HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-06-11; City Council; ; Traffic Control, Traffic Calming and Traffic Safety~ CITY COUNCIL
~ Staff Report
Meeting Date:
To:
From:
Staff Contact:
Subject:
June 11, 2019
Mayor and City Council
Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Marshall Plantz, Transportation Director
Marshall.Plantz@carlsbadca.gov or 760-602-2766
Massoud Saberian, City Traffic Engineer
Massoud.Saberian@carlsbadca.gov or 760-268-4796
Christie Calderwood, Police Lieutenant
Christie.Calderwood@carlsbadca.gov or 760-931-2100
Traffic Control, Traffic Calming and Traffic Safety
Recommended Action
CA Review ~Le.,.-
Receive an informational presentation describing traffic control, traffic calming and traffic
safety efforts including best practices, standards and programs, and provide direction to staff as
appropriate.
Executive Summary
· The city manager requested that staff prepare a presentation to City Council to include an
overview of the various pedestrian safety measures and the standards that the city relies on to
implement such measures. This request was amended by City Council at their May 7, 2019
meeting to broaden the discussion to include traffic control, traffic calming and traffic safety in
general with detailed information related to (1) Tamarack Avenue from Skyline Road to
Carlsbad Boulevard, and (2) Carlsbad Boulevard from Agua Hedionda Lagoon trailhead to
Laguna Drive/State Street.
Discussion
For informational purposes, city staff will present an overview of the ongoing efforts to
enhance traffic safety throughout the city including information regarding the use of best
practices and standards, illustrations of implementation of these best practices and standards
along Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard and a summary of the various ongoing
programs and activities that are in place to address issues related to traffic control, traffic
calming and traffic safety.
June 11, 2019 Item #17 Page 1 of 6
Best Practices and Standards
The use of best practices and standards enable the city to implement solutions that have been
thoroughly vetted and field tested to ensure they are safe and effective. The use of best
practices and standards that provide the foundation for the design and implementation of
transportation project features and various related activities include the following:
• Roadway signing, striping and legend installations
• Enhanced pedestrian crossings
• Speed feedback signs
• Speed cushions
• Raised crosswalks
• Chicanes
• Traffic circles
• Roundabouts
• Signal operation modifications
• Bikeways
• Safety lighting
• Education
• Enforcement
• California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)
• American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual
• California Vehicle Code (CVC)
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standards and Specifications
• Standards Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green book)
• City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards and Standard Drawings
• San Diego Regional Standard Drawings
These types of features/tools and standards are used to implement a variety of project types
that change the character of the public right-of-way and thereby improve safety for all users
and all modes of travel.
Project types include:
• Complete Streets
• Residential Traffic Calming
• Intersection/Signal Upgrades
• Operational Improvements
• Pavement Management
To illustrate the use of these best practices and standards the following sections of this report
provide a review of the various best practices and standards that have been implemented along
segments of Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard.
June 11, 2019 Item #17 Page 2 of 6
Tamarack Avenue from Skyline Road to Adams Street/Interstate Highway 5 (1-5)
This segment of Tamarack Avenue functions as a collector street even though it has a high
frequency of residential driveways and the General Plan Mobility Element designates it as a
"Neighborhood Connector" street. This segment is striped to include one vehicular lane, a bike
lane and on-street parking in each direction. There are all-way stops at Skyline Road, Park Drive,
Highland Drive and a traffic signal at Adams Street. For the segment of Tamarack Avenue from
James Drive to Valley Street the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume count in January 2009 was
8,185 ADT as compared to a count in June 2018 of 8,529 ADT.
During the last 12 years, numerous changes have been implemented on Tamarack Avenue,
including the following:
• 2007 -Pavement overlay and restriping of Tamarack Avenue, Skyline Road to 1-5 to one
vehicular lane, a bike lane and on street parking in each direction.
• 2016 -Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) installation at Tamarack Avenue and
Valley Street
• 2017 -Adult crossing guard analysis at Tamarack Avenue and Valley Street
• 2018 -Enhanced enforcement along Tamarack Avenue
• 2018 -Adult crossing guard implementation at Tamarack Avenue and Valley Street
• 2018 -Temporary speed feedback signs installation
• 2019 -Permanent speed feedback signs installation (in progress).
In addition to these changes a variety of analysis, enhanced enforcement and education
activities have been completed. In response to a request from the public an all-way stop
analysis at the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Valley Street was completed in August
2017 which concluded that the intersection did not meet the criteria for establishing an all-way
stop. In conjunction with this work, the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Highland Drive
has also been reviewed for visibility and safety of existing traffic control devices and
adjustments have been made to improve visibility for the existing RRFB at the high-visibility
crosswalk at Tamarack Avenue and Valley Street. Additionally, in response to public input at the
Traffic Safety Commission meeting of November 5, 2018, staff completed another all-way stop
analysis, in May 2019, which showed that an all-way stop at the intersection of Tamarack
Avenue and Valley Street did not meet the recommended criteria per the CA MUTCD standards.
As a follow-up to the temporary speed feedback signs noted above, a project to install
permanent feedback signs is working through the contracting process and is expected to start
in late summer 2019.
On June 3rd the Traffic Safety Commission received a staff report regarding the May 2019 all-
way stop analysis at the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Valley Street and they voted
unanimously in support of staff's recommendation that the city not establish an all-way stop at
the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Valley Street. The Traffic Safety Commission made a
subsequent motion, which passed unanimously, to consider alternative solutions consistent
with the General Plan Mobility Element and the various complete street solutions referred to
therein to address safety, speeding and visibility issues at the intersection.
June 11, 2019 Item #17 Page 3 of 6
The Police Department continues to prioritize enforcement in this area and have posted about
their increased presence in this location on social media (Facebook/lnstagram). They
contracted a new adult crossing guard at Tamarack Avenue and Valley Street in October 2018.
The Police Department deployed officers on foot at the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and
Valley Street in October and November of 2018, to educate students on pedestrian safety at
Magnolia Elementary and Valley Middle Schools.
