HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-28; City Council; 20611; APPROVE LA COSTA AVE INTERIM STRIPING PLAN12(W1\ni
AB#
MTG.
DEPT.
yl CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL ^A "
& (m ,
20,611
06/28/1 1
TRAN
APPROVE THE LA COSTA AVENUE
INTERIM STRIPING PLAN
DEPT. DIRECTOB^i/X
CITY ATTORNEY Aff
CITY MANAGER y (jj
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 2011-154 approving the La Costa Avenue Interim Striping Plan and
authorizing the City Traffic Engineer to prohibit on-street parking along La Costa Avenue between
Rancho Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real at locations needed to achieve acceptable sight
distance.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The City of Carlsbad annexed La Costa Avenue between Rancho Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real
in 1972. Since 1977, the posted speed limit on this portion of La Costa Avenue has been 45 mph
based on the prevailing speeds which have remained relatively constant. Currently, the prevailing
speeds and lane configuration result in a condition where adequate stopping sight distance is not
provided at several residential access points along La Costa Avenue.
A recent court settlement related to case number 37-2009-00051045-CU-PA-NC included evidence
that a specific section of La Costa Avenue did not have adequate sight distance and this may have
directly contributed to the collision of record. The court's preliminary ruling in this case made it
imperative that the City Council take urgent action to remedy what may be a dangerous condition to
prevent further injuries. In response, transportation staff developed a series of traffic safety
improvements that directly addressed the traffic safety issues identified in that court settlement. The
goal of these traffic safety improvements is to change the character of La Costa Avenue to enhance
driver safety at residential driveway access points. At their February 8, 2011 meeting the City Council:
• approved the installation of speed feedback signs in both directions of travel;
• approved the installation of traffic warning signs in advance of residential units on both sides of
La Costa Avenue; and
• directed staff to develop an interim striping plan that maintained on-street parking.
Staff developed several alternatives with the goal to increase the available sight distance at residential
access points between Romeria Street and Fairway Lane. Another goal of this effort was to develop
an interim striping plan that reduces vehicle speed that contributes to the limited sight distance
affecting safety. Following are the alternatives staff considered:
Retain Current Travel Lanes: The City has implemented parking restrictions at several locations to
improve driver visibility. However, these parking prohibitions do not provide adequate sight distance at
every residential access point along La Costa Avenue. Staff reviewed conceptual striping plans that
retained two lanes in each direction of travel, but concluded this alternative did not meet stopping
sight distance standards even with on-street parking restrictions.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Doug Bilse 760-602-7504, Doug.Bilse@carlsbadca.gov
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED
DENIED
CONTINUED
WITHDRAWN
AMENDED
4
D
D
D
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN
RETURNED TO STAFF
OTHER -SEE MINUTES
aaaa
Page 2
Painted Median Alternative: The original interim striping plan proposed using a painted median to
restrict left turn movements into and out of the residential driveways between Romeria Street and
Fairway Lane. This alternative prohibits the type of left turn movement that was involved in the
collision resulting in the court settlement. However, it does not address sight distance issues related
to right turn movements out of residential driveways and is not expected to reduce vehicle speed. This
alternative is also expected to divert traffic because u-turns on La Costa Avenue cannot be
accommodated in its current configuration.
Road Diet Alternative: Another alternative was developed that reduces La Costa Avenue to one
through lane in each direction of traffic by converting the second through lane of travel into a Class II
bike lane. This alternative improved sight distance, retained the two-way left turn lane, and could
potentially reduce vehicle speed. A road diet is the prerequisite for many of the traffic measures being
considered as part of the La Costa Avenue Improvement Project (e.g., roundabouts).
Preferred Alternative: Staff evaluated the "Road Diet Alternative" against California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines and decided to develop a new alternative that directly addressed the
traffic safety issues with the least traffic impacts. In order to minimize traffic impacts, staff developed
the "Preferred Alternative" that retains the current lane configuration eastbound and reduces La Costa
Avenue to one through lane westbound between Romeria Street and Fairway Lane. Under the
Preferred Alternative, as shown in the attached Exhibit 2, lane configuration changes are limited to the
segment and roadside with direct access to residential units. The Preferred Alternative will create a
Class II bike lane on the side of the road with direct driveway access. The attached La Costa Avenue
LOS Analysis, prepared by KOA Corporation (June 16, 2011), supports the conclusion that the
Preferred ("Hybrid") Alternative meets the City of Carlsbad level of service standard (LOS=D) and
results in less traffic impacts than the Road Diet Alternative.
The City Council directed staff to present the La Costa Avenue Interim Striping Plan to the Traffic
Safety Commission (TSC) for their consideration. At the June 6, 2011 meeting the TSC unanimously
recommended that the Council approve the attached La Costa Avenue Interim Striping Plan. The
Commissioners also unanimously recommended that the Council consider prohibiting on-street
parking along La Costa Avenue to the extent needed to create sufficient sight distance equal to 360
feet (i.e., to meet the current City standard for stopping sight distance along a 45 mph roadway). Staff
also recommends prohibiting on-street parking along La Costa Avenue between Rancho Santa Fe
Road and El Camino Real. City staff concurs with the TSC recommendation, but the staff
recommendation authorizes the City Traffic Engineer to restrict on-street parking to improve driver
visibility without defining a specific stopping sight distance. In the case that the Interim Striping Plan or
some future project reduces vehicle speed, this will allow some on-street parking to be restored.
As part of a related project, staff embarked on the La Costa Avenue Improvement Project to "develop
a cost effective, community-preferred plan to address traffic speeds and safety on La Costa Avenue in
a way that respects the residential character and arterial function of the roadway." The La Costa
Avenue Improvement Project uses a series of public workshops to assist in the development of a
conceptual plan that defines the long-term vision for La Costa Avenue. A final report will be presented
to City Council by the end of this summer. The La Costa Avenue Improvement Project is expected to
require a full environmental report that may require changes to the General Plan before permanent
improvements can be constructed. Staff recommends implementing the proposed interim striping plan
and on-street parking prohibitions as interim traffic safety measures that can be implemented in a
reasonable timeframe while work continues on the long-term vision.
PageS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Given the need for urgent action in light of the court settlement referenced above, the La Costa
Avenue Interim Striping Plan is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under Public Resources Code Subsection 21080(b)(4), which exempts "specific actions
necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency." In addition, this project is categorically exempt from
environmental review. Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines exempts "...the operation, repair,
maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures,
facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination." Examples given in Section
15301(c) of the CEQA Guidelines include "existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle
and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities (this includes road grading for the purposes of public
safety)." This exemption is applicable for the proposed project because streets are specifically listed
as an example of an existing facility and there will be no expansion of use in that no additional lanes
are being added for additional vehicle capacity. Furthermore, none of the exceptions listed in CEQA
Section 15300.2 are applicable in that there is no reasonable possibility that the project may have a
significant environmental impact or that cumulative impacts would be significant, as evidenced in the
attached traffic analysis.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost to construct the La Costa Avenue Interim Striping Plan is expected to cost $10,000 and will
be funded through the Streets Division budget. Sufficient funds are available for this project.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. 2011-154 approving the La Costa Avenue Interim Striping Plan.
2. La Costa Avenue Interim Striping plan.
3. La Costa Avenue LOS Analysis.
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-154
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE LA COSTA
AVENUE INTERIM STRIPING PLAN.
4
5 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has determined that La Costa
6 Avenue between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road was originally designed in 1969 by
7 the County of San Diego; and
8 WHERAS, this roadway segment was annexed to the City of Carlsbad in 1972; and
9 WHEREAS, City staff has determined that this roadway segment was originally designed
10 for a design speed below the currently posted forty-five mile per hour speed limit; and
11 WHEREAS, City Council of the City of Carlsbad has approved the installation of traffic
12 signs and speed feedback signs that reduced the critical speed on La Costa Avenue between El
13 Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road; and
^ WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has determined it necessary,
15 desirable, and in the public interest to improve driver visibility along La Costa Avenue where there
1R is direct access to residential driveways; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has determined that restricting on-
18 street parking will improve driver visibility but will not alone result in standard stopping sight
19 distance at every residential unit with direct access to La Costa Avenue; and
20 WHEREAS, City staff developed several alternative striping plans between Romeria
21 Street and Fairway Lane that would increase the stopping sight distance of the road; and
22 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has determined that the La Costa
23 Avenue Interim Striping Plan and on-street parking prohibition together directly address the traffic
24 safety issues with the least traffic impacts; and
25 WHEREAS, City Council of the City of Carlsbad has determined it necessary, desirable,
26 and in the public interest to install traffic signs speed and feedback signs, implement the La Costa
27 Avenue Interim Striping Plan between Romeria Street and Fairway Lane, and prohibit on-street
28
1 parking at numerous locations as determined by the City Traffic Engineer on both sides of La
2 Costa Avenue between El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road.
3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
4 California, as follows:
5 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That there is substantial evidence supporting the reasonableness of the plan.
3. That the City Council of the City of Carlsbad hereby approves the La Costa
o
Avenue Interim Striping Plan.
9
That the City Council of the City of Carlsbad hereby directs staff to implement the
10
La Costa Avenue Interim Striping Plan and prohibit on-street parking along La
11
Costa Avenue at locations as determined by the City Traffic Engineer and to
12
return with a report evaluating the effectiveness of the Interim Striping Plan on or
13
before February 2012.
14"
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad on the 28th day of June 201 1 , by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Council Members Hall, Kulchin, Blackburn, Douglas
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Packard.
W/ouU/>/~^/
MATT HALL, Mayor
ATTEST:
/
V, '^- /l-,^ /C ™Jtc*u/rr/fffdfl-
LORRAINE k WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL) /
ss<vSBAi'%
•^ $~ ••''"'*'* \*'<il'-Sl' ''*""•^ /^Lj^jy^iti^oc
^ ^ '•^%*fi^iiifcii&' o ~— ^- 'm •'T^^^-^SI'^-' ^D ~
^ ^ ''^B^JJBBF''' ^ •?^ "& '^^ '"^" ••?"x,'*',x°
STRIPING NOTES:
) PAINT PER CALTRANS DETAIL XX.
) REMOVE EXISTING CONFLICTING MARKERS AND STRFMG 8Y GRMONG.
PAINT PAVEMENT MARKING AS INDICATED.
M COSTA AVENUE"
GENERAL NOTES - SIGNING & STRIPING:
THE CONTRACTOR tS RESPONSIBLE TOR ALL SIGNING AND STRIPING.
StGNHC. STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL CONFORM TO THE CAUFORNIA MANUAL ON UNFORU TRAFFIC
DEVICES (LATEST VERSKM) AND THE CALTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS (LATEST VERSION). THESE PLANS.
AND THE SPECIAL FTOVISMNS.
ALL SWUNG AND STRIPING SHALL BE REFLECTIVE PER CALTRANS SPECIFICATIONS. STRIPING SHALL BE
REPAWTEO TWO WEEKS AFTER INITIAL PANTING. SIGNMC SHALL USE ENCAPSULATED LENS REFLECTIVESHCETMC (HIGH WTEN3TY OR EQUAL).
>AVEMEHT LEGENDS BY
All PAVEMENT l£GENDS SHAU. BE THE LATEST VERSION OF THE CALTRANS METRIC STENCILS.
HAVE 10' MSIDE DUENSKM
GENERAL NOTES - CONTINUED:
THE CAUFORNIA MUTCD (LATEST VERSION) UNLESS
POLE, !T SHALL BE MOUNTED US8« A STANDARD QTY UOUNTMG
EXISTING SKNS THAT ARE REMOVED SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR.
REVISION DESCRIPTION
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRANSPORTATION DEPARMENT
LA COSTA AVENUE INTERIM STRIPING
PAINT PER CAURANS DETAIL XX.
REMOVE EXISTING CONFUCTMC MARKERS AND STRflNG BY GRINDING.
T PAVEMENT MARKING AS IMWCATCD.
PAINT PER CALTRANS DETAIL XX.
(S) REMOVE EXISTING CONFLICTING STRIPING BY GRINDING.
(S) PAMT PAVEMENT MARKING AS WDtCATED.
Q) PAIHT 12* WHITE LINE 45* » 25' O.C
REVISION DESCffiPTJON
LA COSTA AVENUE INTERIM STRIPING
Iwieromim ana* «g sm op. i
KOA CORPORATION
*'. •*•* PLANNING & ENGINEERING
MEMORANDUM
To: Doug Bilse, City of Carlsbad
From: Arnold Torma, P.E., KOA Corporation
KOA No.: JBI4055
Date: June 16, 201 I
Re: La Costa Avenue LOS Analysis
Introduction
The City of Carlsbad requested KOA Corporation to conduct intersection and segment analysis for the
LA Costa Avenue Improvement Project. The results in this memorandum are presented for the
following alternatives:
1. Existing Condition
2. Painted Median
3. Road Diet
4. Hybrid
ICU analysis for intersections was conducted at the following three signalized intersections:
1. La Costa Avenue and Viejo Castilla Way
2. La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street
3. La Costa Avenue and Cadencia Street
Figure I below shows the geometry comparison of all the alternatives for the three intersections.
Roadway segmental LOS analysis was conducted between the Shopping Center Driveway and Nueva
Castilla Way for the above mentioned alternatives and the results presented in this memorandum. The
the City's annual monitoring method was used for the roadway segments. The worksheets are provided
in the Appendix.
Finally, we offer a generalized estimate of the adequacy of potential roundabouts and their capacity using
the ITE publication "Roundabouts: An Informational Guide".
Findings
Each of the three internal signalized intersections along the length of the project presently operate
during peak hours at completely acceptable levels of service (A and B) and delay and continue to do so
into the future conditions projected in this analysis and under all alternatives.
