HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-05-05; City Council; 8900-1; RSF Rd / Melrose Dr. Traffic Design StudyRANCHO SANTA FE ROAD/
MELROSE DRIVE TRAFFIC
4B#-, TITLE:
MTG. 05/05/87
DEPT. ENG DESIGN STUDY REPORT
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
CITY MOR+
Adopt Resolution No. 705-5" authorizing the Mayor to
execute the Agreement Between the County of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad to Enable the County Board of Super- visors to Reimburse the City of Carlsbad a Portion of the Consultant Fee for Traffic Design Study Report.
ITEM EXPLANATION
At the February 24, 1987 Council meeting, staff was author-
ized to have Willdan Associates undertake a study of Rancho
Santa Fe Road from a point approximately 500-feet northerly
of Melrose Drive, southerlyto Questhaven Road. The purpose
of the study was to investigate potential short term
solutions for possible roadway problems in that segment of
the road and also investigate long range design
considerations for the RSF/Melrose intersection and above
referenced roadway segment.
The County of San Diego and the City of San Marcos have
each indicated a willingness to fund one-third of the
$9,500.00 fee that will be paid to Willdan Associates.
The City of Carlsbad was the lead agency in the study with
cost reimbursements to be paid to Carlsbad. To enable the
County Board of Supervisors to authorize payment of the
County's share of $3,166.00 the attached Agreement between
the County of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad must be signed by the Mayor. Willdan has submitted a draft report which is being reviewed by respective staff members from the County of San Diego, City of San Marcos and City of Carlsbad.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Carlsbad's one-third share of the consultant
fee will be $3,168.00.
EXHIBITS
1. v Location Map.
2." Resolution No. 903-c authorizing the Mayor to execute the Agreement Between the County of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad to Enable the County Board
_. PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 8900 - /
of Supervisors to Reimburse the City of Carlsbad a
Portion of the Consultant Fee for Traffic Design Study
Report.
3. ’ Agreement between the County of San Diego and the
City of Carlsbad regarding Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose
Drive/Questhaven Road traffic study.
LOCATION MAP
0
0
w LL
c 2
v)
0 I 0 z U
a
a
a
a
a
I /I
a
7
i -I
PROJECT NAME: R.S.F. RD./MELROSE TRAFFIC STUDY
STUDY LIMIT
d
N
NO a SCALE
MELROIL
COlllWTlA
No
i N
SCALE n
f AREWAL RD. AC:OIWClA 81.
CO8TA OIL MA
A COITA AV
VICINITY MAP
I I
tE X H IBI'
DR. I I '*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 9055
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD TO ENABLE THE
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REIMBURSE THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD A PORTION OF THE CONSULTANT FEE FOR A TRAFFIC DESIGN STUDY REPORT.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has
determined it necessary and in the public interest to improve a
portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road from a point approximately 500-
feet north of Melrose Drive southerly to Questhaven Road: and
WHEREAS, the city of Carlsbad has authorized Willdan
Associates to prepare a Traffic Design Study Report for said
roadway: and
WHEREAS, the County of San Diego has indicated a willingness
to pay one-third of the consultant fee for the report:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council of the City of Carlsbad authorizes
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
1
2
2
4
E ”
E
7
E
9
1c
11
‘ 12
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Mayor to sign the agreement between the County of San Diego
and City of Carlsbad for purposes specified in this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the 5th day of May I
1987, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES : Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
aLtL A. (iL.bL-
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, Cit? Clerk
( SEAL )
I
!
i
i
I I
I I i !
I 1
I
i
! i I
I
i I
COGNN OF SAN DrEGO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Building 2. 5555 Overland Avenue
San Diego, California 92123-1295
Telephone: (619) 565-5177
GRANVILLE M. BOWMAN. Director
April 10, 1987
Lloyd B. Hubbs, City Engineer City of Carl sbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
RECEXVED
APR 16 1987
CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Dear Mr. Hubbs:
Subject: Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive Traffic Study
Four copies of a draft Agreement between the County of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad regarding the Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive Traffic
Study are enclosed for your consideration. also been sent to County Counsel for approval. A copy of the Agreement has
If the Agreement is acceptable to the City, please secure the appropriate signatures and return all four copies to Anita Mauck at the letterhead ad- dress, Mail Station 0386.
It is our understanding that Supervisor John MacDonald supports the proposed study and encourages its timely completion. returned to the County Department of Public Works by April 22 in order for this item to be placed on the May 5 Board of Supervisors agenda.
Upon the Board of Supervisors' approval of the Agreement, two executed copies will be returned to your office.
The executed copies must be
If you have any questions, please contact Anita Mauck at 565-5811.
V#y truly yours,
Deputy Director epartment uubl ic Works P SJR:AM: lm
Enclosures
cc: Larry Hurt, Traffic (0338)
10/015
LIQUID WASTE COUNTY ENGINEER COUNTY ROAD COMMISSIONER COUNTY SURVEYOR
COUNTY AIRPORTS TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS FLOOD CONTROL SOLID WASTE
OFFICES OF:
6
AGREEMENT BETMEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIE60 AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD REGARDING
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD/EBLROSE DRIVE/QUESTHAVEN ROAD TRAFFIC STUDY
THIS AGREEMENT, executed this day of , 1987, by and
between the County of San Diego, a political subdivision of the State of Cali-
fornia, hereinafter called "COUNTY" and the City of Carlsbad, a municipal cor-
pora t i on , he rei na f te r ca 1 1 ed "C I TY . ''
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the area around the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and
Melrose Drive falls within the jurisdiction of both the CITY and the COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that a detailed traffic study of the area
is needed in order to establish appropriate intersection controls; and
WHEREAS, the CITY and COUNTY wish to jointly participate and share in the
costs of a traffic study; and
WHEREAS, two-thirds of the approaches to said intersection are under the
jurisdiction of the CITY and one-third of the approaches are under the
jurisdiction of the COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, the CITY and COUNTY desire to specify herein the terms and condi-
tions by which the proposed traffic study will be accomplished.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED by and between the CITY and the COUNTY
as follows:
1. The CITY will hire a traffic engineering consultant to prepare
a study which will analyze traffic control measures in the area
of the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Drive
extending from 500 feet north of the intersection and southerly
to Questhaven Road.
2. The scope of the proposed traffic study will include (a) data
collection, (b) short term analysis, (c) realignment of Rancho
Santa Fe Road, (d) realignment of Melrose Drive, (e) closure of
Melrose Drive, and (f) grade separation, as detailed in the
attached Exhibit A, Scope of Services.
3. The cost of the proposed traffic study, estimated at $9,500, will
be shared by the CITY and the COUNTY.
4. The CITY will contribute two-thirds and the COUNTY will
contribute one-third of the total project cost.
5. The COUNTY'S portion of the project costs will not exceed $3,166.
6. The COUNTY will not participate in or contribute funds to the
CITY toward the consultant contract, for the project unless:
A. The consultant contract includes provisions substantially
similar to Article 3(K) of the County Administrative Code, the
Affirmative Action Program adopted by the Board of Supervisors,
including all current amendments, on file with the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors; and
B. The CITY provides the County Contract Compliance Office with
a copy of its policy consistent with the County Minority Business
Program Policy.
7. The COUNTY will pay its share of the project costs to the CITY
within 30 days after the CITY accepts the final report from the
consultant.
8. A. The COUNTY, its agents, officers and employees shall not be
held liable for any claims, liabilities, penalties, fines, or for
damage to any goods, properties or effects or any person
whatsoever, nor for personal injuries to, or death of anyone,
caused by or resulting from any negligent acts or omissions of
CITY, its agents, employees, consultants, or representatives,
including liability resulting from the acts or omissions of the
CITY, its agents, employees, consultants, or representatives,
which may occur by reason of any work specified in this
Agreement .
B. The CITY further agrees to defend and indemnify, and save
free and harmless COUNTY and its authorized agents, officers and
employees against negligent acts or omissions of the CITY, its
agents or employees, alleged to have occurred by reason of any
work specified in this Agreement, and any cost and expenses
incurred by the COUNTY on account of any claim therefor.
C. This indemnity agreement is not limited in any way by the
extent of any insurance policy currently in force and held by
either party.
9. This agreement may not be modified, amended or otherwise changed
unless by an amendment, in writing, executed by both parties.
10. This agreement will terminate when the traffic study has been
completed and all amounts due under this agreement have been
paid.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by the COUNTY of San Diego
pursuant to action taken by the Board of Supervisors, and by the CITY of
the City Council.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
By- Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
BY BY City Clerk Deputy County Counsel
10/1-007
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
FOR
IMPROVEMENT OF INTERSECTION
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD AND UELROSE DRIVE
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to thoroughly analyze traffic control
measures in the area of the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and
Melrose Drive extending from 500-feet north of the intersection and
southerly to Questhaven Road. It is intended that the intersection be signalized at an appropriate location and that operational
characteristics be compatible with current and future traffic
demands.
