Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-07-09; City Council; ; Growth Management Plan Circulation Performance Standards, 2015 General Plan Mobility Element, and Traffic Impact Analysis Methodologiesand private development projects. The early origins of growth management date back to the mid-1970s. At that time, the city1s General Plan contained a Public Facilities Element which generally called for maintaining adequate public facilities as the city grew. However, it contained no standards or implementing mechanisms. Between the late 1970s and early 1980s, the City Council adopted a series of policy statements to monitor the adequacy of public facilities that served the growing community and to begin to address the funding needs for new facilities.1 At that time, the City Council recognized that public facilities were adequate to serve existing development but would not be able to accommodate future growth without new revenue to finance needed facilities. The city established the Public Facilities Management System (PFMS) to monitor and report to the City Council on the adequacy of public facilities but stopped short of making adequate facilities a precondition to new development. By the mid-1980s, the city was experiencing an era of rapid growth, which increased community concerns about how growth would affect quality of life-the community's "small town" identity, open space, natural habitat, and the adequacy of public facilities to serve new growth. In 1985 and 1986, for example, more than 4,500 homes were built in Carlsbad, in contrast to the 895 residential permits issued in 2017 and 2018 combined. In response, the City Council strengthened their public facilities policies and appointed a 25- member citizens committee to review the city's General Plan Land Use Element. Beginning in January 1985, the committee undertook an intensive six-month review and community engagement process, resulting in a set of recommendations regarding density, open space, parks, the beach area, and other issues. Additionally, the committee called for "managing growth to ensure timely provision of adequate public services" and expansion of the PFMS "to ensure that all public improvements facilities, and services are in place in all portions of the city when they are needed." By July 1985, the City Council adopted the committee's recommendations and began passing the first of a series of interim ordinances to restrict development while the formal Growth Management Plan was finalized. The following year, in July 1986, the city passed Ordinance No. 9808, adopting the GMP and adding Chapter 21.90 to the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Following GMP adoption, Proposition E was placed on the ballot and approved by Carlsbad voters in November 1986. By amending the Public Facilities and Land Use Elements of the General Plan, it established dwelling unit caps for each of the city's four quadrants and ratified GMP requirements to guarantee that adequate facilities be made available concurrent with need. Proposition E also permitted the City Council to adopt amendments to Chapter 21.20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as necessary to implement the General Plan amendments related 1 See City Council Policy Statements 17 and 33, http://www.ca rlsbadca .gov/ city ha 11/ clerk/mun icipa I code/ cou nci I. asp July 9, 2019 Item #14 Page 2 of 13 to growth management. This proposition, together with the GMP ordinance, created the framework for the city's comprehensive growth management system. Growth Management Public Facilities Performance Standards. To ensure that adequate public facilities are provided concurrent with new growth, the GMP identifies performance standards for eleven public facilities -city administration, library, wastewater treatment, parks, drainage, circulation, fire, open space, schools, sewer collection, and water distribution. The facility performance standards were based on the city's residential dwelling unit capacity (existing and future units) and estimated total square feet of industrial and commercial land uses at buildout. Projections for both residential and non-residential construction provided a basis for determining the level of development at buildout and the amount and types of public facilities necessary to adequately serve a future, fully developed city. Successful public facilities planning and implementation occurs on multiple levels: citywide, quadrant, local subarea (facilities zone), and project site level. The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP), adopted in 1986, was the first phase in the implementation process of the GMP adopted earlier that year. The CFIP establishes the eleven public facilities and the performance standards corresponding to each, divides the city into 25 local facility management zones (LFMZ) and identifies the city's ultimate public facility needs. In turn, a local facilities management plan identifies the public facility needs for each LFMZ. Individual development projects, whether residential, commercial, office, or industrial, must comply with the CFIP and the applicable local facilities management plan, which ensures that adequate public facilities are provided concurrent with development. Adopted local facilities management plans are in place for each of the 25 zones. Exhibit 1 shows the Mobility Element street system and LFMZ boundaries. The performance standards specified by the CFIP are not goals or policies but requirements that must be met before development can occur. Failure of any one of the facilities to meet the standard would halt development on either a city-wide, quadrant or zone basis, depending on the type of facility standard not being met. For example, under the GMP, non-compliance with performance standards for city administrative facilities, libraries, and wastewater treatment capacity would affect the whole city and would halt all development in Carlsbad until the deficiency was corrected. Conversely, non-compliance with the parks performance standard, since it is analyzed on a quadrant basis under the GMP, would mean development only in the affected quadrant would be halted. The other performance standards, including circulation, are monitored at the LFMZ scale; noncompliance with which would only impact development within affected zones. A complete description of each performance standard and an "adequacy analysis" to determine compliance status with each standard are provided in the annual Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report (CMC Section 21.90.130(d)). The latest report, prepared for FY 2017-18, was distributed to the City Council last week. July 9, 2019 Item #14 Page 3 of 13 The balance of this staff report will focus on the GMP circulati.on performance standard, the analytical methodology that was historically applied to development and for circulation system performance monitoring, and how (and why) the performance standard and methodology changed as a result of the 2015 General Plan update. 1986 Circulation Performance Standard Adopted as part of the CFIP in 1986, the circulation performance standard played a critical role in ensuring Carlsbad's high quality of life during a period where much of the city's street system had yet to be completed. The circulation performance standard at that time was: No road segment or intersection in the Local Facility Management Zone {LFMZ} nor any road segment or intersection out of the zone which is impacted by the development in the zone shall be projected to exceed a service level of C during off-peak hours, nor service level D during peak hours. "Impacted" means where twenty percent or more of the traffic generated by the Local Facilities Management Zone will use the road segment or intersection. To implement this vehicle level of service (LOS) performance standard, the city published the Guidelines and Instructions for the Preparation of Local Facilities Management Plan Traffic Impact Studies in 1989, which included the use of the Intersection Capacity Utilization-Carlsbad (ICU-C) methodology developed by the city to evaluate intersections and directional peak hour street segment analysis. The ICU-C method measures vehicle delay at intersections (the primary cause of congestion), a labor-intensive process that required a person to sit at a corner and manually count every vehicle travelling through and turn at an intersection. The data collected would be input into a spreadsheet to calculate the intersection LOS. Arterial street analysis, on the other hand, evaluated whether the number of lanes between intersections were adequate for the volume of vehicle travelling along key street segments. Data were collected through pneumatic tube counters placed at key mid-block locations throughout the city to reflect the relatively long segments. To calculate street segment LOS, tube count data were then compared to assumed lane capacity of 1,800 vehicles/hour/lane, based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) chapter for rural highways (signal spacing over two miles). This was a valid approach at the time the GMP was established when used in conjunction with intersection LOS. This is because by itself, the arterial LOS does not reflect any delay caused by traffic signals. These tools were well suited to the state of street development in Carlsbad at that time, and they enabled the city to evaluate and track the performance of the streets relative to the capacity needed to meet the demand as the city progressed through development. The ICU-C could be consistently replicated using the accepted lane capacities. The ICU methodology was originally developed in 1974 and is widely used in Southern California as a method for evaluating traffic conditions for congestion management programs because of the ability to consistently replicate results for a common set of data. The ICU sums the amount of traffic for a particular movement and divides the volume by the capacity for that movement. This is called the volume to capacity ratio for the movement. The volume to capacity ratios for the critical movements -opposing movements with the highest combined volume to capacity ratio - July 9, 2019 Item #14 Page 4 of 13 determines the overall intersection volume to capacity ratio. The ratio is then translated to a level of service where LOS A represents no congestion and LOS F is failing. Since 1989, the annual monitoring program documented performance during summer months at 49 key intersections and along 26-27 key mid-block arterial street segment locations. The results were captured in detailed reports and posted online. As well, monitoring results were summarized in the overall Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report. The last annual report employing this methodology was published in December 2015.2 The requirement that adequate public facilities be provided concurrent with development can be found in the Carlsbad Municipal Code. CMC Section 21.90.130(c) states: If at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the city manager that facilities or improvements within a facilities management zone or zones are inadequate to accommodate any further development within that zone or that the performance standards adopted pursuant to Section 21.90.100 are not being met he or she shall immediately report the deficiency to the council. If the council determines that a deficiency exists then no further building or development permits shall be issued within the affected zone or zones and development shall cease until an amendment to the city- wide facilities and improvements plan or applicable local facilities management plan which addresses the deficiency is approved by the city council and the performance standard is met. Further, CMC Section 21.090.080 provides in part, that: ... If at any time after preparation of a local facilities management plan the performance standards established by a plan are not met then no development permits or building permits shall be issued within the local zone until the performance standard is met or arrangements satisfactory to the city council guaranteeing the facilities and improvements have been made. These provisions have been invoked in relation to the circulation performance standard on at least three occasions in the city's history. In 1991, the City Council found that the 1-5 interchange at Palomar Airport Road failed the level of service standard during peak hours.3 Staff recommended a halt to new construction in several zones contributing traffic to the interchange, but after several continued meetings on this matter, the City Council ultimately determined that adequate financing for improvements had been guaranteed (i.e., formation of a Community Facilities District, and CalTrans funded and scheduled interchange improvements) and that development could proceed in affected zones. 2 2015 Traffic Monitoring Report, https://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/pw/traffic/traffic/default.asp 3 Agenda Bill #11,088. July 9, 2019 Item #14 Page 5 of 13 In 1998, the City Council received a report identifying circulation deficiencies at three locations: El Camino Real/Faraday Avenue intersection, Palomar Airport Road/El Fuerte Street intersection, and 1-5 northbound on-ramp at Pa lomar Airport Road .4 In this case, the City Council found that improvements had been identified and adequate assurances were in place to alleviate the deficient conditions. As such, no development was halted. In 1999, the City Council declared that El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue intersections had fallen below acceptable LOS.5 In this case, the Council noted that the El Camino Real/ La Costa Avenue intersection deficiency was temporarily caused by La Costa Avenue widening activities and that the intersection would return to acceptable LOS once construction was completed. However, for the El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road intersection, the City Council adopted (and subsequently extended) an urgency ordinance prohibiting new construction in LFMZs 5, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 21, pending completion of traffic fee allocation studies to determine fair sha re cost obligations to construct improvements to alleviate that deficient condition.6,7 Developers were allowed to obtain bu ilding permits during the moratorium if t hey agreed in writing to be bound by a future traffic impact fee once established, and pay an interim impact fee as a condition of permit issuance.8 For much of the three decades since GMP and CFIP adoption, Carlsbad has been developing and changing based on the premise of available land to accommodate a growing population. To maintain good traffic circulation, the city could build and expand its street network in order to meet the GMP circulation performance standard (by completing critical links, adding lanes and improving intersections). Carlsbad's basic guiding documents, such as its 1994 General Plan, were created on that premise. Today, however, with the city approaching buildout and most of the street network completed, development will mostly occur through infill and redevelopment, and it is increasingly more difficult to maintain good traffic circulation simply by building and expanding the street network. Era of Transition Besides a change in how Carlsbad grows, from large "greenfields" to smaller infill sites, the community is now guided and influenced by a vision, principles, policies, laws and regulations not in play 30 years ago. The Carlsbad Community Vision, the 2015 General Plan, Climate Action Plan, Habitat Management Plan, and smart growth and sustainability principles are some examples. 4 Agenda Bill# 14,696, http://edocs.carlsbadca.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/RecordHTML/111922 5 Agenda Bill# 15,141, http://edocs.carlsbadca.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/RecordHTML/111919 6 Ordinance No. NS-473, http://edocs.carlsbadca.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/RecordHTML/146045 7 Ordinance No. NS-491, http://edocs.carlsbadca.