KOA CORPORATION
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
The segmental analysis produced results that were acceptable (LOS=D or better) in the existing and
future scenarios in the peak conditions for all of the alternative configurations.
Regarding potential roundabouts, the ITE publication cited above offers a generalized expectation of
what the overall capacity of the facility might be based on ADT values (refer to their table in Exhibit 3-8
shown in the appendix). The typical maximum ADT capacity of a roundabout is 25,000 ADT in a
balanced situation where side street traffic is equivalent to the major street volumes. As the imbalance
increases (as is the situation on La Costa Ave) the overall capacity diminishes to around 18,000 to
19,000 where the side streets have only 10% of the entering traffic. The existing traffic levels maximize
around 18,000 presently and rise to around 22,000 in the future. Depending on where along La Costa
Ave a roundabout is considered the volumes may decrease from these values somewhat. This suggests
that in the imbalanced situation that is likely to exist on La Costa Ave we will be approaching the
capacity of a typical roundabout assuming there is no diversion of traffic. More specific analysis can be
provided once locations are selected for consideration and a conceptual layout is developed.
La Costa Avenue Road Diet Sludv
Alternatives [rViejo Castilla Way^ Romeria Street Cadencia Street
Existing
Painted Median
Road Diet
Hybrid
N
Not To Scale
KOA Corporation
KOA CORPORATION
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Existing Intersection Condition at La Costa Avenue and Viejo Castilla Way
Alternatives
Existing
Painted Median
Road Diet
Hybrid
ICU Methodology
AM
ICU
0.383
0.391
0.569
0.565
LOS
A
A
A
A
PM
ICU
0.335
0.335
0.531
0.432
LOS
A
A
A
A
Horizon Year Intersection Condition at La Costa Avenue and Viejo Castilla Way
Alternatives
Horizon
Painted Median
Road Diet
Hybrid
ICU Methodology
AM
ICU
0.442
0.450
0.666
0.666
LOS
A
A
B
B
PM
ICU
0.386
0.386
0.626
0.504
LOS
A
A
B
A
Existing Intersection Condition at La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street
Alternatives
Existing
Painted Median
Road Diet
Hybrid
ICU Methodology
AM
ICU
0.358
0.364
0.455
0.358
LOS
A
A
A
A
PM
ICU
0.438
0.443
0.438
0.438
LOS
A
A
A
A
z*?KOA CORPORATION
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
Horizon Year Intersection Condition at La Costa Avenue and Romeria Street
Alternatives
Horizon
Painted Median
Road Diet
Hybrid
ICU Methodology
AM
ICU
0.415
0.421
0.534
0.415
LOS
A
A
A
A
PM
ICU
0.512
0.517
0.512
0.512
LOS
A
A
A
A
Existing Intersection Condition at La Costa Avenue and Cadencia Street
Alternatives
Existing
Painted Median
Road Diet
Hybrid
ICU Methodology
AM
ICU
0.423
0.429
0.423
0.423
LOS
A
A
A
A
PM
ICU
0.423
0.428
0.423
0.423
LOS
A
A
A
A
Horizon Year Intersection Condition at La Costa Avenue and Cadencia Street
Alternatives
Horizon
Painted Median
Road Diet
Hybrid
ICU Methodology
AM
ICU
0.485
0.490
0.485
0.485
LOS
A
A
A
A
PM
ICU
0.488
0.494
0.488
0.488
LOS
A
A
A
A
KOA CORPORATION
«.V PUNNING & ENGINEERING
Summary of Roadway Segment Condition - Carlsbad Method
Existing base year
concept by direc
2 lanes open median
Existing geometry
AM
PM
2 lanes w/median
Painted median
AM
PM
1 lane open median
Road diet
AM
PM
geometry varies
Hybrid
AM
PM
lane cap
per hr
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
lanes
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
eastbound
hrly
vol V/C
502
1111
512
1121
502
1111
502
1111
0.14
0.31
0.14
0.31
0.28
0.62
0.14
0.31
LOS
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
lanes
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
westbound
hrly
vol V/C
983
624
993
634
983
624
983
624
0.27
0.17
0.28
0.18
0.55
0.35
0.55
0.35
LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Future volume
2 lanes open median
Existing geometry
AM
PM
2 lanes w/median
Painted median
AM
PM
1 lane open median
Road diet
AM
PM
geometry varies
Hybrid
AM
PM
cap/In
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
lanes
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
612
1355
625
1368
612
1355
612
1355
V/C
0.33
0.38
0.34
0.38
0.67
0.75
0.33
0.38
LOS
A
A
A
A
B
C
A
A
lanes
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1199
761
1211
773
1199
761
1199
761
V/C
0.33
0.21
0.34
0.21
0.67
0.42
0.67
0.42
LOS
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
Appendices
LOS Worksheets
La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Existing Volume Condition
Alternatives
Existing
Painted Median
Road Diet
Hybrid
ICU Methodology
AM
ICU
0.423
0.429
0.423
0.423
LOS
A
A
A
A
PM
ICU
0.423
0.428
0.423
0.423
LOS
A
A
A
A
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Analyst Existing
Peak Hour: AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.323
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.423
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Analyst Existing
Peak Hour:PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios
Adjustment for Lost Time
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
0.323
0.100
0.423
A
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00-0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91-1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Analyst Painted Median
Peak Hour: AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.329
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.429
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -.0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Analyst Painted Median
Peak Hour: PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.328
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.428
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Analyst Road Diet
Peak Hour: AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.323
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.423
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
0.00-0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81-0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Analyst Road Diet
Peak Hour: PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.323
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.423
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Analyst Hybrid
Peak Hour: AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.323
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.423
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below A
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00-0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Analyst Hybrid
Peak Hour: PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.323
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.423
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00-0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Existing Volume Condition
Alternatives
Existing
Painted Median
Road Diet
Hybrid
ICU Methodology
AM
ICU
0.383
0.391
0.569
0.565
LOS
A
A
A
A
PM
ICU
0.335
0.335
0.531
0.432
LOS
A
A
A
A
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Count Date
Analyst
Enter Peak Hour:
Existing
AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.283
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
ntersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.383
-evel of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
1. Ttru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00-0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Count Date
Analyst
Enter
Existing
Peak Hour:PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.235
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.335
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
1. Ttru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
C-
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Count Date
Analyst
Enter Peak Hour:
Painted Median
AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.291
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.391
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below A
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
1. Ttru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Count Date
Analyst
Enter Peak Hour:
Painted Median
PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.235
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.335
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
1. Ttru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Count Date
Analyst
Enter Peak Hour:
Road Diet
AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
NBLeft
NB Thru
NB Right
SB Left
SB Thru
SB Right
WBLeft
WB Thru
Right
31
115
1800
736
8
2000
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.081
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.372
0.000
NA
0.000
NA
0.081
NA
NA
EBLeft
EBThru
EB Right
28
446
-
1
1
1800
2000
-
0.016
0.223
0.000
0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.372
NA
0.469
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.569
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
1. Ttru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Count Date
Analyst
Enter Peak Hour:
Road Diet
PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.431
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.531
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
1. Ttru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Vie jo Castilla Way
Count Date
Analyst
Enter
Hybrid
Peak Hour:AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.465
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.565
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
1. Ttru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Count Date
Analyst
Enter
Hybrid
Peak Hour:PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.332
Adjustment for Lost Time
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
0.100
0.432
A
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
1. Ttru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Existing Volume Conditions
Alternatives
Existing
Painted Median
Road Diet
Hybrid
ICU Methodology
AM
ICU
0.358
0.364
0.455
0.358
LOS
A
A
A
A
PM
ICU
0.438
0.443
0.438
0.438
LOS
A
A
A
A
INTERSECTION CAPACITY? DTIL5IZATION ,•*•( J"^
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Analyst Existing
Peak Hour: AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.258
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.358
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity =1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
Intersection:
Analyst
La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Existing
Peak Hour:PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.338
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.438
_evel of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71-0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Analyst Painted Median
Peak Hour:AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.264
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.364
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
f: Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
•B.
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTIlflZ^TTON WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Analyst Painted Median
Peak Hour: PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.343
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.443
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1: Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2, Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61-0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Analyst Road Diet
Peak Hour: AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.355
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.455
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
,B
C
D
E
0.00-0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
0,7,
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Analyst Road Diet
Peak Hour: PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios
Adjustment for Lost Time
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
0.00 - 0.60
0.61-0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Analyst Hybrid
Peak Hour: AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.258
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.358
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Analyst Hybrid
Peak Hour: PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.338
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICD)0.438
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Future Volume Condition
Alternatives
Existing
Painted Median
Road Diet
Hybrid
ICU Methodology
AM
ICU
0.485
0.490
0.48S
0.485
LOS
A
A
A
A
PM
ICU
0.488
0.494
0.488
0.488
LOS
A
A
A
A
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Analyst Future
Peak Hour: AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.385
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.485
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
AJ
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Analyst Future
Peak Hour: PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.388
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.488
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91-1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Analyst Painted Median
Peak Hour: AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.390
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.490
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00-0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Analyst Painted Median
Peak Hour: PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.394
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.494
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Analyst Road Diet
Peak Hour: AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.385
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.485
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Analyst Road Diet
Peak Hour: PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.388
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
ntersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.488
_evel of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below A
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Analyst Hybrid
Peak Hour: AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.385
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICIM 0.485
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1,00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Cadencia St
Analyst Hybrid
Peak Hour: PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.388
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.488
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below A
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Future Volume Condition
Alternatives
Future
Painted Median
Road Diet
Hybrid
ICU Methodology
AM
ICU
0.442
0.450
0.666
0.666
LOS
A
A
B
B
PM
ICU
0.386
0.386
0.626
0.504
LOS
A
A
B
A
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Count Date
Analyst
Enter Peak Hour:
Future
AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.342
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.442
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
1. Ttru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00-0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Count Date
Analyst
Enter
Future
Peak Hour:PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios
Adjustment for Lost Time
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
0.286
0.100
0.386
A
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
1. Ttru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91.-1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection:
Count Date
Analyst
La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Enter Peak Hour:
Painted Median
AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.350
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.450
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
1. Ttru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71-0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Count Date
Analyst
Enter Peak Hour:
Painted Median
PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.286
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.386
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
1. Ttru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Count Date
Analyst
Enter
Road Diet
Peak Hour:AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.566
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.666
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below B
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
1. Ttru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Count Date
Analyst
Enter Peak Hour:
Road Diet
PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.526
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.626
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below B
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
1. Ttru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Count Date
Analyst
Enter Peak Hour:
Hybrid
AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
NBLeft
NB Thru
NB Right
EBLeft
EB Thru
EB Right
WBLeft
WB Thru
Ric
34
544
1800
4000
898
10
2000
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.019
0.136
0.000
0.000
0.449
0.000
NA
0.000
NA
SB Left
SB Thru
SB Right
38
-
139
1
•
_
1800
-
.
0.098
0.000
0.000
0.098
NA
NA
0.019
NA
NA
NA
0.449
NA
0.566
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.666
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below B
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
1. Ttru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
r
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Viejo Castilla Way
Count Date
Analyst
Enter Peak Hour:
Hybrid
PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.404
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.504
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
1. Ttru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Future Volume Conditions
Alternatives
Future
Painted Median
Road Diet
Hybrid
1CU Methodology
AM
ICU
0.415
0.421
0.534
0.415
LOS
A
A
A
A
PM
ICU
0.512
0.517
0.512
0.512
LOS
A
A
A
A
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Analyst Future
Peak Hour: AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.315
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.415
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Analyst Future
Peak Hour: PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.412
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.512
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71-0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Analyst Painted Median
Peak Hour: AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.321
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.421
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
G
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Analyst Painted Median
Peak Hour: PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios
Adjustment for Lost Time
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
1. Turn lane Capacity =1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Analyst Road Diet
Peak Hour: AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.434
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.534
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Analyst
Peak Hour: PM
Road Diet Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.412
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.512
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Analyst Hybrid
Peak Hour: AM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.315
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.415
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61-0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET
Intersection: La Costa Ave and Romeria St
Analyst Hybrid
Peak Hour: PM
Agency City of Carlsbad
Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.412
Adjustment for Lost Time 0.100
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)0.512
Level of Service (LOS) - Refer to table below
1. Turn lane Capacity = 1,800 VPH
2. Thru lane Capacity = 2,000 VPH
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00 - 0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
>1.00
i-Agenda Item #_/ iffAl' Receive'
For the Information of the:Kira Lin berg CITY COUNCIL
From: M Mehdi Zomorrodian [mehdizom@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 201 1 1 2:23 PM D- '- y^L C<ty
To: Council Internet Email
Cc: Doug Bilse; Christine Davis; David Douglas; Donna Bechthdd; Evalyn/Peter Montalbano;
Evalyn/Peter Montalbano; la costa; la costa; la costa; la costa; la costa; la costa; La Costa
group; la costa Tran
Subject: La Costa Ave Interim Striping Plan Ref: Agenda Bill 12
Dear:
Mr Mayor and council members:
My family and I are in support of the Interim Striping Plan developed by the City . We believe City staff,
Engineering department, Transportation department, and Doug Bilse Have worked hard to come up with the
right plan. They have had three public meetings for the property owners to incorporate the neighbors feed back
into the Interim Striping plan. I urge the city to approve this plan as is presented to you. I am resident of 2464
La Costa Ave. The residence of (2400 to 3000 ) blocks have been coming to the city as of 1998 to get this
dangerous situation fixed. As I recall Mr. Matt Hall our mayor has been in favor of safety of people who uses
the la Costa Ave, when he was council member voted in favor of correction to Road problem.
This is the first step forward to provide a viable Road diet. I suggest city to reconsider the designation of La
Costa Ave from the Rancho Santa Fe To El Camino Real to Residential street for the New City General plan.