The detailed scope of services shall include, but not be limited to,
the following tasks:
TASK 1: Data Collection TASK ESTIMATE: $ 1,712.00
In this task Consultant will obtain daily traffic counts from the
City's records for Rancho Santa Fe Road, Melrose Drive, Questhaven
Road and La Costa Meadows Road. Consultant will then complete morning
and evening peak hour counts at the intersections of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Drive, La Costa Meadows Road, and Questhaven Road, as
well as the driveways intersecting Rancho Santa Fe Road in the project
vicinity. Accident information and diagrams, which are available from
both the Cities of Carlsbad and San Marcos, will be evaluated to
ascertain any significant accident patterns which should be addressed
in the redesign of this intersection. Consultant will also review the
reports which have been prepared by the City relative to this project
area, along with the minutes of testimony taken at the recent Traffic
Safety Commission meetings.
This task will also involve the determination of future travel volumes
and turning moves at the effected streets and intersections. This
will be done by means of evaluating the travel forecasts which were
prepared by SANDAG for both the City of Carlsbad and the City of San
Marcos. While these included slightly different assumptions,
Consultant will evaluate both forecasts and recommend one set of
future traffic improvements, both on a daily and a peak hour basis.
-1-
t
EXHIBIT A
TASK 2: Short Term Analysis TASK ESTIMATE: $ 1,328.00
This task will involve evaluating short term options to improving the
safety and traffic flow characteristics of the intersection. Consul-
tant will prepare a 40-scale drawing of the project vicinity and
layout possible traffic control scenarios, including a traffic signal,
turn restrict ions, all-way stops, signing and striping changes, minor
street widenings, and/or median protect ion. Included with the
preliminary design will be a cost estimate. Each of these alterna-
tives will be evaluated in terms of the effect on street and
intersection capacities, safety considerations, effects on potential
impacts to speed of traffic and driver &lay, as well as the ability
for this type of interim improvement to fit in with the long term traffic needs for the area.
Other improvements considered for short range implementat ion include
acceleration/deceleration lanes, two-way left turn lane operations,
elimination of parking on the east side of Rancho Santa Fe Road,
weaving movements inclusion of additional striping and signing to help
eliminate driver confusion and increase driver awareness of conflict
points, hazardous conditions and to delineate clearly traffic lanes
and allowable turning movements.
TASK 3: Realiqnment of Rancho Santa Fe Road TASK ESTIMATE: $ 1,616.00
In this task, Consultant will evaluate the alternative of realigning
Rancho Santa Fe Road to "T" into blrose Drive, as proposed in the
Tentative Map for Carlsbad Tract No. 85-19. Again, this alignment
will be drawn at 40-scale with appropriate cost estimates prepared.
This intersection alignment will be evaluated in terms of capacity of
the intersection and the need for traffic controls at the intersection
such as stop signs or traffic signals. The potential effects of the
alignment on traffic safety, including considerations of horizontal
streets and conflicts with driveways, will be carefully considered.
Other effects, such as access to adjacent properties and effects of
vehicle speeds, driver delay, and vehicle miles traveled will also be
evaluated. long term effects will be analyzed to determine the
appropriateness of this potential long term solution.
The
TASK 4: Realignment of Melrose Drive TASK ESTIMATE: $ 1,616.00
In this task, Consultant will complete the same items as in Task 3,
however, Consultant will provide an intersection alignment rhich "T"s
melrose Drive into Rancho Santa Fe Road on an improved alignment from
the current interim connection.
-2-
EXHIBIT A
TASK 5: Closure of Melrose Drive TASK ESTIMATE: $ 1,616.00
In this task, Consultant will evaluate the neighborhood effects of
closing Melrose Drive at Corintia Street and providing only a local
street connection between Rancho Santa Fe Road and Melrose Drive.
This will focus on traffic volumes on the local street connection,
additional impacts to Alga Road, and short term improvements vhich
may still be needed on the Rancho Santa Fe corridor in the project
vicinity.
TASK 6: Grade Separation TASK ESTIMATE: $ 1,616.00
This task will again focus on the intersection of Melrose Drive and
Rancho Santa Fe Road in a manner similar to that accomplished in Tasks
3 and 4. It will, however, develop a grade separated interchange at
this location and describe how the intersection capacity may be improved along with traffic flow and safety characteristics by use of
grade separation of all or a portion of the various turning movements.
Consultant will also point out potential environmental constraints
which should be studied prior to the adoption of an approach similar
to this. These constraints may include visual obstruction or noise
considerat ions.
TOTAL BUDGET: $ 9,500.00
_- e
Y
ALIGNMENT AND SIGNALIZATION REPORT
for
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD
BETWEEN
MELROSE DRIVE AND QUESTHAVEN ROAD
May 15, 1987
Prepared by :
Willdan Associates
6363 Greenwich Drive, Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92122
(61 9) 457-1 199
JN: 36165:js
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Summary E Recommendations
Existing Conditions
Figure 1 (Vicinity Map)
Figure 2 (Existing E Forecast Daily Traffic Volumes)
Figure 3 (Peak Hour Turns)
UI timate Conditions
Figure 4 (Ultimate Alternate 1)
Figure 5 (Ultimate Alternate 2)
Interim AI ternatives
Figure 6 (Interim Alternate 1)
Figure 7 (Interim Alternate 2)
Figure 8 (Interim Alternate 3)
Appendix
i
Page 1
Page 3
Page 5
Page 6
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 16
Page 18
Page 19
Page 21
Page 24
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, traffic volumes along Rancho Santa Fe Road between Melrose
Drive and Questhaven Road have increased substantially (50% since 1984).
This has been due in part to traffic for new intersections and increased
industrial and residential development adjacent to the road segment. Portions
of this corridor are located within three separate local jurisdictions - the City
of Carlsbad, the City of San Marcos, and the County of San Diego. Some of
the existing conditions causing concern within these jurisdictions include:
0
0
0
0
0
0
Many
A skew of approximately 25 degrees at the existing Rancho Santa Fe
Road/Melrose Drive intersection which affects the ability of motorists to
turn onto northbound Rancho Santa Fe Road from Melrose Drive
Vehicle speeds on this portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road which exceed
the existing posted 45 mile per hour speed limit (critical speed of 52-54
mph 1
The presence of closely spaced and deficiently designed driveways
serving an existing industrial park directly east of Rancho Santa Fe
Road
The presence of vehicles traveling two abreast on Rancho Santa Fe
Road adjacent to the industrial park, especially during peak hours
Wide travel lanes on Rancho Santa Fe Road, along the industrial park
frontage, which further allows the above condition to occur
Intersection traffic volumes which presently warrant installation of
signals, at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road with Melrose
Drive, La Costa Meadows Road and Questhaven Road
of these traffic concerns and others have been discussed by the Traffic
Safety Commissions of the respective agencies over the past few -years. The
Carlsbad Traffic Safety Commission addressed this situation again at their
February 2 , 1987 meeting. Following considerable public testimony, the
Commission recommended the retention of a traffic consultant to study the
roadway conditions and to recommend improvement measures. The City of
Carlsbad, along with the City of San Marcos and the County of San Diego,
retained Willdan Associates to complete this report.
This report includes a description of existing traffic volume conditions, a
discussion of existing travel speeds, and the recent accident history in the
corridor between the northern boundary of the existing La Costa Meadows
Industrial Park and Questhaven Road. An analysis of the ultimate roadway
configuration is then presented including forecast traffic volumes, levels of
service, and estimated construction costs.
Due to the high estimated cost of the ultimate improvements ($1.7 million), it
has been determined that an interim improvement project may be necessary.
This study therefore addresses three potential interim projects which will
1
alleviate to varying extents existing traffic constraints along the corridor. The two alternatives for the ultimate condition and three interim alternatives are described, with estimated construction costs included for each alternative. Finally, recommendations for both ultimate and interim improvements of this section of the Rancho Santa Fe Road corridor are presented.
2
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report has has evaluated both the short term and long range needs for
the Rancho Santa Fe Road corridor from north of Melrose Drive to Questhaven
Road. We have first identified the ultimate conditions so that if feasible, any interim improvements could be constructed to become a part of the ultimate
roadway configuration. Due to the high cost of the ultimate improvements, it
is apparent that interim improvements may be necessary. We have identified
three potential alternatives for interim improvements and presented a dis-
cussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each of these.
Based on travel forecasts prepared for both the Cities of Carlsbad and San
Marcos by SANDAG, it is apparent that both Rancho Santa Fe Road and
Melrose Drive should be constructed as six lane prime arterials. Questhaven
Road is planned to be constructed as a four lane major and La Costa Meadows
Drive will remain in its present condition as a two lane industrial road
providing access to the existing industrial park. Corintia Drive, A local
collector road serving existing and proposed residential developments west of
Melrose Drive, may be relocated, but will remain at its current classification.
The primary concern in a determination of the ultimate configuration for this
corridor is how Melrose Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road will connect. We
have evaluated alternatives for either road I'T-ing'' into the other. While the
forecast volumes on Melrose and Rancho Santa Fe Road to the north are
relatively equal and either intersection configuration could operate at an
acceptable level of service, we recommend that Melrose Drive continue to "T"
into Rancho Santa Fe Road. This alternative provides superior access to both
developed and undeveloped properties on the east side of Rancho Santa Fe
Road and causes only minor inconveniences to developments on the west side.
The estimated cost for the ultimate improvement of the Rancho Santa Fe
through the study area is approximately $1.5 million. The agencies involved
do not have the funding available to complete these improvements at this time,
therefore, it is apparent that interim improvements should be constructed along the corridor. To address this, we evaluated three potential interim
projects , as follows:
1. Restripe Rancho Santa Fe Road to define the use of the entire paved
width and signalize the existing interim Me1 rose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe
Road intersection.
