HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-01-28; City Council; ; Semiannual Transportation ReportDiscussion
For informational purposes, city staff will present an overview of two specific efforts to
enhance traffic safety throughout the city including information regarding t he use of best
practices and standards, implementation of these best practices and standards and an update
of the various ongoing activities related to traffic calming and traffic signal projects.
Best Practices and Standards
The use of best practices and standards enables the city to implement solutions that have been
thoroughly vetted and field tested to ensure they are safe and effective. The best practices and
standards that provide the foundation for design, maintenance and implementation of
transportation project features and va rious related activities include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Features and Tools:
• Roadway signing, striping and legend installations
• Traffic signal systems maintenance
• Enhanced pedestrian crossings
• Speed feedback signs
• Speed cushions
• Raised crosswalks
• Chicanes
• Traffic circles
• Roundabouts
• Signal operation modifications
• Bikeways
• Safety lighting
• Education
• Enfo rcement
Standards and Guidelines
• California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)
• American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Manual
• California Vehicle Code (CVC)
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standards and Specifications
• Standards Specifications for Public Works Construction (G reen book)
• City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards and Standard Drawings
• · San Diego Regional Standard Drawings
• Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
• International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA) Manuals
• United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITS) St rategic Plan
• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Model Systems Engineering Documents for
Adaptive Signal Control Technology (ASCT) Systems
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 2 of 22
• FHWA Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures (ATSPM)
• National Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol (NTCIP) Guidelines
• Caltrans Tr.ansportation Electrical Equipment Specifications (TEES)
• San Diego Region ITS Strategic Plan
These types of features/tools and standards are used to implement a variety of project types
that help improve safety for all users and all modes of travel.
Project types that will be highlighted in this report include:
• Traffic calming on residential and non-residential streets
• Traffic signal operations, maintenance, and equipment upgrades
Traffic Calming on Residential Streets
The Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program (CRTMP) outlines the strategy and
procedures to reduce the negative impacts associated with vehicular traffic by providing traffic
calming on residential streets. The program was developed in 2001 and revised in 2011.
The CRTMP utilizes three phases to address speeding concerns on residential streets. The
purpose of these three phases is to provide a best value, cost-effective approach by
incrementally increasing the magnitude/cost of applied solutions as needed to achieve the
program's goals.
Phase I is initiated when staff is contacted by a resident or neighborhood to express a concern
regarding speeding on their residential street. Transportation Department staff, in close
collaboration with the Police Department, utilize engineering, education and enforcement
efforts to address the concerns. Phase I focuses on the human element of driver behavior and
leverages strategies such as education of the public, police presence and police enforcement to
help reduce speeding. The engineering tools available in Phase I include speed limit signs,
warning signs, pavement legends and temporary speed feedback signs. Phase I solutions are
usually implemented at the staff level and may include work orders for installation of signs and
pavement legends. Depending on availability of temporary speed feedback signs and the type
of work proposed, Phase I can last between four to six months.
If the Phase I solutions do not adequately address the reported issues, Phase II of the CRTMP
can be considered. The threshold for Phase II eligibility is a minimum critical speed of 32 miles
per hour (MPH), determined by using data collected during Phase I. This threshold was set so
that city resources could be most effectively allocated for the highest priority traffic safety
needs. The critical speed, otherwise known as the 85th percentile speed, is the speed at which
85% of the drivers drive at or below. The critical speed, as described in the CA MUTCD,
represents one standard deviation above the average speed and is used for speed zoning
purposes. Phase II utilizes cost-effective physical traffic management devices such as speed
cushions, traffic circles, high-visibility crosswalks, narrowing travel lanes with striping, and
neighborhood signs.
Per the CRTMP, consensus support of the community is required before Phase II measures can
be implemented. The first step toward establishing consensus is a neighborhood meeting.
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 3 of 22
Residents and property owners within the project study area are invited to attend a
neighborhood meeting organized by staff. At the meeting, staff presents traffic calming
strategies and options tailored to their individual street. Input provided by the meeting
attendees is used to develop a preferred concept plan for traffic calming.
A mail survey is used to quantify neighborhood support for the traffic calming plan developed
at the neighborhood meeting. The surveys are sent to all residents and property owners in the
project study area. The CRTMP requires that at least 50% of the mailed surveys be returned to
constitute a valid survey and that a support rate of 67% or more is required to indicate positive
community support for the proposed plan. If these support requirements are satisfied, the
proposed traffic calming plan is brought before the Traffic and Mobility Commission for their
recommendation and then to City Council for project approval. If City Council approves the
traffic calming plan, the project enters the design phase, which will result in a set of
construction plans for implementation. It can take 6-12 months to complete the Phase II
process.