By doing so city can eliminate the side distance problem that is one of the ruling of Court settlement case
Number 37-2009-0005 1 045-CU-PA-NC.
Sincerely Yours
M Mehdi Zomorrodian, PE, Broker
Coldwell Banker -Olivenhain
162 S. Rancho Santa Fe Road, A-30
Olivenhain, CA 92024
cell 760-845-3146
www.mehdiz.com
Lie #01156545
Date:
Distribution:
City Clerk
Asst. City Clerk
Deputy Clerk
Book
Kira Lin berg
Ail Receive-Agenda Item #_
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Virginia Mann [virginiamann716@yahoo.com]
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 8:58 AM
Council Internet Email
La Costa Avenue
CITY COUNCIL
Asst.
Good morning,
I attended the first two La Costa Avenue meetings, in April and May. I just read in the North County Times of
your plans to reduce La Costa Avenue (eventually) to one lane in each direction, and to add two roundabouts
and some medians. I wholeheartedly support this plan, as do many of my friends in the Levante Avenue
neighborhood.
Although I don't live on La Costa Avenue, I would much prefer a more neighborhood feel to the street, and a
slower pace. Many of my neighbors agree, although none of them attended the meetings. Don't listen to the
few loud voices opposing the plan. It will be much better for the city of Carlsbad and will make the area far
more livable.
Sincerely,
Virginia Mann
2746 Galicia Way (overlooks La Costa Avenue)
Date:
Distribution:
City Clerk
Asst. City Clerk
Deputy Clerk
Book
Kira Linberg
All Receive-Agenda Item # I £L>
For the Information of tie*
CITYCpUNCBL
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Date6/£MjCity Manager^g;
Steven Linke [splinke@gmail.com]
Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:06 PM
Council Internet Email
Correspondence for La Costa Avenue interim hybrid restriping agenda item (6/28/2011 City
Council meeting)
20110628 City Council correspondence-Linke.pdf
Carlsbad City Council representative:
The attached correspondence is in regard to the proposed "hybrid" interim restriping plan for
La Costa Avenue. Please provide it to the Council members and include it in the Agenda Bill
for the Dune 28, 2811 City Council meeting agenda item. Also, I would appreciate the
opportunity to speak with the Council members in person in advance of the meeting, if
possible. I can schedule time whenever they are available. I would also like to present a few
PowerPoint slides during my five-minute public testimony period, which I can provide in
advance.
Respect-Fully yours,
Steve Linke
7513 Quinta St
Carlsbad, CA 92009
760.944.7546
Date:
Distribution:
City Clerk
Asst. City Clerk
Deputy Clerk
Book
June 22, 2011
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: La Costa Avenue Interim Restriping Plan (June 28, 2011 agenda item)
Dear Councilmembers Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Blackburn, and Douglas:
Below, I have detailed my concerns about the proposed "hybrid" interim restriping plan for La
Costa Avenue. Please include this correspondence in the Agenda Bill for the June 28, 2011 City
Council meeting item. Also, I would appreciate the opportunity to speak with you in person in
advance of the meeting, if possible, and to present a few slides during the public testimony period.
Please know that I am sensitive to the need to address the alleged liability issue, and I am
sympathetic to the safety concerns of the residents who live along the road. So, I agree that some
measures need to be taken. The new hybrid (partial road diet) plan is less aggressive than the
previously proposed "full road diet," as only the westbound corridor would be reduced to one
travel lane (Romeria Street westward) in the short-term. However, the $100,000 traffic calming
study authorized by the City Council in 2007 recommended against travel lane elimination. That
conclusion, in combination with existing volume and capacity data, raises concern that the
capacity reduction could create unacceptable congestion, particularly during morning commutes.
City staff has put great effort into "re-evaluating" the data and analysis from the above-mentioned
traffic impact study, presumably to help justify travel lane elimination and avoid CEQA review.
This has been done by using different methods, putting different emphasis on the methods,
changing the assumptions that go into the methods, and even changing the definition of what
constitutes congestion and exerting influence over the recommendations/conclusions of outside
consultants. In addition, they apparently provided the City Council with inaccurate information on
the nature of the re-evaluation at the March 22, 2011 meeting where they sought an additional
$112,000 in funding for study and design of traffic calming. While some of this may have been
miscommunication, and staff may have a deep belief that removal of travel lanes is the
benevolent solution, there is a dangerous ability to manipulate the message filtered to you (the
decision-makers) in their final recommendations. In any event, you should be aware that credible
traffic capacity methods predict unacceptable congestion levels with travel lane elimination.
Ironically, the interim hybrid plan, as it was proposed to the Traffic Safety Commission, does not
even achieve acceptable sight distance at the site of the motorcycle accident. Nor does it prohibit
dangerous left turns or parking—the liability issues explicitly described by the plaintiffs in the
lawsuit that is the impetus for the plan. Does the City think that it is sufficient to implement a
change that they know is still deficient, and do it at the expense of capacity? Based on the
information I provide below, I hope that you will choose not to adopt the "hybrid" restriping plan
that eliminates a travel lane, but rather consider an alternative plan that addresses the safety and
liability issues while retaining all current travel lanes. I have proposed some alternatives in this
regard.
Regardless of which "interim" plan you adopt, though, I request that it be subjected to thorough
review for traffic impact, that a pre-defined set of metrics be used to assess its performance
(including minimum performance standards), and that a hard time limit be established with a
scheduled formal evaluation (e.g., six months), including a public opinion survey. That is the City's
1 Linke Correspondence
policy for other roads that are undergoing traffic calming through the Traffic Management
Program, and it is arguably even more critical for an arterial road like La Costa Avenue,
Otherwise, this so-called "interim" plan will persist for years.
In addition, I request that you investigate the historical and continuing use of Carlsbad's road
segment congestion analysis method, which is used for the City's annual Traffic Monitoring
Program. This seemingly unvalidated method appears to grossly underestimate congestion
relative to validated methods and has set a very low bar for projects like La Costa Town Square
and the City's re-evaluation of La Costa Avenue. This misleading method apparently has been
used in partial support of many important development decisions over the years.
I ask that you read the following summary of my concerns. For each bullet point, I have also
provided details in the attached Appendix, which is derived from my web site:
http://sites.google.com/site/lacostacommuters/
• Although we should strive to further minimize accidents, the accident rate on La Costa
Avenue has not increased for the last 25 years and is significantly below state averages
for similar roadways, despite increases in traffic volume (p. 4).
• Although we also should strive to minimize excessive speeding, City data indicate that
speeds have not been increasing over time, and that there is a relatively small number of
drivers traveling at imprudent speeds (pp. 4-5).
• Although there has been ample opportunity for the City to inform the public of the
impending travel lane elimination, the topic has been avoided or downplayed (pp. 5-6).
• Although the topic of travel lane elimination was avoided by the City in a public survey on
La Costa Avenue traffic calming, a high proportion of respondents provided write-in
comments, and an overwhelming 90% were opposed (p. 7).
• Ironically, the City's "hybrid" interim plan to eliminate a westbound travel lane (partial road
diet), as presented to the Traffic Safety Commission, does not fully address the main
allegations in the liability lawsuit. Sight distance is still inadequate, and dangerous left
turns and sight obstructions due to parked cars remain, including at the site of the
motorcycle accident that is the impetus for the plan (pp. 7-10).
• Alternative plans could address the liability and safety issues virtually as well, or better
than, the partial road diet without eliminating travel lanes (pp. 10-11):
o Conversion of the center turn lane into a full-width painted median with parking
restriction or strategic parking restriction
o Conversion of the center lane into a narrowed median with strategic parking
restriction
o These plans would require some U-turns by local residents with driveways on La
Costa Avenue, but the hundred or so daily trips originating from those driveways
should be considered in the context of the 18,000+ total average daily trips that go
through that area of La Costa Avenue, which is a well-established arterial route.
The local residents should be willing to accept a minor inconvenience in exchange
for the improved safety.
• A City-sponsored traffic calming study completed in September 2008 concluded that
travel lane elimination was not recommended for La Costa Avenue due to projected
congestion problems that are unacceptable based on the City's Growth Management
Program (pp. 11-12).
• Validated road segment traffic projection methods estimate the peak (rush) hour capacity
of La Costa Avenue to be about 750 to 840 vehicles per lane per hour. The proposed
"hybrid" interim plan will reduce westbound La Costa Avenue from two travel lanes to one
in road segments that, in 2007-2008, were carrying between 680 and 930 vehicles in the
Linke Correspondence
peak hour, exceeding the capacity limit of a single lane (pp. 12-15).
The City has re-evaluated the data and results from the 2008 traffic study on an ongoing
basis to arrive at the desired conclusion that travel lane elimination is acceptable. This has
involved changing assumptions and methods, including the use of an unvalidated method
that assumes all of Carlsbad's roads can handle ridiculously high volumes of traffic (1,800
vehicles per lane per hour)-a method which is used as part of the City's annual Traffic
Monitoring Program that apparently has influenced many other important decisions (pp.
12-15).
To help justify to the City Council an additional $112,000 request for further traffic calming
study and design, City staff claimed that $25,000 had been spent for the outside traffic
consultant to re-evaluate the data based on methods that other agencies use, and that
their conclusion was that a road diet was feasible. However, the re-evaluation was actually
a quick calculation done internally at the City using Carlsbad methods (pp. 12-15).
The City's General Plan defines La Costa Avenue as a "Secondary Arterial" with four
travel lanes, intended to handle volumes of 10,000-20,000 daily trips, which is inconsistent
with travel lane elimination (pp. 15-16).
Traffic volume is already at about 18,000 daily trips for the most relevant area of the road
being reduced to one lane, and it is projected to exceed 20,000 in the next few years,
which is already at the maximum capacity of the current four-travel lane "secondary
arterial" designation in the General Plan and pushes limits of road diets (p. 16).
La Costa Avenue is not eligible for the City's conventional traffic calming program,
because it is an arterial route, but that makes it even more critical that the relevant
procedures are followed, including scientifically sound methods to assess the
performance of any interim striping plan (p. 16-17).
Although the striping plan is being presented as "interim," a thorough environmental
review, including a traffic impact analysis, is the right thing to do prior to any travel lane
elimination, and it is likely required by CEQA law, leaving the City open to possible
litigation (pp. 17-20):
o Restriping plans are exempt from CEQA environmental review only if they are
intended to reduce congestion.
o Expert opinions and other data indicating potential congestion create a "fair
argument" that a CEQA environmental review is required.
o The existence of "probable future projects," including the La Costa Avenue traffic
calming project, as well as La Costa Town Square, further support the need for
environmental review of the interim partial road diet.
The City of Oceanside tried a road diet on Vista Way, which shares characteristics with La
Costa Avenue, with arguably disappointing results (p. 21).
Respectfully yours,
Steven P. Linke, Ph.D.
7513QuintaSt
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Linke Correspondence
Appendix
Accident rate has not increased over last 25 years and is significantly below state
averages
The City has a database of reported collisions in the area of interest. The following table is based on data from:
(1) An Agenda Bill (#9475) from a June 14,1988 City Council meeting, (2) the September 2008 KOA Phase I
report (pages 45-46), and (3) a La Costa Avenue Collision Summary dated 4/8/2011.
Year
l
I 1986
| 1987
| 2003
i 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number
of
reported
collisions
11
11
~6
***6
t+*7
7
11
11
4
7
Source
1
1
2
2
2,3
3
3
3
3
3
• The number of reported collisions has remained relatively stable (averaging about 8 per year) over the
last 25 years, despite traffic volume increases.
• Consistently, these rates are significantly below statewide averages for similar roadways.
• The collisions are spread over the entire area of La Costa Avenue.
We should strive to produce safer conditions for the residents who live along the road, as every accident creates
concern. However, the data indicate that the situation is not necessarily severe or worsening. Wherever there are
cars, there will be accidents-including serious ones. It is impossible to prevent all accidents.
Speed surveys suggest that speed limit is largely being observed
• A speed survey conducted on 3/15/2011 resulted in 85th percentile speeds of 45-47 MPH, with none of
the surveyed cars exceeding 52 MPH.
• An April 2007 report from the City's Traffic Engineering department to the City Council acknowledged that
historical traffic citation and speed surveys do not show speed increases over time.
• A Speed Sentry survey conducted in July of 2006 suggests that only -24 of ~9,000 cars per day were
traveling at 60+ MPH.
Simply lowering the speed limit on La Costa Avenue may seem like a quick and easy fix to some. Ironically,
though, state policy prevents the City from doing this unless traffic slows down first. The California Department of
Linke Correspondence
Transportation (Caltrans) has a policy (Policy Directive 09-04) that requires "rational and defensible"
determination of speed limits to produce realistic speed zoning. The policy is based on extensive scientific
studies, and the goal is to prevent governments from setting arbitrarily low speed limits for the purposes of
generating revenue from speed traps, thereby losing the respect of the public.
The mandated method is to conduct a speed survey on the roadway, and then set the speed limit at the nearest
5 MPH increment from the 85th percentile (the speed at which 85% of the surveyed cars were traveling slower).
Studies have shown that this is a "reasonable and prudent" maximum speed given the knowledge of the local
drivers. For example, if the 85th percentile speed of the surveyed cars was between 43 and 47 MPH, then the
speed limit would be sat at 45 MPH, or, if the 85th percentile speed was between 48 and 52 MPH, then the speed
limit would be set at 50 MPH. There is an exception mechanism that allows the speed limit to be reduced 5 MPH
below "the mandated level when there are special "conditions not readily apparent" to drivers. However, the
exceptions are apparently very difficult to justify and may not hold up in court.
