48' curb to curb, at midblock,
consisting of a 14' lane each way and nother 10' for parking
on each side. Later, when traffic volumes warrant, remove tl
parking to obtain twa 12' lanes each way. At the intersectit
with State St., create a median of 6' to IO* and two 12'
traffic lanes each way without parking for appraximately 150
back from the intersection on the WB side. Total curb to cu
width at the intersection would be 54' to 58'. Continue use $
stop sign control at intersections with Roosevelt St. and
Madison St. until demand warrants signals.
State Street - At midblock a 54' to 58' wide (curb to curb) facility would b
designed with a 6' to 10' median. One lane of 14' in each
direction with anther 10' for parking that, just like on Gran
Ave., can be removed to provide two 12' lanes each way. At t
intersections a 50' to 54' wide street (curb to curb) can be
accommodated to try and match the present 49' of width at Gra
Ave. and have a 6' to 10' median. Two lanes each way of 11'
would exist. Parking would be set back approximately 120' fro
the intersection for approaching lanes.. South of Elm one lane
each way is sufficient.
-16-
e e
' ' Elm Avenue - Eventual removal of parking, the addition of another lane eac
way and a median with center left turn fanes at intersections
would comprise its cross section. The two lanes each way wou
be 12' with a 12' median for a curb to curb distance of 60'.
No left turns at midblock would be possible due eo the median
Roosevelt/
Madison - The present 60' width would be visually broken by a 6' to 10'
median. One lane of 14' each way with another 1O8 for parkin
would bring the total curb to curb width to 54' to 58'. A
break in the median for midblock parking would ex3st.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - ALTERNATIVE RECOMMF%DATION
Grand Ave/
State St. - With a curb to curb dimension of 60' create a cenfer lane (fc
passing stopped vehicles or for turning into midblock parking
areas) of 12', one through lane in each direction of 14p and
another 10' for parking for the midbf.ock cross sectfon. At t
intersections terminate the center lane with an
architectualjlandscape treatment to establish a center left
turn lane of 12'- Parking is set back approximagely 100
ft. from the intersection to allow a free right eurn lane of
11 f t.and a through lane of 12'. Only one lane edsts in the
opposite direct ion -
E 1m/ - Roosevelt/
Madison - (as above)
Parking
Access - Predominant access to midblock parking can be emphasized fron
RoosevaLt with additional access from Grand. Only the WB
traffic should access the midblock areas of the Vfllage Cente
from Elm Ave. when the median is constructed. Continued
emphasis will be required for off-street parking due to the
eventual removal of on-street spaces as demand necessitates
assuming the streetscape plan..
Traffic
Control - Existing signals will be adequate for future projected
Devices demand with the possible need for their re-timing. Stop
control should continue to be adequate for Madison and
Roosevelt until a short term of volumes indicates signal
control is warranted. Preliminary estimates indicate
minimum warrants for volume will be met wfth the projected
demand.
left turn phases at Elm/State and Grand/State, especially if
exclusive turn lanes are provided as in the alternate
An improvement would be made by adding protected
recomenda tion e
-17-
<” 0 0
Undulation of
Traffic Lanes - Only when on-street parking is not to be provided should
consideration be made of non-linear alignments.
parking wold be hindered by a radiused curb and inefficient
use of the parking lane would result.
Under either the streetscape plan or the alternative
recommendation do not yield control of the ROW. The
individual streets can have their curb to curb dimensions
lowered, as shown in Figure 111, to enhance landscaping
opportunities, but loss of ROW should be avoided.
Parallel
Narrowing ROW -
-18-
e 0 . s-
3. <
MEMORANDUM
DATE : November 7, 1980
TO: Les Evans, City Engineer
FROM : Jack Henthorn, Housing and Redevelopment Director
SUBJECT: Housing and Redevelopment Advisory Committee action
Pf-
on traffic study by Arnold Torma
At its meeting of October 20, 1980, the Carlsbad Housing and
Redevelopment Advisory Committee took action recommending
that the Council accept the Torma study and proceed to design and construction of the Village Area Streetscape improvements
JH:ph
0 e
AN ANALYSIS OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE CENTER
CIRCULATION PLAN AND PARKING ACCESS
FOR
CITY OF CARLSBAD, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
AUGUST 1980
ARNOLD TOW - TRAFFIC ENGINEER.