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/RecordHTML/146520 8 The moratorium under Ordinance No. NS-473 was adopted under Government Code sections 36934 and 36937, based on AB #15,141 and the facts presented at public hearings on April 13, 1999 and April 27, 1999. The moratorium was not adopted under Government Code section 65858. July 9, 2019 Item #14 Page 6 of 13 Transportation systems policy has evolved significantly in recent years in two key respects: 1) to respond to the needs of all users of a transportation system (pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, elderly, children, etc.), and 2) to recognize that automobile capacity-enhancing policies can disadvantage other travel modes, increase vehicle miles traveled (and the increased pollutant emissions that go with it) and paradoxically lead to more road congestion . At the state level, these policy issues have been addressed through passage of several bills over the years, including AB 1358, the California Complete Streets Act of 2008, which requires cities to plan (through, among other things, updates to their General Plans) for a balanced, multi-modal transportation system that meets the needs of all travel modes; and SB 743, which significantly reframes how t ransportation impacts on the environment are analyzed. Rather than treat traffic congestion as an environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), SB 743 has led to an alternative to the vehicle LOS analytical framework, one that evaluates projects according to the vehicle miles travelled (VMT) they induce. For CEQA compliance purposes, all local agencies in California will need to update their transportation impact analysis metrics to evaluate transportation impacts with a VMT-based metric prior to July 1, 2020. Locally, Carlsbad is participating in the ITE, San Diego Section, Transportation Capacity and Mobility Task Force to develop implementing guidelines that can be used across the region. City staff will be providing an update to the City Council specific to this issue in the near future. Transportation systems policy has also been evolving at the local level. Approximately 10 years ago, the city facilitated a visioning process (Envision Carlsbad) to engage community discussion about the future of Carlsbad. One of the Carlsbad Community Vision statements that emerged from the process was to "increase travel options through enhanced walking, bicycling, and public transportation systems." In 2012, the City Council adopted complete and "livable" streets as a top strategic focus area to "begin adapting Carlsbad streets to accommodate all modes of transportation, not just cars.9" Additionally, there was a growing awareness that the city's ability to continue building its way out of traffic congestion would not be sustainable, and that a different model was needed. 2015 General Plan Update This policy shift towards balanced multi-modal transportation planning was formally established in the 2015 General Plan update. Due to competing interests that arise when different travel modes mix, the General Plan recognizes that optimum service levels cannot be provided for all travel modes on all streets within the city. As such, the General Plan Mobility Element establishes the local policy framework to provide a balanced mobility system that identifies, based on the type of street (street typology), the travel modes for which service levels should be enhanced and maintained per the multi-modal level of service (MM LOS) standard specified in the city's Growth Management Plan. MMLOS defines acceptable service 9 Livable Streets Assessment Report, https://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/pw/traffic/traffic/livable.asp July 9, 2019 Item #14 Page 7 of 13 levels, not only from the driver's perspective but also that of the pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit rider. Mobility Element Policy 3-P.4 now calls for the city to: Implement the city's MM LOS methodology and maintain LOS Dor better for each mode of travel for which the MM LOS standard is applicable, as identified in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1. The Mobility Element describes the city's street system by typology, their desired characteristics, and the MM LOS standards that apply to each. Vehicle LOS applies to the Freeway, Arterial, Arterial Connector, and Industrial street typologies (See Exhibit 1).10 In conjunction with adoption ofthe updated General Plan and the associated Mobility Element, the CFIP circulation performance standard was revised in 2015, to read as follows: Maintain LOS D or better for all modes that are subject to this multi-modal level of service (MM LOS} standard, as identified in Table 3-1 of the General Plan Mobility Element, excluding LOS exempt intersections and streets approved by the City Council. Also in 2015, Mobility Element policies were added that provide a mechanism for the City Council to exempt individual street segments and intersections from the GMP LOS performance standard once they are determined to be built out by the City Council due to one or more of the following criteria: that (1) acquiring the rights of way is not feasible (to make further vehicle capacity enhancing improvements, i.e., street widening), (2) proposed improvements would cause significant environmental harm, (3) proposed improvements would conflict with community values or other General Plan policies, or (4) the proposed improvements would require more than three through travel lanes in each direction. In particular, Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 provides that the city will: Develop and maintain a list of street facilities where specified modes of travel are exempt from the LOS standard {LOS exempt street facilities}, as approved by the City Council. For LOS exempt street facilities, the city will not implement improvements to maintain the LOS standard outlined in Policy 3-P.4 if such improvements are beyond what is identified as appropriate at build out of the General Plan. In the case of street facilities where the vehicle mode of travel is exempt from the LOS standard, other non- vehicle capacity-building improvements will be required to improve mobility through implementation of transportation demand and transportation system management measures as outlined in Policy 3-P.11, to the extent feasible, and/or to implement the livable streets goals and policies of this Mobility Element. Evaluate the list of exempt 10 Since this report is focused on vehicle LOS methodologies, the MM LOS methodology for the other modes will not be discussed here. July 9, 2019 Item #14 Page 8 of 13 street facilities, as part of the Growth Management monitoring program, to determine if such exemptions are still warranted. To exempt the vehicle mode of travel from the LOS standard at a particular street intersection or segment, the intersection or street segment must be identified as built- out by the City Council because: a. acquiring the rights of way is not feasible; or b. the proposed improvements would significantly impact the environment in an unacceptable way and mitigation would not contribute to the nine core values of the Carlsbad Community Vision; or c. the proposed improvements would result in unacceptable impacts to other community values or General Plan policies; or d. the proposed improvements would require more than three through travel lanes in each direction. Instead, to maintain good traffic circulation consistent with Proposition E where a street segment is determined to be built out, the city will focus improvements on other non-vehicle capacity-building improvements and shift to transportation demand management and transportation system management strategies to address congestion issues as provided in Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11: Require new development that adds vehicle traffic to street facilities that are exempt from the vehicle LOS standard (consistent with 3-P.9} to implement: a. Transportation demand management strategies that reduce the reliance on single-occupant automobile and assist in achieving the city's livable streets vision. b. Transportation system management strategies that improve traffic signal coordination and improve transit service. Consistent with the new framework, and as part of the adoption of the 2015 General Plan, the City Council exempted the following street facilities per Mobility Element Policy 3-P.10: Allow the following street facilities to be exempt from the vehicle LOS standard identified in Policy 3-P.4, subject to the requirements described in Policy 3-P.9. • La Costa Avenue between lnterstate-5 and El Camino Real • El Camino Real between Palomar Airport Road and La Costa Avenue • Palomar Airport Road between lnterstate-5 and College Boulevard • Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Drive July 9, 2019 Item #14 Page 9 of 13 To support the shift to complete streets planning, the Mobility Element language relative to evaluation and implementation of transportation systems throughout the city. In particular, Mobility Element Policy 3-P.12 required the city to: Update the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan to ensure consistency with the General Plan. This includes updating the circulation LOS standards methodologies to reflect a more balanced/ multi-modal approach. Additionally, the Mobility Element specifies that vehicle LOS will be determined by using the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual (p. 3-16). Consistent with this direction, the city has recently developed a new GMP analysis methodology which is based on methods described in the HCM. The new GMP methodology incorporates a variety of factors including the street type, speed limit, number of lanes, signal spacing, signal cycle length, number of turn lanes, type of median, etc., to develop the Carlsbad Roadway Capacity Tables. Key differences from the 1989 GMP monitoring methodology include: • Eliminating intersection vehicle LOS analysis. The city has historically monitored vehicle LOS using both intersection and street segment methodologies. The city eliminated the use of intersection LOS analysis and now evaluates vehicle LOS using only street segment LOS analysis. • Updating street segment vehicle LOS analysis. The methodology used to evaluate vehicle LOS along street segments was updated to be consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual, per the General Plan Mobility Element. This update resulted in significantly reduced street capacities which subsequently led to significantly lower LOS results on most street segments. • Re-Defined street segments to monitor. The 18 street segments that were historically monitored and will continue to be monitored for vehicle LOS have been divided into 43 smaller street segments. Changes in the number of lanes, signal spacing or speed limit define the segment division. For the initial reporting period, traffic counts were not collected for all 43 street segments. Rather, traffic counts were collected at the same 18 historical locations as in previous years, and vehicle LOS is reported for the 18 street segments that align with the historical locations. The other 25 street segments (43-18=25) were not monitored in the FY 2017-18 Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report. All 43 street segments will be monitored going forward. • Changing vehicle LOS monitoring from summer conditions to average spring/fall conditions. The schedule for collecting field data for vehicle LOS was changed from summer to spring and fall data collection. The industry standard is to monitor traffic in the July 9, 2019 Item #14 Page 10 of 13 spring and fall to reflect typical conditions when school is in session. Traffic data were gathered in the fall of 2018 for the FY 2017-18 Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report. Shifting to an operational based analysis, the city can assess not only the condition of the existing system but also the benefits of integrating non-physical capacity enhancements such as improved signal timing and traffic system management tools operating in conjunction with the city's Traffic Management Center. The Carlsbad Roadway Capacity Tables provide a corridor- specific capacity. Corridors are based on the limits of common conditions such as signal spacing, number of lanes, the type of medians, speed and other factors. The Roadway Specific capacity for each corridor was calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology using software developed in the State of Florida. Using the specific capacities, rather than a generic capacity, provides a more detailed assessment of the flow of traffic along the corridor and allows the city to identify locations where improvements can be implemented to improve travel time, reduce delays and improve flow. When improvements to signal timing, signal equipment or other features are implemented along the corridor, the capacity can be re-calculated and the benefit of the improvement can be assessed. This is not feasible using the ICU methodology. Since much of the city's transportation system is built out, the ICU method is no longer an appropriate tool for evaluating the conditions of the transportation system. As the transportation system was building out, looking at the system at a high level with a tool that could be consistently replicated was appropriate. With the system at buildout, looking for ways to maximize the capacity of the system in place is a priority. The current tool allows the city to assess the capacity of the system and then assess where capacity enhancements are needed. This "fine tooth comb" method provides the city with a higher level of detail to address day to day operational issues as well as plan for long-term technology and infrastructure needs to maximize the capacity of the system. Evaluating Circulation Performance Using New Methodology Streets were evaluated using the new methodology for the FY 2017-18 annual GMP reporting year. The monitoring identified eight street segments not meeting the 2015 GMP circulation standard. They are: • El Camino Real between Oceanside city limit and Marron Road (both directions) • El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road (northbound direction only) • El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Avenue (southbound direction only) • Cannon Road between El Camino Real and College Boulevard (both directions) • College Boulevard from Aston Avenue to Palomar Airport Road (southbound direction only) • Melrose Drive from Vista city limits to Palomar Airport Road (southbound direction only) These deficiencies are primarily due to the changed measurement methodology, and to a lesser degree changes in vehicle volume as compared to recent years. The City Council will receive a July 9, 2019 Item #14 Page 11 of 13 report on these identified street deficiencies along with a staff recommendation to address them at their July 16, 2019 meeting. Fiscal Analysis This item is an informational presentation on the topic of traffic impact analysis and as such there is no financial impact. Environmental Evaluation (CEQA) Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, receiving an informational presentation on the work related to traffic analysis does not qualify as a "project" within the meaning of the CEQA in that it has no potential to cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably 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 1. Street network typologies and LFMZs July 9, 2019 Item #14 Page 12 of 13 Morgen Fry Subject: FW: Corresondence for Items 5 and 14 on the 7/9/2019 Council agenda Attachments: 2019-07-09 CC Item 5 LCA pavement overlay road diet correspondence-Linke .... pdf; 2019-07-09 CC Item 14 LOS methods correspondence-Linke.pdf From: Steve Linke Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 2:45 AM To: Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> All Receive _ Agenda Item # l'J For the Information of the: ... --·--..... --· -. -· ····-----D~t~~~/iTJ~~~~N~l~~:,,--- CM _.::!_ coo L DCM {3) v Subject: Corresondence for Items 5 and 14 on the 7/9/2019 Council agenda Please see the attached PDF files for correspondence which I would like made part of the public record for the ,_ referenced agenda items. 