Tamarack Avenue from Jefferson Street/I-5 to Carlsbad Boulevard
This segment of Tamarack Avenue is also designated as a "Neighborhood Connector" street in
the General Plan Mobility Element, and it has a moderate frequency of driveways. Along this
segment of Tamarack Avenue, the city implemented a roadway realignment project in the early
1990's that established the current layout/footprint of the roadway which includes a limited
segment of raised medians, one lane in each direction with bike lanes and limited on-street
parking. In 2002, the Coastal Rail Trail was constructed from Oak Avenue to Tamarack Avenue,
and at the intersection of the trail and Tamarack Avenue, the railroad median and access to the
trail on the north side of Tamarack Avenue were constructed. Staff is currently working on a
project to improve the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard, which will
include modifications to Tamarack Avenue in the block between Garfield Street and Carlsbad
Boulevard.
Carlsbad Boulevard from Agua Hedionda trailhead to Laguna Drive/State Street
This segment of Carlsbad Boulevard is designated as an "Identity" street in the General Plan
Mobility Element and like what was accomplished for Tamarack Avenue, staff has analyzed and
implemented several projects along Carlsbad Boulevard, each of which have relied on best
practices and standards.
During the last seven years, several changes have been implemented including the following:
• 2012 -Pedestrian scrambles at two locations along Carlsbad Boulevard (Carlsbad Village
Drive and Grand Avenue)
• 2012/13 -Pedestrian medians and RRFBs at five locations along Carlsbad Boulevard
(Hemlock Avenue, Cherry Avenue, Maple Avenue, Sycamore Avenue and Oak Avenue)
• 2014-Carlsbad Boulevard and State Street Roundabout, multi-use trail and road diet
• 2014/15 -Carlsbad Boulevard bridge railing, sidewalk and restriping improvements
• 2018 -Slurry seal, restriping and enhanced crosswalk signage and legends from Beech
Avenue to Mountain View Drive.
In addition to these changes, there have been a variety of enhanced enforcement and
education activities completed along this segment of Carlsbad Boulevard. The Police
Department led over 20 special weekend enforcement initiatives on Carlsbad Boulevard in 2018
to address loud exhaust and speed complaints received from citizens. The enforcement
operations were conducted throughout the daytime and evening hours by the Traffic Division
as well as patrol officers, and they were highlighted using social media and electronic message
boards. A total of 193 hours of enforcement were dedicated to increasing traffic_ safety and
enhancing quality of life for motorists and residents near the coastal area in 2018. In 2019,
June 11, 2019 Item #17 Page 4 of 6
beginning from Memorial Day weekend until Labor Day weekend, special enforcement efforts
are taking place specific to Carlsbad Boulevard every day, with saturation occurring on
weekends.
Ongoing Programs and Activities
Staff implements various site-specific Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects as well as CIP
programs, operational programs, educational and enforcement activities.
For example, site-specific CIP projects include a set of complete street projects along Chestnut
Avenue, Valley Street and Kelly Drive. CIP programs include the Pavement Management
Program, which incorporates restriping to include safety improvements, such as buffered bike
lanes, and the Residential Traffic Improvement Program, which funds various traffic calming
and safety improvements on residential roadways throughout the city, in accordance with the
Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program (CRTMP).
Operational programs include analysis of public input and, if warranted, implementation of
engineering solutions by city operations and maintenance staff. In addition, the Police
Department and Public Works Branch work in coordination to provide education and
enforcement activities as needed in support of implementation of the CRTM P and other traffic
safety related activities including speed limits, on-street parking, parking restrictions related to
sight distance concerns and construction zone traffic control. The Police Department and Public
Works Branch meet on a regular basis to share information and foster collaboration, including
preparation for presentations to the Traffic Safety Commission.
In summary, all transportation projects and programs incorporate traffic safety features
consistent with best practices and engineering standards. The goal is to refine and improve the
transportation system throughout the city, in accordance with various roadway typologies as
designated in the General Plan Mobility Element, to provide high-quality transportation
infrastructure for the various modes of travel.
Fiscal Analysis
This item is an informational presentation on the topic of traffic control, traffic calming and
traffic safety and as such there is no financial impact. In the event City Council provides
direction staff will return with any fiscal impacts.
Next Steps
This report is provided for informational purposes unless direction is provided by City Council.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, receiving an informational presentation on
the work related to traffic control, traffic calming and traffic safety does not qualify as a
"project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it has
no potential to cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably
June 11, 2019 Item #17 Page 5 of 6
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and therefore does not require
environmental review.
Public Notification
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public
viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
None.
June 11, 2019 Item #17 Page 6 of 6
June 11, 2019
All Receive -Agenda Item It _(3:-'
For the Information of the:
CIT COUNCIL
Date b l · CA 'I/ CC ✓
CM coo · VDCM(3). i7 ·
Re: June 11, 2019 City Council Meeting Item #17 (Traffic Control, Traffic Calming, and Traffic
Safety)
Mayor Hall and City Council Members:
INTRODUCTION
I intend to provide a public comment on traffic congestion and related issues with Carlsbad's
level of service (LOS) methods at the June 11, 2019 City Council meeting. I am providing this
written correspondence with additional information. Please note that I am a member of the
Traffic Safety Commission (TSC), but this communication is not from the commission.
For at least the past 30 years, misleading traffic analyses have been used to satisfy the
requirements of Carlsbad's Growth Management Program (GMP) and to support acceptance of .
traffic and development projects. It is imperative that transportation Staff and consultants, as
presumed subject-matter experts, provide valid and unbiased information to the TSC and the
City Council to promote sound policy making.
SUMMARY (details follow the RECOMMENDATIONS)
• Traffic congestion is a common complaint in Carlsbad.
• Annual GMP monitoring is supposed to identify problem areas. ,
• However, Carlsbad has used vehicle LOS monitoring methods for the past 30 years that
are designed to virtually never fail, regardless of the level of congestion.