8170 Hudson Drive
San Diego, California 92119
(714) 697-4070
0 a
CONTENTS
Page
Background .................................................. 1
Traffic Forecasts........................................... 3
Traffic Conditions.......................................... 7
Parking ..................................................... 14
Summary of Recommendations.................................. 16
Appendices .................................................. 19
TABLES
I. Existing Street Conditions............................ 2
11. Present and Future AWDT............................... 6
111. Traffic Data.......................................... 7
IV. Levels of Service..................................... 11
FIGURES
I. Carlsbad Village Area Boundary Map. .................... la
11. A. Turn movement counts - Grand/State ................. 7a
111. Streetscape Plan and Alternative Recommendation........ 8a
B. Turn movement counts - Elm/State ................... 7b
m 1)
BACKGROUND
The City of Carlsbad has undertaken extensive work over the last several
'years to accomplish a change in the older, central part of the city between
Through the efforts of the housing the AT&% railroad and the 1-5 freeway.
and redevelopment commission, one aspect of this proposed change is the
Village Area Redevelopment plan. Within this plan certain streets have been
identified for a redesign that would de-emphasize the vehicular use and
support human scaled ammenities. It is the purpose of this report to identify
these proposed changes affecting traffic, examine whether future vehicular
traffic can adequately circulate given a new streetscape, and make appropriate
recommendations on the circulation, access and need for controls.
The portion of the Village Center of Carlsbad required to be analyzed is
bounded by the AT&SF tracks on the west, Elm Ave. on the South, Madison on the
East and Grand Ave. on the North as shown in Figure I. Within this area,
changes are proposed on Elm Ave., State St., Grand Ave. and on Roosevelt St.
To accomplish the streetscape theme, the parking would be changed from
diagonal to parallel, or removed entirely, medians would be introduced and the
sidewalks would be widened. As a consequence of the proposed changes the two
types of examinations to be performed are the intersection adequacy when the
demand for traffic on all approaches is compared to the capacity, and the
adequacy of the cross section of the street in view of the expected average
weekday daily traffic (AWDT). The existing conditions are presented in
Table I.
1
CARLSBAD VILLAGE AREA BOUNDARY MAP
; J-LJ c-J t !I
*
Table I
Existing Street Conditions
*
CURB TO ONE WAY ( 1)
STREET ROW CURB EFFECTIVE WIDTH REMARKS
Grand Ave-E of State lOOft 70f t 18f t diagonal
parking, at
midblock
E of State lOOft 70f t 35ft at approach
W of State lOOft 62f t 36f t parallel
parking
State St-N of Grand 80f t 49ft 28f t /19f t NB/SB,
at approach
S of Grand 80f t 49f t 28f t/19f t NB/SB,
at approach
Grand to Elm 80ft 57f t 12ft at midblock,
diag . parking
S of Elm 60f t 48f t 24f t parallel
parking
Elm Ave-Tracks to 80f t 60f t 16f t parallel
parking
Madison center left
turn lane -
llft
Roosevelt St-Grand to 80ft 60f t 17f t W side diagona:
Elm parking, E sidc
parallel park
Madison St-Grand to 76f t 60f t 21ft parallel
Elm parking
(1) Not including parking or left turn lane (where applicable), dims. approx
-2-
d *
Despite the narrower ROW that Elm has compared to Grand the differences
in parking strategy and connectivity to the freeway interchange at 1-5 make
Elm the major street moving east and west. Elm is significant in the
circulation plan for the city and, onece before the freeway existed, the
portion west of State St. was part of the major coastal route, Highway 1. The
building of Carlsbad Boulevard, as well as the freeway, changed matters so
that Carlsbad Blvd. could cross the AT&SF tracks on a bridge without a grade
crossing as had been the case when Elm and State made the connection. Now,
Elm St. serves to move traffic between the coast and the freeway and function
as the major access to the local street serving the interior of this area.