1 July 7, 2019 Re: July 9, 2019 City Council Meeting Item #14 (Growth Management Plan Circulation Performance Standards, 2015 General Plan Mobility Element, and Traffic Impact Analysis Methodologies} Mayor and City Council: I originally submitted this letter for the June 11, 2019 City Council meeting, but the topic was deemed more appropriate for the July 9, 2019 meeting, so I am re-submitting this letter (with revisions and additional content} for the public record on the above-reference agenda item. Please note that I am a member of the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC), but I am not writing in my official capacity. The overarching goals of this letter and the presentation I intend to provide at the meeting are: • Encourage accountability for the past usage of misleading traffic analyses. • Empower the TSC to review and provide advice to the City Council on traffic analysis methods and related documents in a transparent way. • Ensure that best practices and industry standards are applied to traffic analyses going forward, including retention of intersection level of service (LOS} methods. • Ensure that Staff and consultants, as subject-matter experts, provide valid and unbiased information to the public, TSC, Planning Commission, and City Council to promote sound policy making. Due to the complexity of the subject area, this is a relatively lengthy communication. I begin with a bullet point summary followed by a list of recommended actions. For those who wish to delve into the details, they follow the recommendations. Finally, I include sets of possible questions that could be asked of Staff or external experts, because I am unable to do that in this context. I also have attached a very important memorandum from transportation consulting firm Fehr & Peers (dated September 9, 2015, two weeks before adoption of the General Plan Update} that was inclu<;:led in a Staff Report from last month's TSC meeting. SUMMARY • Annual. GMP monitoring is supposed to identify emerging traffic congestion problems on Carlsbad streets and shut down development to prevent further congestion until the problems are fixed or sufficiently mitigated. • Although the traffic portions of the annual reports almost invariably show stellar vehicle levels of service (LOS}, traffic congestion is one of the top quality-of-life concerns with the lowest levels of satisfaction. • This paradox can be explained by the observation that Carlsbad's methods to determine vehicle LOS significantly over-es.timate the capacity of the streets, such that the LOS grades are much better than reality and virtually never fail the performance standard, no matter how congested the streets become. • Traffic impact analysis guidelines were developed by experts shortly after the GMP went into effect (1988} that included reasonable capacity assumption for both street facility and intersection analyses. However, those assumptions were largely abandoned almost immediately in favor of the assumptions that over-estimated capacity, which were unique to Carlsbad and not validated industry standards. 1 • Objective data, including side-by-side comparisons of Carlsbad's custom methods and methods that use valid capacity assumptions, confirm these problems. This includes a comparison of intersection methods by consulting firm Fehr & Peers, which also points out the flaws in the Carlsbad intersection LOS method. • In spite of the evidence that the methods did not reflect reality, and in spite of calls to reform the methods, they continued to be used for around 30 years. • These methods also have been ~sed for City ~treet projects and land use development projects. • The 2015 General Plan Update, including the new Mobility Element, requires use of valid LOS methods compliant with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) for both street facilities and intersections. • 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. • In addition, the defective Carlsbad methods, which are not HCM compliant, continue to be used in misleading ways, along with an inconsistent and changing mix of other methods and standards, for GMP monitoring, city street projects and land use developments. • More than three years after adoption of the Mobility Element, a new street facility LOS method, based on service volume tables, has been developed by the City and published in a new set of traffic analysis guidelines. The new method is very similar to (and an improvement on) the abandoned 1988 guidelines, but it has limitations. • Alarmingly, though, intersection LOS has been eliminated, despite the fact that there are compelling statutory, operational, and other reasons to continue using it. • Based on the new street facility LOS method, there are likely about nine or more street facilities that fail the GMP congestion standard. In addition, multiple intersection failures were reported in the Fehr & Peers memorandum. • Beyond those failures, there are many street facilities that have yet to be monitored, and there are multiple street facilities missing from the method that are required to be included by the Mobility Element, so the full extent of the failures after adoption of the new method remains unresolved. • Although vehicle LOS has been removed from state CEQA requirements in favor of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), continued local use of LOS for the GMP and other programs is allowed and must continue. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS • Determine that the old Carlsbad street segment and ICU-C intersection LOS methods significantly under-estimate congestion, and that all City departments must immediately cease using them. • Determine that the scheme of using the Carlsbad LOS methods to assess existing conditions and a different method to assess future conditions in traffic impact analyses is not a best practice, and that the City must immediately stop using that approach. • Direct all City departments to consistently and uniformly use (and require others to use) the new TIA Guidelines and LOS analysis methods. • Direct Staff to restore intersection LOS analysis or address the concerns in this letter. • Empower the TSC to work with Staff to: -Review all LOS-related documents in a public forum (advising the City Council on formal approval): 2 • Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines • Service volume tables • Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit MM LOS systems • Standard operating procedures for types of LOS analyses to be applied to different tasks (monitoring, planning, design) • Formal training materials to be used by other commissions involved in reviewing LOS analysis, including the Planning Commission's review of development projects -Identify when HCM-based intersection LOS analysis should be conducted for GMP monitoring, City street projects, land use development projects, etc. • Direct Staff to prepare a report that documents how all traffic studies have been conducted since adoption of the Mobility Element to track compliance. • Direct Staff to revise all TMP/GMP monitoring reports and traffic studies for city street projects that were conducted after adoption of the Mobility Element with side-by-side comparisons of the old Carlsbad street segment method with the new service volume-table based street facility method, as well as the old ICU-C method with the HCM intersection method. DETAILS Traffic congestion and the Growth Management Program Year 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. The GMP ordinance was passed by voters in 1986 to ensure that city services, including our streets, keep up with development. Vehicle LOS measures congestion on a scale of A to F, similar to school grades. The associated GMP and Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP) create a minimum congestion standard of LOS grade D during the peak hour. " I" I .• •I • '11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!~!!""'!~-~~·~·~'!"'!'~~~~~~~~==========================--.a----'"' Intersection Highly stable, free-flow condition with little or no congesUon Delay: <10 seconds/vehlcle Stable, tree-flow condition wtth little congestion Delay: 10 to 20 seconds/vehicle Free-flow eondiUon wilh moderate congestion Delay: 20 lo 35 seconds/vehicle Approaching unstable condiUon w~th increasing cong&stlon Delay: 35 to 55 seconds/vehicle Unstable, congested condition Delay: 55 lo 80 seconds/vehicle Stop and go Delay: >SO seconclslvehlcle 3 Free flowing Uninterrupted vehicle Stable flow --Other vehicles are more noticeable Stable flow Vehicle operations affected by other vehicles High density frae flow Operation of vehicle ls affected by other vehicles High density traffic flow, nearing capacity Amount of traffic exceeds capacity From 1989 until adoption of the General Plan Update in 2015, an annual Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) Report was consistently published with traffic count data and corresponding LOS grades at dozens of both mid-block 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 Zone (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 and inconsistent with guidelines produced by several expert consultants (see below). The methods do not reflect reality or provide meaningful information, and street sites can almost never fail, no matter how bad congestion gets. I suspect this is a violation ofthe spirit, and perhaps the letter, of the GMP. General reason why the Carlsbad street segment and intersection LOS methods are invalid LOS is often determined at two different location types: (1) roadway segments (also known as street facilities or corridors) and (2) intersections. Calculating LOS for a street segment is very simple. Vehicle counts are collected with pneumatic tube counters at mid-block locations. Those numbers are then "plugged into" a lookup table that includes vehicle number ranges for each letter grade, which should be appropriate for the street segment. Calculating LOS for intersections is also straight-forward. Counts of vehicles traveling in each lane in an intersection are collected during the peak hour, and then the numbers are plugged into a spreadsheet or software that calculates LOS. Historically, Carlsbad has used an intersection capacity utilization (ICU) method, which determines intersection LOS based on capacity, similar to the street segment method. However, under some circumstances, they have required the use of the HCM intersection method, which is based on average vehicle delay. These broad approaches in the Carlsbad LOS methods are valid. However, the validity of the overall methods depends on the appropriateness of the thresholds in the lookup tables or the default values and other discretionary variables used by the spreadsheet or software. And that is where the Carlsbad methods lose their validity. They assume thresholds and default values that are not at all appropriate for urban streets with varying speeds, lane numbers, intersection spacing, signal timing, median types, etc., leading to significant under-estimates of congestion. 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, as long as the street configuration at the time of the data collection is known. Original 1988 Guidelines for Transportation Impact Studies The Staff Report refers to a document entitled "Guidelines and Instructions for the Preparation of Local Facilities Management Plan Transportation Impact Studies," which was completed in February of 1988 ("1988 Guidelines"). The document was reviewed in January of 1989 by the "Citizens Committee to Study Growth," which was tasked with tracking progress of the Growth Management Program. 4 The 1988 Guidelines include LOS methods based on validated data in the HCM and tuned to Carlsbad's urban streets by a group of expert consultants. These methods were supposed to be used for annual GMP monitoring and review of street and land use development projects. Unfortunately, the methods that became standard in Carlsbad over the past 30 years only vaguely resemble these original guidelines. Street segment LOS method in the original 1988 guidelines In the following urban street segment LOS table from the 1988 Guidelines, the first three columns show eight different general street classifications with different assumed average speeds and various numbers of lanes, access points {e.g., intersections or driveways), and median types {undivided vs. divided). The columns on the right show maximum vehicle counts with corresponding LOS grades based on average daily traffic (ADT). ARlERiAL UNKADl' LINKADl' UNK ADl' LINKADl' LmKADl' c:rASSIFICAT!Ol ~ 1mH&f (IDS Al .ilSLfil. (IDS C) .lIDLID. .lli!Lfil 6IANEHUMEAlm!:RIAL N) YES 40,000 46,670 53,340 60,000 66,670 6 IANE mll4E ~ SCME YES 33,340 38,890 44,450 so,ooo 55,560 4IANEMAJCRARIEUAL le YES 26,670 31,120 35,560 40,000 44,450 4 IANE SEDHlllRY llRl.'ERIAI. SOIE YES 20,000 23,240 26,670 J0,000 33,340 4 UINE WIDiX!ltlR YES ID 16,670 19,450 22,220 25,000 27,780 2 IANE OOill:C!CR N) 00 13.,340 15,560 17,780 20,000 22,230 2 UINE ~ YES NO 10,000 11,670 13,340 15,000 16,670 2 IA!!E I.OCAL YES ID 6,675 7,785 8,900 10,000 11,120 In the following figure, I have converted the uADT" numbers from the above table into {[peak vehicles per hour per lane" {vphpl) for the "four-lane secondary arterial." I used a standard calculation of 10% of ADT divided by the number of lanes. It is a graphical example showing ranges of vehicle numbers for each LOS grade: Peak vehicles per lane per hour (y_pJgl1) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 500 580 670 750 830 In the above example, an LOS grade of "A" is assigned if there were 500 or less vehicles per lane counted in the peak hour. LOS Bis assigned if there were 501 to 580 vehicles, LOS C is assigned if there were 581 to 670 vehicles, etc. When the threshold between LOS D and Eis exceeded {751 vehicles at the vertical . purple line in this example), the segment reaches LOSE and fails the Carlsbad minimum LOS D standard. 5 Below is the same table from the 1988 Guidelines showing just LOS D to demonstrate the failure thresholds. I have provided the peak hour conversions in purple text on the right, which are the maximum volumes before the various street classes reach their failure thresholds. They range from 500 to 1,000 vehicles per lane in the peak hour. Urban street segment LOS table (HCM-compliant; authored by experts; reviewed by citizens committee) AR'lmIAL LlNKIJfl CIASSI,[lgngf ~ ~ ~ 6UN!!:~~ I«) YES 60,00Q 61.ANEmllmARIERIAL SCI£ YE; 50,000 4WIEWMARD1:RW, m Yts 40,000 4 mm ~ ARl'.ERm, SCM& YES 30,000 4 I.ANE (l)~ m ID 25,000 2 1ANE ~ 1() N) 30,000 2 ~ ~ YES N:) 15,000 2 IANE UlCAL YES ID l(),000 LOS O peak "Carlsbad method" (Rura l highway; high speed; few intersections) LOSO peak vplgh* volph* 1,000 8 30 1,000 750 630 1,000 750 500 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 1,620 *Standard assumption that 10% ·of ADT occurs in peak hour t ravel "Carlsbad method" for street segment LOS used instead of 1988 Guidelines But instead of using this expert-designed, HCM-compliant table from the 1988 Guidelines, Staff immediately replaced it with the "Carlsbad method" for the initial 1989 traffic monitoring report later that year and has continued to use it for the last 30 years. Instead of the reasonable urban street volumes of 500 to 1,000 vplph tuned to various street classes, the "Carlsbad method" uses the "rural highway" street volume of 1,620 vplph before failure {1,800 vplph total "capacity"} for every lane in Carlsbad regardless of street class (see the blue area in the above figure}, as acknowledged on page 4 of the Staff Report. The usage of the rural highway standard, and its assumptions of high speeds, lack of intersections, etc., by the "Carlsbad method" was completely inappropriate for the different sets of urban streets with lower speeds, closely spaced intersections, etc. A discli;limer appeared in each annual TMP report acknowledging this severe limitation of the method, as well. Yet, neither the existence of the urban street segment LOS table in the original 1988 Guidelines, nor a justification for its abandonment, were provided in the new Staff Report describing the history of LOS analysis in Carlsbad. SANTEC/ITE street segment LOS guidelines The following table was developed by the San Diego Regional Traffic Engineers Council and Institute of Transportation Engineers (SANTEC/ITE}. It was published in 2000 in the "SANTEC / ITE Guidelines for 6 Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region." It is very similar to the table in the abandoned 1988 Guidelines, with failure thresholds in the approximately 500 to 1,000 vplph range for the various street classes. These guidelines also could have been adopted by the City, but they were not. LEVEL OF SERViC.E WIAOT-LOSO CROSS peak STREET SECTIONS:' CLASSIACATION LANES ·(APPROX ) A B c .o: E volph* Prime Arterial 6lartes !02~10&f22-12S I 25.000 35.000 50,00-0 55,000 60,000 917 I r 20000 ~,,. ____ Maj'or Arterial 6 lanes 102[122 28,000 40,000 45.000 50,000 750 MaJor Arterial 4 taneS 7S-S2J98-102 15,000 2 1.000 30.000 35,000 40,000 875 ~cndilfy Arteria!