2. Restripe Rancho Santa Fe Road to define the use of the entire paved
width and relocate the existing Melrose Drive to approximately its
ultimate configuration and signalize that intersection with Rancho Santa
Fe Road and remove the existing portion of Melrose.
3. Restripe Rancho Santa Fe Road to define the use of the entire paved
width and terminate Melrose Drive at Corintia Drive with an extension
of Corintia Drive to Rancho Santa Fe Road.
3
Each interim alternative provides varying amounts of relief to the traffic flow
situation through the corridor. From a traffic flow standpoint, Alternate 2,
which begins to build the ultimate roadway configuration, is the most desir-
able. It provides the best location for an intersection between the two
streets and has the minimum impact to existing traffic. This alternative,
however, could take a substantial period of time (two years) to complete,
since it will require negotiation with the developer of the adjacent subdivision
and design and construction time. Thus, it may not be a feasible alternative
to the immediate concerns. It is thus recommended that the three agencies
participate in the restriping of Rancho Santa Fe Road to more clearly define
the travel lanes and signalize the existing Melrose DrivelRancho Santa Fe
Road intersection. This will help reduce delay at this intersection and since
there is good sight distance and the accident rate is relatively low (2.1
acc/million vehicles) should prove to be a viable interim improvement. This
however should not preclude the short term construction of the ultimate
intersection improvements.
4
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Rancho Santa Fe Road extends from north of Highway 78 in the City of San
Marcos south through San Marcos, the southeastern portions of Carlsbad, and
ends at Encinitas Boulevard in the City of Encinitas. The roadway has been
in existence for a number of years, and was initially built as a county road
with one travel lane in each direction and graded shoulders. Over the course
of a number of years, various segments have been widened as development
has occurred. For the most part, however, the roadway is two lanes in
width, and through the study area, varies from two to three lanes with a
painted median for turn lanes, The current average daily traffic volume
(ADT) through this study area is 18,300 vehicles per day (1-87). It should
also be noted that there are a substantial number trucks along this roadway
due to the presence of the La Costa Meadows industrial Park and the county
landfill located on Questhaven Road east of Rancho Santa Fe Road.
The City of Carlsbad's Circulation Element of the General Plan classifies
Rancho Santa Fe Road as a six lane prime arterial. This classification was
adopted by the City of Carlsbad in 1984. It had previously classified Rancho
Santa Fe Road as a four lane major road. As such, some of the existing
improvements which were intended to be built for ultimate conditions were
built out for a four lane major road classification. The City of San Marcos'
General Plan currently does not contain a prime arterial classification. San
Marcos, however, is in the process of updating their General Plan and Circu-
lation Element and are expected to reclassify Rancho Santa Fe Road to the
same six lane prime arterial classification as in Carlsbad.
Recent travel forecasts prepared by SANDAG for the Cities of Carlsbad and
San Marcos have indicated future volumes at buildout on Rancho Santa Fe
Road will exceed 55,000 vehicles per day south of Melrose Drive [San Marcos
Study = 58,000, Carlsbad = 56,000). North of Melrose volumes will likely
exceed 30,000 vehicles per day. These travel forecasts assume buildout of
the General Plan areas within both the cities.
Questhaven Road establishes the southern boundary of the study area, It is
currently constructed as a two lane rural roadway and carries approximately
2,000 vehicles per day (1985). It currently serves the county landfill and
the rural residential neighborhood of Questhaven Road and Elfin Forest. The
previously mentioned San Marcos General Plan studies have indicated that
Questhaven Road should be classified as a major roadway. It is projected in
the San Marcos Study to carry 24,000 vehicles per day.
La Costa Meadows Drive is located approximately 1,000 feet north of Quest-
haven Road. It is built as a two lane industrial road which serves the La
Costa Meadows Industrial Park. Daily traffic counts are not available for La
Costa Meadows, however, based on peak hour counts (1987), it is estimated
that the daily volumes are below 2,000 vehicles per day.
A proposal has been submitted by BCE Development Corporation to the City
of San Marcos to develop approximately 124 acres to the south and east of the
5
c
c
I FIGURE 1
. VICINITY MAP
~WILLOAN ASSOCIATES
_-
La Costa Meadows Industrial Park. This additional area would take access
from both La Costa Meadows Drive and Questhaven Road. An analysis of this
expansion has been prepared by Weston Pringle and Associates (9-87). This
analysis has recommended numerous improvements to the Rancho Santa Fe
Road corridor. Since the proposed industrial project has not been approved
by the City of San Marcos, we will not include it in our short term analysis.
We will , however , consider its impacts in arriving at our recommendations.
The next major intersection along Rancho Santa Fe Road is at Melrose Drive.
Melrose Drive was recently constructed northwesterly from Rancho Santa Fe
Road connecting with Alga Road. This connection was completed approxi-
mately three years ago as a two lane roadway. Melrose has just been widened
by developers to a six lane prime arterial configuration. This widening,
however, stops approximately 400 to 500 feet west of the actual intersection
with Rancho Santa Fe Road. The current ADT on Melrose Drive is approxi-
mately 5,000 vehicles per day (1987). This is composed primarily of pas-
senger cars as it serves the predominately residential area of north La Costa.
Melrose Drive is planned to extend northward through Carlsbad into the cities
of Vista and Oceanside, where it will ultimately connect to Highway 76.
Travel forecasts indicate that Melrose will carry in excess of 30,000 vehicles
per day (San Marcos = 34,000, Carlsbad = 30,000) in the vicinity of Rancho
Santa Fe Road.
For purposes of this study, we have utilized the higher volumes forecast for
the various street segments. This will present a worst case or construction
analysis, which will result in a roadway design that could meet all anticipated
conditions.
In addition to these three intersections, there are four driveways which
access Rancho Santa Fe Road from the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park.
Peak hour counts were taken at each of these driveways as part of the
study. None of the driveways is heavily used, and the total volume of
inbound and outbound traffic on all four driveways is 61 vehicles in the
morning and 68 vehicles in the evening peak hours. Sight distance at each
driveway is generally sufficient, although due to their design, vehicles
entering them must virtually stop before turning from Rancho Santa Fe Road.
This does not appear to be causing problems in the current situation, as
Rancho Santa Fe has adequate width to allow vehicles to slow outside of the
primary travel lane.
The posted speed limit along Rancho Santa Fe Road through the study area is
45 miles per hour. The City of Carlsbad's records, however, indicate that
the critical speed through the project area is approximately 53 miles per
hour. A concern about this relatively high speed has been noted by several
letters submitted to the Carlsbad Traffic Safety Commission at their February
meeting. However, it does not appear to be the primary cause for the
majority of accidents in the study area.
All three streets intersecting Rancho Santa Fe Road in the project area are
controlled by stop signs. Sight distance at each intersection is adequate,
however, there have been many requests for traffic signals to be installed at
each intersection. We , therefore, completed a signal warrant analysis at each
location. Based on this analysis, we find that a traffic signal is warranted at
the Melrose Drive intersection based on the minimum vehicular volume,
7
interruption of continuous traffic, and peak hour warrants. The La Costa
Meadows intersection would warrant a traffic signal based on the peak hour
warrant only, and the Questhaven Road intersection would warrant a signal
based on both the interruption of traffic and peak hour warrants. Meeting
the warrants, however, does not necessarily mean that a traffic signal should
be installed. It is merely a guide to indicate a traffic condition which war-
rants further study and evaluation into the need for a traffic signal.
Understanding this, we have looked at all three intersections, and it is our
opinion that the installation of a traffic signal is appropriate at the Melrose
Drive intersection due to the volumes of traffic and expected near term
increase in volumes along Melrose Drive, which will likely result in longer
delays to vehicles on Melrose Drive. Due to the relatively low volume of
traffic on both Questhaven Road and La Costa Meadows Drive, combined with
the good sight distance and lack of accidents, we do not believe that signals
would be appropriate at this time at either the Questhaven Road or La Costa
Meadows intersections. It should be noted that traffic signals are generally
installed to provide a positive right of way control, that the installation may
reduce delay to side street traffic and may correct certain types of accidents
(primarily right angle). The installation of signals, however, can increase
delay to traffic on the main street, and may lead to an increased number of
rear end accidents. Thus, the installation of traffic signals should be care-
fully evaluated and their installation should not be done indiscriminately.
A research of accident records indicates that in 1985, there was one accident
at the Melrose DriveIRancho Santa Fe Road intersection and one at the Quest-
haven Road intersection. Again in 1986, one accident was reported at Quest-
haven Road and five accidents were reported at Melrose Drive. No other
accidents were reported within the study area. While the number of accidents
is not unusually high for these types of roadways, they do indicate a pattern
of right angle accidents at the intersection of Melrose Drive with Rancho
Santa Fe Road. The collision diagrams for the study area are included in the
appendix.