Present AWDT on Elm is typically 15,000 in the study area. The other
east-west street to cross the tracks in this area is Grand Ave. It is a wide
street that has far more capacity than currently being used. With an AWDT
appoaching 6,000 sufficiently low traffic exists to offer the character of a
non-vital commercial area. The presence of diagonal parking on both sides
of this street makes use of the excess width in the block between State and
Roosevelt .
State Street also contains diagonal parking while experiencing an AWDT
near 5,000 vehicles. State St. comes the closest to a "downtown-type''
appearance with some two story facades and almost continuous constructaction
between Grand and Elm.
serving to extend access north from Elm and have estimated AWDT's of
approximately 2,000 vehicles.
Roosevelt and Madison are both local-type streets
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Several sources of information have been examined to assist in
identifying the future volumes of traffic expected on the study area's
streets. They include the regional CPO/Caltrans assignments of traffic for
-3-
* e
1985/2000 based upon preliminary Series V socio-economic projections, the
Series V employment and population forecasts themselves, concepts for the
redevelopment of the immediate Village Center area, a brief "sidewalk survey"
of existing land uses in the study area and previous studies relating to
coastal access in the City of Carlsbad.
with the existing and assumed future land uses in the study area resulted in
exceeding the likely case(1) for future traffic. Instead, a combination of
sources was used to obtain growth factors that were applied to each link. The
growth factors also compensated for differences of more than one year between
the measurement of the present AWDT's. Counts available on the study area
streets dated back to the mid-1970's and a growth factor of 5% for each year
back from 1980 was derived from locations where two counts, separated by at
least a year, had been taken. All projections of AWDT on the study area street
are meant to represent the future demand.
An attempt to associate trip end rate
Daily vehicular traffic forecasts available from the CPO/Caltrans
- modeling process are limited to the more significant facilities in the region.
Near the study area the streets included in that system are 1-5, Carlsbad
Blvd., Elm Ave., and portions of Jefferson. Population increases in the
preliminary Series V forecasts from the three nearest zones to the study area
vary' from no growth to approximately a 20% increase between 1978 and 2000.
(1)
and I.T.E. traffic generator manuals overestimated the traffic associated with
the Village Center. This is probably due to the fact that the rates are
derived for establishments functioning individually rather than as a "downtown
and the interaction, by foot, is not taken into account. Other factors are th
relative vitality of the source versus the applied situation and the
opportunity for a business to draw its clientele from the passing traffic
already on the street instead of generating a wholly new vehicle adding to the
passing AWDT. The final uncertainty is the likely scenario for the ultimte, or
future redeveloped case. Given the zoning a four-fold increase in trip
attracting/producing floor is possiSle, but not likely.
Recreating the present case given the floor areas and using Caltrans/CPO
-4-
0 e
Employment for the zones and time period varies from a 30% to a 122% increase.
redevelopment was not an assumption input to the Series V projections. In vie
of these differing possible scenarios the future traffic volumes and their
growth factors as applied to the base year counts have been adopted for use i
this study as shown in Table 11.
Due to the lack of a definative association between a given future year
and the trip ends that would occur, this consultant recommends that the future
AWDT's be thought of as a "sensitivity level." When the given AWDT is
achieved on a street the consequences will be as described in the rest of the
report. The method is valid insofar as identifying the incremental impact of
the redevelopment projects as they occur against measured street volumes at
that time.
-5-
e
TABLE I1
Present and Future Average Weekday Daily Traffic (AFJDT)
e
Street Base AWDT Growth Factor Future Demand
Grand Ave-E of State 5,700 2.21 12,600
W of State 3,900 2.21 8,600
State St-N of Grand 5,700 2.40 13,700
Grand to Elm 4,400 2.48 10,900
S of Elm 2,000 0.50(*) 1 ,OOO( *)
Elm Ave-W of State 8,300 1.92 15,900
E of State 12,700 2.13 27,100
Roosevelt St-State to Elm 2,300( **) 2 .-17 5,000
Madison St-State to Elm 1,900 2.21 4,200
(*) Low volume due to assumption in streetscape plan that S. State is close
except for parking accessl
(**) Volumes approximated.