/ 4t;,p~s 64-72JS4.;92 10.000 14,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 625 Collector Col!ectw 13.000 (no center I arie} 4!anes ·€'-41&4 :'$.ODO 7,000 15,000 650 icooliliuous !eft-:! lanes 50170 10J)00 furn lane) Co~ector (00 fronting ?lanes 40j50 :M® 5.500 t;soo ~,®O 10::000 450 property) "Stand_arlassµrnptibn that 10% of APT.occurs in peak hour travei Comparison of the abandoned 1988 Guidelines with the Carlsbad method for street segment LOS The following figure is a graphical representation comparing a range of street classes from the abandoned 1988 Guidelines in 'the top three bar charts with the Carlsbad method in the bottom bar chart. Alarmingly, an LOS grade of "A" using the Carlsbad method could mean anything from an A through an Fusing the abandoned guidelines, indicating that the Carlsbad method grading serves no useful purpose. Vehicles per lane per hour 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 4-ln collector ~ l 4-ln secondary 6-ln prime "Carlsbad method" ·· .. A 1· I i D ,Lfi -.~ I 1· It should also be noted that, when the maximum volume for LOSE (e.g., 830 vplph in the 4-lane secondary arterial example) is reached, the street has essentially reached its capacity, and the resulting congestion will actually cause the vehicle counts to start going back down. This can create the illusion that LOS is getting better again. Thus, it is very likely that no Carlsbad street could ever even reach the 1,621 vplph required for it fail under the Carlsbad method, because, ironically, severe congestion would prevent that from happening. It is a method that is virtually guaranteed to never fail.. 7 Consequences of using t he Carlsbad street segment LOS method for traffic monitoring Below is a page from the 2010 TMP Report showing "Carlsbad method" LOS for 34 street segments 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. As shown in the first figure, LOS A is supposed to indicate that vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver with almost no delay due to red lights-conditions that typically occur only in the middle of the night on cit y streets. This has been inconsistent with voter intent ofthe GMP for the 30 years it has been used. Summ.'ll' 2006 Suuuner lOOS Swm:n~r ZOIO Segment P:tl~ Ai.-port R.c~d h:lnnur.A....~rt?-.£1ad P21Imw-~..i-port Ro.ii 4 ~A..~-t:RD.:!d S PWi?W" ~.ilportRo.d 6 El.Camino Rel 7 ci~o~ 10 E!.u::cino~ 11 E!C~hal 12 E!Cami,,ol\e,l 13 Meiras!! Drive 14 Meh05i! Drive 15 e!rD""..1!.Drive 16 Cmsb.r.d.3oule-.. 4l"d 17 Carlib:;:C.B~~ 1S C'.Mlsb:!d Boule.'\..ird 19 Ca,thbad. Boule:\.-zrd. .20 L~Cosb._4~~ 21 Co.:.-tak.-~ 22 ~5.mtaFERoad 23 oSamaFe&oad. 24 S.mraFeR.oad 25 C.a-1..sbad Village Dri.e '.?6 Poin!.Efm.L.i.11!! 27 Ti!:D:13lacl.A.-e=e 1S P:as&:1 Del Norte 29 P:!5M Del No1fe. 30 CamionR.o.3.i 31 C.ami.cm.Rm.d S-1 College Bcml~niU 33 ~ Boule\'ml. 34 Alg;-:~1d .?ze.o Del Nam 2nd Ami:..U Drive: Y.m:~Dm-e::md.El.C~:i:Bnl -CamnaRe.21.'2?1.dl.cl:ErA~W.,'In:nanfum.Wy. El~S3:e:a:o:l:!4Lah:r.A.nEJG.ttc'tl.::3YMM Miliose~anii?&.!o\~.'OgbDrtte ~D.tn-..m:!Mml>n:Rmd. !~d: A.v.unt!, iilldXeE;,I>ri\"!: F.;.:r.;.d..-yA~r.d.P.umm:r_~~ C~ Vith.:F.bblecm.duzia.~ i!..rdWRc~d adCtn'b.Dellh:r?..oad :1Co:::tiAve!mtclL~Smat ~e;Siret:alldu!:.Emn::E:cm . -hNdA.,~mdP.i~Airport:Ro3.:i Pil?omz.P..irpart~a!ld.R2nciu>Er.:.,:ado JUp.lto.i.d.3IldCaru:i..ti.aStn:et Moutlt:aitt. Vi1m·Dxi.ri= :md Stm: Stet Ca:mon.R.oadcMCe!c:!0~ .....,.,R,,a,l=llili,,dWay. A-.mda&cm.3s~LaCo::.b.ATI?!lue Sno=s RDad.2lld ~ Sb:ee.t Ca&nciaSfu!et.:nd~Sti~ Co:s.aMG~Di:i-,1!aI?dS~El.ijoRmd A,edaSo1'<hd=ICammoJ~ A:vE:ciea..U CllJl.3 ..ndC~A~"olAvenid.J.L!P-cr..Q VzcfcriaAvmm:mdPtmti.acD~ ~ ~Natte md.Baquitns Dm-E :ElCami:no&a.a.lzndl..2PCl..-.f:ilia2~ Ca=inoDelP2Iq.te.(N:r.ih):m.:iP~~?.o-.d Noum_4:itport&indaidGrCotmtcyThi.\·e PaeoD!:lNDtteznd.Cs~•Dni:e ll!C=mc,Real""1Con-&u1,,=1 T3.lll3llcl::.ATmu@ {N0..."1hj and.Norlb. CityL~ Pa!om:rAirpartR.aadanCktoo.Ann~ Cori.mil.Stteetan.dE!~Streer Attempt to initiate reforms in 2011 ADT Puk LOS 53,37S A 32,960 A 51,613. A ~9,245 A 30,SJ.2 A 25.!?S ·A S6,711 A !9,S<,l A 47,091 A 36;-09i A 36,413 A 12,rn2 A 16.416 A 14,868 A 19,034 A 17,267 A 1S,U6 A ~,57S A 12,061 A 30,516 A 36,589 A 16:739 A 5,866 A 26,121 A 7,851 A 9,226 A 10,,$9 A 25.0il A 19,965 D 173S1 A 14,484 A ADT 53,175 33,&20 52,.739 35,290 34575 ·15,509 38,-417 3{).375 50,9!)5 39,!05 39,.351 25,.995 17~742 20,S80 13,985 lS.163 16,!14 19,-47.; 33,245 11..492 34,674 39,947 17~02S 6,166 26,,623 S,453 S,791 10/!46 22,:ns 19,396 25,690 13,71S H,482. Peak LOS A A A A A A A A C A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A D A A A .IDT Puk LOS 49,.570 A 33,523 A 43,920 A 42;2S7 A 3"3,S75 A 2fi,il3 A 23,717 . A 37.735 A 28,048 A 43,213 A 31,933 A 31,275 A 22,637 .A 16,969 A 1S~667 A U.,065 A 15,4S5 A 11,949 A. 17,905 A 31,.25.; A ll,819 A 31,122. A. 55.754 A. 17,445 A 5,665 A 24,6:;Q A S.,42S A 8,125 A. 9,473 A 21,709 A 16,5S6 B 23,140 A 13.SIO A 10,532. A AllT 4&.75S J0,1SS 44,i42 40,819 30;?67 26.,401 22.,S:17 27,20.5 2S,OS9 44,112 SS,325 ll;m 22,7..94 16,493 IS,822 13,£34 16,378 14,19'.4 18,2.U 3.3,475 U.,37D 2.S,313 35,o7S 17,45S 5,63? 25,837 7:,906 7,975 &.7&0 23,284 J6,S;; 24,475 13,.992 10,116 Peak LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A. A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A ADT 4S,490 .34,030 45,0SO 44,361 3-2:,769 2".406 23,540 36,200 3-0)83 46,103 ,2,600 31,042 ~SS7 17,061 20,216 12,&84 16.882 13,66S 17,.242 32,767 12.190 :!B,765 35,365 15,l2J 6,114 25,315 s,sas S,109 9,320 14$70 17,193 23).i2 B,&13 10.844 In June of 2011, I alerted the City to the problems with t he LOS methods, including charts and tables similar to those presented here. I suggested switching to a method consistent with the HCM, SANTEC/ITE, or Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), all of which were very similar to the abandoned 1988 Guidelines. Pe:ik LOS· A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A " A A A A A A A However, nothing was done. The table below is from t he last TMP Report to be published (201S), showing Carlsbad method street segment LOS for 27 of the streets for the years since my attempt to initiate reforms (2011 through 2015). Again, the table is filled with misleading LOS A's-despite the fact that t hey represent Carlsbad's most congested streets at peak hour. 8 Location Summer2011 Summer2012 Summer2013 Summer2014 Summer 2015 111 Number Segment Segment Location Peak Peak Pe:ik Pe:ik Peak ADT LOSl2l ADT LOSl'I ADT LOSl'I AOT LOSl2I ADT LOS12l 1 Palomar Airport Rd. Paseo Del Norte lo Armada DL 48,249 A 48,626 A 52,555 A 52,779 A 55,501 A 2 Palomar Airport Rd. Ya.TOW Dr. to El Camino Real 33,440 A 35,154 A 34,017 A 37,900 A 38,433 A 3 Palomar Airport Rd. El Can~no Real to Loker Ave (W.) 45,902 A 52,786 A 48,560 A 50,651 A 50,445 A 4 Palomar Airport Rd. Melrose Dr. to Paseo Valindo 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 B Gamino Real Tamarack Ave. to Kelly Dr. 25,036 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 B Gamino Real Faraday Ave. to Palomar Airport Rd. 36,281 · A 30,477 A 31,739 A 34,867 A 34,378 A 9 B Camino Real Arena/ Rd. to Costa Del Mar Rd. 47,151 B 49,760 B 49,299 B 51.393 B 51,499 B · 10 El Gamino Real Levante 51. to Calle Barcelona 33,507 A 35,782 A 35,434 A 36,495 A 37,873 A 11 Melrose Dr. L/onshead Ave. to Palomar Airport Rd.. 23,830 A 25,387 A 27,253 A 27,857 A 30,378 A 12 Carlsbad Blvd State SL to Mountain View Dr. 13,320 A 13,743 A 14,791 A 13,'/56 A 12,991 A 13 Gar!sbad 6/Vd Acacia Ave. to Cheey Ave. ---17,653 A 19,001 A 18,668 A 18,011 A 14 Carlsbad B!vd Tamarack Ave. to Tierra Del Oro --19,224 A 17,319 A 17,396. A 20,894 A 15 Carlsbad Blvd Cannon Rd. lo Cerezo Dr. 16,565 A 16,128 A 16,755 A '17,714 A 16,668 A 16 Gar!sbad Blvd Breakwater Rd. to Poinsettia Ln. 12,936 A 13,655 A 15,193 A 16,289 A 16,539 A 17 Garlsbad Blvd Avenida Encinas to 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 SL to Gadencia st 12,196 A 12,043 A 12,087 A 12,266 A 12,861 A 20 Rancho Santa Fe Rd La Cos'.a Meadows Dr. to San Elijo Rd. 27,187 A 30,793 A 28,979 A 28.959 A 29,512 A 21 Poinsettia Ln. Paseo Del Norte lo Ba!iquttos Dr. 24,353 A 24,801 A 25,075 A 25,071 A 26,174 A ·22 Tamarack Ave B Camino Real to La Portalada Dr. 8,663 ... 7,905 A 7,705 A 7,669 A 7,390 A 23 Cannon Rd. Paseo Del Nort_e to Car Country Dr. 25,717 A 25,420 A 26,399 A 23,460 A 24,702 A 24 Gannon Rd. Hilltop SL lo Cofiege Blvd. 17,462 A 17,764 A 18,561 A 19,281 A 18,814 : A 25 College Blvd. N. City limilS 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 Cofintia SL to B Fuerte st 10,856 A 10,454 A 10,299 A 10,415 A 10.538 A No1e: Locations shatled in gray were coi!e-cted in mid-September 2015 at the direcl!on di Cit'J staff. OJ All counts were cofiected during the summsrmonths ~uly and August} except for th!! three (3.) shaded locations ihat were collected in mid-8eptember 2015. ~:l:) Roadway segment levels of service are base::! on peak hour operating conditions. For detailer! peak hour analysis, refer to Table A-2 ~n Appendix A of this report New Carlsbad street facility LOS method The good news is that Staff has developed a new street facility (segment) LOS method based on a "seNice volume" (or "roadway capacity") table approach. It is based on an FDOT interpretation of the HCM (see a sample portion of a table below). It can be customized for each street segment with different characteristics, and it takes into account different volumes of directional peak hour traffic at different times of day. However, there are significant limitations that need to be carefully considered. (<Jrvof __ RO_A_D_w_. _A_YCA_·_P_A_C_ITY_T_A_BLE_S _____________________ Carlsbad C -.J l if,;-. r n I ,ii, Table 1: Roadway Capacity Table • Specific Corridors Roadway Peak Direction NiSStreets Limits Classification A 8 C D E a~-Limits to Marron Road 5/35/fJ .. .,. ... 1400 Marron-Rood to Carlsbzd Villa.~e Dri\1e 6/15/D 140 2070 .252.0 al Carfaha:d Villa.geo-r1,.,·E;'tC< Ti;ima.rad:.Pivi:mue 6/55/D 1930 21150 2900 1111 1#1 £.{55/D 2~00 2800 ## 2/55/0 -1-JB 1060 1.!150 llll ## 3/S!i/D-5B 2150 · 2900 lffl 1#1 El Camino Real C()lleEe-B□uJe!o•ard ta Palomar 1-..ir-;iort B-..oad 6/-SS/D no Palomar Airi:;-iDrt Ro:d to Caminq Vida Robh:1; 6/55/D 2750 29ao llll 1#1 .. 1.330 2510 2580 "Camino Vi.Gi:i Roble to-P.oinre-tti.a lane 2/55{D-NB 3/55./0-58 970 2020 1100 1#1 1470 2820 2,900 (ill 6/55/D 2100 2820 2900 Aviara !'arkway-tJga Raad to 13 Co,13 A\te<lu•e i--3 .. /5_5..,/0_-_N __ El-+--•+---1----- 2/55/0 -SB B90 '2580 j/jj 1#1 BOO 1920 ti# ~ ~ Costa Avel"liuet:ol.eiJC:ari:ia 801,J~ev,ud 6/S5/0 1880 2820 28:<IO 9 Comparisons of old and new Carlsbad street facility LOS methods In the following figure, the top three bar charts are from the abandoned 1988 Guidelines, the middle bar chart is for the invalid "Carlsbad method" used for the past 30 years, and the last three bar charts are from a range of Carlsbad streets using the new street facility LOS method. The new method produces results that are shockingly simil,H to the original, abandoned 1988 Guidelines, with nearly every Carlsbad street ending up with a failure threshold in the 500 to 1,000 vplph range. The new method also has the advantages of being customized for individual sections of streets and the ability to account for directional differences in traffic volumes in the AM and PM peak hours. It is easy to see which one doesn't belong, and I think it is clear that we are now coming full circle back to the type of method that should have been used for the last 30 years. This is a great start to a long-overdue reform. Vehicles per lane per hour 0 200 400 600 · 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 4-ln collector 4-ln secondary 6-lnprime "Carlsbad method" (1989-now} ,n GI a, u-·-.c ~ i!S CII GI Ul E 3 ::, Ill -z~ Melrose NB : J\"'.,~ D (City Limit to PAR} 1 . ·I College Blvd ..--. •·-.;-: :-.c':.~A--:C-._-: .-,. '--,-~-0-~.,,, (CitylimittoCVDJ ., ... · ............... ...-........ ....,,_.....__~-~1 t--- 7 I i And, if one applies the new service volume table-based street facility LOS method to previously collected monitoring data, such as the most recent TMP Report from 2015, you get the comparison in the following table. Not surprisingly, many of the A's and B's determined by the invalid Carlsbad method turn into failing E or F grades, which more accurately reflect driver experience on the corresponding streets. 10 Carlsbad 2015 Traffic Monitoring. Program Report ··Loeat10:n Number Segment 1 2 3 4 5 (f 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ,14 Palomar Airport Rd. Palomar Airport Rd. Palomar Airport Rd. Palomar Airport Rd. El Camino Real EJ, Camino Real · El Camino Real El Camino Rei'!I , El Cammo Real Et camino Real Melrose Or. • Carlsbad Blvd • Carlsbad Blv{I cartsbad Blvd cartsbad BWd Cmlsbad Blvd Garlsbad Slvd Segm~nt t..ocation Pasw Del Norte to Armada Dr. Yarrow Or. to El Camrno Real El Camino Real to Loker Ave (W.) Melrose Dr. to Paseo VaHndo Plaza Dr to Marron Rd . Tamara~ Ave. tb Keliy Or~ Jacxspar Or. to College Blvd_ Faraday Ave_ to Palomar Airport Rtt Arenal Rd. to Costa Del Mar Rd. Levante st to cane sarcetcma tJonshead Ave_ to Palomar Airport Rd. State SL to Mountafn View Dr_ Acacia Ave. to Cheny Ave_ Tamarao-Ave. to Tierra Del Oro Cannon Rd:. to Cerezo Dr. Bmatw.-ater Rd, to Poinsettia LR Avenida Encinas to La costa Ave. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 la Costa Ave Piraeus Stto Saxony Rd. La Cos.ta Ave · Romelia St to cactencia St Ranctio Santa Fe Rd La costa Meadows Or. to san Etijo Rd. • Poinsettia Ln. 2-? ' Ta(ij~r~~k _A:Vf#:' 23 cannon Rd. · 2;1 : eannon Bd~ 25 College Blvd. 26 • COilege SMt 27 Alga Rd Paseo Del Norte to Batrquttos Dr. 'El Cmnino Real.to La Portafa9.a. 9r. Paseo Del Norte to Car Country Dr. H1i1top st to eoi1ege srvd. N. Clty Llmlts to Tamarack AW;_ (N.) Aston Ave. to Palomar Airport Rd. Corintta St. !o El Fuerte St. Peak LOS based on Carlsbad Service Vo,lume Tables (HCM) summer 201 s 11) l ADT P~ak L.0$(2). 55,501 A D 38,433 A C 50,415 A C 30.912 A B 30,056 A 21.rsa, A C 37,541 B F (FAil} ~.378 A 8 51.499 6 F (FAil} 37.873 A C 30.$78 A IE {fAfL) 12,991 A E (FAil} 18,011 A D 20.894 A D 16,668 A F (FAil) 16,539 A D 19,167 A D 38,415 A C 12,$61 A D 29,512 A B 26,174 A C 7390 ~ ',., . I A C 24,702 ! A C ' 1&.814 A ' } t \FAR 26,8:30 A D i4.762 A C 10,538 A C When this new street facility LOS method is described in the Staff Report, the problems with the old Carlsbad method and the LOS differences reported in the table above are essentially acknowledged: The new GMP methodology incorporates a variety of factors including the street type, speed limit, number of lanes, signal spacing, signal cycle length, number of turn lanes, type of median, etc., to develop the Carlsbad Roadway Capacity Tables ... This update resulted in significantly reduced street capacities which subsequently led to significantly lower LOS results on most street segments ... These deficiencies are primarily due to the changed measurement methodology ... 