In 1986, there were two accidents involving eastbound vehicles on Melrose
Drive being hit by southbound vehicles on Rancho Santa Fe Road and two
other right angle accidents involving northbound vehicles on Rancho Santa Fe
Road meeting eastbound vehicles on Melrose Drive. In all cases, the driver
on Melrose was indicated to be in violation of right of way controls, as Mel-
rose Drive is controlled by stop signs. A review of the accident reports does
not indicate unusual conditions which would be contributing to the accident,
but simply the drivers on Melrose Drive failure to either see approaching
vehicles or to properly judge the speed of approaching vehicles.
In reviewing the site conditions at the intersection, we find that Melrose
Drive is currently striped for a left turn and a right turn lane as it
approaches the intersection with stop sign control. Rancho Santa Fe Road is
striped for one travel lane in each direction separated by a two way left turn
lane which provides a refuge area for northbound vehicles attempting to turn
left into Melrose Drive and for vehicles on Melrose attempting to turn left to
travel north on Rancho Santa Fe Road.
As an interim measure, the City of Carlsbad, in cooperation with the County
of San Diego and the City of San Marcos, have installed flashing beacons
advising drivers on Rancho Santa Fe Road of the impending Melrose Drive
intersection.
8
I
LEGEND: 000 EXISTING (000) FUTURE
I
Wmm AsI)OcIAIEa
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND ?LANNERS
457-1lW 6363 ornmcn. sum uo. SAN DLKio. 0.92122
FIGURE 2 EXISTING AND FORECAST
IAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
1
I
L
0.3 om *Y) ss
0% MELROSE DWVE 2 t
LEQEND
000 - A.M. Prk Hour Counts (7:30-630 A.MJ
(000) - P.M. Prk Hour Counts (445-545 PYJ
[COUNTS TAKEN MARCH,l9871
LDMVEWAY
5% SE
!f- LA COSTA MEADOWS DRVE - m- g: - k$ W
4 UO)
rO(2)
DRIVEWAY
1
WlWN ASSOC#ATES
CONSULTINO LNOlNElERS AND ?LANNERS
a63 omm, sum 250, SAN Dmd. u nl 22 457-1 199
FIGURE 3
PEAK HOUR TURNING
MOVEMENT COUNTS
.-
ULTIMATE CONDITIONS
Before we can properly evaluate and recommend improvements to the inter-
section, it is important to have a clear understanding of the future conditions
so that any interim improvement can build toward the ultimate roadway
design. Or, if this is not possible, that the potential cost for interim
improvements and their removal can be evaluated by the appropriate decision
makers. The first step in our analysis has been to evaluate the future
conditions along Rancho Santa Fe Road and, in particular, the configuration
of the Rancho Santa Fe/Melrose Drive intersection. As this area is on the
border of San Marcos and Carlsbad, the ultimate configuration of the roadway
has not been clearly defined by either city.
For purposes of this study, we have assumed that Rancho Santa Fe Road will
be constructed as a six lane prime arterial, which is consistent with the City
of Carlsbad's General Plan and the proposed San Marcos General Plan.
Questhaven Road is assumed to be a four lane major road pursuant to the San
Marcos General Plan study recommendations. Melrose Drive is also assumed to
be a six lane prime arterial. In this study, we have looked at two alternative
configurations for the Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. The
first is to maintain the existing roadway alignment and "TI' Melrose Drive into
Rancho Santa Fe Road. The second option is to relocate Rancho Santa Fe
Road north of the existing Melrose Drive intersection so that it IIT1stl into
Melrose Drive. Melrose Drive would then form a continuous connection with
Rancho Santa Fe Road to the south. This alignment is as shown on the
approved tentative map for Carlsbad Tract 85-19. Each of these alignments is
discussed in detail below, along with the potential opportunities and con-
straints associated with the alternatives.
Another potential configuration for this intersection would be to have it grade
separated. This would be very expensive (structure costs are approximately
30 times more than the surface costs) and could have potential environmental
constraints including noise and visual impacts. It would also require sub-
stantially more right of way and could have substantial impact to access to
adjoining property. A detailed analysis of this alternative has not been
completed since the at grade intersection alternatives have been shown to
operate at acceptable levels.
The City of Carlsbad, through its Circulation Element and the approval of CT
85-19, has precluded the potential of extending Alga Road east to Melrose
Drive. This alignment would have reduced traffic on Melrose at Rancho Santa
Fe, but could have led to increased traffic on Alga Road through residential
areas.
Alternate One - Melrose Drive into Rancho Santa Fe Road
This alternative will .curve Melrose Drive into Rancho Santa Fe Road approxi-
mately 350 feet north of its existing intersection. This would align directly
with the most northerly driveway to the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park,
11
COR
1 I' -
II
FIGURE 4 WBLLDAN ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS __ ~.,,.,-,.-- _... ..-.. I ...- ---- - - --- -
thus forming a four way signalized intersection. The easterly leg of the
intersection could serve not only the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park, but
also the 62 acre undeveloped industrial property to the north of the La Costa
Meadows Industrial Park. This would eliminate or reduce the need for an
additional access point onto Rancho Santa Fe Road from that undeveloped
property. Thus, all access to the east side of Rancho Santa Fe can be
provided by signalized intersections.
This configuration would provide full prime arterial standards for both Mel-
rose Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road, with the exception of the design speed
on Melrose Drive. Due to the location of the existing lllelrose Drive and the
presence of CT 85-19, it is only possible to use an approximate 850 foot
centerline radius for Melrose Drive. With a 5 percent superelevation, this
would yield a design speed of 50 miles per hour, which is consistent with the
City of Carlsbad standard for a major roadway. While this deviates from the
prime arterial standards, due to the need for virtually all traffic on Melrose
Drive to turn at Rancho Santa Fe Road, it is our opinion that this is not an
unreasonable circumstance.
With this alignment, the Rancho Santa Fe RoadIMelrose Drive intersection
would operate at Level of Service "D" in the buildout conditions during peak
hours. Off peak conditions would be better. Level D is generally the lowest
acceptable level of service for buildout of suburban areas. This alignment
assumes that Melrose Drive would have two right turn lanes and two left turn
lanes, with through traffic being allowed in the center (from one of the left
turn lanes). Rancho Santa Fe Road would have three through lanes in each
direction, plus dual left turn lanes and a free right turn lane from south-
bound Rancho Santa Fe Road to westbound Melrose Drive. Due to the length
of storage necessary for northbound to westbound turns (up to 700 feet), it
may be necessary to ultimately close the La Costa Meadows Drive intersection.
According to travel forecasts, over 1,400 vehicles would be expected to make
this turn during the peak hour. This would require a left turn storage bay
approximately 700 feet in length. Since the distance from Melrose Drive to La
Costa Meadows Drive is approximately 950 feet from centerline to centerline, it
is doubtful that back to back turns could be allowed in the ultimate case.
The intersection of Corintia Drive with Melrose Drive would be only about 300
feet west of Rancho Santa Fe and that would not meet design standards. In
the ultimate case, it could be realigned from west of Xana Way to meet Rancho
Santa Fe Road at La Costa Meadows Drive. During an interim period, Corin-
tia could intersect with Melrose near its current intersection. This, however,
should be limited to right turns in and out only, due to the short distance
between intersections.
The La Costa Meadows Drive intersection could remain open in an interim
period. As traffic volumes build, it is likely that this intersection should be
restricted to right turns in and right turns out only to provide the appro-
priate intersection spacing along a prime arterial.
The driveways to the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park should ultimately be
closed with access to the park provided from the extension of Melrose Drive,
La Costa Meadows Drive and a secondary access to Questhaven Road. This
would result in the closure of three, driveways. However, this would now
only affect 12 vehicles in the morning peak hour, and 43 vehicles in the
13
i&
evening peak hour. It would also require some additional track maneuvering
on site. This would particularly affect the first building north of La Costa
Meadows Drive, where delivery trucks would need to back in or out of the
outside drives. The minor inconvenience to these drivers due to the closure
of the driveways is, in our opinion, more than offset by the increased ability
for the roadway to carry traffic and reduce intersection delay. This concept
is also consistent with the intended function of the roadway and the Citys'
General Plan guidelines for prime arterials.
Moving south, Rancho Santa Fe Road would continue as a prime arterial, with
a second three lane bridge being constructed over San Marcos Creek. This
bridge, located east of the existing bridge, would provide three northbound
lanes, with the existing bridge handling the three southbound lanes.
It is our understanding that the relocation of the Questhaven Road/Rancho
Santa Fe Road intersection is being considered by the City of San Marcos and
discussed as part of the proposal from BCE Development Corporation. They
are proposing to relocate Questhaven Road slightly to the south. This
relocation would increase the spacing between Melrose Drive and Questhaven
Road from its approximate 2,000 foot spacing to 2,600 feet. This would be
consistent with prime arterial standards, and should have a minimal effect on
the operation of Rancho Santa Fe Road. It could, however, help to bring
Questhaven Road into Rancho Santa Fe Road at a more perpendicular angle,
which would assist turning movements at that location. Due to the current
discussions between the City of San Marcos and the developer relating to this
intersection, we have not provided a final design for this location. It is our
opinion that an intersection design combining the prime arterial status of
Rancho Santa Fe Road with a major road alignment for Questhaven Road would
be signalized and provide appropriate level of service at that intersection.
Our estimated cost for these ultimate improvements from Questhaven to north
of Melrose Drive is $1.5 million dollars ($906,000 from La Costa Meadows
north).