• These methods also have been used for City and developer projects.
• The 2015 General Plan Update, including the new Mobility Element, requires use of valid
LOS methods compliant with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).
• However, the defective Carlsbad methods, which are not HCM compliant, continue to
. be used, along with an inconsistent and changing mix of other method_s and standards,
for GMP monitoring, city street projects and developments.
• The existence of failing intersections during and after General Plan adoption was
actively hidden, and no traffic monitoring data has been reported for the last several
years, likely because of those known failures.
• A new TSC Staff Report and an attached Memorandum from a traffic consulting firm
demonstrate the flaws in the old Carlsbad methods and show that LOS failures have
been present in Carlsbad for years.
• The Staff Report and Memorandum also recommend the use of specific new methods,
consistent with the General Plan/Mobility Element.
• It appears that Staff wants to largely eliminate intersection LOS analysis, but the
Mobility Element describes its use, and there are multiple compelling reasons to
continue its use.
1
~ECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations to address immediate concerns about compliance with the General Plan
and GMP ➔ Direct Staff to:
• Conduct all new LOS analyses according to the HCM and new Transportation Impact
Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, using the same methods for both existing and future
conditions for:
o GMP monitoring
o City projects
o Developer projects
• Review all current incomplete projects that included LOS analysis to ensure compliance
o Revise LOS analyses, if necessary
• Submit the overdue FY 2017-18 GMP Monitoring Report
• Restore intersection LOS to the GMP monitoring program and for projects (HCM
method)
Additional LOS-related recommendations:
• Empower the TSC to review all LOS-related documents in a public forum (advising City
Council on formal approval), including, but not Hmited to, the following:
o TIA Guidelines
o Service volume tables
o Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit multimodal LOS systems
o · Standard operating procedures for types of LOS analyses to be applied to
different tasks (monitoring, planning, and design)
• Comprehensive revie'-o/ of LOS results comparing the previous and new methods after all
streets have been evaluated according to the GMP monitoring program
• Re-evaluate streets that Staff has exempted from meeting vehicle LOS standard (e.g., El
Camino Real, Palomar Airport Road, and La Costa Avenue)
DETAIL
· Traffic congestion and the Growth Management Program
Vear after year, the annual Carlsbad Resident Surveys show that traffic congestion is one of the
top quality of life concerns with one of the lowest levels of satisfaction of all city services.
Vehicle LOS measures congestion on a scale of A to F, similar to school grades, The Growth
Management ordinance was passed by voters in 1986 to ensure that city services, including our
streets, keep up with development. The associated GMP and Citywide Facilities and
Improvements Plan (CFIP) create a minimum congestion standard of LOS grade D during the
peak hour.
2
In the past, there has been a Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) conducted annually that
assesses LOS at dozens of both mid-block (street segment/facility) locations and intersections
throughout Carlsbad. Traditionally, a summary of the annual TMP Report has then been
included in the annual GMP Monitoring Report.Theoretically, if any of the street sites fall
below LOS D, development would stop in the corresponding Local Facilities Management Zo_ne
(LFMZ) until it meets that minimum standard.
Unfortunately, when the TMP began 30 years ago, Staff adopted LOS grading methods that
were not industry standards. They do not reflect reality or provide meaningful information, and
street sites can almost never fail, no matter how bad congestion gets. I feel this is a violation of
the spirit, and perhaps the letter, of the GMP.
Defective Carlsbad street segment/facility method (first reported in 2011)
Below is an example of a page from a TMP Report showing LOS for 34 street segments/facilities
between 2006 and 2010. Note that, even though Carlsbad's most congested streets are
represented in the table, all but a few of the LOS grades are allegedly A's during the worst rush
hour period. LOS A should reflect conditions in which there are only scattered cars on the road
with an average of less than 10 seconds of delay at traffic signals-conditions that only occur in
the middle of the night' in busy urbari settings. So, these results are ludicrous.
2010 TMP Report Table 2-1:
.Summer~006 Str..llms-:!:-007 Summer!OOS S~rl009 Summ.Er!OH
LK:dio:n s.,,.... ~atLoc:uion .-1.DT Pm M>T Pm .-1.DT p,.1,c .-1.DT Pe:ak .IDT Pcl.
Numbe-LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS --------------------
P3Wmll' A..~-t it?ad !>a,eoI)oJNom=!Am,,daDm. 51,.liS A 53.175 A 49,570 A 4S,iSB A 48,499 A