-6-
0 e
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
In order to establish the present conditions within the study area the
City of Carlsbad obtained 24-hr. traffic counts at two locations during the
4th of July and several weeks later in mid-week. The 4th of July count helpe
confirm a lower recreational demand than a typical weekday through the study
area, especially since the weather was perfect for going to the beach. In
addition, the consultant obtained turning movement counts at the intersection
of State St. with Elm Ave. and with Grand Ave. during the afternoon peak
period. Table I11 and the two intersection diagrams, Fig., I1 A & B depict the
results.
TABLE 111
Traffic Data
Peak hour percent (of AWI)T) ......... 8.2%
Peak hour........................... 16:OO - 17:OO
Directional split, average.......... 55% max. direc.
Peak hour factor.................... 0.95
Percent trucks/buses................ less than 5%
Holiday percent of AWDT............. 61%
Calculations of the present and future expected levels of service have
been calculated for the two signalized intersections at State with Grand and
Elm assuming that the proportions of turns in the future are similar for the
demands expected as now. The assumption has been made, based on observing
present conditions, that where the width permits the approaches often behave
like two lanes despite striping for only one approach lane.
-7-
0 a
Four combinations of traffic and design have been calculated for each
intersection. The designs can be seen in Figure 111.
1. Present traffic, present geometry & signal
2. Future demand, present geometry & signal
3. Future demand, streetscape geometry & present signal
4. Future demand, "alternative" geometry & present signal
The streetscape plan(2) identified for the Village Center contains renderings
and comments about the features being considered that could affect traffic
circulation. Some of the elements of the streetscape have been interpreted
from the renderings and are stated below:
STREETSCAPE PLAN
Grand Ave - Narrow the ROW from 100' to 50'-60' for traffic,
create undulating traffic lanes, remove diagonal parking and
possibly replace with parallel parking, and a center divider
at the intersection with State.
State St - Closed south of Elm except for parking, change
diagonal parking to parallel between Elm and State and create
a center median in the same block, create a smaller curb-to-
curb distance at the intersections.
Elm St - Remove parking and create a median.
Roosevelt St - Narrow the ROW from 80' to 50'-60' and create
a median.
An "alternative" to the streetscape plan has been prepared and evaluated.
This alternative was developed during the traffic study and does not
relate to alternatives previously considered by city staff. Refered to as th
"alternative", it eliminates the use of non-traversable medians in order to
minimize the curb to curb width required. This can be applied to Grand Ave. o
State St. or both facilities. It consists of these elements:
ALTERNATIVE PW
Roosevelt/Elm - (as in streetscape plan)
-8-
PEDESTRi ANS
TOTAL I PEAK
J < +
a w
v, z a 9 vl= LJ I-' $2 J2
z": &"='
*z V% *a%.:15 5 &,G+At$ PMPEAK TOTAL a /I 36 I 33 I - I--- f / ~>[ /y€ I lcll f (lib0 x(= x 12
-c aw,J IT=-- + 0
164 Y '5- I t-, \ I ' F MI r
(260XLy,'X 1
EIM Ave. /5frzfe rN r\r\ w
INTERSECTION
~arts bad ___------ -------- 31% 1 $% SZ c/ CITY
1Jed-&+-----JL=
----- +:l53e-_---- s//L I ____--- PEDESTRIANS
TOTAL PEAK DAY OAT€
HOUR TO HOUR NO OF LANES &?&.
t-#ozL - .OL L t
a e
Grand Ave./State St. - Narrow the curb to curb cross section as shown in
Figure 111, provide a traversable center lane using painted stripes at
the midblock to allow the passing of vehicles stopping for parking or foi
left turn use. Create a wide lane in each direction with parallel parkinl
allowed, At the intersection of GrandIState provide three approach lanes
an exclusive left turn lane (protected by a curbed island in the center
of the street that terminates the traversable center lane), a through
lane and a right turn lane. The opposite direction has one generous lane
at the intersection. Parallel parking allowed.
At this time all of these streets and their intersections perform very well
during the peak period. Their levels-of-service(3) are at "A", based upon
calculations of the peak hour traffic and based upon observations during the
morning, noon and evening peaks. This is the best level of service associate
with free flow, ability to make turning movements and the lack of any vehicle
being unable to clear a signal during its phase of the cycle at signalized
intersections. At this time, the Village Area of Carlsbad does not have a
traffic congestion problem.