This alternative provides several opportunities. It eliminates the severe skew
of the existing Melrose DrivelRancho Santa Fe Road intersection, provides
- intersection spacing along Rancho Santa Fe Road approximating the prime
arterial standards, and restricts access to a limited number of points which
could be controlled by traffic signals, thus providing a positive means of
right of way control. It also could be implemented in stages, as it utilizes
much of the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road right of way. Another major
benefit to this alternative is the fact that the Melrose Drive intersection could
also serve the undeveloped 62 acre parcel directly north of the La Costa
Meadows Industrial Park, thus reducing or eliminating the need for an addi-
tional intersection on Rancho Santa Fe Road north of Melrose Drive.
-
-
This alternative does have constraints. However, they are relatively limited
and in our opinion, can be adequately addressed. The primary constraint is
that Corintia Drive could not be connected to Melrose Drive as it currently
exists and still meet design criteria. This would require residents of the
existing subdivision to travel north on local streets to Alga Road or provide
for a new connection from Corintia Drive south to ultimately connect with
Rancho Santa Fe Road in the vicinity of La Costa Meadows Drive. This could
be accomplished as part of the development of the land on the south side of
Corintia Drive. The development of 'which could also incorporate the land
14
area which would lie between the existing and proposed locations of Melrose
Drive. This alternative also restricts to some extent access to the La Costa
Meadows Industrial Park but, as indicated, would affect a very small number
of vehicles.
Alternate Two - Rancho Santa Fe Road Into Melrose Drive
This alternative would follow the general alignment of Melrose Drive and
Rancho Santa Fe Road as shown on the tentative map for CT 85-19. Rancho
Santa Fe Road north of Melrose Drive would bend to the west to intersect
with Melrose Drive opposite Corintia Drive. Melrose Drive would then con-
tinue in a southerly direction from Corintia Drive to connect directly with
Rancho Santa Fe Road at approximately La Costa Meadows Drive. From La
Costa Meadows Drive south, the alignment would be the same as Alternate
One. This alternative would provide approximately 1,000 feet of spacing
between La Costa Meadows Drive and Corintia Drive. Due to the reduced
number of left turns along Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive, the left turn
stacking length would not be an issue in intersection spacing. With the
provision of free right turn lanes for northbound traffic and dual left turns
for southbound traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road, the intersection of Rancho
Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive/Corintia Street could operate at Level of Service
'ID" during the peak hour as with the first alternative.
The presence of CT 85-19, however, restricts the curve radius on Rancho
Santa Fe Road to approximately 800 feet at the centerline. This would thus
require a 6 percent superelevation to maintain a 50 mile per hour design
speed, which is desirable for a major street, but is less than the prime
arterial standards. Again, most of the traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road
would be making turns at Melrose Drive, and thus the 50 mile per hour
design speed should be acceptable. The estimated construction cost for this
alternative is about the same as the first alternative, $1.7 million dollars with
the cost for improvements north of La Costa Meadows being $850,000. It
should be pointed out that neither of these estimated costs include right of
way acquisition costs, which could affect the overall cost substantially.
The opportunities for this alternative are similar to Alternate One in that it
eliminates the skew at the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive
intersection, and would operate at an acceptable level of service. If the La
Costa Meadows Drive intersection were signalized in this alternative, the
spacing of intersections along Rancho Santa Fe Road between Questhaven
Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road would be approximately 1,000 feet, thus
reasonable signal progression could potentially be maintained. This spacing,
however, does not meet design standards for either Carlsbad or San Marcos.
As volumes increase along Rancho Santa Fe Road, however, it may be neces-
sary to restrict access to La Costa Meadows to right turns in and right turns
out only, which could substantially impair access to the industrial park.
This alternative has several additional constraints over the first alternative.
First, it does not provide access to the undeveloped 62 acres north of the
existing industrial park, which would necessitate an additional point of access
to Rancho Santa Fe Road. This would likely occur near a curve and be
spaced too close to Melrose Drive to allow good signal progression. Secondly,
it provides reduced access to La Costa Meadows Industrial Park, as the only
15
--3
I!
'/ I
-..
--
access would be from La Costa Meadows Drive or Questhaven Road, and the
potential exists for restricting La Costa Meadows Drive to right turns in and
right turns out only. In order to provide additional access to the existing
industrial park and undeveloped land, a cul-de-sac driveway could be con-
structed. This could utilize a portion of the existing Rancho Santa Fe right
of way and access Melrose Drive midway between Rancho Santa Fe and La
Costa Meadows Drive. This connection, however, would not meet City design
standards.
Additionally, the project cannot be constructed in stages, since it utilizes a
new alignment. If this new alignment were implemented today, it would result
in a substantial number of out-of-direction trips, as the volumes on Rancho
Santa Fe Road (18,000 ADT) are three to four times those on Melrose Drive
(5,000 ADT).
Recornmenda tion
Based on our analysis, we recommend that the ultimate design of the roadway
segment be consistent with Alternate One. This will provide good traffic flow
as the cities build out, and would allow interim implementation of the improve-
ments so that the roadway could be widened to accommodate the progressive
increase in traffic and not become a bottle neck until substantial funds are
available to complete the full widening of the project. This will require some
renegotiation with the developers of CT 85-19, however, it will not affect any
of their approved subdivision lots.
17
.---
e
I NTERlM ALTERNATIVES
c
Due to the substantial cost ($1.5 million), for the ultimate improvements and
lack of capital improvement budgeting to provide that funding immediately, it
is apparent that an interim improvement project will be appropriate for this
corridor. We have reviewed three different alternatives which could be con-
sidered to reduce the problems associated with the Melrose DrivelRancho
Santa Fe Road intersection. These include:
1. Signalizing the existing Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersec-
tion and restriping Rancho Santa Fe Road to better define the lanes.
2. Providing an interim relocation of Melrose Drive consistent with the
recommended ultimate alignment.
3. Terminating Melrose Drive at Corintia Drive and extending Corintia
Drive to Rancho Santa Fe Road.
As with the ultimate alignment, each of these interim conditions will be dis-
cussed in the following paragraphs and appropriate recommendations and
conclusions discussed.
Interim Alternate One - Signalized Existing Intersection
In this alternate, the existing Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive inter-
section would be signalized, and the signs on the recently installed advanced
warning beacons be changed to reflect a signal ahead condition as opposed to the advance intersection warning signs. Rancho Santa Fe Road could be
restriped to provide one travel lane in each direction with a center turn lane
and bicycle lanes. The intent of this would be to define the use of all of the
paved width so vehicles do not travel two abreast. The driveways into the
La Costa Meadows Industrial Park on either side of Melrose Drive should be
closed, as these would be too close to the intersection to allow turning
movements from them. Additionally, the existing island at the northwest
corner of the intersection should be removed and a right turn lane from
southbound Rancho Santa Fe Road to westbound Melrose Drive be
constructed. The widening of Melrose Drive should be continued to the
intersection to provide three eastbound lanes (one right and two left) and three northbound lanes on Melrose Drive. The estimated cost for this
improvement would be approximately $141 ,OOO., and it could be implemented
within six to nine months.
The primary advantage of this is that it provides improved lane geometrics
along Rancho Santa Fe Road and positive right of way control at the Melrose
Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection. As previously indicated, this intersection currently meets signal warrants based on traffic volumes. Based
on field observations, it is our opinion that a signal is appropriate at this
location at this time.
18
II
Ii
'I
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS FIGURE 6 .
The two primary constraints to this alternative would be the minor impact to
the industrial park with the closure of two driveways and the potential con-
flicts from southbound traffic on Rancho Santa Fe Road turning west on
Melrose Drive and then making a left turn onto Corintia Drive, conflicting
with traffic from northbound Rancho Santa Fe Road that has turned onto
Melrose Drive. This weaving distance is relatively short (approximately 400
feet). It is our opinion, however, that this should not pose a substantial
problem due to the relatively light left turn volumes into Corintia Drive,
combined with the fact that left turns from Rancho Santa Fe Road would be
controlled by a left turn phase, and thus restricted to a relatively short part
of the signal cycle.
It should be noted that that if a signal is installed at this location, it should
be designed so that the equipment could be reused at an alternative location,
since this is not the ultimate street intersection. Due to the existing roadway
width, it is likely that the signal poles and controller could be designed so
that they could be relocated to the La Costa Meadows Drive intersection if an
interim signal were to be installed at that location.
Interim Alternate Two - Melrose Drive Relocation
This alternate assumes that the improvements generally following the ultimate
roadway configuration would be constructed as part of the improvements for
CT 85-19. In terms of cost, it is approximately the same construction cost as
would be incurred by those developers if they reconstructed Rancho Santa Fe
Road to "TI' into Melrose Drive. This cost, including subdivision work,
would be approximately $288,000. This interim alternative would widen
Rancho Santa Fe Road to an approximate paved width of 60 feet, consistent
with the tentative map. It would construct Melrose Drive in its ultimate
location, however, it could be at a slightly reduced width and could be
constructed with AC berms instead of concrete curb gutter and sidewalk to
minimize costs. This alternative would allow two travel lanes in each direction
on Rancho Santa Fe Road, plus a center turn lane and bicycle lanes, thus
improving the capacity at the intersection. It would also provide a right turn in and out connection for Corintia Drive to Melrose Drive.