PalMIW".Aiipo..-tl'~ad Ym,:)'.t° Dm-e: 2nd El C3Drino Real 32.960 A 33~820 A 33,523 A 30,7S6 -A 34,030 A
.PJ.lom.JJ· .Ai.~"t :Road .. C!mmORE.31..md.L:ikerATI!.. W_/lzma.gfum'Wy . 51,613 A 5!,739 A 43,920 A 41,742 A 45,0SO A
4 P:tlomar Ai.port Road EFu.eteStut2!?141..ahi-A~EJGmwayR.o.lli 42,287 A 40,Sl9 A· 44,361 A
s ~-.lj!port'Road Meua~ Ihil;a-and ru:1> V.tlind:i!Ea;le DriY'I! 49,:245 A 36,290 A 33,575 A lll,267 A 32,769 A
E~:Ral Pla::a:DrinmdMDTOll.Rtl2d 30,&32 A 31.S75 A 26,il3 A 26,401 A 26,4ll6 A
E.Ca:cinoltul ~[¼ A.\-EllU! md. lCeL~ Drive 25,178 A 15,509 A 25,717 A 22,SH A 13,540 A
Ei-~RNI Fa3.day A~ a.rid Pa1om:u-P..:il.p-a.'1: ~d 3:fi.712 A 3-SAli A 37,735 A ~.7.205 A 36,208 A
9 ElC~R-!.a! C~ Vill!.hb.l!:.uid.C=.u.RQ;,,.J. 29,8(11 A :50,.375 A 28,048 A · lS~0S9 A J0,3S3 A
10 ElCc:i:ru.c.-ll~ ft.nna!Ro:.d .m.dC.o::;ta.Del.Mar.Road 47,09! ... So,905 C 43,213 A 44,112 A 46,203 A
11 1::1.C:Gcino:R..!!3l bCom.Al."2!me.mdle..ani!:S~ct 56,09i A 39,!05 A 31,933 A 33,325 A 32,600 A
11 ~IC~R.ul e Str@t and C2!1e.3:m:~ 36,413 A 39,367 A 31,275 A 31,399 A 32,0'.2 A
13 M~Dm-e ~l:U:d.Avemte3Dd.P.alom:?rP..i?pcrtR.cad 2S,.995 A ~631 A 22,794 A .!l,SB1 A
14 MS~Dri.\."E: P~ Airp~ had ~:Racho3In.ido 12,102 A 17,142: A 16,969 A 16,493 A 17,051 A
.15 Melr~.Drive. A!p.RoadmdCori.cliaS!net H,476 A 2-0~SBO A 18.667 A 18,Sll A 20,2!6 A
16 Cm:..bad.3~.i Mcnmtain V1ewD~~ Stm Ste!=t 14,S6S A 13,985 A 12,065 A 13.334 A 12,SS4 A
17 Carlsb:aC.3oulenrd ~R.o.ad.mdCei'i::oDu--... c 19,0:14 A 18,163 A 15,485 A 16,37& A 16,882 A
lS C3rl:.bad.Bo~\-nd ~aW'h3d.andbhnd.Way 17,267 A 16,114 A 12,949 A 14,.29-t A 13,66S A
19 CarlsbaC.3onle-rard A\"!cicb.-~md~U5ttA.-e:nu.e !S,126 A 19,474 A 11,905 A lS,146 A 17,242 A
:lJl L:!Ceit:iA,;£1U1'! ~ey &Dad aad Pir.a.'!!m. Street 32,578 A 33,145 A 32,254 A S3~47S A 32,i67 A
21 UCosbA,·o!mle CJdmcia Stttet md~ Strae!: 12,061 A 12,492 A 11,819 A 12,37-0 A 11,190 A
22 ~o S.mtt Fe Rend C_c-:ta Me21.dav.·~ Dri-.·e. ;md. s~ Eh}ch:td 30,S!~ A 34,574 A 31,221 A 25,313 A 2S,7SO A
2l R.:mclioS:l!tiaFt!R.oad A.,·ecida. Sowh.d ~ Camino Jw:ii.pa·o ~6,5S9 A 39.947 A 35,754 A 35,678 A 35,365 A
24 R.a=ho S:mt2 Fe R.Old Avaicb.La C'llllJ; ;;:nd CalleA-cswiA.mi.cb.~Posb 16,73-9 A 17,02S A 17,445 A 11,458 A · 15,121 A
25 Cai-bbad Villag!: Ori\~ V"ictma A."\---mue aid.Pontiac. Dm""e 5,S66 A 6.168 " 5,665 A 5,63? A 6,214 ·A
26 Pom:ieti:iaL:m!, P.lr.e.oD!lNorteaul.BatiquitosDri't--e :Ui,127 A 1<;,6'.3 A 24,650 A 25.,S.37 A 15Jl5 A
2? T~A~ El C.i:mino p,.w md L;. Po:tal.Jda D:ri,;--e 7,531 A. E.453 A S,428 A 1,91)5 A s,sos A
2S Dze::,Ditl.Ncrie C~ Del.Pnque (No...-th) :md.Pa.lomar Ai.-p:m !{Q;;i:d 9,226 A S,791 A 8,125 A 1,915 -8)09 A
29 P.:i:.eaDe1Norte P310lll3l" Airport Ro.ad ;;n,i U.COlUlf:ry Dri:-.~ 10,6S9 A lo,.146 A 9-;473 A. S,7SO A 9,320 A
30 Carmon.Raad :'2:eo Del Norte. ~-Car Ccrtmtry Dm~ 25,:0.52 A. 22,77S A 21;,09 A :!3,2S4 A 24,370 A
31 C2II11o!lR.01d ,. Camino Real ..nd College :3onle~ 19,9S6 D 19,396 D 16,5$6 B 16,553 A 17,793 A
32 ~--e Bouln-.ud UDW'.icl.: Annue (Norih) '3!::d North City Li:mib 11.SSI A 25~690 A 23,740 A 14,415 A 23,112 A
Sl c.n.,,Bcule,.=<i P~ Airport R.0.3.d and.kt on A.-ame 14.484 A a.ns A 13,810 A 13,991 A 13:S.75 A
34 AlpRoad CozmSa.Shffl::m.d.EFu~~S!reet 11,482 A 10.632 A 10,216 A 10,844 A
3
I first investigated this curiosity eight years ago, when the above report was the most recent
one available, and I presented my findings to the City Council in June of 2011. LOS grades are
created from traffic counts taken over a period of time, such as a peak travel hour. The traffic
count data that has been collected over the last 30 years in both the mid-block and intersection
locations is likely completely valid and could still be used today to retroactively calculate
accurate LOS grades using valid methods for any location or time period.
While the underlying methods used in Carlsbad are not necessarily invalid either (just far from
ideal), it is the unrealistically h!gh maximum service volume numbers chosen by Staff to plug
into the calculations within those methods that are the biggest problem. The bar charts below
represent my findings from 2011.
Vehicles per lane per hour
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Carlsbad
segment
method
. I I I_ i :
F1-L-. -.. ~ • ...,,-.. ~; ,:::· =· :=,~I -. -. -~1-. ~i.~-... -... -A-. .;.-f----.-7~ ...... -. ==G=ra::~"""-=~=f~=-il-u~rvice volume =l ,800
i · I i
Class 11 · · · · , ·. . -· ---·
HCM l:· -c.-•~ J ____ •··c ._ ... ,.J-~,,,--,-._L
L" ke2011 · --·•-i-· .... , •. , -~
{ m ) Grade E failure= 840 Max service volume = 880
The example shown in the top bar chart is the Carlsbad street segment/facility method that
uses the mid-blocktraffic counts. Staff uses a maximum service volume of 1,800 vehicles per
lane per hour (vplph) for every vehicle lane in Carlsbad. However, that does not account for red
lights at intersections, turn lanes, medians, or any other street characteristics, and that volume
was never intended to be used for LOS calculations.