Past speed surveys conducted on La Costa Avenue in the proposed project area (e.g., one conducted on
12/2/2004) have resulted in an 85th percentile speed of 48 MPH, which meant that the 45 MPH speed limit was
unenforceable by radar or laser. However, in February of 2011, the City installed signs warning drivers of the
presence of residential driveways, and they installed a series of digital signs that tell drivers how fast they are
going. A new speed survey conducted on 3/15/2011 resulted in 85th percentile speeds of 45-47 MPH, with none
of the 400 surveyed cars exceeding 52 MPH. Not only did this lead to a re-certification of the 45 MPH speed limit
on 4/25/2011, but it also suggests, perhaps contrary to some perceptions, that speeding is not a major issue on
the roadway. The City's installation of the signage appears to be having a positive effect.
This does not mean that there are not a few drivers who greatly violate the speed limit, particularly at certain
times of day. A Speed Sentry survey done at Nueva Castilla Way over a four-day period in July of 2006 identified
-24 cars per day traveling at 60+ MPH. However, traffic volume at that location during that time period was
-18,000 cars (~9,000 in each direction), and it is questionable whether eliminating lanes or other traffic calming
measures are going to reign in the tiny fraction of extremely imprudent drivers.
Public input on travel lane elimination plans has been discouraged
At their March 22, 2011 meeting, the City Council authorized the expenditure of $112,000 on a public outreach
campaign and traffic calming design project. At that meeting, City traffic engineering staff and a traffic calming
consultant stated that a survey and public meetings would be used to collect opinions on the proposed changes
to "evolve an eventual community-preferred plan." The staff report submitted to the City Council in advance of the
meeting stated: "The proposed work program allows residents to participate in the development of [the] interim
striping plan." And, in direct response to a question from Councilman Blackburn about the proposed interim road
diet, the following statement was made: "I don't think any community wants to be told what to do, and they don't
want staff coming in with a decision this important-and neighboring communities that could be impacted-without
a thorough vetting of the issues." This was followed by an explanation that staff would only come back to the
Council with the road diet plan after assessing public opinion at the April 28th public workshop.
Despite these promises, a letter and opinion survey sent to La Costa Avenue area residents on traffic calming did
not directly address the elimination of travel lanes as part of the interim striping plan or contain questions about
it. The letter and opinion survey first appeared on the City's web site on April 4, 2011.1 asked City staff, before
these documents were mailed whether the road diet could be explained better in the cover letter, and whether
opinions on the road diet could be solicited in the survey. However, staff relayed to me that they and the
5 Linke Correspondence
consultants hired to do the public outreach concluded this was not a good idea based on where things already
stood.
Also, public discussion has not been allowed at the public workshops, and, when vocal attendees have raised
the issue of the interim striping plan (road diet), they have been quickly silenced. Despite the fact that there was
a scheduled hearing before the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) on the interim striping plan at the time of the
first workshop, City staff did not inform the attendees until interrupted with that information by a member of the
TSC who was later admonished. City staff justify this by claiming that discussions about the short-term
elimination of travel lanes would "interfere with the development of a long-term traffic calming vision".
In addition to avoiding the controversial area of the road diet, the survey also failed to ask for opinions on the
possible negative impacts of traffic calming, such as inconvenience, congestion, longer commute times, cost,
etc. Nor did the survey even ask for opinions on the more aggressive, but preferred, traffic calming measures,
such as roundabouts, bulb-outs, etc. Some parts of the survey were also ambiguous such that respondents may
not have known how to answer, or their answers may have been uninterpretable. For example, people were
asked to express their level of concern (not, minor, somewhat, or very) about such things as traffic speed,
parking, and pedestrian/bicyclist safety. Does being "very concerned" about speed in relation to traffic calming
mean that the respondent is concerned that speeds are currently too high, or that speeds might get too low after
traffic calming? Does being concerned about parking mean that the respondent is concerned that parking should
be retained or that parking should be eliminated. And, would anybody say that they are "not concerned" about
the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists?
mm.+m.W.,:.™.™^,™™*,^*™™,!
1. Pl«a»« indicate your level of concern for each of th* following traffic n»u*» on La Co-sU Av«nu»,
Cheek the appropriate number to indicate your l*v«l of concern: 3-v«ry concerned, 2asomewnat
concerned, 1 "minor concern.D^not concerned
very cy.carc-»tf soinew^al cy-csrnea rvor cancan •<.•! tc
r'atfi: so«eds ^ ^
•'Jed*slnan safety
dicycle sa'ety , v
T'atf* ''Ors*
Availability gf
< atoii of
O'het
Interestingly, at the May 2, 2011 Traffic Safety Commission meeting, City staff interpreted high percentages of
concern about pedestrian and bicycling safety (49%-57%) in support of a desire for a road diet and traffic
calming. However, they dismissed low levels of concern about on-street parking (8%-10%) as not being relevant,
as that would argue against traffic calming.
Finally, the survey was only sent to residents in neighborhoods directly adjacent to La Costa Avenue, not those
who live in other neighborhoods but use La Costa Avenue to commute. City staff claimed that they would
represent these other people be proxy. However, I have seen little evidence of that.
6 Linke Correspondence
Opinion survey indicates public opposition to travel lane elimination
Although the public opinion survey described in the previous section did not directly address the issue of travel
lane elimination, many people used the comment box to write in statements. All of the results and comments are
available online:
• 939 surveys were submitted
• 54% of submitted surveys (n=510) contained write-in comments
• 36% of the comments (n=185) addressed travel lane numbers
o 90% were opposed to elimination of travel lanes
• n=86 leave as-is; n=80 explicitly opposed
• Some requested that more lanes be added
o 10% favored elimination of travel lanes (n=19)
Sample comments from the first three pages:
• "Very opposed to narrowing LCA to one lane."
• "Keep LCA 2 lanes and 45 mph"
• "Add more lanes or leave it alone."
• "I do not like the idea of reducing LCA to 1 lane but am open to most other concepts."
• "I think that reducing to 1 lane traffic in each direction is a poor approach that will result in more traffic
congestion and delays."
• "...keep 2 lanes in both directions if you change to 1 lane it will increase traffic making it harder to pull out
of side streets or out of driveways on La Costa Ave..."
• "Bad idea to make this a one lane route that will just destroy traffic on Levante and RSF."
• "I heard about the plans to change LCA to one lane - absurd! It has and always been a main
thoroughfare.
Travel lane elimination does not directly address liability issues
In the accident lawsuit that is creating the immediate liability concern and prompting the interim partial road diet
(elimination of a westbound travel lane), the plaintiffs contended that there should be 440 feet of "sight distance."
that parking should be prohibited, and that the left turn lane should be converted into a median to prevent
dangerous left turns. However, the City's plan does not meet the sight distance requirement at the accident site,
and it does not restrict parking or left turns.
The 12/31/2008 accident involved a westbound motorcycle striking the driver's side of a large sport utility vehicle
that was attempting to make a left turn out of a residential driveway (front first) in an area of La Costa Avenue with
a particularly severe blind curve.
• The following picture is an overhead schematic of the accident. The larger red rectangle represents the
SUV pulling out of the driveway, and the smaller yellow rectangle represents the motorcycle (direction of
travel is indicated by arrows):
Linke Correspondence
After extensively reviewing court papers, my interpretation is that the plaintiffs' experts alleged that a "dangerous
condition" exists on La Costa Avenue based primarily on inadequate sight distance (the length of road necessary
for a driver to stop when an obstacle is first viewed). More specifically, the curves and grade changes on the road
reduce the visibility between vehicles on the road and those entering or exiting driveways or intersections, such
that there is not enough stopping distance to avoid a collision, given the average speeds.
There are two methods to improve the sight distance:
1. Increase visibility (e.g., by allowing residents to pull further out of their driveway before entering a travel
lane). This directly increases the sight distance.
2. Reduce speeds. This decreases the sight distance necessary to allow the vehicles to stop to avoid the
collision.
The plaintiffs put a great deal of emphasis on two specific issues on La Costa Avenue, the presence of a parking
lane on the north side of the road, which causes sight obstructions in the form of parked cars, and the 1988
installation of the shared left turn lane in the middle that invites dangerous left turns, even though sight distances
were known to be insufficient. Here are a couple of quotes amongst many from the lawsuit:
• "...City has failed to remove all parking on north side of La Costa Avenue, despite knowledge that parking
further impairs sight distance...."
• "...[Djrivers are led to believe there is adequate time to make a left turn by virtue of the lack of a median
precluding them from doing so and the existence of a two-way center left turn lane inviting them to do
so..."
The partial road diet converts the 11-foot wide outside westbound travel lane into a bike lane. This provides 11
extra feet (without view obstruction) for cars to pull out of the driveways on the north side of the street before they
enter a travel lane. However, it leaves the parking and center left turn lanes as-is:
COPY Linke Correspondence
Existing road
Hybrid plan
(partial road diet)
9 ft to traffic
{Oft ur.obit!iiauU»
:^g^Mj^Jtt^j|yu*ȣa||w^
9
11'
ir
20 ft to traffic
1 ft unobstructed)
Left turns allowedLeft turns allowed 11'
ir
ii'
Ironically, this elimination of the westbound travel lane, as proposed by City staff to the Traffic Safety
Commission (TSC) on 6/6/2011, does not address the main allegations in the liability lawsuit, even though that is
the main reason to implement the plan. The plan does not eliminate the parking lane or the center turn lane to
eliminate dangerous left turns. And, while City staff claimed that only 360-365 feet of sight distance would be
adequate (as opposed to the 440 feet claimed by the plaintiffs), their plan only achieves 188-240 feet of sight
distance at the accident site with a car parked in the parking lane. For example, see the following slide presented
to the TSC showing the inadequate 240-foot sight distance:
Driver pulls out to edge of proposed bike lane
Vehicle parked 55 feet from driveway
Linke Correspondence
COPY
It is also important to point out that, in the City's response to the lawsuit, they had an expert accident
reconstructionist who claimed that the evidence suggested that driver error was responsible for the accident, as
opposed to a dangerous condition. The City was sufficiently concerned about the case against them, so they
settled the lawsuit for $2.9 million (the City paid $500,000, and the City's insurance carrier paid the remainder),
but it is unknown what would have happened had the case gone to trial.
Alternative plans could address issues as well or better than City plan without
elimination of travel lanes
Here are two alternatives to the road diet plans that achieve similar performance without eliminating travel
lanes. They could allow retaining the current traffic capacity without significant roadway changes, causing less
congestion and eliminating queuing of cars at restriction points:
Painted median/
no parking
alternative
Narrowed/shifted median
alternative
9 ft to traffic
ft ui
Left turn restriction
17 ft to traffic
(9 fl. i.,rwb,Uti.;i. :<)
J Left turn restriction
11'
Painted median/no parking alternative
At the 2/8/2011 City Council meeting, City staff proposed restricting left turns by converting the center turn lane to
a painted median and restricting on-street parking (see the figure on the left, above). I think these measures,
which were universally supported by the La Costa Avenue Safety Group members who attended the meeting,
would greatly reduce the likelihood of another incident like the motorcycle accident by increasing visibility due to
the lack of parked cars, as well as prevent dangerous left turns. It would create an additional 9 feet of
unobstructed view for driveway users (not significantly different than the 11 feet of the City's partial road diet
plan). The Council authorized staff to draw up plans for the painted median but requested that they gather more
information prior to elimination of parking. Instead, staff simply replaced this plan with a road diet at the
3/22/2011 City Council meeting.
Narrowed/shifted median alternative
Another alternative (see figure on right, above) is a modification to the painted median plan in which the median
is narrowed to about three feet adjacent to the two eastbound traffic lanes. Those lanes would essentially remain
as they are, and the two westbound traffic lanes would shift toward them with the narrowed painted median
between them. Similar to the painted full-width median alternative, it would create an additional 9 feet of
10 Linke Correspondence
unobstructed view. However, it has the advantage of creating a contiguous bike lane. More importantly, the
unobstructed view can be increased to up to 17 feet by restricting parking in areas with poor sight distances (e.g.,
curves and steep grades), while allowing parking in areas of sufficient sight distance.
It has been acknowledged by City staff that the road diet will do little to decrease speeds, and it still allows the
arguably dangerous left turns that seem to be at the root of many of the accidents, including the motorcycle
incident. In contrast, the shifted narrowed median approach would introduce a traffic calming (speed reducing)
effect due to lane shifting at intersections where turn lanes would be striped. Also, mid-block left turns would be
prohibited, and, unlike the full-width painted median plan, violations would be less likely with the narrowed
median.
The main disadvantage of the painted median approaches is that U-turns would be required at the next
intersection when residents want to access their driveways while going eastbound. However, the U-turn
inconvenience should be tolerable given the improved safety for the same residents, and it should be weighed
against the potential adverse effects of a full road diet on the -18,000+ average daily trips by other drivers.
The City has made the following arguments against this alternative:
• Sight distance improvement is not as substantial with the narrowed median alternative vs. the road diet.
o Counter-argument: The difference in providing driveway users with a 9-foot unobstructed lane
(narrowed median alternative) vs. an 11-foot unobstructed lane (road diet) is largely
inconsequential for sight distance improvement in areas with curves. Only speed reduction likely
will improve the situation in areas with steep grades, and the narrowed median approach is just as
likely, if not more likely, to reduce speeds.
• The restriping would be more expensive and more difficult to reverse, if necessary.
o Counter-argument: While more expensive than a pure road diet (conversion of an entire travel
lane to a bike lane), the retention of traffic capacity is worth the small incremental cost.
• A three-foot median might not be wide enough, and drivers may not stay within the lines.
o Counter-argument: Based on analysis of City documents, prior to 1988, La Costa Avenue had
only a double-yellow line (one foot in total width) in the middle between El Cam/no Real and Calle
Madero. This is similar to many two-lane highways that have only a double-yellow line. Thus, the
double double-yellow lines (at three feet of width) should provide ample safety. To help guide
traffic, raised reflective pavement markings and/or traffic cylinders could be added, with a
particular concentration in curves and areas where the westbound lanes shift. Eventually, a raised
median could be installed.