The advantage of this alternate over the CT 85-19 proposal is that it would
maintain the existing predominate flow of traffic without rerouting a sub-
stantial number of vehicles. With this alternative, we also recommend the
closure of all driveways to the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park except the
driveway opposite the relocated Melrose Drive, which would be incorporated
into the signalized intersection and, of course, La Costa Meadows Drive would
remain open and unsignalized in this interim alternative.
The only substantial drawback to this alternative is the potential timing for
its construction. Due to the requirements for subdivision dedication and
likely requirement that it be developer funded, the timing would be dependent
on the construction schedule for CT 85-19. While improvement plans have
been submitted for plan checking, no definitive construction schedule has
been submitted by the developer. It is likely that this alternative could take
up to two years to implement, and thus would not alleviate any of the current
traffic needs in the near term.
20
#
P
P 01
01 I
I I
I
, FIGURE 7 WILLDAN ASSQCNATE
F~N~fitlTIN~ CNtZlNCERC ANR DI ANNFPC d :3
--
As with the first alternative, this interim alternate does not recommend any
modifications to the traffic controls at the existing Questhaven Road/Rancho
Santa Fe Road intersection. That intersection does not appear experiencing
substantial traffic congestion or accident problems. With the current lane
configuration, there is a free right turn both in to and out of Questhaven
Road. The presence of a traffic signal at Melrose Drive in either alternate
would provide additional gaps to allow improved left turn accessibility from
Questhaven. It is our opinion that no additional traffic controls are war-
ranted at this time, but should be implemented in conjunction with the antici-
pated development of the property surrounding that intersection.
Alternate Three - Corintia Drive Extension
This alternative is similar to Alternate Two in that it provides a relocation of
Melrose Drive at its intersection with Rancho Santa Fe Road. This alternate,
however, would terminate Melrose Drive at Corintia Drive and extend Corintia
Drive to Rancho Santa Fe Road north of the existing La Costa Meadows ln-
dustrial Park. This intersection of Rancho Santa Fe with Corintia Drive
would be signalized, however, the signalized intersection would not provide
access to the La Costa Meadows Industrial Park. Rancho Santa Fe Road
would be restriped as with the previous alternates, thus traffic flow along
Rancho Santa Fe Road would be improved to the same extent as Alternates
One and Two. Traffic flow along Melrose Drive, however, would be substan-
tially impacted by the presence of the right angle turn at Corintia Drive,
which would have a major impact on traffic flow. The estimated cost for this
alternative is $1 68,000.
Aside from traffic flow considerations and lack of access to the industrial
park, a major drawback to this alternate is that it does not conform to the
ultimate conditions, and all of the improvements associated with it would have
to be removed with the implementation of the ultimate design. Additionally,
because of its location, it could substantially hamper the ability to construct
the ultimate improvements without substantial disruption to traffic flow.
Interim Recommendations
The three interim alternatives provide differing improvement value to the
traffic flow conditions along Rancho Santa Fe Road. Interim Alternate Two
appears to be superior in terms providing maximum benefit in combination
with minimizing future improvements and disruption to traffic flow when the
ultimate improvements to the Rancho Santa Fe corridor are are implemented.
If timing were not a consideration, this alternate would be recommended
immediately. However, with the substantial concern which has been ex-
pressed at the Traffic Safety Commission meetings, it is clear that a more
immediate improvement should be presented. We thus recommend that the City of Carlsbad discuss Interim Alternate Two with the developers of CT
85-19, and if it can be implemented within a reasonable period of time (6 to
18 months), that Alternate Two be implemented. Should this not be feasible,
we recommend that the Cities of Carlsbad and San
County of San Diego, proceed with Alternate One,
existing intersection, and continue to pursue the
Marcos, along with the
the signalization of the
ultimate realignment of
22
Melrose Drive. It is our understanding that a portion of the funding for Interim Alternate One has been committed by the County of San Diego and
funds may be available from both Carlsbad and San Marcos to complete this
work in a relatively short period of time.
23
FIGURE 8 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES
PnLICIIIWINfi CNfiINCLDC ANn DI ANNCDC
I
_-
APPENDIX
ACCIDENT DIAGRAMS
.
c
p ,\,;
-.
U I \
VRW- I WGW
* --
D 0
C
8
e
LOCAIIOY
.'\ I
i \
4
i
LEGEND CONST CONSTRUCTION ZW(
tTC
COD
ILC
IP
IT
IWATT
WC
SCP
vo
n-n
nsi
"I-
c i
CONST
Cm ov
ES
fTC
woo
Y- n
ILC
I?
IT
WATT uc
nss
Sf c ,si
COLLISION DIAGRf-"
CITY OF SAN lilhRCOS
ENCINEERISC DEPARTbENT . NO. A s BY TYPE
Year 1 Total brop.Damaqef In Fatal I Light I Dark I Wet
LOCArfON:RANCtIO SANTA F
Dram Bv: KP~ K- l,inderl Period: Jan. 1980 thru Date:
)AD - Northerly of La Costa bleadows Drive
1986
980-1986 I 6 1 3 I 3 I 0 I 2 I 4 I 2
- LEGESD
4 Veh. Moving Ahead e Head-on
Vch: Backing Up 7-K Head-on Sideswipe
ACCIDENT HISTORY
1986 0
1985 0
1984 0
1983 1
1982 1
1981 2
1980 2
Total 6
DPD Driver Physical Defect DV Defective Vehicle
ESS Excess Speed FTC Following TOO Close
NOTE: Melrose Drive is outside San Marcos' city
limits.
- - -C Pedestrian Rear End - Train E Overtaking Sideswipe 7 Right Angle D Parkod Vehicle
0 Fixed Object < Approach Turn
0 Prop. Damage Only-
- - - \,_L .c --->
Overtaking Turn
Injury Accident - Out Of Control
LL, COSTA HWS
IIBD Had Been-Drinking
H-R Hit And Run
IP Improper Passing IT Improper Turn
INAlT Inattention
WC Motorcycle RSS
SFP Stopped or Slowing For vn
ILc Improper Lane mange
Ron Stop Sign Or Signal
U; c 4 h i 1 I t v tW c t mi r t 3;
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Melrose Drive
I I
3581
~WILLOAN ASSOCIATES Alternate 1
PM Peak Hour
i
Assume:
Rancho Santa Fe Road
Melrose Drive
a (d 0 d
Q) ffi a
c (d CI)
0 c u c
c,
2
2 It + 3 through + SB free right
2 It + 2 right
= 1253 --- LOS D 1487 + 1127 + 2 3 2
Buildout Conditions
Melrose into Rancho Santa Fe
I
\ Rancho Santa Fe Road
Assume:
Melrose Drive
Rancho Santa Fe Road
2 It + 3 through
2 It + free rt
-- 1127 - 1193 --- LOS D 1487 + - 268 + - 2 3 2
Buildout Conditions
Rancho Santa Pe into Melrose Drive
Alternate 2
Peak Hour ~WILLOAN ASSOCIATES
Dale ___ ..-_ ___ -
Dar - __ - - . . - . ... .
Sltp I Wght T)lm from C
Confiiciing Flow - M" =
Cnliial Gap from Table 2 T, =
Capaciiy from Fig. 2 =
Shared Lane - See SRO 3
tfmm Fig I)
- L NoShYtdLanc DrmMd=
Avulablc ReuWe
Delay & Level of Service fTabk 31
~~~ ~
Conflicting Flows - MH -
Cnticrl Gap fram Table 2 T,
Capacity from Fig. 2 =
Demmd=
Capaciiy Used -
ImQedUKe Fw~n from Fig. 3 -
Avuiablc Reserve -
Delay & &vel of Service rrrble 3)
(from Fig. I)
Conflicting flows - MH =
Cntrcsl Gap from Table 2 T, -
Capcity fm Fig 2 =
Adjust for Impedance
(from Fig I]
__ / NoShvadh Dcmand =
Available Rcvrve -
klry & Lcvel of Service CTablc 3)
~~
Shurd LAW Demand =
Shd Luw with Right Turn
Capacity of Shad Lane =
___
Avulable Reserve - I Delay & &vel of Service CTable 3)
c#l J
- 1
I Jgnalired “T” Intersection Capacity , culrtion Form
-I
- ~~
SwpI iligbt7\lm(romc
Conflicting Flow = Mn =
(fmmFig I)
Cntical Cap from Table 2 T, =
Capacity from Fig .? =
Shad hc - kc Step 3 -
-- i/ NoShdLlnc Demand-
Availabk Rcurve 0
Delay & kvcl of Service ffabk 3)
!Sup2 LefTbmfromB
Conflicting Flows - Mn =
Cnticrl Gap from Table 2 T, -
Clpwity from Fig. 2 =
Demand =
CJ~CIIY Used -
Impedance Factor from Fig 3 -
Avulabk Reu~e -
Delay & Lrvel of Service CTablc 3)
(IromFig. I)
I
-~
Ccmflicting Flows = MH =
Cnlical G3rp from Table 2 T, -
Capacity from Fig. 2 -
AdjusI for hpcdance
(from Fig I)
d NoShdLuw Dcmand =
Available Reserve -
Delay & Level of Service (Table 3)
Shad he Demand -
Shared Lanc with Ripht Turn
I
~
CapMily Of Shrred Ldnt =
Avulablc Rewme =
fkhy & kVCl Of &WlCC mibk 3)
c-
Conflicting Flows = Mn =
Cntrcal GJ~ from Table 2 T. =
Capaciiy from Fig 2 - (fmmFip I)
- Shad LMc - See Skp 3 - I/ XoShutdLuu DcmMd=
Available Rcvrve =
Delay & Lcvel of Scrvice (Table 3)
Qtp2 LtnlbmfrrmB
~ ~
Conflicting Flows - MI, =
Critical Gap from Table 2 T, =
C.priiy from Fig. 2 -
Demand =
Capacity Uwd 0
lmpcdrnce Factor from Fig 3
Avulable Revwe -
(from Fig. 1 b
Delay & L*vcl of Servue crablc 3)
Scq3 LenlbmfromC
Conflicting Flows = MH =
Cnticd Gqi from Table 2 T, =
Capacity from Fig. 2 - (from Fig I)
Ad~U51 for lmpedancc
- / NoShvcdLane Demand =
Available Re~rvc -
Delay & Level of Service (Table 1)
Shared Lane Demand =
Shared Lane with Right Turn ___
CapaCily of Shdrtd LdnC
AvuIablc Rcvrve =
Delay & Level of Service rrrblc 3) I
Un ,nalized “T” Intersection Capacity Catdation Form 171
Step I Right lLrn from C
~ ~~
Conflicting Flow = MH =
Cnticil Gap from Tahlc 2 T, -1
Capacity from Fig. 2 =
tfmmFig I)
___ Shmd LUIC - SCC Step 3
.A/- To Shad Lane Demand =
Available Revrvc =
Ocloy & Level of Service fTablc 3)
Slep 2 Left Turn from B
Conflicting Flows = MH =
Cnlical Gap from Table 2 T, =
Capacity from Fig. 2 =
Demand =
Capacity Uscd =
ImpcdvKc Facior from Fig. 3 =
Available Reserve =
Delay & Level of Service CTablc 3)
(fromFig 1)
Step 3 Lcfl lLrn from (.