11 Faulty Carlsbad intersection LOS method \_ The Staff Report is correct that the "Intersection Capacity Utilization" (ICU} method was in common use in Southern California at the time the method was adopted by Carlsbad. However, what is not stated is that the Carlsbad version ofthe method ("ICU-C"} used significantly elevated capacity assumptions. The assumptions were not as exaggerated as the "rural highway" street segment assumption, but they still created systematic under-reporting of congestion. Also, the claim in the Staff Report that the ICU method is still widely used in Southern California is not credible (see below}. While the HCM recommended assuming 1,500 vplph for through-lanes for ICU analyses at the time, and while the major other communities in Southern California that used the ICU method (i.e., Los Angeles County} assumed 1,600 vplph, Carlsbad chose a value of 2,000 vplph for its so-called "ICU-C" method: ICU through-lane Jurisdiction capacity {vplph) Carlsbad 2,000 HCM recommendation 1;500 Los Angeles County 1,600 It is also interesting to note that the primary intersection method in the abandoned 1988 Guidelines had an assumption of 1,700 vplph. Consultants who wrote the TMP Reports suggested that the elevated 2,000 vplph value should only be used on an interim basis when future improvements were planned elsewhere that would eventually relieve the demand on an intersection that failed with the 1,700 vplph assumption. However, that did not dissuade the City from rapidly abandoning those more reasonable approaches and assuming for nearly 30 years that every through-lane in every intersection in Carlsbad had a capacity of 2,000 vplph, regardless of its individual characteristics. Fehr & Peers memorandum confirms faulty nature of Carlsbad "ICU-C" intersection LOS method Fehr & Peers is a transportation consulting firm that was involved in the drafting of the General Plan Mobility Element. They sent a memorandum to the City on September 9, 2015 (attached} that includes a side-by-side analysis of 49 key intersections from Carlsbad's 2014 TMP Report using: (1} the Carlsbad ICU-C method with its inflated lane capacity assumptions, (2} a validated ICU method using Synchro software, and (3} the HCM delay-based method required by the Mobility Element. The memorandum was included in a June 2019 TSC meeting Staff Report for an LOS item of business I had requested. Until that Staff Report, I am not aware that anybody outside of Staff had ever seen this striking memorandum. For context, the memorandum was delivered after the final environmental impact report (FEIR} on the General Plan Update had been reviewed by the public and the Planning Commission in July of 2015, and it was delivered just two weeks prior to the final City Council adoption of the General Plan Update. The following tables show the side-by-side comparisons of the first 17 of the 49 intersections analyzed (the full set can be seen in the attached version of the memorandum}. I added the purple and red boxes to highlight the LOS grades, including-the failing E and F grades. When the valid methods in the middle (Synchro ICU) and right (HCM} are used, the levels of service are worse by 1-4 letter grades for more 12 than 70% of the 49 intersections. Most frequently, the valid methods were about two letter grades worse than those reported in the 2014 TMP Report for the Carlsbad ICU-C method . . TABLE 2-INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHOOOt.OGY COMPARlSON cJ (.amino 1 . Real EJ (;'ln,nno 2: Real EI C<1mino 3 Real 4 El Camino Real El (amino S Real El Camano 1 Real EI Camino .g: Real .9 El Camano Real Marron Rd Carlsbad Vil1ag€:' Dr Ti'Jm~r.ad: A,ve C,H'lf!Oric Rd (allege illvd farnday Ave P',1l0 mar Airport Rd Ca.ssi.a Rd B 056 A A. 0.61 a, I) Q,67 B C 0.80 C 1170 0.661 C 11.1 C 0.636 B 36;9 D 0,714 C 38,9 D 0.664 C 29.6 C 0.984 F 47.1 1) 0;755 D 44.6 D 0.808 '0 S8.1!. D 0.955 []] 68.4 ~ 0.844 8 44.J!. D 13 ·t:AB.lEi-INTERS.ECrtON OPE!tATIONS ANA1.VSIS METHODOLOGY ·COMPARISO·N -. .--..,~--- ~ocnro'li=:U Metbodt.ti Jn~rs_ectlqn PM PM. Lo$ -Qtl!IY 7 L~~-1 _(S~Yf · Jl l . ·-. . .. Poinsettia !() El Ca rhino Real ln OAS A 0.669 C 29,7 C El Camino Mg~ Rd~ Cl 11 Real Aviar-a -(t70 B 0.831 E 82.2 ?k.wy ii E.ICamino la, Co:.ta 0.79 C 0.9U 8 $0.8 0 R~al Aw !3 El ,c,.mino Calle o.61 0.664 C 39.5 D Re-al 8,m.:elorrn 14 Palomar-Averiicti¼ 0.7.5 C 0.632 B 34.3 C AirpottRd Erieinas 15 Palom"1!f Pase-o Del 0.72 C 0.725 :31.8 t Airport Rd' Norte i6 Palomar ArmadaD, 0.71 C 0.849 E 38.5 D Airport Rd Col!ege l7 Piilofilar 81,cd-0.70 9: 0.856 E 54.1 rr Airport Rd · Aviara Pkwy Additional key points based on the memorandum: • All three of these intersection LOS methods rely on the same input data, so essentially all one has to do is push a different button in the software to get the alternative results. • The ICU methodology is not commonly used anymore (nor has it for many years, despite what is stated in the Staff Report) and is not recommended for Carlsbad. • Parameters used in the Carlsbad ICU method do not reflect industry standards. • " ... [A] consistent policy was not followed for adjusting lane capacities." • ICU does not properly account for closely spaced and/or congested intersections. • HCM results provide more appropriate results and are more realistic in terms of actual driver experience than the Carlsbad method (i.e., they reflect the heavy traffic volumes with substantial delay during peak periods observed at Carlsbad's intersections). General Plan Mobility Element Adoption and new TIA guidelines On September 22, 2015, the City Council adopted the General Plan Update that included the new Mobility Eiement, which, thankfully, now requires vehicle LOS to be determined by valid methods 14 consistent with the HCM. The Mobility Element states the following with respect to the determination of vehicle LOS: Vehicular Level of Service. Level of service will be determined by the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual. This methodology evaluates vehicles based on their freedom to maneuver and overall delay experienced at intersecti?ns. Unfortunately, the City had apparently made no preparations for this significant methodological shift leading up to the adoption of the Mobility Element. It took 2-1/2 years and a lawsuit settlement to force . the issue of the preparation of the new Transportation Impact Analysis Guideline document, completed in April 2018 {2018 TIA Guidelines) and almost another year after that to produce the accompanying "Roadway Capacity Tables Report" {completed in February 2019). Meanwhile, Staff knew from the September 9, 2015 Fehr & Peers memorandum that many intersections were already failing under one of the exact LOS methods required by the Mobility Element {HCM methodology that determines overall delay experienced at intersections). Yet, when the 2015 TMP Report was prepared and published three months later {on December 22, 2015) based on data collected earlier in 2015, it used the old Carlsbad methods inconsistent with the Mobility Element, which, of course, did not show those failures. As described above, the ability to run the HCM intersection method on this same data, as required by the Mobility Element, was only a matter of pushing a different button in the software, but that was not done. The FY 2015-16 GMP Monitoring Report released over a year later contained the same non- compliant and misleading LOS analyses for both street segments and intersections. The HCM intersection LOS failures in the Fehr & Peers memorandum should have triggered a GMP development shutdown. Traffic data was collected again in 2016, and a 2016 TMP Report was also produced. However, it also . used only the old Carlsbad methods, again despite the easy ability to apply the HCM-based intersection method. I recently obtained a copy of that report, but I do not believe it was ever published or presented to the City Council. And no traffic results at all were reported in the FY 2016-17 GMP Monitoring Report. So, the traffic monitoring done since adoption of the Mobility Element in 2015 has been conducted in a manner inconsistent with the GMP and the Mobility Element. Inconsistent use of TIA/LOS methods for City street and developer projects pre-and post-Mobility Element In addition to being used for the annual TMP/GMP Monitoring Reports, LOS methods also are used for city-funded street projects and to generate fees from developers when their projects have impacts on traffic. Initially, the invalid Carlsbad methods that under-report congestion were used to assess all conditions in the traffic impact studies for all of these projects. Interestingly, though, the City later began requiring that developers use the more stringent HCM intersection LOS method when they project future conditions, but they continued to require the Carlsbad segment and Carlsbad ICU intersection LOS methods to assess existing conditions. This bizarre scheme {using different methods for the before and after conditions, even though the methods produce very different results on the same data) likely created the illusion that current traffic conditions were very good using the Carlsbad methods. But then a failure may have been projected in 15 the future due to the use of the more stringent HCM method, even though that method would have shown that the failure was already existing, which should have stopped development. Unfortunately, it seems that this scheme has not been able to keep up with growing traffic congestion. Post-Mobility Element, there was no valid TIA guideline to guide these processes for several years-at least until a draft of the new TIA Guidelines with the volume tables were fully completed in February 2019. Meanwhile, Staff has continued to use the invalid and misleading Carlsbad street segment LOS method for city projects, including several presented to the TSC. As examples, two road diets on Carlsbad Boulevard (one between Mountain View Drive and Beech Avenue, and another between Manzano Drive and the Encinas Bridge) were presented to the TSC on October 3, 2016 (over a year after adoption of the Mobility Element). In both cases, the only traffic data that was presented to the commission was based on the old Carlsbad street segment LOS method, even though it had been over a year since adoption of the Mobility Element that made those methods non- com pliant. Of course, the results presented to the commission suggested that the LOS was "A1' both before and after the proposed lane reductions, and the TSC Staff Reports and meeting minutes suggest that those LOS A results were emphasized by Staff to gain favor with the commission. However, the new method indicates that one of those projects would create LOS C or D, and the other project would create LOS E or F (see the table below that was presented in the Staff Report for the latter project). Table 2: Future Level of Servke Volume Volume/Capacity Level of Service Ratio AM Peak Hour 772 0.43 A PM Peak Hour 825 0.46 A The La Costa Avenue road diet, which is the subject of another current item of business and correspondence from me, is another example. The project was presented to the TSC on May 7, 2018, but it also contained results from the old Carlsbad street segment LOS method, nearly three years after Mobility Element Adoption, and even though the new street segment method had already been published. Again, the old Carlsbad method included all LOS A grades both before and after the proposed, while the new street facility method suggests LOS is much worse-possibly E or F-for at least some segments (see my other correspondence on Agenda Item #4 for details). It was not appropriate for Staff to continue to use the old methods for these projects, let alone to promote the alleged stellar LOS performances calculated with the old Carlsbad method to the TSC. As described in my other correspondence, the Mobility Element requires City Council review of any lane reducing measures that leads to LOS Dor worse. Another road diet project presented to the TSC used a SANTEC-based LOS method. In addition, I know of at least one developer application that was submitted after the new 2018 TIA Guidelines were published that does not include the Scoping Agreement required by those guidelines. In addition, different versions of the MM LOS methods (for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit) with different point systems seem to have been used in different projects. And it is unclear what LOS methods are being used (or required by) different city departments. There seems to be a "Wild West11 approach, in which different city departments (and even different individuals within those departments) are choosing to use (or not use) 16 various aspects of the new TIA Guidelines and various LOS methods for individual projects, and the methods themselves are undergoing changes over time. It is possible that these projects would eventually meet minimum LOS standards, or that the City Council would approve them regardless of poor LOS performance due to other benefits, such as pedestrian, bicycle, or parking improvements. However, the rules should be followed. Important TIA/LOS documents must undergo formal review and adoption and be applied consistently The claims in the Staff Report that the old Carlsbad methods were valid approaches for determining LOS for the GM P monitoring program are simply not credible, nor is the claim that the Carlsbad segment LOS method was well suited to evaluate and track street performance. More importantly, the replacement method, TIA Guidelines, and accompanying traffic volume tables are extremely important and should be publicly reviewed, significantly revised, and formally adopted by the City Council. In addition, any future changes should undergo that same process. Furthermore, all of these documents should be strictly followed in a uniform and consistent manner by all Staff in all departments. Examples of areas of TIA review To help justify my recommendation to have the TSC review the new TIA Guidelines, here are a few examples of issues. Table 1 defines the minimum number of daily vehicle trips that a development project has to generate to trigger different levels of review. For example, vehicle LOS analysis is not required unless at least 500 trips are generated, cumulative analysis with other developments is not required unless at least 1,000 trips are generated, and projections of future traffic impacts are not required until at least 2,400 trips are generated. If there are many small developments that do not individually reach those trip thresholds can avoid LOS analysis, then problems could arise as they accumulate. Staff could be asked to justify these values and to predict the consequences of lowering or raising them. Another example could be Section 8.2, which appears to allow the City Engineer to negotiate the scope of Transportation Demand Management {TDM) measures demanded of developers when they add traffic to the busiest street sections in Carlsbad that have been declared exempt from the vehicle LOS standards by the City Council due to extreme levels of congestion. Given the gravity of adding potentially significant new traffic to these already over-congested streets, perhaps the power to determine the extent and type of TDM should lie with the City Council rather than the City Engineer. Yet another example is some apparent ambiguity in the language about which service volume table has to be used for LOS analyses of developments. A developer recently used the two-way table to achieve an LOS C, although the more appropriate (and presumably required) table was the one-way (directional) version, which resulted in a failing LOS E. The implications ofthat difference are huge. The instructions there (and perhaps elsewhere) could be tweaked to eliminate ambiguity. Another critical area for review is the elimination of intersection LOS in the current TIA. Current and historical LOS failures Through public records requests, I obtained annual traffic monitoring reports back to 2008 and all traffic counts done since the reports stopped in 2016. I then plugged that traffic count data into the new 17 service volume tables. The Staff Report describes six failed street facilities. I would note that there is an error in one of them-in the entry "El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Avenue (southbound direction only)," I believe the intent was to list "Tamarack Avenue" instead of "College Avenue." I found those six failures plus three additional failures listed below, and I have indicated them on the map below with thick red lines superimposed over the Mobility Element map. I have also included the initial year of the failures in the lists and map. Included in Staff Report: • El Camino Real (Oceanside city limit to Marron Road) ➔ 2013 • El Camino Real (College Boulevard to Cannon Road; northbou,nd only)➔ 2012 • El Camino Real (Cannon Road to Tamarack Avenue; southbound only)➔ 2018 o I provided additional details on this failure in my June 17,2019 letter regarding the City Council discussion on a moratorium on development in the Village-Barrio area. • Cannon Road (El Camino Real to College Boulevard)➔ 2013 • College Boulevard (Aston Avenue to Palomar Airport Road; southbound only) ➔ 2017 • Melrose Drive (Vista city limits to Palomar Airport Road; southbound only) ➔ 2008 (or earlier} Not included in Staff Report: • Palomar Airport Road (Yarrow Drive to El Camino Real) ➔ 2017 • Cannon Road (Avenida Encinas to Paseo del Norte)➔ 2017 • College Boulevard (City Limits to Carlsbad Village Drive) ➔ 2018 18 i_ • ·~ \ t __ J~t._/'·•., .. ~ ~ Several of the facilities started failing in the last few years, but several others have been failing for many years, yet development projects were progressing normally. Perhaps if the LOS method reform process had occurred when first reported over eight years ago, or concurrent with Mobility Element adoption, something could have been done, and there would not be this sudden large batch of failures. Personally, I am not against development, but I believe that the rules need to be followed, and the GMP needs to be respected and honored. The segment of El Camino Real between Alga Road and La Costa Avenue indicated with the thick orange · line _also had been failing since 2009, but a highly irregular last-minute change made to the Mobility Element by Staff after the FEIR and public and Planning Commission reviews were completed made that section exempt from the vehicle LOS standard. Th is will be a topic for the July 16th City Council item of business on the GMP Monitoring Report. 