• Residents with driveways along the road will ignore the left turn restriction and violate it, including running
over traffic cylinders, necessitating replacement.
o Counter-argument: A similar argument can be made about the road diet. There have been
complaints about imprudent drivers willing to drive into the turn lane area on La Costa Avenue.
Thus, it is not unlikely that, with only a single travel lane, imprudent drivers stuck behind a
slow-moving vehicle will dangerously try to pass them in the left turn or bike lane. It is not possible
to design a road that prevents imprudent drivers from making stupid moves.
A variation on these alternatives is to only implement the left turn restriction in areas with poor sight
distance. The left turn lane could be retained in all other areas.
2008 traffic calming study recommended against travel lane elimination
In response to safety concerns expressed by the La Costa Avenue Safety Group in April 2007, the City Council
authorized $100.000 in gas tax funds to be used to determine the feasibility of a road diet. The consulting firm
KOA Corporation submitted a Phase I study report to the City dated September 2008. It concluded: "...[l]t is not
recommended to implement a road diet for [La Costa Avenue]."
11 Linke Correspondence
Projected congestion exceeds limits in Carlsbad's Growth Management Program
Congestion is typically measured by "level of service" (LOS), which is rated on a grade scale from A (free flowing)
to F (highly congested). Carlsbad's Growth Management Program sets a minimum of grade "C" during off-peak
hours and grade "D" during peak hours. The KOA Phase I report showed that, using San Diego Traf fie Engineers'
Council/Institute of Transportation Engineers (SANTEC/ITE) method on mid-block road segments, the entire
western portion with residential driveways (from Romeria west) is projected to degrade from "C" to "F" with the
road diet, and the entire length of the road diet will degrade to "F" in the future with La Costa Town Square and
other development. KOA's Phase I report also uses other traffic projection methods, including the Florida method
for road segments and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method on intersections. These methods projected
somewhat lower negative impacts, but they still indicated failure of individual road segments and intersections.
Thus, KOA concluded that the road diet is not recommended due to the projected congestion.
Table 7-1.1
Summary of Roadway Svgment Condition* SANTEC" Method
Ftoidway Segment
t; Currinr. 3eS to flopping Center Dr*)
.•rapping C^-te C"*y to 5.30' «,'o 5hccprg Center Cn*y
35C' A.'O 'toe* a Cjilf'a 'toy to Mvt'va CasM-a A'ay
V;.ev i C ss'illa Way to Viejo CasWa 'A'ay
Without
V.<C
0639
0 661
C600
C593 1
'. op CisMa Way to Caite MaJerq c 521
Cs'le Madeto tc< Gibraltar 3!
G&'atarSI s> Rome^a Si
i^ometsa Ss to Qumta 3!
"c?
C631
QurtaSl TaC-KteflcaS!! C598
C,)denciaSI toColofraC.rdq 05^9
Cuicnia Circ1* to EV«a S!| C 575
Eslera SI ;o Oehesa Cour
Dohesa Court to Levante Ss
L,i!'<,i'!te Si to Ri"ctic Santa Fc »a
..OW3
C-592
Proj«t W«hPro)Kt"
LOS VJC [ IDS
C r 0639
C lOJg^^
. - ?.»U ...?....
C , 1 187 f
1041
:; 1 317
C C946
C C S97
C C 824
C C 863
C i 0689
L_C519.1 C. .1..0519J
F
__ r
E
E
0
.P
E
\vc
, 3.POO .
•3.COO
0603
•3593
_J)S21
0509
u2Ji!L
3315
•D2«9
0238
02%
C i 5 COG
Significant?
to
No
YH»
Yi*s
Yes
'<SJ_
YDS
Mo
Nn
Hen
Without P/ojtet ! WiUiF
vtc """Tos I v«
"a/'tp"'o ; e?.-9
a.807 I D , :so7
-;i.?32 i D i 1465
^IZiLJ. ..P... ..LlMIL
n.ess ! c ^ i ?ra-•• t36?3 C ' 1241
3 •*&
3.7»
3.730....... -.„
t .-12
Mo _a f-yS^
Yes i 3?a
No i'i33
lonYuc
reject ^"U^.^1
, D j 3 iXQ ]_ '» !
D 3 COO i V>
i— - -
r - — r
0 i 1.<54 F
D { IC^T F
0 I H52
0 _i_1j48_
D "j~1064
c »,n
F
-
f
^ F .
F
,_,
-~'"? * -'"* •
_JL7_2L.j <£L^
3,635 ; Y«s
3415^. Ygg ^
3385 : Yes
•D.365 ! Yes :
3335_ t J_es. j
0349 , YBS •i •<" - -• - • 4
0 14' ^_ Yes
1 1 f r,-! . .:
Troubling "re-evaluations" of the 2008 traffic calming study
Perhaps you are familiar with the phrase (popularized by Mark Twain): "There are three kinds of lies: lies,
damned lies, and statistics"? An appropriate modification for the current situation might be, "lies, damned lies,
and traffic impact studies." Looking at the manipulations applied over time to KOA's 2008 traffic calming study
data, it seems that any desired conclusion/recommendation can be drawn, depending on preconceived notions
and how one chooses the underlying assumptions, data constraints, and methods used for analysis. If low or
failing grades are being earned or projected, it can be a simple matter to just try a different method, or even lower
the performance necessary to get a better grade.
Inconsistent June 2008 and September 2008 versions of traffic study
As described above, there are several different methods to predict congestion. KOA used the SANTEC/ITE and
Florida methods for individual road segment analysis (between intersections), both of which projected
congestion failures in certain segments (e.g., LOS "E" or "F"). They also used the HCM method for individual
intersection analysis, which projected congestion failures at certain intersections. In addition, they used
computer software-based simulation (VISSIM) to estimate trip time through the middle portion of the road. Based
on the simulation-based trip time analysis, they estimated an LOS of "B" for the road diet area as a whole.
12 Linke Correspondence
However, they provided no details on the parameters, assumptions, etc. that were used in the simulations, and
individual areas were not assessed.
In a June 2008 version of their $100,000 traffic calming study, KOA focused on the poorly characterized trip time
simulation method, which produced the lowest predicted congestion, concluding ",..[l]t is recommended that a
road diet concept be implemented along La Costa Avenue..." Former City staff were apparently dissatisfied with
this recommendation, so they exerted influence over KOA to change it. Despite the fact that the September 2008
version of KOA's study contained only minimal changes to the overall analysis, KOA re-focused on the several
other methods that predicted unacceptable congestion, concluding: "...[l]t is not recommended to implement a
road diet for [La Costa Avenue]."
March 2011 data re-evaluation for City Council by City staff
The road diet issue re-surfaced in 2011 in the context of the motorcycle accident liability settlement and further
complaints from residents. In February-March 2011, City staff conducted their own "quick" re-evaluation of the
previous KOA analysis and data. Although no official report was produced, this is my understanding of their
opinion, analysis, and conclusions:
• Intersections with traffic signals did not fail in the KOA analysis
• Although some intersections without traffic signals failed in the KOA analysis, the assumed performance
of traffic calming measures (e.g., roundabouts) was underestimated, and these intersection would not fail
with different assumptions
• Although many road segments failed in the KOA analyses, they would not fail under a "Carlsbad method"
in which a much higher "vehicle per lane per hour" capacity is assumed
• With these new assumptions, a road diet is feasible
On March 22, 2011, City staff presented their "re-evaluation" information to the City Council in support of staff's
recommendation to initiate the road diet and authorize another $112,000 in gas tax funds to plan future traffic
calming and conduct public outreach through KOA. Both recommendations were adopted. However, there are
multiple areas of concern.
One area of great concern is the "Carlsbad method" for road segment analysis. The SANTEC/ITE, Florida, and
HCM methods used by KOA have undergone years of development and validation. The estimated LOS "E"
capacity under these methods for a road with the characteristics of La Costa Avenue ranges from about 750 to
840 vehicles per lane per hour (vplph) in the peak (rush) hour. In contrast, the Carlsbad method assumes 1,800
vplph-more than twice that of the validated methods. And, while the validated methods logically assign different
capacities based on road geometry, signal spacing, the presence or absence of driveways, parking, and
pedestrian traffic, etc., the Carlsbad method uses its 1,800 vplph capacity for every traffic lane in Carlsbad.
The LOS's projected for some of the road segments in the partial road diet area on La Costa Avenue go from "A"
(under the Carlsbad method) to "E" (under the validated methods), or from "B" to "F" (see table below). In fact,
using the Carlsbad method, it is unlikely that any road could ever reach failure (grade "E" or "F") under real-world
circumstances no matter the actual congestion level. When I have inquired of City staff, the only "validation" I
have received from them is that the method has been used for many years as part of Carlsbad's Traffic
Monitoring Program, and that a lot of official decisions have been made in Carlsbad based upon it. I know the La
Costa Town Square traffic impact study used the "Carlsbad method" as one of its traffic congestion projection
measures. I would suggest that those decisions were based, at least in part, on misleading information, and that
it is not a justification to continue using the method, including for the La Costa Avenue traffic calming projects.
For additional details on the Carlsbad method, see below.
13 Linke Correspondence
Vehicles per lane per hour for LOS "E"
Road segment
350' w/o Nueva Castilla Way to Nueva Castilla Way
Nueva Castilla Way to Viejo Castilla Way
Viejo Castilla Way to Catfe Madero
Calle Madero to Gibraltar Street
Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street
Westbound
AM peak
hour cars
930
736
800
740
679
Carlsbad
1800
LOS
8
A
B
A
A
HCM
(Class HJ
340
LOS
F
D
U
D
D
HCM
(Class 111)
800
LOS
F
D
E
D
0
Florida
780
LOS
F
E
F
E
D
SANTEC
750
LOS
F
E
F
E
D
Another area of great concern is the staff report that was presented to the City Council to support the
recommendations for a road diet and the KOA contract extension. In response to an inquiry from a Council
member on how the previous $100,000 had been spent, staff claimed that $75,000 had been used for the original
study, but that the last $25,000 had been spent more recently for KOA to "...[re-evaluate] the ability to implement
a road diet based on what other agencies have been able to accomplish, not the current Carlsbad standards,"
because KOA had been directed by Carlsbad staff to "limit the assumptions." The report further stated that staff
"...has concluded that La Costa Avenue can be reduced to one lane in each direction of travel without resulting in
traffic being diverted to adjacent residential streets."
Again, the willingness to reverse a recommendation to get a desired result based upon a manipulation of the
assumptions is a bit disturbing. More importantly, the staff report is inconsistent with the fact that there had only
been a quick re-evaluation by staff, and that only existing and Carlsbad methods had been considered. Staff now
claims that the $25,000 was carried over for KOA, in addition to the $112,000, for the expanded project, even
though there is no mention of the $25,000 in the Council's resolution to continue the KOA contract with the new
funding. This all seems a bit misleading.
June 2011 data re-evaluation for Traffic Safety Commission and City Council by KOA
Then, in May-June of 2011, KOA apparently did some additional re-evaluation of their original data at the
direction of City staff, using the "Carlsbad method" for at least part of the analysis, although data analysis was
ongoing. This "preliminary" data was presented to the Traffic Safety Commission on June 6, 2011 to help
persuade them to recommend a partial road diet to the City Council, which they did. The data suggested that the
partial road diet plan will basically cause no congestion whatsoever, in contrast to the relatively severe
congestion of the full road diet projected in the 2008 study. So, we went from "recommended" (June 2008), to
"not recommended" (September 2008), then back to "recommended" (March 2011), and then to "ongoing study"
(June 2011)-apparently based on different sets of methods, assumptions, and goals designated by the City
and/or KOA.
Traffic impact study methods, including the unvalidated Carlsbad method
The road segment methods really boil down to the number of vehicles per lane per hour (vplph) that can be
handled during a peak hour of traffic, and the number that represents the transition from LOS "E" to LOS "F" is
typically stated. The SANTEC/ITE method has been a standard in San Diego County and was used by KOA in
their 2008 study. In fact, one of the authors of the SANTEC method is an executive at KOA. That method
estimates the capacity on secondary arterial roads like La Costa Avenue at 7,500 vehicles per lane per day with
14 Linke Correspondence
an estimated peak-hour capacity of 750 vplph (10% of the daily traffic). Another standard, validated method is the
Florida method, which was also used by KOA in their 2008 study. It estimates the capacity of a road like La Costa
Avenue at 780 vplph. Another standard, validated method is the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method.
Depending on how specific characteristics of La Costa Avenue are assessed (Class II or Class III), it estimates
capacity at 800-840 vplph.
To achieve the theoretical 1,800 vplph capacity used in the "Carlsbad method," one car would have to cross the
measurement point every two seconds for the entire hour, which means the number actually represents virtual
"saturation" of the road. That theoretical situation cannot be achieved in real life due to the fact that actual roads
have cars turning in and out of intersections, driveways, and parking, as well as pedestrians, etc. that create
congestion. Thus, using the 1,800 vplph capacity, it is likely not possible for any roadway segment to ever get an
"F", or probably even an "E" in real life, guaranteeing a good grade regardless of the actual congestion level.
Carlsbad's annual Traffic Monitoring Program
Interestingly, the Carlsbad road segment method has been used since 1989 as part of Carlsbad's Traffic
Monitoring Program, and many important decisions apparently have been made based, at least in part, on the
approach, including La Costa Town Square. So, it comes as no surprise that the City can claim LOS "A" for
almost every road in town as part of that program, no matter how much congestion there is (e.g., see the 2010
report-in particular Table 2-1). The bar is so low, it is practically lying on the ground.