(2) Master Plan: Carlsbad Streetscape Study, Bissell/August ASSOC.,
circa 1980.
A descriptive system for streets identifying the relative congestion and
Capacity Manual.
(3)
adequacy for circulating the demanded traffic volumes. See NCHRP Hwy
-9-
0
With the growth of traffic projected for the Village Center streets, the
level of service at the intersectians will degrade and a greater sense of
congestion will prevail. Clearly, those streets are underutilized at the
present time. Excess capacity exists, and the streets can be better utilized
than now. Discussion of what level of service or amount of congestion and
delay that can and should be tolerated in the Village Center area has '
occurred with city engineering and redevelopment staff.
that it is possible and desirable to create a sense of more activity and
vitality through redesign of streets. This sense of vitality has positive
aspects such as causing a driver who wishes only to travel through the area
without stopping seek an alternate route such as Elm Ave. Thus, vehicular
traffic using the more "restrictive" streets(4) in the village Center area ha?
chosen to be there because of the adjacent activities or because of unavoidab
routing of their trip. The more important aspect of the success of a Village
Center is the adequacy and availability of the parking to support the
commercial activities. Without sufficient parking the Village Center would be
economically limited, whereas with travel congestion on some streets, only
travel time is added. It is proposed that the level of service (L. of S.) tc
adopt for the maximum limit of congestion is L. of S. "D". This is one level
above typical design standards of L. of S. "C" and is in keeping with urband
design practices. Present signal system design is also used to test the
adequacy of the intersections.
This author believes
Table IV displays the results of the calculations (5) of the volume
to capacity ratios of the signals at the State/Grand and State/Elm
intersections. From this table it can be seen that presently both
(4) State Street and Grand Ave.
-10-
0 e
intersections operate entirely adequately whereas with future demand on the
existing geometry it changes. Future demand would cause Elm/State and
Grand/State to be at L. at S. "D", with either the streetscape plan in
effect or with the "alternative" plan the intersections would perform at L.
of S. "D."
TABLE IV
Levels of Service
- CASE ELM AVE/STATE ST. GRAND AVE/STATE ST
Present Traffic
present geometry V/C 0.54 0.37
critical volumes 651 442
service level A a
Future Demand
present geometry VIC 0.85 0.87
critical volumes 108 1 1234
service level D D
streetscape plan v/c 0.82 0.81
critical volumes 1064 1133
service level D D
alternative plan
V/C 0.82 0.81
critical volumes 1064 1134
service level D D
See the appendix for the calculation sheets.
-1 1-
e a
What the calculations of intersection service levels demonstrates is
that acceptable congestion will occur with properly designed approaches.
Figure 111 clarifies the dimensions that have been assumed for the streetscape
plan and the "alternative" plan. Of note, are the suggested minimum widths of
the approaches of the Grand Ave/State St- intersection and the approach of S.T
State St. to Elm Ave. These locations are recommended as having a minimum
width sufficient to function as two lanes in the streetscape plan. In
addition, a left turn lane is also indicated in the alternative
recommendation.
The other verification of adequacy of circulation in the Village Center
is the relationship between the anticipated volumes of traffic and the cross
section design of the street. In this situation the concept described earlic
about a sense of relative congestion is again, just as with intersections,
appropriate for planning the adequacy of the cross sectioned characteristics
or the number of lanes required. A level of service of "D" can be considerel
. as the maximum level of acceptable congestion. A description of the level o
service for downtown streets, taken from Table 10.14 of the Highway capacity
manual states that at level of service "D" states that the average overall
speed is greater than 10 mph, but less than 15 mph, and tolerable
delays occur.
Despite current street standards, which have their best application to
newly developing areas and which would suggest more generous roadways for tl
anticipated volumes in the village center, the recommended characteristics
both the streetscape and the alternative recommendation are more consistant
with a denser urban character. These are recommendations for the future
traffic .