The bottom bar chart shows what happens when the HCM, a widely accepted traffic
engineering guide, is used for an average (Class II) city street facility, which takes those capacity
factors into account-a far more realistic maxim1.,1m service volume that is only about half of
what Carlsbad uses in its method.
The following table is from the June 3, 2019 TSC Staff Report showing a comparison of the
Carlsbad method in the first column with the valid HCM-based method in the second column.
The third column confirms the fact that actual service volumes an~ only about half of what the
Carlsbad method uses.
4
Roadway Segment LOS F Threshold (vph)
Mid-Block Service Volume Service Flow/
Capacity {LOSF) Capacity
ECR: Marron Road to Carlsbad Village 5,400 2,520 47%
Drive
ECR: Poinsettia Ln. to Aviara Prkwy. 5,400 2,900 53%
Rancho Santa Fe: La Costa Ave to Calle 5,400 2,480 46%
Barcelona
Palomar Airport Road: Armada to Paseo 7,200 3,680 51%
<lei Norte
Palomar Airport Road: El Fuerte to 5,400 2,940 54%
Melrose
t t t
Carlsbad HCM Difference
street street
segment facility
method method
The following figures are a bit complicated, but they illustrate how, ironically, when traffic
reaches the more realistic maximum service volume and become LOS grade F, the resulting
congestion causes the traffic counts per hour to go back down, creating the illusion that the LOS
is actually improving again.
t
0
. ·--------·-------·-····--· 0 i . ---------· ·-----· · .......... -...... 0 :
' ' ---........ -... ----· •----· .... ---·--------------·
Volume/ capacity ratio -:
sso
vplpb
sso
vptph
1,.soo
vpJph
They-axes are vehicle speeds, and the x-axes are essentially traffic rates or volumes. In the . .
figure on the left (showing how LOS is supposed to work), if you look at the top left of the arc,
that is the beginning of LOS A. As you move to the right, operating speeds decrease as traffic
volume increases. When you reach the maximum service volume of 880 vplph, you have
reached LOS F. At that point, vehicle speeds continue to decrease, but the traffic jam also
causes traffic volume to conti.nue to decrease, so any traffic counts could create the illusion of a
5
better LOS. As shown in the right figure, the Carlsbad method can create an even bigger illusion,
because the grade can never get worse than a C before it starts to look better again-no matter
how congested the street becomes. It is a method that is virtually guaranteed to never fail.
Despite the fact that I revealed this problem eight years ago, Staff did nothing to fix it. The table
below shows the LOS results from the TMP Reports (from 2011 through 2015) subsequent to
my June 2011 presentation. Again, it shows nearly all "A" grades during rush hour on our most
congested streets, which is not a reflection of reality and is a meaningless and expensive waste
of time and effort. I feel this is inconsistent with voter intent for the GMP.
2015 TMP Report Table 2-1:
Location summer2011 summer 2012 summer2013 Summer2014 summer 201511}
Number Segment Segment Location Peale: Peak Peak ADT Peak Peak ADT LOS l2l ADT LOS(2) ADT LOSl21 LQSl2l ADT LQS(2)
1 PaJomar Airport Rd. Paseo Del Norte to Annada Dr. 48,249 A 48,626 A 52,555 A 52,779 A 55,501 A
2 Palomar Airport Rd. Yarrow Dr. to B Camino Real 33,440 A 35,154 A 34,017 A 37,900 A 38,433 A
3 Palomar Ailport Rd. El Camino Real to Loker Ave (W.) 45,902 A 52,785 A 48.560 A 50,651 A 50,445 A
4 Palomar Airport Rd. Melrose Dr. to PaS-"'O varmdo 32,678 A 31,880 A 31,469 A 32,566 A 30,912 A
5 B Camino Real PlaZa Dr to Marron Rd 27,806 A 29,245 A 29,355 A 30,288 A 30,056 A . . . . . .. -. -
6 El Gamlno Real Tamarack Ave, to Kelly or. 25,035 A 22,514 A 25.198 A 26,430 A 27.150 A
7 El Camino Real Jackspar Dr. to College Blvd. --32,393 B 34,869 B 38,195 B 37,541 B
8 El Gamino Real Faraday Ave. to Palomar Airport Rd. 36,281 A 30,477 A 31,739 A 34,867 A 34,378 A
9 El Camino Real Arenal Rd. to Costa Del Mar Rd. 47,151 B 49,760 B 49,299 B 51,393 B 51,499 B
10 B Camino Real Levante St to Galle Barcelona 33,507 A 35,782 A 35,434 A 36,495 A 37,873 A
11 Melrose Dr. Lionshead Ave. to Palomar Airport Rd. 23,830 A 25,387 .A 27,253 A 27,857 A 30,378 A
12 Cartsbad Blvd State St to Mountain View Dr. 13,320 A 13,743 A 14,791 A 13,156 A 12,991 A
13 cartsbad Blvd Acacia Ave. to Chell)' Ave. --17,653 A 19,001 A 18,668 A 18.011 A
14 cartsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave. to Tierra Del Oro --19,224 A 17,319 A 17,396 A 20,894 A
15 Garlsbad Blvd cannon Rd. to cerezo Or. 16,565 A 16,128 A 16,755 A 17,714 A 16,668 A
16 cartsbad Blvd Breai<Waler Rd. to Poinsettia Ln. 12,936 A 13,656 A 15,193 A 16,289 A 16,539 A
17 cartsbad Blvd Avenida Encinas lo La Costa Ave. 16,214 A 16,089 A 17,943 A 19,888 A 19,167 A