Travel lane elimination is inconsistent with Carlsbad's General Plan
The Circulation Element of Carlsbad's General Plan defines La Costa Avenue as a "Secondary Arterial," and it
defines secondary arterials as having "two traffic lanes in each direction with a painted median" intended to
handle a traffic volume of "10,000 to 20,000 daily trips."
City staff has discussed modifying the City's General Plan to account for their changes to La Costa Avenue, such
as lowering the street classification/definitions and/or modifying minimum service standards. This seems a bit
hypocritical in the context of the the La Costa Town Square project, though. There is a group of people who live
in the vicinity of the proposed project and are opposed to it. They formed an organization called North County
Advocates, and they have filed a lawsuit against the City. The City has justified the approval of that project by
citing the fact that a similar project had been in a Master Plan since 1972, and that everybody who moved into
houses in the vicinity since that time should have expected it. They have also claimed that City officials have to
look beyond the narrow interests of residents in the direct vicinity of the project and, instead, account for the
interests of all residents/taxpayers in the City.
In a similar vein, La Costa Avenue has been an arterial route for decades, and it has been listed in the General
Plan as such. Therefore, anybody who moved to the area should have been aware of this status. And many who
do not live directly on the road likely chose to live there, in part, because La Costa Avenue provides rapid access
to I-5-, El Camino Real, and Rancho Santa Fe Road, as expected from its classification in the General Plan. In
the case of proposed changes to major roadways, I think it is the duty of City officials to widen their view to other
city residents who might be affected.
La Costa Town Square and several other residential developments, such as La Costa Oaks, La Costa Valley,
San Elijo Hills, and yet another multi-unit complex currently under construction on the south side of La Costa
Avenue are located in areas that make the road a main route to access El Camino Real and I-5 from the
east. Ironically, approval of the La Costa Town Square project relied, in part, on a traffic impact study conducted
as part of a CEQA environmental review, in which it was assumed that La Costa Avenue would have its current
15 Linke Correspondence
number of travel lanes. In addition, this traffic impact analysis used the "Carlsbad method" for mid-block
congestion projection, which I view as unvalidated (see above).
High current and projected traffic volumes already push secondary arterial limits
The western segment in question currently has a volume of approximately 18,000 daily trips, and La Costa Town
Square is expected to increase that by more the 2,500, creating traffic volumes over 20,500 (not to mention other
potential development). Meanwhile, the road diet would effectively require a change in the General Plan
classification of La Costa Avenue from a Secondary Arterial (10,000-20,000 daily trips) to a lower volume
classification.
Even proponents acknowledge that traffic volumes at La Costa Avenue's magnitude push the
limits of road diets.
There is a fair amount of literature describing "road diets" where four traffic lanes are reduced to two traffic lanes
plus a shared center left-turn lane. Assuming this literature is accurate, it seems that roadways that carry 16,000
or less average daily trips typically have no problems after a road diet. However, the evidence seems a bit less
clear for roadways that carry 16,000 to 20,000 average daily trips, and even proponents acknowledge that
25,000 is pushing the absolute limit. I think this raises questions about La Costa Avenue given the current and
projected volumes, and I think there is a large reliance on people becoming frustrated with congestion and
changing their commuting times of day and/or switching to alternate routes like Calle Barcelona or Olivenhain
Road/Leucadia Boulevard.
Traffic calming program procedures and scientific methods
Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program
Carlsbad has a Residential Traffic Management Program (TMP) that contains policies and procedures to
conduct the types of "traffic calming" changes being proposed. However, La Costa Avenue (LCA) is not eligible,
because it is a secondary arterial roadway meant to carry high volumes of traffic-not a residential street. The
TMP requires that the street has a posted speed limit of 30 MPH or less (LCA is 45 MPH), an 85th percentile
speed greater than 5 MPH over the posted speed limit (LCA's does not exceed the posted speed limit), no more
than two travel lanes (LCA has four), and a curb-to-curb width of 40 feet or less (LCA is 64 feet).
Even if it was deemed acceptable to make an exception for La Costa Avenue to be eligible for traffic calming, the
TMP has a very specific sequence of events that is not being followed. This includes a requirement that a petition
requesting traffic calming be signed by 50%+1 of the residents in the project area of influence, and that 67% of
survey respondents approve the project both at the "conceptual plan" stage prior to a trial period, as well as after
the trial period. The TMP also has an investigative phase, which includes traffic volume counts, parking
assessment, collision analysis, and speed surveys, among other items. Ironically, a highly mutated and
abbreviated version of this procedure is planned (and now underway) for the La Costa Avenue traffic calming
project with the likely excuse that it would be unwieldy due to the size of the project area of influence.
Scientific methods to ensure feasibility
Regardless of which interim plan is implemented, and regardless of whether a traffic impact study is conducted
prior to its implementation, a scientific approach should be used to study the results. The interim plan should
have pre-defined performance metrics and a time limit, and, if certain performance goals are not met, a reversion
to the old striping plan or conversion to a new plan should be triggered automatically. I think it would be
16 Linke Correspondence
appropriate to follow the relevant procedures in the City's Residential Traffic Management Program (IMP) in this
regard. If an EIR is conducted, this approach should be incorporated.
It should be noted that the IMP requires a posted speed limit of 30 MPH or less (LCA is 45 MPH), an 85th
percentile speed greater than 5 MPH over the posted speed limit (LCA's does not exceed the posted speed limit),
no more than two travel lanes (LCA has four), and a curb-to-curb width of 40 feet or less (LCA is 64 feet). Thus,
it could be argued that La Costa Avenue should not even be considered for a road diet or other traffic calming
under the City's current policies, as it is a secondary arterial roadway meant to carry high volumes of traffic-not
a residential street. Notwithstanding that, certain procedures should be followed.
Metrics
The TMP has an investigative phase, which includes traffic volume counts, parking assessment, collision
analysis, and speed surveys, among other items. Here are some metrics that should be used for La Costa
Avenue:
• Transit time analysis (all the way from Rancho Santa Fe Road to El Camino Real)
• Traffic counts (mid-block and intersections) on La Costa Avenue, as well as neighboring roads, like
Levante Street and Calle Barcelona
• Queuing analysis at controlled intersections (number of cars that accumulate at lights and how fast they
make it through)
• Speed surveys
• Collision analysis after implementation, although the results may not be statistically relevant due to low
numbers
Methods
The above metrics should be measured under the following conditions:
• Repeat the measurements to achieve statistical relevance
• Both before and after implementation of the "interim" plan
• At off-peak hours, as well as AM and PM peak hours on the peak day (e.g., Friday)
Time limit and performance goals
The TMP defines a specific timeframe of 3-6 months to test "temporary measures," and it includes public
feedback on the changes. Public input should be solicited on satisfaction with the road diet, for example, through
a public survey advertised in the standard La Costa Avenue public outreach communications and/or the City
newsletter. In addition, a public meeting should be held. If pre-defined performance goals are not met, or the
public is not satisfied, another striping change should automatically be triggered at the end of the test period
(e.g., 6 months).
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) likely requires a thorough traffic
impact study
The City has vacillated back and forth several times on the need for CEQA review. In the February 8, 2011
painted median and traffic prohibition plan, they likely avoided the review requirement by retaining all four traffic
lanes. When they moved to the full road diet plan on 3/22/2011, they cited a CEQA exemption related to
"information gathering," which seemed very shaky. Then, at the April 28th, 2011 public workshop and May 2,
2011 Traffic Safety Commission meeting, they had decided that the full road diet would actually require CEQA
17 Linke Correspondence
review. Then, after changing to the partial road diet in late May/early June of 2011, they decided to go with an
exemption again, although they did not state which one(s), and they also stated that they were weighing the risks
of a liability vs. CEQA lawsuit.
Regardless of the requirements, conducting a thorough impact study is the right thing to do. Beyond that, my
interpretation of statutory and case law related to CEQA suggests that a lane elimination plan is a non-exempt
project requiring a minimum of an "Initial Study" under CEQA to determine whether the project has a "possible
significant effect" on traffic and air quality. The 2008 traffic calming study, which projects congestion levels that
are inconsistent with the City's Growth Management Program, suggests that there is at least a possible
significant effect on congestion. This may trigger the need for a more extensive Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) to satisfy CEQA requirements, including a thorough traffic impact study. There could also be significant
impacts on air quality, as carbon monoxide levels could rise, even with average intersection delays of just 10 to
30 seconds per vehicle. This is further bolstered by the requirement that the City's actions remain consistent with
the General Plan and Growth Management Program, as described above. It is certainly possible, if not probable,
that the City will use "creative" methods to circumvent these rules, but that could be challenged, depending on
the circumstances.
• "A project for restriping" is exempt from CEQA environmental review if it is intended to "relieve traffic
congestion..."
• Expert opinion: Potential to create congestion inconsistent with Growth Management Program (LOS "E"
or"F")
• When disagreement in expert opinion exists, review must be done
• Inconsistent with General Plan classification (4 lanes)
• A "fair argument" can be made that review is required
Public participation required by CEQA
• The City must consider views held by members of the public when considering the environmental impacts
of a project. I am expressing my views on the road diet here, and many others have included comments in
opposition on the public opinion survey and at the public workshops. Notes are being taken by City
employees and agents that reflect these comments.
• References:
o CEQA §15044: Any person or entity other than a Responsible Agency may submit comments to a
Lead Agency concerning any environmental effects of a project being considered by the Lead
Agency.
o CEQA §15064(c): In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the Lead Agency
shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected as expressed in the
whole record before the lead agency...
o Case law: Informed decision-making and public participation are fundamental purposes of the
CEQA process. See Citizens o/Goleta Valley v. Ed. o/Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553; Laurel
Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. ofCal. (1988) 47 Cal.Sd 376; No Oil, Inc. v. City of
Los Angeles (1974) 13 Ca1.3d 68.
A road diet is a good candidate for an EIR
• In response to safety concerns expressed by the La Costa Avenue Safety Group, the City authorized a
$100,000 study in April 2007 to determine the feasibility of a road diet. The consulting firm KOA
Corporation submitted a Phase I study report entitled "La Costa Avenue Road Diet Arterial Traffic
Calming Project" to the City dated September 2008. It projected congestion levels that reach Level of
18 Linke Correspondence
Service "F" at multiple locations using different study methods. There could also be significant impacts on
air quality, as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, etc. levels could rise, even with average delays of just 10
to 30 seconds per vehicle. Potential increased congestion and/or pollution is an indirect physical change
to the environment caused by the road diet, defining it as a "project" under CEQA.
• One of the exemptions under CEQA (§15282[j]) reads: "A project for restriping streets or highways to
relieve traffic congestion as set forth in Section 21080.19 of the Public Resources Code." So, rather than
a blanket exemption for road restriping projects, this exemption includes specific language limiting it to
cases involving relief of traffic congestion. This suggests that a restriping project, which, if anything, will
increase traffic congestion, should not be exempt from review requirements.
• References:
o Case law: A City decision to fund street improvements is a land use decision and a "project" under
CEQA, because it is an activity undertaken by a public agency that may cause a direct, or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment. See San Lorenzo Valley
Community Advocates/or Responsible Educ. v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified Sen. District (2006)
139Cal.App.4th 1356)1377.
o CEQA§15064(e): ,..[l]f a project would cause overcrowding of a public facility and the
overcrowding causes an adverse effect on people, the overcrowding would be regarded as a
significant effect.
o CEQA §152820): OTHER STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS.. .A project for restriping streets or
highways to relieve traffic congestion as set forth in Section 21080.19 of the Public Resources
Code.
Inconsistency with a General Plan makes it a better candidate for an EIR
• Decisions by a city affecting land use and development must be consistent with the city's general plan,
and inconsistencies with such a plan, including the circulation system element, make a project subject to
environmental review.
• The Circulation Element of Carlsbad's General Plan defines La Costa Avenue as a "Secondary Arterial,"
and it defines secondary arterials as having "two traffic lanes in each direction" intended to handle a traffic
volume of "10,000 to 20,000 daily trips." Thus, reduction from two to one travel lane is inconsistent with
the road classification of La Costa Avenue in the City's General Plan.
• Level of service (LOS) is rated on a grade scale from A to F, and Carlsbad's Growth Management
Program sets a minimum of grade "C" during off-peak hours and grade "D" during peak hours. The KOA
Corporation report showed that, using San Diego Traffic Engineers' Council (SANTEC) methodologies
(the standard in our area), the entire western segment with residential driveways (from Romeria west) is
projected to degrade from "C" to "F" with the road diet, and the entire length of the road diet will degrade
to "F" in the future with La Costa Town Square and other development. KOA also tried other traffic
projection methods, which suggest somewhat lower negative impacts, but they still concluded that the
road diet is not recommended due to the impacts on LOS.
• References:
o California Code §65300 et seq.; case law: To carry out its purposes, the Planning and Zoning Law
requires that any decision by a city affecting land use and development must be consistent with
the city's general plan. Friends a/Lagoon Valley v. City aA/acaville (2007) 154 Cal.AppAth 807,
815.
o CEQA Appendix G is a checklist with sample questions to determine whether an EIR should be
conducted. Question 16 reads as follows: "TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC...Would the
project...[c]onflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the
19 Linke Correspondence
circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?"
An existing expert opinion recommending against the road diet makes it an even better
candidate for an EIR
• If there is a "fair argument" that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR must
be prepared, even if there is other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect.
And, in marginal cases, if there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the
significance of an effect on the environment, an EIR must be prepared. In their City-sponsored 2008
study, KOA Corporation concluded: "...[l]t is not recommended to implement a road diet for [La Costa
Avenue]" due to the projected environmental impact (congestion). Combined with other information I
have presented here, I feel a fair argument has been made that an EIR is warranted.
• References:
o CEQA §15064(f)(1):.. .[l]f a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have
a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may
also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant
effect...
o CEQA §15064(g): [l]n marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence
that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by
the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the
significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant
and shall prepare an EIR.