-12-
0 e
The demand volumes should be regarded as a long-term projection. These
demands will not be experienced for quite some time, and short term future is
unlikely to generate these volumes of traffic. It is also possible to relate
to the future demand as a “sensitivity level.” The demand would represent a
planned limit to future traffic, whenevr it occurs, and exceeding that limit
would require a new design analysis. In view of the uncertainty of the exact
nature of redevelopment in the Village Center this view is encouraged.
Ordinarily, two lanes in each direction would be necessary for AWDT’s of
10,000 to 15,000 vehicles. The alternative plan for State and Grand is an
‘.I . attempt to create a concept that a) minimizes the curb to curb dimensions, b:
provides parking, and c) accomodates the future volumes even though some
congestion will be experienced. Unfortunately, the alternative recommendatic
would not allow center median areas that cannot be crossed by vehicles since
the extra room is added for passing.
It was the apparent goal in the streetscape plan to avoid the need for
- second lane in each direction. With the ultimate demand in the 10,000 to 15,
AWDT range, with the added factors of possible midblock access to parking lo
and the need for at least two approach lanes at the intersections plus a
sufficiently long approach length to the intersection, the streetscape must
have the availability of two full lanes, each way, under the ultimate demand
Since the ultimate demand will not be experienced for quite some time it is
possible, just as now, to have only one through lane each way on State Stree
and Grand Avenue combined with parallel parking. The parking lane can be
removed when the traffic demand reaches the level that the extra capacity
required. This would probably occur when the AWDT reaches 8,000 to 10,000
vehicles per day. In this manner the street could be narrowed from its pre:
width (Grand Avenue) and the streetscape features (Grand Avenue and State
Street) could be designed. The disadvantage with the streetscape is that
-13-
e a
when the demand levels build to the level when on-street parking would have to
be removed parking in the entire Village Center would be needed most.
The "alternative" plan makes use of the fact that there are streets ir
the San Diego area that have one lane in each direction, plus a center lane
which can be traversed for left turns and passing stopped vehicles that carry
in excess of 15,000 vehicles per day. Mission BlVdo and Garnet Aye- are two
examples. What would be required is to create a cross-section (as shown in
Figure 111) that has no restrictive center median. It is further suggested tt
a left turn lane be provided at the signalized intersections, thereby requiri
any landscaping treatment to be set back from the intersection for the lengtl
of the turn pocket. The cross section would permit parallel parking, one widt
lane in each direction and a center painted divided area for left turns or fc
passing stopped vehicles at the midblock. At the intersections, a divider woi
have terminated the center lane to establish a left turn lane, parking would
end and enough width would remain to have a right turn and a through lane at
. the approach. The opposite lane entering the block at the intersection would
sufficiently wide for one lane plus parking (Refer to Figure 111).
Parking
An emphasis in the streetscape plan creating midblock parking on tl
interior of presently underutilized property central to the block bounded b]
Elm, State, Grand and Roosevelt is in the Village Center plan. Major access,
for vehicles, would be from the Roosevelt side, and possibly from Grand Ave
Another possible parking location is somewhere on the next block East, also
with access to Roosevelt. On-street parking under the streetscape plan has
just been discussed and the probable future demand would necessitate its
removal on Grand and State, especially if the streetscape treatment is
performed. Removal of diagonal parking is also desirable. The exact quant
-14-
e e
and location for future parking will greatly depend on the precise
redevelopment that will take place. Retail merchants tend to prefer the
appearance of easily available parking at their doorstep as provided by
on-street parking. However, when the redevelopment acheives a level of
vitality sufficient to necessitate its removal for street capacity, this
parking won't be enough. It will have been necessary to seek and create just
the kind of concept now being promoted by the redevelopment agency. On-stree
parking will also be difficult to supervise for the length of stay without tk
use of short parking meter durations and parking enforcement parking
personnel.
be perpetually consumed by longer term parkers.
Thus, what would appear to be easily available street space cou2.G
It is important to emphasize the access to and availability of midblocl
parking through signing and architectural treatment.
accessable and pleasant place to leave ones automobile it becomes the
preferred place to park.