18 La Costa Ave Piraeus _st to Saxony Rd. 33,742 A 35,371 A 38,373 A 37,795 A 38,415 A
19 La Costa Ave Romerta St to Gadencia st 12,196 A . 12,043 A 12,087 A 12,265 A 12,861 A
20 Rand7o Santa Fe Rd La Costa Meadows Dr. to San Enjo Rd. 27,187 A 30,793 A 28,979 A 28,959 .A 29,512 A
21 Poinsettia Ln. Paseo Del Norte to Bafiquitos Dr. 24,353 A 24,801 A 25,075 A 25,071 A 26,174 A
22 Tamarack Ave .B Gamino Real to La Portalada Dr. 8,663 A 7,905 A 7,705 A 7,669 A 7,390 A . -~ -
23 Cannon Rd. Paseo Del Norte to car country Dr. 25,717 A 25,420 A 26,399 · A 23,460 A 24,702 A . . .
24 GannoilRd .. Hilltop st to College Blvd. 17,462 A 17,764 A 18,561 A 19,281 A 18,814 A
25 College Blvd. N. City Limits to Tamarack Ave. (N.) 24,815 A 24,670 A 25,769 A 26,275 A 26,830 A
26 College Blvd. Aston Ave. to Palomar Airport Rd. 13,635 A 13,806 A 13,744 A 14,710 A 14,762 A
27 Alga Rd Cortntia S!. to El Fuerte st 10,856 A 10,454 A 10,299 A 10,415 A '10,538 A
Noie: Locations shaded in gray were co!l&t.ed m mid-September 2015 at 'the cfirac:tion of City staff_
i11 AH counts ware collected during the summer months (~I?{ and August) except for the three (3) shaded tocati-oos that ware collected in mki-Septemb,=:r 2015.
A Roadlf.'3Y segment levels of service are based -on p,o_ak hour operating conditions.. For d~tailed peak hour ana!ysis, refer to Tab3e A-2 :irfAppendix A of this report
Use of defective Carlsbad LOS methods for City street and developer projects
In addition to being used for the annual TMP/GMP Monitoring Reports, the defective Carlsbad
methods also have been used to guide city-funded street projects and to generate fees from
developers when their projects have impacts on traffic. Interestingly, the City requires
developers to use the Carlsbad methods to assess existing conditions, but the more stringent
and realistic HCM methods when they project future conditions. This can create the illusion
that current traffic conditions are good to allow the development to go forward, but then
failures are projected in the future, requiring the developers to help fund improvements.
6
Unfortunately, it seems that this scheme has not been able to keep up with growing traffic
congestion.
2015 General Plan Update
In September of 2015, the City Council adopted a General Plan Update that included a new
Mobility Element, which, thankfully, now requires vehicle LOS to be determined by valid
methods. The most recent version of the HCM is supposed to be used to determine both
freedom to maneuver (in street facility analysis) and delay in intersection analysis. However, in
apparent violation of the new General Plan and the GMP, the following have happened since
adoption of the Mobility Element:
• Traffic results in the FY 2015-16 GMP Monitoring Report used the defective Carlsbad
LOS methods.
• The FY 2016-17 GMP Monitoring Report failed to include any traffic results.
• The FY 2017-18 GMP Monitoring Report has not yet been presented to the City Council
and is long overdue.
• The defective Carlsbad methods continued to be used, along with an inconsistent and
changing mix of other methods and standards, for city street projects and
developments.
It is urgent that the methods compliant with the General Plan be reviewed and approved by
the City Council and implemented in a uniform manner across all departments and project
types.
June 3, 2019 TSC Staff Report on LOS (street facility analysis)
In a promising new sign of transparency and integrity, a Staff report from the June 3, 2019 TSC
meeting contains a revised LOS method and has lifted the veil on many of the irregularities in
the old methods. First, the Staff Report includes new service volume tables for street facility
LOS analysis consistent with the HCM. Using those new tables, I added five bar charts to the
end of my previous figure, which represent a range of typical Carlsbad streets:
7
Vehicles per lane per hour Failure
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 (# vehicles)
Carlsbad segment method 1,620
840
685
780
840
940
• . -~ . . -~ ">;'f1 . . -957
The new bar charts are consistent with the HCM chart I created eight years ago (the second
from the top) and further confirm that the Carlsbad method (the top bar chart) is a completely
meaningless measure of congestion.
The following table is part of the previously presented table from the 2015 TMP Report to
which I have added a new column of LOS grades that represent the corrected grades when the
new HCM-compliant service volum·e tables are. applied to the previously collected monitoring
data.
Carlsbad 2015 Traffic Monitoring Program Report
Location
Number Segment S~gment Locaiion
1 Palomar Airport Rd. paseo Del Norte to Aimada ·or.
2 Palomar Airport Rd. Yarrow Dr. to El camino Real
3 Palomar Airport Rd. El Camino Real to Loker Ave (W.)
4 Palomar Airport Rd. Melrose Dr. to Paseo Valindo
5 El Camino Real Plaza Dr to Marron Rd
6 El camrno Real Tamarack_ Ave. ~6 Kelly Dr.
' 7 El Camino Real Jackspar Dr. to College Blvd.
8 a Camino Real Faraday Ave. to Palomar Airport Rd.
9 El Camino Real Arena! Rd. to Costa Del Mar Rd.
10 El Camino Real Levante St. to Calle Barcelona
11 Melrose or. uonshead Ave. to Palomar Airport Rd.
12 Garlsbad Blvd State st. to Mountain View Dr.
13 Carlsbad Blvd Acacia Ave. to Cherry Ave.
14 Carlsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave. to Tierra Del Oro
15 Gar1sbacl Blvd Cannon Rd. to Cerezo Dr.
16 cansbac!BIVC! Brealrwater Rd. to Poinsettia Ln.