If the Phase II solutions do not adequately address the reported issues, residents can request
moving to Phase Ill of the CRTMP. Phase Ill utilizes more expensive physical traffic calming
devices that change the character or nature of an intersection or roadway and includes
traditional traffic calming features such as traffic circles, center island narrowing, curb radius
reductions, raised intersections, mid-block chokers, lateral shift in lanes, chicanes, intersection
bulb-outs, realigned intersections, forced turn channelization, median barriers and traffic
diverters.
Eligibility for Phase Ill is determined using a Phase Ill Qualification Criteria to be conducted by
staff. The criteria consider such factors as travel speeds, traffic volumes, collision history,
absence of sidewalks, proximity to schools and presence of marked crosswalks, and utilizes a
points assignment system. A minimum score of 51 points is required for candidate streets to be
considered for Phase Ill. Due to the success of Phase II implementation, Phase Ill has never
been initiated in Carlsbad.
In 2018, the CRTMP resulted in construction of traffic calming improvements on four streets in
Carlsbad as shown in table 1.
Table 1-2018 Completed CRTMP Projects
Street Before Speed (MPH) Traffic Calming Plan After Speed (MPH)
Corintia Street 34 4 speed cushions 29
Daisy Avenue 34 2 speed cushions 29
Cadencia St (Upper) 36 3 speed cushions 30
Harbor Drive 23* 2 speed cushions 22
*Granted exemption into Phase II per Traffic & Mobility Commission Dec. 4, 2017
Evaluation after implementation has indicated that traffic calming has lowered the prevailing
speeds on these streets to an acceptable level.
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 4 of 22
There are currently 10 streets in the Phase II process. Table 2 shows the dates of the
neighborhood meetings that were held in 2019 and the preferred traffic calming plan that was
selected at each meeting.
Table 2 -2019 CRTMP Meeting Schedule
Street Critical Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan
Speed Meeting
{mph) Date
Amargosa Drive 33 April 11, 2019 3-speed cushions, 1-traffic circle,
1-crosswalk
Basswood Avenue 33 April 25, 2019 3-speed cushions
Hillside Drive 32 May 9, 2019 4-speed cushions, 1 traffic circle
Avenida Diestro 33 July 11, 2019 4-speed cushions
Estrella De Mar Rd 30* Aug. 1, 2.019 5-speed cushions
La Golondrina St 34 Aug.29,2019 5-speed cushions
Avenida Pantera 33 Sept. 12, 2019 4-speed cushions
Segovia Way 32 Sept. 26, 2019 7-speed cushions
Cadencia Street (lower) 37 Oct. 24, 2019 2-speed cushions
Harwich Drive 33 Nov.14,2019 4-speed cushions
*Granted exemption into Phase II per Traffic and Mobility Commission (formerly Traffic Safety Commission) Dec. 5,
2016
Table 3 shows the results of the neighborhood support survey that was used to gauge
community support for each of the neighborhoods.
Table 3 -2019 CRTMP Projects Status ·
Street Survey Traffic and Comments
Results Mobility
{Return/Support) Commission
Amargosa Drive 76%/76% Aug . 5,2019
Basswood Avenue 46%/NA NA Did not meet support criteria
Hillside Drive 79%/81% Aug.5,2019
Avenida Diestro 68%/79% Jan.6,2020
Estrella De Mar Rd 69%/94% Jan. 6, 2020
La Golondrina St 46%/NA NA Did not meet support criteria
Avenida Pantera TBD TBD Survey results pending
Segovia Way TBD TBD Survey results pending
Cadencia Street(lower) 70%/100% Jan. 6,2020
Harwich Drive TBD TBD Survey results pending
Staff will continue to guide these neighborhoods through the CRTMP process by bringing the
survey results and Traffic and Mobility Commission recommendations to City Council for
approval per the CRTMP. Staff is estimating that implementation of ~raffic calming for these 10
streets will be completed by the end of 2020.
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 5 of 22
Traffic Calming on Non-Residential Streets
Staff often receives speeding complaints on non-residential streets. Since the CRTMP is
restricted to residential streets with single family homes, other strategies are utilized to address
traffic calming on larger streets. The city's Mobility Element of the General Plan was developed
in 2015 to help guide the city toward more livable streets by encouraging multi-modal travel.
Traffic calming guidance is provided in the Mobility Element based on the street typologies as
shown in Table 4.