19 The additional three areas labeled with thick orange lines represent additional street facilities with presumed LOS grades of E or F. However, those areas are not subject to vehicle LOS due to the street typology scheme. All of the above said, this is not the full story. As acknowledged in the Staff Report, only 18 of the 43 street facilities in the new table have been monitored with traffic counts, with 25 others pending. In addition, the table is not in compliance with the Mobility Element, because it does not include entries for the following "Arterial Connector" streets, which may include multiple entries per street: • Carlsbad Village Drive (1-5 to College Boulevard) • Poinsettia Lane (Aviara Parkway to Paseo Escue la) • Aviara Parkway (Poinsettia Lane to Melrose Drive) It should also be noted that Staff repeatedly assured the Planning Commission during their review of the Mobility Element that all other east-west Connector and Employment streets also would continue to be monitored for LOS to track performance, although they would not be subject to the vehicle LOS standard. This will be another topic for the July 16th City Council meeting. Those streets include (among potentially others): • Tamarack Avenue • Faraday Avenue • Poinsettia Lane (Carlsbad Boulevard to Aviara Parkway) • La Costa Avenue (east of El Camino Real) • Calle Barcelona Intersection LOS should not be eliminated Staffs elimination of intersection LOS, as described in the 2018 TIA Guidelines and the present Staff Report, has potentially significant impacts in many areas. Given the gravity of this decision, it should be made by the City Council with guidance from the TSC, Planning Commission, and Staff, along with public input. First, the elimination of intersection LOS analysis does not appear to be a discretionary power of Staff based on language in the Mobility Element, the CFIP, the GMP ordinance, or the Local Facilities Management Plans (LFMPs). As described above, the Mobility Element is very clear: "Level of service will be determined by the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual. This methodology evaluates vehicles based on their freedom to maneuver and overall delay experienced at intersections." The "freedom to maneuver" phrase refers to street facility analysis, such as the service volume approach in the 2018 TIA Guidelines, but the "overall delay experienced at intersections" refers to the HCM intersection analysis that Staff has eliminated. Also, when referring to the exemption process for vehicular LOS, both the Mobility Element and the CFIP specifically refer to intersections as distinct from street segments. Mobility Element Policy 3-P .9 states: "To exempt the vehicle mode of travel from the LOS standard at a particular street intersection or segment, the intersection or street segment must be identified as built-out by the City Council. .. " And 20 the circulation performance standard in the CFIP refers to 11 ••• excluding LOS exempt intersections and streets approved by the City Council." Further, the GMP ordinance in Sections 21.90.090(c), 21.90.ll0(d), and 21.90.020(a)(5) require that the CFIP and each LFMP include " ... [a]n inventory of present and future requirements for each facility and improvement based upon the performance standard established for each facility and improvement," with the definition of 11improvement" including 11streets" and 11street interchanges." Finally, each of the 25 LFM Ps include inventory lists of both street segments and intersections that fall under the requirements. In addition, when the issue of changing to new LOS methods was raised at last year's City Council goal- setting workshop, Council Member Schumacher asked Staff whether they would collect the same monitoring data as before so that the old and new methods could be compared, and Staff answered in the affirmative. Beyond the potential to violate statutory requirements and promises made to elected decision-makers, though, it seems like a "best practice" to continue to use intersection LOS analysis. The roadway capacity tables used for the street facility LOS method in the 2018 TIA Guidelines were developed using software from the FDOT that is based on HCM methodologies. However, the FDOT refers to the results as "simplified LOS analysis." They make it clear that the results are intended for conceptual planning purposes, and not detailed planning or operational analysis. They recommend the more complicated, direct HCM methodologies for those tasks, and they require them for the review of development applications. Consistent with that, the June 2019 TSC meeting Staff Report on LOS 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," because individual intersections can fail, even when mid-block traffic counts suggest a passing LOS in the service volume tables. Paradoxically, the new Staff Report suggests eliminating intersection LOS in combination with shifting to an operational based analysis to improve signal timing and traffic system management, even though the service volume table LOS approach is apparently not designed to accomplish those goals, while intersection analysis is. The implications of eliminating the more stringent HCM-based intersection LOS methods for development projects is also unknown. While it would be nice to reduce the cost of TIAs for developers in this way, the service volume tables may under-estimate congestion, ana intersections may later fail due to insufficient planning. In addition, I feel that 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 detailed intersection analysis to identify any improvements that could reduce congestion. 21 Thus, I think Staff may be relying too heavily on the new street facility LOS method to produce data that it is not designed to provide. There are many compelling reasons to retain intersection LOS analysis as an important tool in review of developments, City street projects, GMP monitoring, etc. Rather than eliminating intersection LOS entirely, a more appropriate approach might be to use the service volume table approach as an initial, inexpensive pass to identify potential problem areas (e.g., street facilities that are LOS Dor perhaps are within a certain narrower window closer to LOSE), and then use HCM intersection analysis in the peak hours to drill down for more detailed analysis on just those street facilities or others identified by the City Traffic Engineer. CEQA/VMT vs. GMP/LOS Staff has mentioned moving away from LOS analysis due to the fact that the State has removed it as a CEQA review requirement and replaced it with VMT, for which a metric must be established by July 1, 2020. However, Carlsbad's GMP, CFIP; LFMPs, and General Plan Mobility Element continue to require LOS analysis, and it can be used in conjunction with VMT to ensure a functioning transportation system, while still achieving the goal of promoting modes of travel other than single-occupancy vehicles. The Complete Streets Act of2008 and related laws do not prohibit the use of vehicle LOS. The Act simply requires that " ... users of streets, roads, and highways be accommodated in a manner suitable for th~ respective setting ... " in General Plan updates. The 2017 General Plan Guidelines from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) acknowledges that local governments will continue to use LOS metrics for their General Plans, zoning codes, and fee programs. It simply suggests that cities consider using other metrics, as well, to create a balanced approach, and that they consider the trade-offs between mobility and other goals. SAMPLE LOS-RELATED QUESTIONS FOR STAFF/INDEPENDENT OUTSIDE EXPERTS 1. Why did the single rural highway standard continue to be used for street segment LOS on every Carlsbad street for 30 years, rather than separate standards for urban street classes (like the abandoned 1988 Guidelines) or other methods designed for city streets? 2. Do the street segment LOS tables full of A grades for peak hour traffic accurately reflect the reality of congestion in Carlsbad? Is that method consistent with growth management? Does it help track street performance? 3. Is the statement in the Staff Report that ICU is still a widely used intersection LOS method in Southern California accurate? If so, can you provide a list of other cities that still use ICU? 4. Are/were the 2,000 vplph through-lane and other capacity assumptions in the Carlsbad version of ICU an industry standard? If so, can you provide a list of other cities that use(d) those capacities in their ICU analyses? 5. Does staff agree with the findings in the Fehr & Peers memorandum that LOS determined by the Carlsbad ICU method generally produces much better grades that the Synchro ICU and HCM methods? 6. Who had seen the September 9, 2015 Fehr & Peers memorandum before June of 2019 when it was shared in a Staff Report to the TSC? Was it shared with the Transportation Director, the Public Works Directors, the City Manager, the City Council, and/or any of the advisory commissions? 22 7. How long has staff known that the Carlsbad ICU method produces much better LOS grades than what is reflected in the field? 8. Is there a reason why staff did not implement the Synchro ICU or HCM delay method years before the General Plan Update? 9. Is there a reason why staff did not implement the HCM delay method concurrent with the · General Plan Update? 10. The Fehr & Peers memorandum identified multiple intersections that didn't meet the LOS standard using the required new HCM method. Were those results shared with the City Manager pursuant to the GMP? 11, Would that have stopped development while these deficiencies were addressed? 12. Are those intersections still deficient? 13. Is it good policy to completely eliminate intersection LOS analysis now? Sincerely, Steve Linke Carlsbad, CA Attachment: September 9, 2015 Fehr & Peers Memorandum entitled "LOS Assessment of the City of Carlsbad's Traffic Monitoring Program Study Intersections" 23 Date: To: From: Subject: FEHR 1 PEERS MEMORANDUM September 9, 2015 Doug Blise, City of Carlsbad Christine Mercado & Sohrab Rashid, Fehr & Peers LOS Assessment of the City of Carlsbad's Traffic Monitoring Program Study Intersections 5D14-0133 The City of Carlsbad has commissioned Fehr & Peers to conduct a traffic operations analysis of the 49 key signalized intersections annually monitored as part of the City's Growth Management Plan using PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes provided in the 2014 Annual Traffic Monitoring Progrqm (2014 TMP), the most current signal timing plans, and analysis procedures outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000. The results of this intersection operations analysis are presented in this memorandum along with an intersection level of service (LOS) comparison with the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)-based LOS results reported in 2014 TMP as well as Synchro ICU-based LOS results. BACKGROUND Under current guidelines and for consistency with the City of Carlsbad's Growth Management Plan, the City utilizes the ICU methodology for analysis of existing conditions, while the HCM methodology is used for analysis of signalized intersections in future scenarios. However, with the City's upcoming General Plan Update, the Mobility Element estab.lishes a Carlsbad-specific multi- modal level of service (MMLOS) methodology that evaluates LOS for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users and outlines that the auto LOS be determined using the HCM. ICU METHODOLOGY VERSUS HCM METHODOLOGY While both the ICU and HCM methodology provide information about the performance of an intersection, the specific way in which each method grades an intersection is different. Highlighted in this section are key differences between the two methodologies. 