By creating an
-15-
e e
RECOMMENDAT IONS
Either of the two concepts evaluated within this report can function to
serve the expected demnds in the future (Refer to Figure 111). The
streetscape plan that assumes a solid divider on State St. and an architectual
treatment dividing the two roadway directions of Grand Ave. where it meets
State St. has consequences. Those consequences are that in order to minimie
the width while at the same time keeping a symmetry to the arrangement of
lanes approaching and leaving the intersection parking would have to be
sacraficed under the ultimate demand.
An alternative that emphasizes minimizing curb to curb width employs
opposing left turn lanes at the intersection of State/Grand. The use of a
center lane in midblock to ease any congestion with one lane in each
direction, permits parking and the posibility of a landscaped treatment in thi
street to separate the left turn lane from the midblock center lane. .3r
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - STREETSCAPE PLAN
Grand Avenue - Create a facility that is 48' curb to curb, at midblack,
consisting of a 14' lane each way and nother 10' for parking
on each side. Later, when traffic volumes warrant, remove th
parking to obtain two 12' lanes each way. At the intersectio
with State St., create a median of 6' to 10' and two 12'
traffic lanes each way without parking for approximately 150'
back from the intersection on the WB side. Total curb to cur
width at the intersection would be 54' to 58'. Continue use o
stop sign control at intersections with Roosevelt St. and
Madison St. until demand warrants signals.
State Street - At midblock a 54' to 58' wide (curb to curb) facility would be
designed with a 6' to 10' median. One lane of 14' in each
direction with anther 10' for parking that, just like on Granc
Ave., can be removed to provide two 12' lanes each way. At tk
intersections a 50' to 54' wide street (curb to curb) can be
accommodated to try and match the present 49' of width at Grar
Ave. and have a 6' to 10' median. Two lanes each way of 11'
the intersection for approaching lanes. South of Elm one lane
each way is sufficient.
would exist. Parking would be set back approximately 120' fron
-16-
e
Elm Avenue - Eventual removal of parking, the addition of another lane each
way and a median with center left turn lanes at intersections
would comprise its cross section. The two lanes each way would
be 12' with a 12' median for a curb to curb distance of 60'.
No left turns at midblock would be possible due to the median.
Roosevelt/
Madison - The present 60' width would be visually broken by a 6' to 10'
median. One lane of 14' each way with another 10' for parking
would bring the total curb to curb width to 54' to 58'. A
break in the median for midblock parking would exist.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION
Grand Ave/
State St. - With a curb to curb dimension of 60' create a center lane (for
passing stopped vehicles or for turning into midblock parking
areas) of 12', one through lane in each direction of 14' and
another 10' for parking for the midblock cross section. At thl
intersections terminate the center lane with an
architectual/landscape treatment to establish a center left
turn lane of 12'. Parking is set back approximately 100
ft. from the intersection to allow a free right turn lane of
11 ft.and a through lane of 12'. Only one lane exists in the
opposite direction.
Elm/
-. Roosevelt/
Madison - (as above)
Parking
Access - Predominant access to midblock parking can be emphasized from
Roosevelt with additional access from Grand. Only the WB
traffic should access the midblock areas of the Village Center
from Elm Ave. when the median is constructed. Continued
emphasis will be required for off-street parking due to the
eventual removal of on-street spaces as demand necessitates
assuming the streetscape plan.
Traffic
Control - Existing signals will be adequate for future projected
Devices demand with the possible need for their re-timing. Stop
control should continue to be adequate for Madison and
Roosevelt until a short term of volumes indicates signal
control is warranted. Preliminary estimates indicate minimum warrants for volume will be met with the projected
demand.
left turn phases at Elm/State and Grand/State, especially if
exclusive turn lanes are provided as in the alternate
recommendation.
An improvement would be made by adding protected
-17-
0 m
Undulation of
Traffic Lanes - Only when on-street parking is not to be provided should
consideration be made of non-linear alignments.
parking wold be hindered by a radiused curb and inefficient
use of the parking lane would result.
Parallel
Narrowing ROW - Under either the streetscape plan or the alternative
recommendation do not yield control of the ROW. The
individual streets can have their curb to curb dimensions
lowered, as shown in Figure 111, to enhance landscaping
opportunities, but: loss bf ROW shauld be avoided.
-18-