Table 4 -Traffic Calming Recommendations per Street Typology
Street Type Traffic Calming Recommendations
Freeway None
Arterial Street 1-Vertical traffic calming techniques (such as speed tables, humps, etc.)
should NOT be considered
2-Special considerations can be considered on arterials within proximity
to schools to enhance Safe Routes to Schools for pedestrians and
bicyclists
Identity Street 1-Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe ped and bike
movement
2-Traffic calming devices such as curb extensions (bulbouts) or enhanced
pedestrian crossings should be considered
Village Street 1-Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe ped and bike
movement
2-Mid-block pedestri;rn crossings and traffic calming devices should be
considered, but only at locations with high pedestrian activity levels or
major destinations/attractions
Arterial Connector Mid-block pedestrian crossings and traffic calming devices should be
considered, but only at locations with high pedestrian activity levels or
major destinations/attractions
Neighborhood Connector 1-Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe ped and bike
movement
2-Mid-block pedestrian crossings and traffic calming devices should be
considered, but only at locations with high pedestrian activity levels or
major destinations/attractions
Transit Connector Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe ped and bike
movement
Coastal Street Vehicle speeds shall be managed to support uses along the coast
School Street Vehicle speeds shall be managed to promote safe ped and bike
movement
Industrial Street Traffic calming devices are generally discouraged given the propensity for
larger trucks and heavy vehicles in this area
Neighborhood Street 1-Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe ped and bike
movement
2-Traffic calming measures should be considered when supported by the
neighborhood or warranted for safety reasons
Bike/Ped Pathway None
Within½ Mile ofTransit 1-Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe ped and bike
movement
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 6 of 22
Further guidance can be found in the Goals and Policies section of the Mobility Element,
including the following policies: 3-P.15, 3-P.16 and 3P-17. Traffic calming on non-residential
streets can be proposed by staff using the recommendations found in the Mobility Element,
brought to the Traffic and Mobility Commission for their support, and to City Council for
approval. Privately-funded development projects as well as city-funded Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) projects can be used to implement traffic calming on non-residential streets.
Some examples of traffic calming recently implemented on non-residential streets include the
following:
• Gateway Road Raised Crosswalk and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
• Gateway Road Chicanes
• La Costa Avenue Road Diet
• Avenida Encinas Road Diet
• Speed feedback signs on various streets
• RRFBs at various locations
Examples of proposed traffic calming improvements on non-residential streets include the
following:
• Kelly Drive/Park Drive Traffic Calming
• Carlsbad Boulevard In-Pavement Flashing Lights and Curb Extensions
• Tamarack Avenue/Valley Street Hybrid Pedestrian Signal and Curb Extensions
Traffic calming will continue to be utilized as an effective tool to address concerns about vehicle
speeding on both residential and non-residential streets in Carlsbad.
Introduction to Traffic Signals
Traffic signals were created as an alternative to stop signs, having the advantage of being able
to serve two non-conflicting groups of traffic through an intersection at the same time instead
of just one. A typical four-legged intersection has eight possible movements: four through and
four left-turning movements (the right turn is served at the same time as the through
movement). In most cases, only two movements can be served at the same time without
conflict. If two out of eight movements (25%) are being served with a green light at any given
time, that means that six out of eight movements (75%) are waiting for a green light. A traffic
signal sequentially serves each movement and this sequence is called a "cycle." The time it
takes to serve the sequence of movements is called the "cycle length." A long cycle length is
required to avoid the heavy congestion that results from conflicting traffic movements.
Traffic signals work best at isolated intersections, or along a corridor with very light side street
traffic. The need to serve all eight turning movements during each cycle is one reason why the
coordination of multiple traffic signals along a corridor is such a great challenge. As noted
above, only 25% of the traffic movements is being served during each cycle, which increases the
effort needed to coordinate that single direction along the corridor. Traffic signals can promote
mainline traffic flow in one direction by establishing a non-compromising cycle length at every
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 7 of 22
intersection along the corridor. This approach gives the mainline traffic as much green time as
possible by stopping the side street traffic for that same amount of time. The long cycle length
may be appropriate for recurring traffic, such as the peak morning and evening commute hours,
but comes at the expense of side street response. Even longer cycle lengths are needed to
promote mainline traffic flows in. both directions of travel.
Traffic patterns during the morning and evening peak periods are predictable and repeated
with a level of consistency that makes time-based coordination of traffic signals possible. The
term "off-peak" is used to define the time between the morning and evening peak commutes.
Off-peak traffic conditions tend to be more.variable and unpredictable than during the peak
period and make it difficult to implement time-based coordination. In order to increase the
efficiency of traffic signal operations during these off-peak periods, more advanced traffic signal
equipment is required.
City staff is now upgrading our traffic signals with new equipment that allows for "adaptive"
signal operations. This new capability uses technology to find a balance between the
uncompromising cycle lengths that cause long side street delays when there is no mainline
traffic and the variations in cycle lengths that can reduce side street delay without completely
disrupting the coordination serving mainline traffic.