401 West A Street I Suite 900 I San Diego, CA 92101 I (619) 234-3190 I Fax (619) 702-9345 www.fehrandpeers.com City of Carlsbad September 9, 2015 Page 2 of 8 City's ICU Methodology The City's ICU methodology reports LOS based on volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios ranging from 0.0 to 1.0, which are shown in Table 1. Specifically, ICU calculates the V/C ratio and critical movements based on per lane capacity and intersection movement volumes. For the City of Carlsbad, ICU calculations are performed assuming 1,800 vehicles per hour (vph) for each turn lane . . and 2,000 vph for each through-lane. In some cases, ev_en higher capacities were used on some facilities (e.g;, El Camino Real) by some consultants, but a consistent policy was not followed for adjusting lane capacities. The intersection LOS is then determined by summing the V/C ratio of critical movements, plus a factor for yellow signal time. The City's process for calculating ICU is typically conducted using a spreadsheet and not through a dedicated software. The ICU methodology is timing plan independent, and signal coordination, progression of through traffic, and queue spillback are not accounted for or measured in the analysis. This methodology is better suited for isolated signalized intersections that are not influenced by the traffic operations of adjacent intersections or high levels of congestion. If the ICU methodology is used for closely spaced and/or congested intersections, it is possible that the resulting LOS is better than what actually occurs at these intersections during the peak hours. In addition, this method is best suited for long-range, high-level planning efforts to help identify street cross-sections at intersections where signal timing may change substantially in the future. Synchro ICU Methodology ICU is also provided as one of the outputs from Synchro 8.0, which is a software that calculates intersection operations. The ICU analysis from Synchro assumes an ideal saturation flow rate of 1,900 vehicles per hour per lane for all lanes, but this flow rate is then adjusted based on several factors. Because of these adjustments, the results of the Synchro ICU may or not be similar to the results using the City's ICU methodology. In addition, the threshold ranges for Synchro ICU are different (and slightly more conservative) than the City's method (see Table 1). HCM Methodology The HCM methodology calculates LOS based on average stopped delay experienced per vehicle. Driver and/or passenger discomfort, frustration, and lost travel time are measures of delay. Table 1 shows the delay ranges for each LOS value. For closely-spaced intersections or congested locations, the queue length estimates ar~ used to better understand traffic operating conditions and whether queuing may extend between intersections. If this occurs, traffic operations may be worse than reported by conventional analysis techniques that do not consider queuing. City of Carlsbad September 9, 2015 Page 3 of 8 TABLE 1-SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS THRESHOLDS LOS : City ICU Ratio Synchro ICU Ratio Delay (sec/veh) A 0.00-0.60 0.00-0.55 B 0.6i-0.70 0.55-0,64 C 0.71-0.80 0.65-0.73 D 0.81-0.90 0:74-0.82 E 0.91-1.00 0.83-0.91 F > 1.0 >0.9l(l) City's ICU Source: 2014 Traffic Monitoring Program, City of Carlsbad, 2014. Synchro ICU Source: Intersection Capacity Utilization 2003 Edition, Trafficware, 2003. HCM Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. (l)Synchro ICU includes LOS G and H thresholds for ICU ranges above 1.0 .. INPUT DATA AND RESULTS :;; 10.0 > 10.0 to 20.0 > 20.0 to 35.0 > 35.0 to 55.0 > 55.0 to 80.0 > 80.0 · Fehr & Peers conducted the intersection operations analysis of the 49 key study intersections in the City using PM peak howr intersection count data provided in the 2014 TMP and the latest signal timings and lane geometry, as appropriate. For the Synchro ICU and delay calculations, Synchro 8.0 analysis software was used to calculate the average control delay and Synchro ICU ratios (the latter of which is provided for comparison purposes only). Table 2 presents the PM peak hour intersection LOS results using all three methodologies for the 49 signalized intersections that are monitored. Based upon the City's ICU analysis, all 49 intersections are currently operating at LOS Dor better; however, using the HCM methodology, the following intersections are operating deficiently (LOS E or LOS F): 7. El Camino Real/Faraday Avenue (HCM LOS E; City's ICU LOS C) 8. El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road (HCM LOS E; City's ICU LOS C) 11. El Camino Real/Alga Road/Aviara Parkway (HCM LOS F; City's ICU LOS B) 12. El Camino Real/La Costa Avenue (HCM LOS F; City's ICU LOS C) 21. Palomar Airport Road/ Melrose Drive (HCM LOS E; City's ICU LOS C) Overall, the results demonstrate how the HCM methodology provides more conservative and appropriate existing condition results. In general, the HCM results appear to be more realistic in terms of driver experience at most locations. At the five locations listed above, heavy traffic volumes City of Carlsbad September 9, 2015 · Page 4 of 8 on El Camino Real and/or Palomar Airport Road at these intersections cause substantial delays during the PM peak period on all intersection approaches. As noted above, the Synchro ICU method generally results in a worse LOS than the City ICU approach. In some cases, the Synchro ICU actually shows a worse LOS than the delay method. Overall, Synchro ICU is not used by many jurisdictions for quantifying existing or future intersection operations and is not recommended for use by the City of Carlsbad. The delay approach provides the most accurate representation of existing traffic operations and provides a metric that is most easily understood by the driver: time. TABLE 2-INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY COMPARISON City ICU MethodC1> Synchro lCU HCM Delay Methodc2> MethodC~> # Intersection PM PM PM .. ICU Ratio LOS I(U Ratio LOS Delay · LOS ·, . (sec/veh) 1 El Camino Plaza Dr 0.64 B 0.661 C 31.1 C Real 2 EICarnino Marron Rd 0.56 A 0.636 B 36.9 D Real 3 El Camino Carlsbad 0.60 A 0.714 C 38.9 D Real Village Dr 4 El Camino Tamarack 0.61 B 0.664 C 29.6 C Real Ave 5 El Camino Cannon 0.81 D 0.984 F 47.1 D Real Rd 6 El Camino College 0.67 B 0.755 D 44.6 D Real · Blvd 7 El Camino Faraday 0.78 C 0.808 D 58.1 E Real Ave 8 El Camino Palomar 0;80 C 0.955 F 68.4 E Reai Airport Rd 9 El Camino Cassia Rd 0.70 B 0.844 E 44.1 D Real City of Carlsbad September 9, 2015 Page 5 of 8 TABLE 2 -INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY COMPARISON City 1<:u Method('1J• . Synchro ICU · ·HcM Delay . Method12) Methodl3) . ..•• ----. ···--~- # In~ersection PM.• PM . PM IClJ R~tio LOS . ICU Ratio · LOS Delay LOS (sec/veh) · 10 El Camirio Poinsettia 0.48 A 0.669 C 29.7 C Real ln El Camino Alga Rd- 11 Aviara 0.70 B 0.831 E 82.2 F Real Pkwy 12 El Camino La Costa 0.79 C 0.912 F 80.8 Real Ave F 13 El Camino Calle 0.61 B 0.664 C 39.5 · Real Barcelona D 14 Pc;ilornar Avenida 0.75 C 0.632 B 34.3 C Airpbrt Rd Encinas 15 Palomar Paseo Del 0.72 C 0.725 C 31.8 C Airport Rd Norte 16 Palomar Armada Dr 0.71 C 0.849 E 38.5 D Airport Rd College 17 Palomar Blvd-0.70 B 0.856 E 54.1 Airport Rd Aviara D Pkwy 18 Palomar . Yarrow Dr 0.68 B 0.727 C 35.4 D Airport Rd 19 Palomar Loker Ave 0.66 B 0.703 C 20.6 C Airport Rd w. 20 Palomar El Fuerte 0.82 D 0.917 F 29.2 Airport Rd St C 21 Palomar Melrose 0.71 C 0.815 D 61.3 Airport Rd Dr E City of Carlsbad ,t September 9, 2015 Page 6 of 8 TABLE 2 -INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY COMPARISON .. ; City icu Methodc1J .. Synchro ICU · HCM Delay · Method<2J Method<3> · . . . . -..... --.. -... -. -·· ----- . # -Intersection PM PM PM ICU Rati<> · LOS ·• ICURatio • LOS Delay LOS , (sec/veh) • 22 Carlsbad Carlsbad 0.46 A 0.486 . A 32.9 C Blvd VillageDr 23 Carlsbad Tamarack 0.49 A 0.613 B 24.4 C Blvd Ave 24 Carlsbad Cannon OJO B 0.716 C 2Ll C Blvd Rd 25 Carlsbad Poinsettia 0.42 A 0.498 A 20.1 C Blvd Ln 26 Carisbad Avenida 0.38 A 0.492 A 8J A Blvd Encinas Rancho San Elijo 27 Sante Fe 0.75 C 0.868 E 38.8 D Rd Rd Rancho La Costa 28 Sante Fe 0.61 B 0.79 D 49.7 D Rd Ave Rancho Olivenhain Santa Fe 29 Rd-0.63 B 0.752 D 24 C Rd Camino Alvaro 30 Carlsbad State St 0.34 A 0.434 A 17.9 B Village Dr 31 Carlsbad Harding St 0.64 Village Dr B 0.601 B 23.1 C 32 Poinsettia Aviara 0.58 A 0:707 C 34 C Ln Pkwy City of Carlsbad September 9, 2015 Page 7 of 8 TABLE 2 -INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY COMPARISON City .ICU MetbodC:1J Synchro ICU HCM Delay MethoctC2) MethodC3> .# Intersection PM PM ICU Ratio : LOS . ICU Ratio LOS Delay LOS (sec/veh) '' 33 Poinsettia Paseo Del 0.66 B 0.737 D 23.3 C Ln Norte 34 Pqinsettia Avenida 0.69 B 0.645 C 32.4 C Ln Encinas 35 Melrose Dr Alga Rd 0.62 B 0.66 C 30.2 C 36 Jefferson Marron Rd 0.62 B 0.501 A 35,6 D St 37 Monroe St Marron Rd 0.34 A 0.465 A 33.8 C 38 Cannon Rd Paseo Del 0.52 A 0.583 B 14.5 B Norte 39 Cannon Rd Faraday 0.85 D 0.61 B 27.9 C AveC1l 40 College Carlsbad 0.55 A 0.669 C 31.3 C Blvd Village Dr 41 College Faraday 0.63 B 0.559 B 23.6 C Blvd AveC1l 42 I-5 SB Carlsbad 0.72 C 0.788 D 41.2 D Ramps Village Dr 43 I-5 NB Carlsbad 0.71 C 0.788 D 29.8 C Ramps Village Dr 44 h5 SB Cannon 0.46 A 0.687 C 14.9 B Ramps B,d 45 I-5 NB Cannon 0.63 B 0.687 C 19.8 B Ramps Rd 46 I-5 SB Palomar 0.47 ,' A 0.498 A 8.5 A Ramps Airport Rd City of Carlsbad September 9, 2015 Page 8 of 8 # 47 48 49 TABLE 2-INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY COMPARISON City ICU Metlioci(1>. Syrichro ICU HCMDelay Methodc2J MethodC3J Intersection . PM PM PM · ICU Ratio LOS ICU Ratio LOS Delay LOS (sec/vehj •· I-5 NB Palomar . 0.67 B 0.644 C 23.9 C Ramps Airport Rd I-5 SB La Costa 058 A 0.634 B 24:6 C Ramps Ave I-5 NB La Costa 0.66 B 0.634 B 22.6 C Ramps Ave 111 City ICU calculations based on an ideal saturation flow.rate of 2000vphpl for through movement~ and 1,800 vphpl for turri lanes (Le,, left and right). 12J Synchro ICU based on a default ideal saturation flow rate' cif1900 vphpl; which the software then adjusts using other factors (e.g., lane utilizatiori, etc). . . <3J HCM delay method based on a default ideal saturatipn flow rate of 1900 vphpl, which the Synchro software then adjusts using other foctors (e.g., lane utilization, etc.). · Carlsbad’s Transportation Impact Analysis Methodologies: Need for review and oversight 7/9/2019 City Council Meeting Item #14 Steve Linke Overarching goals •Encourage accountability for past misleading traffic data •Empower TSC to review and provide advice to Council on proposed transportation analysis methods •Ensure best practices and industry standards are used consistently •Ensure that subject-matter experts provide valid and unbiased information to promote sound policy-making LOS introduction •Question: Why is vehicle congestion one of the top complaints of Carlsbad residents, while the annual traffic monitoring reports consistently show no congestion problems? •Answer: Non-standard Carlsbad vehicle level of service methods systematically under-estimate congestion. •Violation of spirit, and perhaps letter, of GMP for the last 30 years CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PREPARATION OF LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDIES Engineering & Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-1161 February 9, 1988 Reviewed by citizen committee REPORT OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO STUDY GROWTH MEMBERS CLARENCE SCHLEHUBER, CHAIRMAN ROBERT CAGGIANO, VICE-CHAIRMAN TOM ERWIN MATT HALL MARY ANN IZNER ELAINE LYTTLETON JAMES McCORMICK JANUARY, 1989 Original street segment LOS guidelines (1988 Guidelines) •Suburban street segment LOS table Source: Guidelines and Instructions for the Preparation of Local Facilities Management Plan Transportation Impact Studies, Carlsbad Engineering & Planning Department (2/9/1988) ARmUAL CIASSIFICATI<Ji N+fflS 6 IANEFRIMEARl'ERIAL }I) 6 LANE HUME ARiffiIAL &ME 4 IANE MAJOR ARl'ERIAL }I) 4 IANE SEX:XHlJ\R'i ARl'ERIAL SCJ4E 4 IANE CDillX:'IOR 2 1ANE CD~ 2 1ANE l.OCAL YES 'iFS MEDIAN YES ~ YES YES }I) LINK MJr llOO A) 40,000 33,340 26,670 20,000 16,670 13,340 10,000 6,675 LINK AIJr urn e> 46,670 38,890 31,120 23,240 19,450 15,560 11,670 7,785 LINK MJr aoo m 53,340 44,450 35,560 26,670 22,220 17,780 13,340 8,900 LINK MJr ITQS D) 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 LINK ADr UOO E) 66,670 55,560 44,450 33,340 27,780 22,230 16,670 11,120 LOS determination from traffic count data (street facilities) Peak vehicles per lane per hour (vplph) A B C D EABCDE F 500 580 670 750 830 Generic 4-lane secondary arterial Peak hour conversions assume 10% of ADT (typically this is in a range of 8-12%) and 50% of traffic in both directions (a 60%/40% assumption would raise the volumes somewhat). 0 200 400 600 800 1000 771 GMP failure thresholds for the 1988 Guidelines 2-ln local 4-ln 2°6-ln arterials 1988 Guidelines 4-ln collector Peak vehicles per lane per hour (vplph) 0 200 400 600 800 L0OO L200 L400 L600 L800 I I I I I I I GMP failure thresholds: 1988 Guidelines vs. Carlsbad method 2-ln local 4-ln 2°6-ln arterials 1988 Guidelines 4-ln collector Peak vehicles per lane per hour (vplph) Carlsbad method Every lane on every street 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 I I I I I I I 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 Carlsbad method LOS grade “A” spans entire grade ranges from 1988 Guidelines 4-ln collector 4-ln secondary 6-ln prime A B C D E F A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E F F F“Carlsbad method” Vehicles per lane per hour Abandoned 1988guidelines0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2010 TMP/GMP Monitoring Report Summer !006 Summer 1007 Summer l00S Summer !009 Sum.r:ner !010 LO<"ation Segmeut Location ADI Peak ADI Peak ADI Peak .\DT Peak .IDT Peak ~umber Segment LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS Palomar Auport Road Paseo Del Norte and Annada Drive 53,378 A 53,175 A 49,570 A 48,758 A 48,490 A 2 Palomar A.Uport Road Yan-ow Drive and El Camino Real 32,960 A 33,820 A 33,523 A 30,786 A 34,030 A 3 Palomar Auport Road El Camino Real and Loker Ave. W Jlnnovation Wy. 51,673 A 52,7J9 A 43,920 A 44,742 A 45,080 A 4 Palomar Auport Road El Fuerte Street md Loker Ave E./Gateway Road 42,287 A 40,819 A 44,361 A 5 Palomar A.Uport Road Melrose Drive and Paseo Valin.do/Eag!e Drive 49,245 A 36,290 A 33,875 A 30,267 A 32,769 A 6 El Camino Real Plaza Drive and Man-on Rood 30,832 A 31,375 A 26,713 A 26,401 A 26,406 A 7 El Camino Real Tamarack Avenue and Kelly Dl'ive 25,178 A 25,509 A 23,71 7 A 22,817 A 23,540 A s El Camino Real Faraday Avenue and Palomar Auport Road 36,712 A 38,417 A 37,735 A 27,205 A 36,200 A 9 El Camino Real Camino Vida Roble and Cassia Road 29,801 A 30,375 A 2S,04S A 28,089 A 30,383 A 10 El Camino Real Arena} Road and C:Osta Del Mar Road 47,091 A 50,905 C 43,213 A 44,112 A 46,203 A 11 El Camino Real La Costa Avenue and Levante Street 36,097 A 39,105 A 31,933 A 33,325 A 32,6-00 A 12 El Camino Real Levante Strfft and Calle Barce!ona 36,413 A 39,367 A 31,275 A 31,399 A 32,042 A 13 MelrCY...e Drive Lions.head A venue and Pa!owar Airport Road 25,995 A 22,63 7 A 22,794 A 22,887 A 14 MelrCY...e Dl'ive Pa!owar AUJ)Ort Road and Rancho Bravado 12,102 A 17,742 A 16,969 A 16,493 A 17,061 A 15 MelrCY...e Drive Alga Rood and C01.i.ntia Stl'eet 16,476 A 20,SS0 A 18,667 A 18,822 A 20,216 A 16 Carlsbad Boulevard Mountain View Drive and State Steet 14,868 A 13,985 A 12,065 A 13,334 A 12,884 A 17 Carlsbad Boulevard Cannon Rood and Cerezo Drive 19,034 A 18,163 A 15,485 A 16,37S A 16,882 A 1S Carlsbad Boulevard Breakwater Road and Island Way 17,267 A 16,114 A 12,949 A 14,294 A 13,668 A 19 Carlsbad Boulevard Avenida. Encinas and La C:Osta Avenue 18,126 A 19,474 A 17,905 A 18,246 A 17,242 A 20 La Costa Avenue Sa:-i:ony Road and Piraeus Stl'eet 32,578 A 33,245 A 32,254 A 33,475 A 32,767 A 21 La Costa Avenue Cadencia Stl'eet and Rometia Sb'eet 12,061 A 12,492 A 11,819 A 12,370 A 12,190 A 22 Rancho Santa Fe Road La Cos-ta Meadows Drive and San Elijo Road 30,516 A 34,674 A 31,222 A 25,313 A 28,786 A 23 Rancho Santa Fe Road Avenida. Soledad and Camino Junipet-o 36,589 A 39,947 A 35,754 A 35,67S A 35,365 A 24 Rancho Santa Fe Road Avenida la Cima and Calle Acervo/Avenida La Posta 16,7J9 A 17,02S A 17,445 A 17,45S A 15,121 A 25 Carlsbad Village Drive Victo1ia Avenue and Pontiac Drive 5,866 A 6,168 A 5,665 A 5,637 A 6,214 A 26 Poinsettia Lane Paseo Del Norte and Batiquitos Dlive 26,127 A 26,623 A 24,650 A 25,837 A 25,315 A 27 Ta.mai-ack Avenue El Camino Real and La Portalada Dlive 7,831 A S,453 A 8,42S A 7,906 A S,808 A 2S Paseo Del Norte Camino Del Parque (North) and Palomar A.Uport Road 9,226 A S,791 A 8,125 A 7,975 A S,109 A 29 Paseo Del Norte Pa!owar Airport Road and Car Country Drive 10,689 A 10,246 A 9,473 A 8,780 A 9,320 A 30 Cannon Road Paseo Del Norte and Car Country Drive 25,052 A 22,778 A 21,709 A 23,284 A 24,370 A 31 Cannon Road El Camino Real and College Boulevard 19,986 D 19,396 D 16,586 B 16,553 A 17,793 A 32 College Boulevard Tamarack Avenue (North) and North City Limits 27,381 A 25,690 A 23,740 A 24,475 A 23,112 A 33 College Boulevard Pa!owar AUJ)Ort Road and Aston A venue 14,484 A 13,71S A 13,810 A 13,992 A 13,873 A 34 Alga Road Corin.ti.a Sb'eet and El fuette Stl'eet 11,482 A 10,632 A 10,216 A 10,844 A Source: Carlsbad 2015 Traffic Monitoring Program Report 2015 TMP/GMP Monitoring Report Location Summer 2011 Summer 2012 Summer 2013 Summer 2014 Summer 2015 11l Number Segment Segment Location ADT Peak ADT Peak ADT Peak ADT Peak ADT Peak LOS l2l LOSl2> LOS 12> LOS 12> LOS 121 1 Palomar Airport Rd. Paseo Del Norte to Armada Dr. 48,249 A 48,626 A 52,555 A 52,779 A 55,501 A 2 Palomar Airport Rd. Yarrow Dr. to El Camino Real 33,440 A 35,154 A 34,017 A 37,900 A 38,433 A 3 Palomar Airport Rd. El Camino Real to Loker Ave (W.) 45,902 A 52,786 A 48,560 A 50,651 A 50,445 A 4 Palomar Airport Rd. Melrose Dr. to Paseo Valindo 32,678 A 31,880 A 31,469 A 32,566 A 30,912 A 5 El Camino Real Plaza Dr to Marron Rd 27,806 A 29,245 A 29,355 A 30,288 A 30,056 A 6 El Gamino Real Tamarack Ave. to Kelly Dr. 25,036 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 El Gamino Real Levante St. to Galle Barcelona 33,507 A 35,782 A 35,434 A 36,495 A 37,873 A 11 Melrose Dr. Uonshead 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 Carlsbad Blvd Aca cia Ave. to Cherry Ave. -----17,653 A 19,001 A 18,668 A 18,011 A 14 Carlsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave. to Tierra Del Oro -----19,224 A 17,319 A 17,396 A 20,894 A 15 car1sbad Blvd Cannon Rd. to Cerezo Dr. 16,565 A 16,128 A 16,755 A 17,714 A 16,668 A 16 car1sbad Blvd Breakwater Rd. to Poinsettia Ln. 12,936 A 13,656 A 15,193 A 16,289 A 16,539 A 17 car1sbad Blvd Avenida Encinas to 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 Romeria St. to Gadencia St. 12,196 A 12,043 A 12,087 A 12,266 A 12,861 A 20 Rancho Santa Fe Rd La Costa Meadows Dr. to San Elijo Rd. 27,187 A 30,793 A 28,979 A 28,959 A 29,512 A 21 Poinsettia Ln. Paseo Del Norte to Batiquitos Dr. 24,353 A 24,801 A 25,075 A 25,071 A 26,174 A 22 Tamarack Ave El Camino 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 cannon Rd. 