17 Gar1sDacl Blvd Avenicla Encinas to La Costa Ave.
8
Peak l.OS based on
Carlsbad Service
Volume Tables (HCM)
summer2015 <11
ADT Pe3k
LOSl2J
55,501 A
38.433 A
50,445 A
30,912 A
30,056 A
27,150 A
37.541 B
34,378 A
51.499 s
37,873 A
30,378 A
12,991 A
18,011 A
20,894 ·A
16,668 A
16,539 A
19,167 A
l
D
C
C
B
E/F(FAIL)
C
E/F (FAIL)
B
E/F (FAIL)
C
E/F (FAJL)
E/F (FAIL)
D
D
E/F (FAIL)
D
D
Most of the A's and B's turn into C's and D's, with several failing E or F grades. And when you
apply the new tables to even older traffic count data-going back over a decade-it is clear that
these failures have been occurring for many years.
June 3, 2019 TSC Staff Report on LOS (intersection analysis)
The 6/3/2019 TSC Staff Report also contains another "smoking gun" in the form of a
Memorandum from a respected traffic consultant-Fehr & Peers. It is dated 9/9/2015-just a'
couple of weeks prior to City Council adoption of the Mobility Element on 9/22/2015. The
Memorandum includes a side-by-side analysis of 49 key intersections from the 2014 TMP
Report using (1) the Carlsbad intersection capacity utilization (ICU) method that uses inflated
lane capacity assumptions, (2) an ICU intersection method that uses realistic lane capacities,
and (3) the HCM-based method required by the Mobility Element that is based on vehicle delay.
The following are portions of Table 2 from the Memorandum. When the valid methods in the
middle and right columns are used, the LOS is worse, relative to the defective Carlsbad method
in the left column, by one to four letter grades for more than 70% of the 49 intersections--with
several failing E and F grades.
TAB'lE 2 ~ INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY COMPARISON n =----~-----
l
'·I/' intersection
i
l __ ·---· -,-~---
l EICcmino Plaza Or 0,64 Real
2 Eltaminp Marton Rd 056 Real
3 El Camino Carlsbad 0.60 Real Village Dr
4 ~ Camino Tamara cl: 0,61 Real Ave
s El Camirio Cannon Q.81 Rea! Rd
6 El Camino Colle9e .0,67 Real Blvd
7 El Camino Faraday !178 RMt Ave
8 El Camino Palomar o.so Real NrpcmRd
9 EICi!msno Cassia Rd 0.70 R.eai
1:0S
B 0.661 C
A 0.636 B
A 0.714 C
B 0.664 C
iJ 0.9S4 F
s 0.755 D
C 0.808 0
C 0.955 [:]
I! 0.&44 Q
9
HCMpei.y
MethodiJJ
LOS
au C
36.9 D
3&.9 D
29'.6 C
41,l D
44.6 D
58,1 D
68,4 D
44,I D
TABLE 2-INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Al'IIA!.VSIS METHODOLOGY COMPARISON
#
10 El Camino Poinsettia 0.48 A 0.669 C 29} C Real ln
fl (;J.iTTiflO Afga Rd-CJ [:] 11 Rt.>al Aviara 0.70 0.831 82.2
Pf(wy
l2 EI Camirio La Costa o,19 C 0.912 [:] 80.8 Cu Real Ave
B EI Csimino cane o.61 B 0.664 t 39.3 I) Real Sar,elona
i4 P,;ilomar Avenida 0.75 C 0.632 8 .34,3 C Airport Rd Encinas
lS Palomar Pas·eo Del 0.72 C 0.725 C 31.8 C Airport Rd ·Norte -Q .16 Palomar Armada Dr 0,71 C 0.849 38.5 D Airport Rd
Col!e!i'e Q t7 Palomar Blvd-.0.70 a 0.656 S4.l ·:D Airport Rd A\1ara
Pk\~•,>
It is important to note that all three of these methods rely ori the same intersection input data. ·
So, essentially, all you have to do is push a different button in the software to get the
alternative results. The Memorandum concluded that: the HCM intersection method provides
more appropriate and more realistic results than the Carlsbad method (i.e., it reflects the heavy
traffic volumes with substantial delay during peak periods for many intersections).
So, Staff knew from the 9/9/2015 Memorandum that many intersections were already failing
under the LOS methods required by the Mobility Element, which was adopted two weeks later
(on 9/22/2015). And they had the capability of having new HCM-compliant results generated
immediately through existing software. However, the 2015 TMP Report released three months
later (on 12/22/2015) used the defective Carlsbad intersection method rather than the required
HCM method that would have shown failures. The FY 2015-16 GMP Monitoring Report released
over a year after t hat also contained the same non-compliant and misleading LOS analyses. And
no new HCM-based monitoring results have been reported since then.
Importance of intersection LOS
The latest version of the TIA Guidelines and the future plans for GMP monitoring, which have
not undergone any type of public review, have apparently eliminated intersection delay
10
analysis. This is in spite of a promise at the City Council's goals workshop last year that the same
monitoring data would continue to be collected for comparison purposes, and despite the fact
that the Mobility Element calls for its use.
The June 3, 2019 TSC meeting Staff Report describes how the HCM states that the service
volume LOS method " ... provides a means of quickly assessing one or more urban street facilities
to determine which facilities need to be more carefully evaluated (with operational analysis) to
ameliorate existing or pending problems ... " The report goes on: "Staff recommends using the
new service volume tables to monitor the roadway system for the GMP monitoring program
with subsequent intersection LOS analysis as needed."
In addition, any street facilities that have been declared, or are under consideration to be
declared, exempt from vehicle LOS standards due to failing grades should undergo intersection
LOS analysis to identify any improvements that could reduce congestion. Thus, there are very
compelling reasons to retain intersection LOS analysis as an important tool.
Counter-arguments
Staff has made many claims attempting to counter what I have stated here, for example:
• The Carlsbad methods were valid when they were adopted and are accepted by
transportation professionals.
o FALSE. Service volumes/rates were greatly inflated.
• Only HCM-compliant methods have been used since the General Plan Update.
o FALSE. There are several examples of use of the Carlsbad methods in reports
issued after adoption of the General Plan/Mobility Element in September 2015.