Conflicting Flow = MH =
Cnlical Gap from Table 2 T, =
Capacity from Fig 2 =
Adjust for Impedance
(from Fig I)
d- NoShandLane Demand =
Available Reserve =
Delay & Level of Service (Table 3)
Shared Lane Demand =
Shared Lane with Right Turn
Capacity of Shared Lane =
Available Reserve =
Delay & Level of Service (Table 3)
Step 1 Right lbm from C
~
Conflicting Flows = M,, =
Cntical Gap from Table 2 T, =
Capacii) fmm Fig 2 =
Shared be - SCC Step 3
ffmm FIE I I
-- --d No Shad Lane Demand =
Available Reserve =
Delay & Level of Service (Table 3)
Conflicting Flows = M,, =
Critical Gap from Table 2 TI =
Capacity from Fig. 2 =
Demand =
Capaciry Used =
Impedance Factor fm Fig. 3
Available Reserve =
Delay t Level of Service flable 3)
(from Fig. I)
Conflicting Flows = M,, =
Critical Gap from Table 2 TI =
Capacity from Fig. 2 =
Adjust for Impedance
(from Fig I)
- NoShPtbdLane Demand =
Available Reserve =
Delay & Level of Service (Table 3)
Shad Lan~ Demand =
Shared Lane with Right Turn
Capacity of Shared Lane =
-
Available Reserve =
Delay & Level of Service cT.bk 3)
" h "
-2
~~ ~
Step I Right Tbm from C
Conflicting Flows = MH =
Cntical Gap from Tahlc 2 To =
Capacity fmm Fig 2 =
Shad Lane - See SICD 3
---
(fmm Fig I)
-
~ ~
NoShmdLyle Demand =
Availablc Rcvrve =
Delay & Lcvcl of Sen.icc (Table 3)
Step2 Lchlbmfm B
Conflicting Flows = MH =
Critical Gap from Tablc 2 To =
Capacity frnm Fig. Z =
Demand =
Capacity Used =
Impedance Factor frwn Fig. 3 =
Available Reserve =
Ifrum Fig. I)
Delay & Lcvel of Service rnablc 3)
sarp 3 Lcn MI c
Conflicting Flows = MH =
Critical Gap from Table 2 T, =
Capacity from Fig. 2 =
Adjust for impedance
(from Fig I)
d NoShdLane Demand =
Available Reserve =
Delay & Level of Service Crrbte 3)
Shared Lane Demand =
Shared Lane with Right Turn
Capacity of Shad Lane =
___
Available Rexrve =
Delay & Level of Service fWle 3)
M,, = Mi = *,,
SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
94 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 12-1979
Highest Appcl 150 Minor Strect * (izoi
Flgure g-lA
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
105 200 140
1601 1112' 146 259 234 177 180 201 222 168
---- DIST CO RTE PM
MIN REOVIREMENT
150 Feet
CALC DATE
CHK DATE
DISTANCE TONEAREST ESTABLISWEDCRWLK FULFILLED
N/E --ft S/W.---.-ft Yes 0 No 0
Major St: Rancho Santa Fe Critical Approach Speed 53 mph Minor St: Melrose Drive Critical Approach Speed NA mph
Critical speed of major street traffic 40 mph __ - - - - --- - -
RURAL(R)
0 URBAN(U)
- B In built up area of isolated community of 10,000 pop. - --- - - - -
WA ,RF 3ANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS lOOO! SATISFIED Yes [XI No 0
80% SATISFIED Yes 0 NO 0 (80 -. SHOWN IN BRACKETS1
I - - 1 7,-3 3 4 4 5
Malor Street (400) (280) (4 1174 1184 1506 1619 1499
APPROACH
LANES
Both Apprchs. 500 350 600 420
NOTE, Heav:cr of /cfr torn n~uvcmcrti from ~aior Srrm fnc~uded when L 7-phasing IS ~I~J~)I)SC~ 0
WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Conlinuous Traffic
100% SATISFIED Yes Ig] No 0 MlNlMlJM qEO
(80- SHOWN I 80Y SATISFIED Yes 0 No 0
100"' SATISFIED Yes 0 NO 0 WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume
MINIMUM RLQUIREMCNTS 80"r SATISFIED Yes 0 No 0 180 SHOWN IN ERACKCT51
IF MlD9LOCK SIGNAL PROPOSED 0
WARRANT 4 - School Crossings
TS-1OA
Not Appl icable n
See School Crossings Warrant Sheet 0
tiour
I IOlll
tiour
9-5
12-1979 Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING -
ON ISOLATED ONE WAY ST OR ST WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE ADJACENT SIGNALS
ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING A SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST
ON &WAY ST WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS 00 NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING A
SPEED CONTROL. PROPOSE0 SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM
------------- ------_- ---------------------
00
-0
MINIMUM VOLUME
REOUIREMENT
800VEH/HR
- e
ENTERINL VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES , FULFILLED
OURING TVPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR
VE HlHR ------- ---- ----- ----------- -
YESO NO 0 DURING EACH OF AHY 5 HRS OF A SATURDAY AND/OR SUNDAY - - .- . _VEN HR -0
Figure Qrl B
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement
Satisfied Yes 0 No 0
MIHIMUM REOUIREMENTS~ DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL [ FULFILLED
-' 1000 11 IN--, S- 11, E-ft, W-ft IYESO NO 0
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW
1 I 0 01 ADEOUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACC. FREO.
ACC WITHIN A 12 MOW PERIOD SUSCEPTIELE OF CORR A INVOLVING INJURY OR .$2OODAMAGE ----------- _--___--_---_____________
MINIMUM REOUIREMENT , NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
1 i 4 5 OR MORE *
* NOTE Lerr furn accrdcrrrs wri fx rncludcd whcrr L 7 -oridsing IS ~~U[JUSC~
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant Satisfied Yes a No
WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants
(Used j1 no one warrant satrsfjcd 100, I Satisfied Yes 0 No
IREQUIREMENTI WARRAHT
1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
2 - INTERRUPTION OF CDNTINUOUS TRAFFIC I SATISFIE D I IYESO NO0 I 1
3 - MINIMUM PCDESTRIAN VOLUME 80 3
The satisfaction of a warrant IS not neccssartly lusfrttcatron lor signals. Delay.
congestion, confustorr or othcr evtdence of the need tor rlghf ot way assignment
rnusf be shown.
cn W z
Q
a 0 -2
E 0
hf
b
cn w z
J
W
-
- 5
w a -0 2
a 0 - N \
I
HdA - H3VOUddV 3VUnlOA H9IH
133tllS UONIW
w I- O z
4C-11 Rev. 3186
LLJ z 4
cb
m
z
-
-w-
4
w -a- 0 2
CII -0-
N 2 f
0 0 0 8 -8do d c3 N -2- 0
7
0 0 0 -
0 0 m
0 0 03
0 0 b
0 0 CD
0 5:
0 0 e
0 0 c3
HdA - H3VOUddV 3vUnlOA H9IH
1331jlS UONIW
4C-11
I 0 Q 0 U a a Q
I t- 0 m
0
4 I- O I-
I
U
-I
t;; w U I- v)
U 0
2 2
Ka WOO
.. W
Rev. 3/86
-
URBAN RURAL X Minimum Requirements
EADT
1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR
Sa tis fied Not Satisfied x
Number of lanes for moving traffic on
each approach
Major Street Minor Street
l.............,... 18 000 .. l............... 1,500
2 or more .......... l...............