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 Corintia St. to El Fuerte St. 10,856 A 10,454 A 10,299 A 10,415 A 10,538 A Note: Locations shaded in gray were collected in mid-September 2015 at the direction of City staff. 11> All counts were collected during the summer months (July and August) except for the three (3) shaded locations that were collected in mid-September 2015. <'l Roadway segment levels of service are based on peak hour operating conditions. For detailed peak hour analysis, refer to Table A-2 in Appendix A of this report. GMP failure thresholds: 2019 service volume table method 2-ln local 4-ln 2°6-ln arterials Abandoned 1988 Guidelines 2019 Service Volume Table* Carlsbad Method 4-ln collector Peak vehicles per lane per hour (vplph) *Low outliers excluded 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 I I I I I I I , , I , 1111 I ,I 111111 , I I · 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 Carlsbad 2015 Traffic Monitoring Program Report D C C B C F (FAIL) B F (FAIL) C E (FAIL) E (FAIL) D D F (FAIL) D D Peak LOS based on Carlsbad Service Volume Tables (HCM) Location Summer 2015 11l Number Segment Segment Location ADT Peak LOS !21 l 1 Palomar Airport Rd. Paseo Del Norte to Armad a Dr. 55,501 A 2 Palomar Airport Rd. Yarrow Dr. to El Camino Real 38,433 A 3 Palomar Airport Rd. El Camino Real to Loker Ave (W.) 50,445 A 4 Palomar Airport Rd. Melrose Dr. to Paseo Valindo 30,912 A 5 El Camino Real Plaza Dr to Marron Rd 30,056 A 6 El Gamino Real Tamarack Ave. to Kell y Dr. 27,150 A 7 El Camino Real Jackspar Dr. to College Blvd. 37,541 B 8 El Gamino Real Faraday Ave. to Palomar Airport Rd. 34,378 A 9 El Camino Real Arenal Rd. to Costa Del Mar Rd . 51,499 B 10 El Gamino Real Levante St. to Galle Barcelon a 37,873 A 11 Melrose Dr. Uonshead Ave. to Palomar Airport Rd. 30 ,378 A 12 car1sbad Blvd State St. to Mountain View Dr. 12,991 A 13 Carlsbad Blvd Acacia Ave. to Cherry Ave. 18 ,011 A 14 Carlsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave. to Tierra Del Oro 20 ,894 A 15 car1sbad Blvd Cannon Rd. to Cerezo Dr. 16,668 A 16 car1sbad Blvd Breakwater Rd. to Poinsettia Ln. 16,539 A 17 car1sbad Blvd Avenida Encinas to La Costa Ave. 19 ,167 A Carlsbad ICU-C intersection LOS method •The Carlsbad “Intersection Capacity Utilization” (ICU-C) method for intersection LOS also used elevated capacity assumptions ICU through -lane Ju ri sd i c.ti on cap,ac.ity (vp,lp,h) Ca r llsbad 2.,000 HCM recommendatio n 1.,500 Los Angeles County 1.,600 Consultant memo on Carlsbad intersection LOS method Date: To : From: Su bject: FEHR ,1 PEERS MEMORANDUM September 9, 201S Doug Blise, City of Carlsbad Christine Mercado & Schrab Rashid, Fehr & Peers LOS Assessment of the City of Carlsbad's Traffic Monitoring Program Study Intersections Fehr & Peers intersection method comparison TABLE 2 -INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY COMPARISON City ICU Method(l) Synchro ICU HCM Delay Method<2> Method<3l # Intersection PM PM PM ICU Rati, LOS CU Ratic LOS Delay LOS (sec/ve ) 1 El Camino Plaza Dr 0.64 B 0.661 C 31.1 C Real 2 El Camino Marron Rd 0.56 A 0.636 B 36.9 D Real 3 El Camino Carlsbad 0.60 A 0.714 C 38.9 D Real Village Dr 4 El Camino Tamarack 0.61 B 0.664 C 29.6 C Real Ave 5 El Camino Cannon 0.81 D 0.984 F 47.1 D Real Rd 6 El Camino College 0.67 B 0.755 D 44.6 D Real Blvd 7 El Camino Faraday 0.78 C 0.808 D 58.1 E Real Ave 8 El Camino Palomar 0.80 C 0.955 F 68.4 E Real Airport Rd 9 El Camino Cassia Rd 0.70 B 0.844 E 44.1 D Real Fehr & Peers intersection method comparison TABLE 2 -INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY COMPARISON City ICU Method(l) Synchro ICU HCM Delay Method<2> Method<3> # Intersection PM PM PM ICU Rati LOS CU Rati~ LOS Delay LOS (sec/vet 10 El Camino Poinsettia 0.48 A 0.669 C 29.7 C Real Ln El Camino Alga Rd-D D 11 Real Aviara 0.70 B 0.831 82.2 Pkwy 12 El Camino La Costa 0.79 C 0.912 D 80.8 D Real Ave 13 El Camino Calle 0.61 B 0.664 C 39.5 D Real Barcelona 14 Palomar Avenida 0.75 C 0.632 B 34.3 C Airport Rd Encinas 15 Palomar Paseo Del 0.72 C 0.725 C 31.8 C Airport Rd Norte 16 Palomar Armada Dr 0.71 C 0.849 Q 38.5 D Airport Rd College Q 17 Palomar Blvd-0.70 B 0.856 54.1 D Airport Rd Aviara Pkwy Additional key points based on the memorandum •The ICU methodology is not commonly used anymore (nor has it for many years, despite what is stated in the Staff Report). •Parameters used in the Carlsbad ICU method do not reflect industry standards. •A consistent policy was not followed for adjusting lane capacities. Inconsistent use of methods before and after Mobility Element adoption •Guidelines are being created and revised over time without external review •Different city departments, and even different people within a department, seem to use different methods for their projects •Different methods have been required for “existing” and “future” conditions for developments •Several projects have been presented to the TSC using the old Carlsbad street segment method in the last few years •Guidelines should be reviewed by the TSC and adopted by the City Council in a public setting –Future material changes should go through the same process Keep monitoring intersections •Statutory –Mobility Element •Vehicular Level of Service. Level of service will be determined by the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual. This methodology evaluates vehicles based on their freedom to maneuver and overall delay experienced at intersections. –Other sections in the Mobility Element, Growth Management Ordinance, CFIP and LFMPs, including the required inventories, also separately refer to street segments and intersections. •Best practice –Individual intersections can fail, even if the mid-block traffic counts suggest a passing LOS in the service volume tables. –Developers of the service volume table method consider it a rough tool •June 3, 2019 TSC meeting Staff Report: 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…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.” •Florida Department of Transportation refers to the results as “simplified LOS analysis” for conceptual purposes. They require more robust methods for development applications. •Other benefits –Intersection analysis required for signal timing and coordination projects Recommended actions •Determine that the old Carlsbad street segment and ICU-C intersection LOS methods significantly under-estimate congestion, and that all City departments must immediately cease using them. •Determine that the scheme of using the Carlsbad LOS methods to assess existing conditions and a different method to assess future conditions in traffic impact analyses is not a best practice, and that the City must immediately stop using that approach. •Direct all City departments to consistently and uniformly use (and require others to use) the new TIA Guidelines and LOS analysis methods. •Direct Staff to restore intersection LOS analysis or address the concerns in this letter. •Empower the TSC to work with Staff to: –Review all LOS-related documents in a public forum (advising the City Council on formal approval): •Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines •Service volume tables •Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit MMLOS systems•Standard operating procedures for types of LOS analyses to be applied to different tasks (monitoring, planning, design) •Formal training materials to be used by other commissions involved in reviewing LOS analysis, including the Planning Commission’s review of development projects–Identify when HCM-based intersection LOS analysis should be conducted for GMP monitoring, City street projects, land use development projects, etc. •Direct Staff to prepare a report that documents how all traffic studies have been conducted since adoption of the Mobility Element to track compliance. •Direct Staff to revise all TMP/GMP monitoring reports and traffic studies for city street projects that were conducted after adoption of the Mobility Element with side-by-side comparisons of the old Carlsbad street segment method with the new service volume-table based street facility method, as well as the old ICU-C method with the HCM intersection method. Questions for Staff 1.Given that the new service volume table approach to level of service is intended as a quick assessment tool with recommended use of more robust methods in equivocal cases, wouldn’t it be a good idea to continue to use intersection analysis for monitoring, city street projects, and land use development projects—at least during a two or more year transition period—to verify the accuracy of the new approach and to compare with previous results? 2.Given that is generates almost all LOS A grades, how was the rural highway-based Carlsbad street segment method a “valid approach” and “well suited to…enable the city to evaluate and track the performance of the streets…” for the 30 years it was in use, as described in the Staff Report. 3.Is the statement in the Staff Report true that the ICU method is still widely used in Southern California? Please provide examples of the other cities that use it, and whether they also use 2,000 vplph as their through-lane capacity. 4.Is it a best practice to require developers to use different analysis methods for existing vs. future conditions, such as the approach used in Carlsbad for many years, in which the Carlsbad methods were used to assess existing conditions, while the HCM intersection method was required for future conditions? Growth Management Plan Circulation Performance Standards, 2015 General Plan Mobility Element, and Traffic Impact Analysis Methodologies Sean Haeri, Transportation Director David de Cordova, Principal Planner July 9, 2019 Recommended Action •Receive informational report Presentation Overview •Growth Management Plan background •CFIP circulation performance standard •2015 General Plan update •Traffic impact analysis methodologies then and now Growth Management Plan Background •Concerns about providing facilities date back to 1970s •GMP adopted in 1986 during era of high growth •Significantly changed how city managed growth Key Features •Requirements are codified by ordinance and Proposition “E” ratified by voters •Residential growth capped (54,599 citywide du) •Public facilities and minimum performance defined •Financing plans required (citywide and zones) •Annual monitoring and reporting Facilities Planning Documents •Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan •25 Local Facilities Management Plans GMP Public Facilities •Administrative facilities •Circulation •Drainage •Fire •Libraries •Open space •Parks •Schools •Sewer collection •Wastewater treatment capacity •Water distribution Defined in Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP) Facilities to Keep Pace with Growth •Performance standard must be maintained with new growth •If not, new development ceases •May resume only when adequate facilities provided or arrangements made to satisfaction of City Council 1986 Circulation Performance Standard No road segment or intersection in the Local Facility Management Zone (LFMZ) nor any road segment or intersection out of the zone which is impacted by the development in the zone shall be projected to exceed a service level of C during off-peak hours, nor service level D during peak hours. "Impacted" means where twenty percent or more of the traffic generated by the Local Facilities Management Zone will use the road segment or intersection. When a Deficiency Occurs •Has happened three times due to circulation impacts (1991, 1998, 1999) •Development halted until deficiency addressed •Development resumed when improvements adequately funded (by new development) or actually built GMP Results •Performance standard and methods effective •Well-suited at time of city growth •Focus on building system and capacity •Nearly all planned major streets completed (exc. Poinsettia Ln, College Blvd) Era of Transition •Carlsbad transition from master planning to infill •Most of street network is built out •Focus shift to complete streets •Consider needs of all users (bikes, peds, transit, etc) •Concern for auto use impacts (e.g., air quality, GHG) 2015 General Plan Mobility Element •Goals and policies re-oriented to balanced multi-modal transportation planning •Adapting system to become “livable streets” •Re-defines LOS for all modes according to street type 2015 Mobility Element •Policies allow exemptions for built out streets •Shift to multimodal improvements •Manage congestion –Transportation Systems Management (TSM) –Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 2015 Circulation Performance Standard Maintain LOS D or better for all modes that are subject to this multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) standard, as identified in Table 3-1 of the General Plan Mobility Element, excluding LOS exempt intersections and streets approved by the City Council. 2015 Circulation Performance Standard •Current performance standard considers LOS for all modes of travel (vehicle, bike, ped & transit) •Applies vehicle LOS to: –freeway –arterial –arterial connector –industrial street types •Non-vehicle MMLOS standard applied to various street types Monitoring Performance (1989-2015) •Annual traffic monitoring program •49 key intersections and 26-27 mid-block street segments throughout city •Counts conducted summer •Report published each year How LOS was measured in 1989 •1989 Guidelines and Instructions for the Preparation of Local Facilities Management Plan Traffic Impact Studies adopted •Capacity Utilization-Carlsbad (ICU-C) method calculated: –Vehicle capacity at intersections –Vehicle capacity along street segments •Assigned grade “A-F” based on results How Vehicle LOS is Measured Now •Key differences from 1989 method: –Street segment LOS analysis only (not intersections) –HCM method per Mobility Element –LOS grade “A-F “ based on new method –More, smaller street segments monitored –Traffic counts taken in spring/fall vs. summer •HCM method yields different LOS results How Segment Capacity is Determined •Key factors considered include: –Posted speed limit –Intersection spacing –Signal timing –Left or right turning % at intersections –Presence of median –Number of lanes –Type of lanes (left, right or through) Data Collection with New Method A B C HEFG D I KJ L N M P O Q Performance Standard and Method Comparison Performance Standard 1986 Current Level of Service (LOS)C off-peak/D peak D peak (unless exempt) Modes evaluated Auto only Varies by street type: auto, ped, bike, transit Methodology 1989 Current Intersection analysis ICU-C None Street segment capacity HCM (w/o intersection delay) HCM (w/ intersection delay) Study segments Longer and fewer Shorter and more Traffic counts made Summer Spring and Fall Multi-modal analysis?No Yes Why Change Method? •Enables corridor-specific capacity analysis •Integrates all modes of travel •Facilitates operational improvements (e.g., signal syncing) over capacity building (e.g. widening) •To maximize efficiency of existing system Next Steps •FY 2017/18 GMP report used new method •Eight street segment deficiencies identified •Council to receive report and recommendations at July 16, 2019 meeting Thank You