• We are moving to vehicles miles traveled (VMT) analysis for CEQA/EIR purposes, which
will replace level of service.
o FALSE. VMT is an important new measure, but it is not a replacement for LOS.
State rules do not preclude the parallel use of LOS. In fact, there is specific
guidance that LOS can continue to be used, and the Mobility Element and GMP
still require LOS.
• We are switching from a vehicle-centric approach to a multi-modal approach.
Sincerely,
o While that is true, we still need to use valid LOS methods that provide useful
information to decision-makers, and simply removing streets from being subject
to congestion standards does not make the problem go away-it likely just
worsens it.
Steve Linke
Carlsbad, CA
11
Traffic Control, Traffic Calming and
Traffic Safety
Marshall Plantz, Transportation Director
Christie Calderwood, Police Lieutenant
John Kim, Senior Engineer
June 11, 2019
Presentation Overview
•Best practices and standards
•Tamarack Avenue overview and illustrations
•Carlsbad Boulevard overview and illustrations
•Ongoing programs and activities
2
Best Practices and Standards
•Project Types
–Pavement management
–Complete streets
–Residential traffic calming
–Intersection/signal upgrades
–Operational improvements
3
Best Practices and Standards
4
•Best practices/tools
–Signing, striping and legend installation
–Enhanced crosswalks
–Speed feedback signs
–Speed cushions
–Chicanes
–Traffic circles
–Roundabouts
–Bikeways
Best Practices and Standards
•Standards
–CA MUTCD
–AASHTO
–CVC
–Caltrans Standards and Specifications
–City of Carlsbad Standards
–San Diego Regional Standard Drawings
5
2018 AN DIEGO
REJl~NAL
TANDARD
D WING UNABRIDGED CRIMINAL JUSTICE
EDITION
Rd•tNt--.f,..,,,.t1,,foll-vt1C•l/for11l•C«Jn:
Uusincss&Professions•Fish&Game•Food&Agricultural llarbon&Naviptioo•llealll!.&Safety•PublicR~
PublicUtiliticsandStrffls&llip,t,'lys
STANDARD
SPECIFICATIONS 2015
Tamarack Avenue
Neighborhood Connector
Speed limit = 30 mph
6
ArmyandQ
Na-.y .Academy
"~ .,
United $t31C$ Q ' Postel Scmet -0-
C AR LS BAD
VILLAGE
~rlsbJd V1ll.ige 6
\ P,uo Port Carlsbad 9
~ \
-!, Carlsbad
'V ,. ·-· l Ill
\ ~-
Carlsbad Pa~s
& Rec,ea11Qn
Hofid.1y Park
Pine Avenue
Park ... \, ~" ~
1.1,o,o1a ,.,. St Patrick f
Calli<?hc: Church if," n .,#' ARCO ..,,-
\
V ~ EJemcnt6ry SCNxll
;~
\
"'··
La,g,ooa
RIVll!fll :
City Park ,
(:
Tamarack Avenue
•Past Efforts
–1994 Roadway realignment (west of I-5)
–2007 Overlay
–2016 Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB)
–2018/19 Increased police presence
–2018 School crossing guard
–2017/19 All-way stop analysis
7
•Future Projects
•2018/19 speed feedback signs
•Carlsbad Boulevard/Tamarack Avenue
intersection reconfiguration
Police Enforcement on Carlsbad
Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue
•Goals
–Safety is paramount (pedestrians, bicyclists & motorists)
–Compliance with traffic laws via enforcement, visibility & education
–Reduce overall collisions
–Improve quality of life for Residents
8
Police Enforcement on Tamarack Avenue
•Enforcement
–848 traffic stops conducted where a citation or warning was given (Jan. 2018 –May 2019, between Skyline Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard)
9
•Education
–Traffic officers hand out educational flyers on pedestrian safety at Valley Middle and Magnolia Elementary School
–Educational “blasts” via Police Department social media and school social media
Tamarack Avenue and Valley Street
•Contracted new crossing guard at Tamarack/Valley during school year, Oct. 2018.
•Police Department has seen a reduction in resident complaints since crossing guard has been deployed.
10
11
Carlsbad Boulevard
Identity Street
Speed limit = 30 mph
Army and
Na-.y.Academy
·-· l Ill
~ V ,.
J
"~
United $t31C$ Q \, \
Postel Scmet ,o-~ ..
CARLSBAD
VILLAGE
A '\.
\
Carlsbad Pa~s
& Rec,ea11Qn
Hofid.1y Park
\
1.1,o,olaA,• St Patrick A
Calli<?hc: Church T
i!,t' .#' ARco 9
Vig u«rs Seafood
f. Ste~k.hou~e
L •• 0 ' ,,,,,.T
\
-.
Elemcnt6ry SCNxll V ~
j
If
I \. 't. \~ l'f '2 ~
fC •. ! ·1
vll'IIOr
I
15
f
,. :
\
? •
L.i,g,ooa
RIVll!fll ,
City Park ;
(:
Carlsbad Boulevard
12
•Future Projects
–Carlsbad Boulevard/Tamarack
Avenue intersection
reconfiguration
•Past Efforts
–2012 Overlay
–2012 Pedestrian scrambles
–2013/15 Enhanced crosswalks and RRFBs
–2014 Roundabout and trail
–2014/15 Bridge railing, sidewalks and restriping
–2018 Slurry seal, pedestrian crossing, and restriping
–2018/19 Increased police presence
Police Enforcement on Carlsbad Boulevard
•Saturation: 2,189 traffic stops conducted where a citation or warning was given (Jan. 2018 –May 2019)
•Visibility & education: Operation Crosswalk, bicycle patrol, electronic message boards, social media
•Enforcement by motorcycle officers: Memorial Day weekend 2019 = 56 enforcement contacts/44 written for speed
13
Ongoing Programs and Activities
•Site-specific CIP projects
•Citywide CIP programs
•Operational analysis and implementation
•Education
•Enforcement
14