2 or more .......... 2 or more. ......
l.................. 2 or more.. .....
2. INTERRUPTION OF TRAFFIC
Satisfied X Not Satisfied
Number of lanes for moving traffic on
each approach
Major Street Minor Street
l.................. 18,000 l.... 1,500 ...........
2 or more.......... l...............
2 or more.......... 2 or more.. .....
l.................. 2 or more.......
3. COMBINATION
Sa tis fied Not Satisfied
No one warrant satisfied but follow-
ing warrants fulfilled 80% or more.. .
1 2
SOURCE: CALTRANS Traffic Manual
Figure 9-1C
SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
RANCHO SANTA FE/QUESTHAVEN
Vehicles per day on
major street (total
of both approaches)
Urban Rural
8,000 5,600
9,600 6,720
9.600 6,720
8 ,000 5,600
Vehicles per day on
major street (total
of both approaches)
Urban Rural
12,000 8 , 40C
14,400 10,08C
12 ,000 8 , 40[
14,400 10,08(
2 Warrants
Vehicles per di
hig her-volume
street approact
[one direction
Urban t
2 , 400 1
2,400 1
2 , 400 1
3 , 200 1
Vehicles per di
higher-volume
street approact
[one direction 1
Urban F
1,200
1,200
1,600 1
1.600 1
___
2 Warrant!
FIGURE A-1 1
rwWlLLOAN ASSOt
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
ULTIMATE - Alternate 1 La Costa Meadows North to
Rancho Santa Fe $906,000.
Alternate 2 La Costa Meadows to 500 north of Melrose $858 I 000.
Rancho Santa Fe: Questhaven to
La Costa Meadows $808,000.
INTERIM - Interim Alternate 1 $141,000.
Interim Alternate 2
Cor i n t ia Connection
$288 I 000.
$168,000.
Li- :
COST ESTIMATE
GRADING
AC PAVEMENT
ITEM
No.
5,000 CY 3.00 $ 15,000.
123,000 SF 1.95 239,800
D ESC R I PT ION
SIDEWALK
MEDIAN CURB
MEDIAN LANDSCAPE
STREET LIGHTS
TOTAL
COST I COST
1 ESTIMATED I UN,Tl
QUANTITY
16,000 SF 2.70 43,200
3,500 LF 10.00 35 , 000
21,000 SF 3.00 63,000
7 EA 2,900.00 20,300
SIGNING/STRIPING
CURB & GUTTER
LUMP SUM 6,000
I LF I 3,400
18" RCP
LUG
AC OVERLAY (19")
CORINTIA RELOCATION
11.00 I
100 LF 50.00 5,000
3 EA 77.00 2,300
41,000 SF 0.55 22,600
LUMP SUM 192,000
37,400
PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY 82,400
906,000
MELROSE/LA COSTA MEADOWS'SIGNAL I LUMP SUM I I 65,000
~~
MELROSE/RANCHO SANTA FE I I LUhiIP SUM I 65,000
CURB INLET 3,000.00 I 12,000
TOTAL: I 832,600
Prepared by Preliminary/Final Cost Estimate
Reviewed by
WlllOAN ASSOCIATES Checked by &M -K-;K&&,~~~~~~~ Ultimate Alt. 1
Date Job No.
Page of Pages 6363 Greenwich Drive, Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92122
(619) 457-1199
SIDEWALK
MEDIAN CURB
MEDIAN LANDSCAPE
26,500 SF
5,000 LF
20,600 SF
CURB INLET 7 EA 3,000.00
18" RCP
LUG
140 LF
4 EA
COST ESTIMATE
TOTAL
COST ITEM No. I D ESCR I PT ION UNIT
COST
I GRADING I 6,200 I CY I 3.00 $ 18,600
242,200
64,900
I ACPAVEMENT I 124,200 I SF
-
1.95
I CURB & GUTTER I 5,900 I LF 11 .oo
2.70
10.00
71,600
50,000
3.00 61,800
31,900 I STREET LIGHTS 11 EA 2,900.00
I Rancho Santa Fe/LaCosta Mdw. Signal I LUMP SUM I 65,000 1 Rancho Santa Fe/Melrose Signal I LUMPSUM I 65,000
6,000
21,000
-
50.00 7,000
770.00 3,100
50,300
21,600
I AC OVERLAY (14") I 91,500 1 SF
~ ~-
0.55 I PAVEMENT REMOVAL
~ I 54,000 I SF 0.40
TOTAL:
PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY
$780 a 000
78 000
$858,000
Prcpared hy Prelirninary~~&2&X#iXIXtc
Reviewed by
WlllOAN ASSOCllTES Checked by Client
ZXXB&./Project Yltimate Alt. 2
Date Job No.
6363 Greenwich Drive, Suite 250
Sari Diego, CA 92122
(619) 457-1 199
Page of Pagcs
COST ESTIMATE
PAVFMENT REMOVAL
AC PAVEMENT
AC BERM
MELHOSE/KANCHO SANTA FE SIGNAL
STRIPING/SIGNING
ITEM 1
No.
LUMP SIJM $ 10,000
19,000 SF 1.95 37,050
1,350 LF 7.20 9,720
LUMP SUM 65.000
LUMP SUM 4,000
D ESCR I PT I ON
MEDIAN PAVING
TOTAL :
TOTAL
COST 1 COST
I ESTIMATED I UNITl
QUANTITY
2,000 SF . 1.40 2,800
$ 128,570
PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY: 12,830
$ 141,400
Prepared by Preliminary/~XK~~~~~
Checked by Client
Reviewed by XRXWM/Project TNTFKTMTF 1
Date Job No.
Page of Pages
6363 GREENWICH DRIVE, SUITE 250 SAN DIEGO, CA 92122 (619) 457-1 199
COST ESTIMATE
GRADZNG
AC PAVEMENT
AC BERM
ITEM No. I
2,500 CY 3.00 $ 7,500
68 , 200 SF 1.95 133,000
1,600 LF 7.20 11,500
DESCR I PTlON
~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~
MEDIAN CURB
MEDIAN PAVING
STREET LIGHTS
MELROSE/RANCHO SANTA FE SIGNAL
SIGNlNG/SIGNING
I ESTIMATED I UN,Tl UNIT TOTAL
QUANTITY COST I COST
~ ~~ ~
1,690 LF 10.00 16,900
3,000 SF 1.40 4,200
3 EA 2 , 900.00 8,700
LUMP SUM 65,000
LUMP SUM 6,000
CURB INLET 2 EA 3 , 000.00 6 , 000
LUG
TOTAL:
PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY:
I 18" RCP I 40 I LF I 50.00 I 2 , 000
~~-
1 EA 770.00 800
$261,600
26 , 200
287 800
Prepared by Prct irninary/GfiiXIX&MW%
Reviewed by
, -- ,A, ' WlllDAN ASSOClAlES Checked by Client
j$&a./projcct lnterim Alt. 2
Date Job No.
Page of.-. Pages 6363 Greenwich Drive, Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92122
(619) 457-1199
CY
SF
ITEM No. I ~~~~~
UNIT TOTAL
COST COST
3.00 $ 3,400
1.95 58,900
DESCR I PTlON
LF
EA
EA
EA
1 GRADING
7.20 10,400
2,900.00 2,900
3,000.00 6,000
330.00 700
5,000.00 5,000
I ACPAVEMENT
AC BERM
STREET LIGHTS
CURB INLET
BARRICADE
STRIPING/SIGNING
CORINTIA/RANCHO SANTA FE ’SIGNAI
TOTAL:
PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY 1
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
1,120
30,200
1,450
1
2
2
LUMP SUM
LUMP SUM 65,000.
$1 52,300.
15,200
$167,500. I
~~
Prcpared by Prrl im inary/~HXX~
Checked by Clicnt
Rcviewed by
Date Job No.
fCxm,/Project Interim Alt. 3
Page Of.- PdgCS 6363 Greenwich Drive, Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92122
(619) 457-1199
~
CY
SF
LF
SF
LF
3.00
1.95
11 .oo
2.70
10.00
MEDIAN LANDSCAPE
STREET LIGHTS
800 SF 3.00 2,400
4 EA 2,900.00 11,600
MELROSE/QUESTHAVEN SIGNAL
BRIDGE
CURB INLET
LUMP SUM
8,000
2
AC OVERLAY 40,000 LF
COST ESTIMATE
ITEM No. I DESC R I PT ION ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
UNIT UNIT/ COST
TOTAL
COST
$ 3,600 1,200
32 600
GRADING
AC PAVEMENT
CURB & GUTTER
SIDEWALK
MEDIAN CURB
63,600
14,300 1,300
17,600 6,500
1,560 15,600
55,000
SF
EA
- 65.00 520,000
3,000.00 6,000 I 18" RCP 60 I LF 50.00
0.55
3,000
22 y 000
$734,700
73,500
SUBTOTAL:
PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY
I I TOTAL: II
Prepared by Preliminary/Final Cost Estimate
Date Job No.
Page of Pages 6363 Greenwich Drive, Suite 250
San Diego, CA 92122
(619) 457-1 199