Probable future traffic calming projects that will be contingent upon, and likely directly follow,
the road diet further bolster the case for an EIR
• When "probable future projects" will build upon a more immediate project, the "cumulative effect" of the
combined projects must be considered in an EIR. The City is in the process of expending $212,000 in
planning, and $1.03 million has been reserved for further traffic calming. This makes further traffic
calming a "probable future project." It is also probable that the City's "interim" road diet will remain in
effect until the future traffic calming project begins, which could take one or two (or more) years, and the
future project depends on the road diet as a precursor project. Therefore, any assessment of whether the
immediate road diet requires an EIR should include the cumulative project, which, without a doubt, does
require an EIR.
• The road diet should also be considered in the context of the La Costa Town Square project. The EIR
conducted for that development was done assuming La Costa Avenue's current configuration. The
western segment in question currently has a volume of approximately 18,000 average daily trips, and the
La Costa Town Square EIR projected that to increase by more the 2,500, creating traffic volumes over
20,500 (not to mention additional trips from other ongoing developments).
• Reference:
o CEQA §15064(h)(1): When assessing whether a cumulative effect requires an EIR, the lead
agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact is significant and whether the effects of the
project are cumulatively considerable. An EIR must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be
significant and the project's incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively
considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual
project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.
20 Linke Correspondence
Vista Way road diet/traffic calming
A portion of Vista Way in Oceanside is a western extension of CA-78 after it terminates at 1-5. Although the street
is classified as a secondary arterial that could handle 25,000 average daily trips, it is lined with homes with
driveways. Around 19,000 vehicles use the street between Pacific Coast Highway and the I-5/CA-78
intersection. Based on safety complaints from residents regarding speeds and difficulty in accessing the road
from their driveways, Oceanside implemented a road diet (four to two travel lanes), and they installed additional
traffic signs and electronic speed indicators, as well as additional traffic-calming devices. This situation shares
several characteristics with La Costa Avenue.
A few years after implementation of the road diet, the residents now say that the measures have helped slow the
traffic, but not the volume. Perceived volumes have continued to increase, leading to long lines at traffic lights,
increased noise, and more difficulties with driveway access. The residents are now suggesting that a cul-de-sac
be installed near the I-5/CA-78 intersection to redirect traffic to neighboring streets in order to stop their street
from being used for freeway access.
21 Linke Correspondence
6/27/2011
La Costa Avenue Interim
Restriping Plan
(presentation for Carlsbad City
Council)
Steve Linke
http://sites.google.com/site/lacostacommuters
SLINKE.CLC@GMAIL.COM
June 28, 2011
La Costa Avenue
Improvement Plan Survey
• 90% of respondents who took a position on
elimination of travel lanes were opposed
• Please consider an alternative that addresses
liability and safety issues but retains current
travel lanes
6/27/2011
Original 2008 KOA study ($100k in gas taxes)
concluded that travel lane elimination was not
recommended due to predicted congestion
m KOA CORPORATIONLA COSTA AVENUE ROAD DIET
ARTERIAL TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT
September 1008
Keconumndattoiu
Recent trends arc for communities aini iKixUmrhuuik lo look for more ways to promote more
pedestrian and bicycle use at well K slow traffic and provide for a more "liv»We", "waUmbk" and
«fe environment A road diet is we such solution. Evaluating I.I Cx«ti Avenue for the
implementation, of a rood die! showed that from a quantitative perspective Uai the future travel limn
and intersection operation* nay be acveplable under the City'n level of ncrvicc thrciholdi, hut
segments exceed UK LOS D requirement and therefore it is not recormnranled to implement n road
filet rrtr this roadway.
Predicted congestion
LA COSTA AVENUE ROAD DIET aaagai I^Q A /-nR pnR ATin>i
ARTERIAL TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT ^| IVVJ/\ VAJItrUK f\ I IU iS
September I00«
Tabto 7-1.1
SMuaary »f Roadway Se|aKa< ( iHKUHo.i - SANTFC MMlwd
n.nli.»lii«nl
tjc«iniiaiiMiiaaiaM»ac«»*»<v»
5hoo»g C«w On, B s» Ho Shon*« OAt Owi
3ST.HhimaCjo*iWfl lo Nun> OMl Wiy
NUM CxaH «»> tt v»o emu mi
v^» cnila «»( B C* Ibdem
C*ltamX)G*«aS
GtrttrS tDRmicnjSt
RomtnaSJIjQuruSl
o*aa toc»ii«usi
Cadnda St to Cctafna ORh
CofcnaCiKfcloEitoSI
tilnSIBM»MCu
(Mwu Cout to UvvM a
l manK St » Ra«jB &na F« fw
-^i
0«39
OKI
osao
0593
0521
0509
o.at
0£31
OStt
05*5
Oi75
osn
ow
0.519
M,
P~»J
LOt
c
cc
c
c
c
D
C
C
C
C
c
c
c
Wtf«.
.."«»
0.661
1301
1.W
1.041
1.017
1.021
D9U
0997
Ot»
O.B63
OAH
o«w_
0519
*|-
„£_.c
E
E
D
D
0
t
C
JLW.
0400
oeco
OM3
0^21
0506
0»
031S
OJ»
OJ7S
02«
DTK
02%
0000
nm.ni?
J*.
No
Vt>v«
YM
y«
Vo
Yts
Y«
No
No
No
Yes
No
HHMPnl"
we LOB
cm
0.107
073!
0.7»
0635
0.631
ass
0788
0730
C67C
0.702
0.6B>
0723
06»
0
0
0
0
c
c
D
0
0
D
0
0
D
--£_,
IMnYo
•a* tafia
we LOS
o.ra
OB07
1<6S
1.W
1J70
1241
2«
.154
.OK
006
OK
0«
DM
0.613
0
0
AVR
0.000
0.000
0.733
0.734
Q.S35
0.520
0.415
0.365
OJ65
0336
0351
09«
0.361
0.000
OMkMT
No
No
Its
Y«
Y«f
VW
Y«^v«
Y«
Ye
Y»
Y»
V«
ND
6/27/2011
June 2011 data re-evaluation by City
City mandated the use of different methods/assumptions ("Carlsbad standards")
- Congestion (LOS) grades "C" through "F" in original study became "A"
• "Carlsbad standards"
- Unrealistically assume no traffic flow interruption (e.g., other intersections, driveways, parking,
curves/grades, etc.)
— Applied only to 1 of 4 intersections (signalized Viejo Castilla Way) in travel lane elimination area
• It was non-signalized intersections that received low grades in original study
• Without an interim plan to address these potential failures, could linger for years
"Carlsbad standard" congestion prediction methods
are faulty
Peak hour "Level of Service" by volume
(vehicles per lane per hour)
TJO.C
0)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 16OO 1MO 2000
Carlsbad
SANTEC/ITE
Florida (Class II)
HCM (Class II)
Interim restriping area traffic volume (westbound AM)
6/27/2011
Faulty methods used for Carlsbad's annual Traffic
Monitoring Program
LOS A: Free flow operation (complete mobility to change lanes; average >20 car-length
following distance; e.g. late at night or rural)
^"™ ^«., S«..,,«.,K,
Palomrtr AupoO Roai!
El ( ammo Real
sbadBoulc\jni
nni>r RiaJ
qgcHuuleiari
uje Itaulevjuij
AM Road
)' Camino Real and [ eta A vs. W [nnmalmnWi
h" FueneSlrcGlaiuJl.ufcirAiel' ;<,alc«,i> RIHI]
Arena 1 Kuai! and Cmta Del Mar Riml
Alga Riiail ami Corinua SIrcU
Mound in Vim Dmc arid Stit Sl«(
iirealiu.alti Road an.1 Inland U'nv
E™^™""
ct™ sZTJ'd™'f"l"™M>'°Ut
U.T j
111 .2d 7
22R17
27.211!
2* ,11*?
n.?25
311
.2*4
jw:
TT ADT ]
12.7W
21 540
17. 2-12
15.115
WE
M
Narrowed shifted median alternative
• Retains all four travel lanes to maintain capacity
• Prohibits dangerous left turns (motorcycle accident; biggest focus in lawsuit)
• Creates greater sight distance than "preferred plan" at ~2/3 of driveways
• Creates the same sight distance at remaining ~l/3, unless parking prohibited
• "Preferred" plan only beats safety of narrowed median plan if parking is prohibited
for virtually entire corridor, and you don't care about dangerous left turns
• Current striping has to be ground off in either case; compliance issues for both
Narrowed shifted median
17 ft to traffic
ILeft turn restriction
Hybrid (preferred) plan
Left turns allowed
6/27/2011
Need for CEQA review of "preferred'7 plan
• City's proposed CEQA exemptions questionable
- Emergency situation
• Theoretical liability based on a lawsuit that was never litigated
- Minor alteration with no expansion
• Eliminate lanes on 1-5? Manipulation of intent.
• CEQA review is required
- Extensive justification in letter
- "A project for restriping" is exempt only if it is intended to
"relieve traffic congestion..."
- Inconsistent with General Plan classification (4 lanes)
- Expert opinion that there could be a significant impact;
further exacerbated by future projects
- A "fair argument" can be made that review is required
Conclusion
Bypass CEQA review requirement and consider an
interim restriping plan that retains all four travel
lanes
If you opt for "preferred" plan
- Conduct CEQA review prior to implementation
- Set a hard time limit (e.g., 6 months) with solicitation of
public feedback and a formal evaluation meeting,
consistent with Traffic Management Program
- Pre-define a set of metrics to assess performance, that
does not include faulty Carlsbad standards
La Costa AvenueInterimStripingPlanInterim Striping PlanDBilTEDoug Bilse, T.E.Senior Traffic EngineerJune 28, 20111
La Costa AvenueEl Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road2
BackgroundInformationBackground Information•LaCostaAvenuedesignedin1962byCountyLa Costa Avenue designed in 1962 by County•Road annexed to City of Carlsbad in 1972Ciblhdlkid•City subsequently changed lanes, parking and medians•Prevailing speed (critical speed) has consistently been between 45‐50 mph3
CriticalSpeedvsSpeedLimitCritical Speed vs. Speed LimitYearPrevailingSpeedNoteYearPrevailing SpeedSpeed limitNote1977 50+ 45 City establishes speed limit19875145198751451988 50 45 Painted median, on‐street parking1992 49 451997 49 451999 47 452003 48 45 New Caltrans Directive= un‐enforceable speed limitp2011 47 45 Temporary measures= enforceable speed limit4
DefiningtheProblemDefining the Problem•2008collisioninvolveddriverexitingdriveway2008 collision involved driver exiting driveway near Calle Madero and westbound motorcycle•CourtrejectedCity’sclaimtodesignimmunity•Court rejected City s claim to design immunity•Court determined there was a dangerous di icondition•Plaintiff’s expert emphasized that sight distance does not meet posted speed limit5
Interim Safety ImprovementsProject Objective•ReasonablemeasuresneedtobeReasonable measures need to be implemented in a reasonable timeframe to addressthesetrafficsafetyissuesaddress these traffic safety issues•Improve sight distance from residencesChhhfhd•Change the character of the road•Regain City’s design immunity6
PreviousCityCouncilActionPrevious City Council Action•ApprovedinstallationofwarningsignsApproved installation of warning signs•Approved installation of speed feedback signsidffiiii•Directed staff to prepare an interim striping plan that included on‐street parking•Funded La Costa Avenue Improvement Project7
La Costa Ave Improvement Project Project Objective •Develop a cost effective, community‐preferred p,ypplan to address traffic speeds and safety on La Costa Avenue in a way that respects the ypresidential character and arterial function of the roadway y8
Why Not Simply Implement LongTerm Solution?•Somestakeholderssupport“DoNothing”Some stakeholders support Do Nothing•Potential impacts of permanent improvementsneedenvironmentalreviewimprovements need environmental review•Plan requires changes to General Plan9
How Interim Striping Plan was Revised by Public Workshop•GeneralagreementthatsafetyshouldbeGeneral agreement that safety should be improved for residential driveway access•Seriousconcernsthatreducingnumberof•Serious concerns that reducing number of lanes would create congestionSldfii•Several requests to reduce scope of interim striping plan•Staff developed the “hybrid” design10
TheHybridAlternative:The Hybrid Alternative:•LeaveseastboundlanesincurrentLeaves eastbound lanes in current configuration•Limitsprojectscopetowestboundlaneswith•Limits project scope to westbound lanes with direct access to residential unitsCdbdlli•Converts second westbound travel lane into bike lane between Romeria Street and Fairway DiDrive11
ddExisting Signing and Striping ConditionsParking LaneTwo‐way Left Turn Lane12
bdlHybrid Alternative StripingParking LaneTwo‐way Left Turn Lane13
Hybrid AlternativeCross Section14
La Costa AvenuePreferred Alternative Extents15
Preferred AlternativeBenefits•IncreasesdrivervisibilityfromdrivewaysIncreases driver visibility from driveways•Maintains some on‐street parkingdhi ld•May reduce vehicle speed•Limited scope minimizes traffic impact•Reasonable approach for interim solution16
LevelOfServiceFindingsLevel Of Service Findings•SignalizedintersectionsmeetlevelofserviceSignalized intersections meet level of service standard (LOS=D) for existing and forecasted conditionsconditions.•Mid‐block roadway segment meet level of servicestandard(LOS=D)forexistingandservice standard (LOS=D) for existing and forecasted conditions.17
Intersection LOS SummaryICU Method (AM/PM)Intersection Existing Conditions Forecasted TrafficCurrentConfiguration“Hybrid Alternative”CurrentConfiguration“Hybrid Alternative”Viejo Castilla A/A A/A A/A B/ARomeria St A/A A/A A/A A/ACadencia St A/A A/A A/A A/A18
MidBlock LOS Results (AM/PM)West of Nueva Castilla WayAlternative Current LOS Forecasted LOS (AM/PM)Current Configuration A/A A/A“Hybrid” Alternative A/A B/A19
City of Carlsbad Street Design CriteriaRoad Classification Design Speed (mph) Stopping Sight Distance (ft)Collector Street 30 200SecondaryArterial40300Secondary Arterial40300(45 mph critical speed) 4536020
2652Driver pulls out to edge of existing travel lane vehicle parked 5 feet from driveway21
2652Driver pulls out to edge of proposed bike lane vehicle parked 5 feet from driveway22
2652Driver pulls out to edge of travel lane vehicle parked 55 feet from driveway23
2652Driver pulls out to edge of proposed bike lane vehicle parked 55 feet from driveway24
Driver pulls out to edge of travel lane No On‐Street Parking25
Driver pulls out to edge of proposed bike lane No On‐Street Parking26
Proposed Parking RestrictionsParkingProposed Red CurbExisting Red Curb27
Proposed Parking RestrictionsParkinggProposed Red CurbExisting Red Curb28
Proposed Parking RestrictionsParkingProposed Red CurbExisting Red Curb29
SummarySummary•It is necessary, desirable and in public’s best interest to improve driver visibility where there is direct access to residential driveways•CityinstalledwarningsignsandspeedfeedbacksignsCity installed warning signs and speed feedback signs to reduce speed, but did not resolve sight distance issue•Restrictingonstreetparkingimprovesvisibilitybut•Restricting on‐street parking improves visibility, but does not fully resolve traffic safety issue•The Hybrid Alternative is a reasonable approach ihiifiiliwithout significant environmental impact30
QuestionsQuestions31
Travel Time StudyLa Costa AvenueLevante StreetCalle Barcelona
Direction & Route Off‐PeakTotal TimeLaCostaAvenuetoI57minLa Costa Avenue to I‐57 minCalle Barcelona to Leucadia to I‐57 minRancho Santa Fe Road to Leucadia to I‐5 7 minLaCostatoCalleBarcelonatoLaCostatoI‐57minLa Costa to Calle Barcelona to La Costa to I5 7 minLa Costa to Levante to I‐5 8 min
Direction & Route AM PeakTotal TimeLaCostaAvenuetoI57minLa Costa Avenue to I‐57 minCalle Barcelona to Leucadia to I‐57 minRancho Santa Fe Road to Leucadia to I‐5 8 minLaCostatoCalleBarcelonatoLaCostatoI‐59minLa Costa to Calle Barcelona to La Costa to I5 9 minLa Costa to Levante to I‐5 11 min
Direction & Route PM PeakTotal TimeLaCostaAvenuetoI57minLa Costa Avenue to I‐57 minCalle Barcelona to Leucadia to I‐59 minRancho Santa Fe Road to Leucadia to I‐5 8 minLaCostatoCalleBarcelonatoLaCostatoI‐510minLa Costa to Calle Barcelona to La Costa to I5 10 minLa Costa to Levante to I‐5 11 min
LaCostaAvenueInterimLa Costa Avenue Interim Restriping Plan(presentation for Carlsbad City Council)Council)SteveLinkeSteve Linkehttp://sites.google.com/site/lacostacommutersSLINKE.CLC@GMAIL.COMJune 28, 2011
LaCostaAvenueLa Costa AvenueImprovement Plan Surveypy•90% of respondents who took a position on elimination of travel lanes were opposed•PleaseconsideranalternativethataddressesPlease consider an alternative that addresses liability and safety issues but retains current travellanestravel lanes
Original 2008 KOA study ($100k in gas taxes) concluded that travel lane elimination was not recommended due to predicted congestion
Predicted congestiong
June 2011 data re‐evaluation by City•City mandated the use of different methods/assumptions (“Carlsbad standards”)–Congestion (LOS) grades “C” through “F” in original study became “A”•“Carlsbad standards”Unrealisticallyassumenotrafficflowinterruption(e gotherintersectionsdrivewaysparking–Unrealistically assume no traffic flow interruption (e.g., other intersections, driveways, parking, curves/grades, etc.)–Applied only to 1 of 4 intersections (signalized Viejo Castilla Way) in travel lane elimination area•It was non‐signalized intersections that received low grades in original study•Withoutaninterimplantoaddressthesepotentialfailurescouldlingerforyears•Without an interim plan to address these potential failures, could linger for years
“Carlsbad standard” congestion prediction methodsare faultyyPeak hour “Level of Service” by volume(vehicles per lane per hour)ABCDEFABCDE FA‐CDE Fd methodsA‐CDE FValidatedInterim restriping area traffic volume (westbound AM)
Faulty methods used for Carlsbad’s annual Traffic Monitoring ProgramLocation NumberSegment Segment LocationADTPeak LOSADTPeak LOSSummer 2010Summer 2009LOS A: Free flow operation (complete mobility to change lanes; average >20 car‐length following distance; e.g. late at night or rural)1Palomar Airport Road Paseo Del Norte and Armada Drive2Palomar Airport Road Yarrow Drive and El Camino Real3Palomar Airport Road El Camino Real and Loker Ave. W./Innovation Wy.4Palomar Airport Road El Fuerte Street and Loker Ave E./Gateway Road5Palomar Airport Road Melrose Drive and Paseo Valindo/Eagle Drive6El Camino Real Plaza Drive and Marron Road 48,758 A 48,490 A30,786 A 34,030 A44,742 A 45,080 A40,819 A 44,361 A30,267 A 32,769 A26,401 A 26,406 A7El Camino Real Tamarack Avenue and Kelly Drive8El Camino Real Faraday Avenue and Palomar Airport Road9El Camino Real Camino Vida Roble and Cassia Road10El Camino Real Arenal Road and Costa Del Mar Road11El Camino Real La Costa Avenue and Levante Street12El Camino Real Levante Street and Calle Barcelona13Melrose Drive Lionshead Avenue and Palomar Airport Road14Ml DiPl Ai tR d dR h B d22,817 A 23,540 A27,205 A 36,200 A28,089 A 30,383 A44,112 A 46,203 A33,325 A 32,600 A31,399 A 32,042 A22,794 A 22,887 A16 493A17 061A14Melrose DrivePalomar Airport Road and Rancho Bravado15Melrose Drive Alga Road and Corintia Street16Carlsbad Boulevard Mountain View Drive and State Steet17Carlsbad Boulevard Cannon Road and Cerezo Drive18Carlsbad Boulevard Breakwater Road and Island Way19Carlsbad Boulevard Avenida Encinas and La Costa Avenue20La Costa Avenue Saxony Road and Piraeus Street21La Costa AvenueCadencia Street and Romeria Street16,493A17,061A18,822 A 20,216 A13,334 A 12,884 A16,378 A 16,882 A14,294 A 13,668 A18,246 A 17,242 A33,475 A 32,767 A12 370A12 190A21La Costa AvenueCadencia Street and Romeria Street22Rancho Santa Fe Road La Costa Meadows Drive and San Elijo Road23Rancho Santa Fe Road Avenida Soledad and Camino Junipero24Rancho Santa Fe Road Avenida La Cima and Calle Acervo/Avenida La Posta25Carlsbad Village Drive Victoria Avenue and Pontiac Drive26Poinsettia Lane Paseo Del Norte and Batiquitos Drive27Tamarack Avenue El Camino Real and La Portalada Drive28Paseo Del Norte Camino Del Parque (North) and Palomar Airport Road12,370A12,190A25,313 A 28,786 A35,678 A 35,365 A17,458 A 15,121 A5,637 A 6,214 A25,837 A 25,315 A7,906 A 8,808 A7,975A8,109Aq( ) p29Paseo Del Norte Palomar Airport Road and Car Country Drive30Cannon Road Paseo Del Norte and Car Country Drive31Cannon Road El Camino Real and College Boulevard32College Boulevard Tamarack Avenue (North) and North City Limits33College Boulevard Palomar Airport Road and Aston Avenue34Alga Road Corintia Street and El Fuerte Street,,8,780 A 9,320 A23,284 A 24,370 A16,553 A 17,793 A24,475 A 23,112 A13,992 A 13,873 A10,216 A 10,844 A
Narrowed shifted median alternative•Retains all four travel lanes to maintain capacity•Prohibits dangerous left turns (motorcycle accident; biggest focus in lawsuit)•Creates greater sight distance than “preferred plan” at ~2/3 of driveways•Createsthesamesightdistanceatremaining~1/3unlessparkingprohibited•Creates the same sight distance at remaining ~1/3, unless parking prohibited•“Preferred” plan only beats safety of narrowed median plan if parking is prohibited for virtually entire corridor, and you don’t care about dangerous left turns•Current striping has to be ground off in either case; compliance issues for bothPkil(il)’Hybrid (preferred) planParkinglane(optional)8’Narrowed shifted medianParking lane (optional)8’8’14’17 ft to trafficBike lane (new)Parking lane (optional)811’9’Bike lane (new)16 ft to traffic11’11’Left turn restriction11’3’11’Left turns allowed11’11’
Need for CEQA review of “preferred” plan•City’s proposed CEQA exemptions questionable–Emergency situation•Theoretical liability based on a lawsuit that was never litigated–Minor alteration with no expansion•EliminatelanesonI‐5?Manipulationofintent.Eliminate lanes on I5? Manipulation of intent.•CEQA review is required–Extensive justification in letterj–“A project for restriping” is exempt only if it is intended to “relievetraffic congestion…”–Inconsistent with General Plan classification (4 lanes)–Expert opinion that there could be a significant impact; furtherexacerbatedbyfutureprojectsfurther exacerbated by future projects–A “fair argument” can be made that review is required
Conclusion•Bypass CEQA review requirement and consider an interimrestripingplanthatretainsallfourtravelinterim restriping plan that retains all four travel lanes•Ifyouoptfor“preferred”plan•If you opt for preferred plan–Conduct CEQA review prior to implementation–Setahardtimelimit(e.g.,6months)withsolicitationofSet a hard time limit (e.g., 6 months) with solicitation of public feedback and a formal evaluation meeting, consistent with Traffic Management Program–Pre‐define a set of metrics to assess performance, that does notinclude faulty Carlsbad standards
La Costa Commuters web siteh// l //l•http://sites.google.com/site/lacostacommuters•SLINKE.CLC@GMAIL.COM
ExtraSlidesExtra Slides
Vista Way (Oceanside) road diety()•Not necessarily 100% analogous to LCA, but interesting•ExtensionofCA‐78westofinterchangewithI‐5Extension of CA78 west of interchange with I5•~19,000 ADT; speed limit = 35 MPH•Residents with driveways complained about speeding cars and improper drivingmaneuvers;saidthingshadbecomemuchworsesincetheymoveddriving maneuvers; said things had become much worse since they moved in•City installed speed feedback signs, reduced from four to two traffic lanes withatwowaycenterleftturnlaneandinstalledothertrafficcalmingwith a two‐way center left turn lane, and installed other traffic calming measures•Speeds came down, but traffic volumes did not decrease, and congestion becamemoreseverebecame more severe•Reportedly long lines of cars in single lane between PCH and I‐5•In February 2011, residents submitted a petition requesting to close off tthdbtildthCA78/I5it haccess to the road by creating cul‐de‐sac near the CA‐78/I‐5 interchange; complained of congestion, noise, pollution, etc.
Liability issue – alleged “dangerous condition”•Parking–“CityhasfailedtoremoveallparkingonnorthsideofLCA…City has failed to remove all parking on north side of LCA, despite knowledge that parking…impairs sight distance….”•Left turn lane (1988 restriping)(pg)–“…[D]rivers are led to believe there is adequate time to make a left turn by virtue of the lack of a median precluding thfdidthitfttthem from doing so and the existence of a two‐way center left turn lane inviting them to do so…”
Focus sight distance problemBlind curves Steep grades•Iftrulyanemergencysafetyissueparkingandleftturnlaneswouldhave•If truly an emergency safety issue, parking and left turn lanes would have been eliminated at 2/8/2011 Council meeting, as suggested by staff•Another simple solution: prohibit parking and left turns in problem areas only
Lane shifting at intersectionsg•Implicit traffic calming effect•Before 1988 restriping, LCA just had a double‐yellow line in road diet area•2003 “La Costa Avenue Residential Driveway Ingress/Egress Options” study recommended going back to a double double‐yellow line or raised median•Bott’s dots and/or traffic cylinders could be added (curves and lanes shifts)•Median eventually could be raised
Sight distances (steep grades)•Hybrid plan does not address•Narrowed shifted median forces right turns out of drivewaysA il bilifllllii(i–Availability of two travel lanes allows easier merging (car coming up hill will be in left lane or can change lanes)–Bike lane could also be used as merging/refuge lane, if necessary–Accident severity less when vehicles going in same direction•Lane shifting in narrowed median plan Æslower traffictraffic
Road diet limits•Carlsbad’s “Residential Traffic Management Program” (TMP) contains “traffic calming” policies and procedures, but is idlldrestricted to smaller roadways–Program was likely considered not applicable to secondary arterials like La Costa Avenue, because secondary arterials are meant to carry high volumes of traffic andshouldnotbesubjecttocalmingand should not be subject to calming•Roads suitable for road diets (according to proponents)–<16,000 ADTs Ætypically no congestion problems–16,000 to 20,000 ADTsÆcongestion likely–20,000 to 25,000 ADTs Æcongestion probable as absolute upper limit is reached•Road diet success likely relies heavily on people becoming yyppgfrustrated with congestion, leading them to–Change their commuting times of day, if possible (spreads out volume)–DiverttoalternaterouteslikeCalleBarcelonaorOlivenhainRoad/Leucadia–Divert to alternate routes like CalleBarcelona or OlivenhainRoad/LeucadiaBoulevard