Traffic Signal Program
Carlsbad has developed a robust traffic signal program to maintain our status as a regional
leader in transportation. In 2010, staff evaluated the traffic signal equipment at the 179
signalized intersections maintained by the city. As part of proactive asset management, staff
determined that most of the primary traffic signal equipment components had reached the
expected service life and identified a multi-phase project to bring the system up to indust ry
standards. Staff also envisioned this project as an opportunity to provide the framework
needed for "smart technologies" and support Carlsbad's goal to be a "connected community."
Specifically, the traffic signal equipment installed as part of Phase 1 was compatible with
adaptive signal operations and connected/autonomous vehicles.
In 2011, City Council approved a $5.9 million Capital Improvement Program {CIP} project to
upgrade traffic signal equipment. This was considered Phase 1 of the project and was
completed on schedule and under budget, saving the city $1.7 million. The success of Phase 1 of
the project was largely attributable to the "design-build" approach and innovative use of
master purchase agreements to procure equipment at best value. In 2018, City Council added
$2 million of the funds remaining after Phase 1 to define Phase 2 of the project that was funded
a total of $3 .7 million to implement adaptive traffic signal operations.
Traffic Signal Project: Phase 1 (mid-2011 to mid-2018)
Phase 1 of the project increased reliability and improved traffic flow by upgrading the basic
signal equipment to current industry standards. Phase 1 also included traffic signal
modifications, or transportation system management (TSM} measures, that improved traffic
flow through specific intersections (e.g., right-turn overlaps and trap lanes}. At the completion
of Phase 1 the following milestones were achieved:
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 8 of 22
• Construct ed the Traffic Management Center (TMC)
• Implemented a wireless communications network linking 170 signals to the TMC
• Upgraded vehicle detection (camera) equ ipment
• Upgraded battery back-up systems
• Upgraded emergency vehicle signal preemption equipment
• Installed an automated traffic monitoring system
• Upgraded traffic signal cabinets at critical intersections
• Re-timed peak hour traffic signal plans on major corridors
• Constructed miscellaneous TSM projects (e.g., right-turn overlap on El Camino Real at La
Costa Avenue, right-turn overlap on Palomar Airport Road at College Boulevard, trap
lane on Melrose Drive at Palomar Airport Road, trap lane on College Boulevard at
Palomar Airport Road)
Phase 1 improved reliability by upgrading the aging traffic signal infrastructure. This project
benefitted our community by improving traffic operations in terms of fewer equipment
malfunctions (e.g., signals on flash) and better system performance. Staff can now address
traffic signal maintenance issues proactively from the TMC reducing the need for community
members to contact the city.
Carlsbad participated in a 2012 survey of public agencies conducted by the National
Transportation Operations Coalition (NTOC). This survey is the basis of a report titled National
Traffic Signal Report Card that reflects the state of traffic signal management and operations
across the nation. The national results indicated the following grades: "D+" for all agencies; "C"
for agencies managing over 150 signals. Table 5 indicates that prior to Phase 1, the City of
Carlsbad was well below the national average for cities its size. The grade jumped to "B-"
primarily from improvements made as part of Phase 1. Staff will continue to use this report
card to monitor the progress of the traffic signal program.
Table 5 -City of Carlsbad Traffic Signal Report Card
Category Before Phase 1 After Phase 1
Management C-B
Traffic signal operations: isolated locations D+ B+
Traffic signal operations: coordinated corridors F -C-
Signal timing practices C-B+
Traffic monitoring and data collection C-C+
Maintena nce practices D B+
OVERALL GRADE D+ B-
As noted in Table 5, the city received a grade of "F" for traffic signal operations along
coordinated corridors prior to Phase 1. Traffic signal coordination prior to Phase 1 depended on
individual clocks being synchronized at each intersection. This grade improved to "C-" at the
completion of Phase 1 and reflects significant improvements in peak hour traffic flow after the
intersections were synchronized to the same clock in the TMC.
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 9 of 22
Table 6 summarizes this improved traffic flow along El Camino Real (Palomar Airport Road to
Encinitas city limits) and Palomar Airport Road (Interstate 5 to Melrose Drive) during the peak
commute hours. Phase 1 did not address issues related to off-peak hours which is the primary
reason for the "C-" grade in Table 5 after the completion of Phase 1. Phase 2 of the project was
designed to address off-peak (midday) traffic operations and is discussed in the following
section.
Table 6 -Phase 1 Improvements to Travel Times Along Major Corridors
Corridor Time of Day Travel Time (min) Improved Travel Time
Before After Time Reduced Percent
(Min) Reduced
El Camino Real (south) Morning 8.7 5.2 3.5 40%
El Camino Real (south) Afternoon 7.4 4.6 2.8 38%
Palomar Airport Road Morning 8.1 6.1 2.0 25%
Palomar Airport Road Afternoon 9:7 6.2 3.5 36%
Traffic Signal Project: Phase 2 (mid-2018 to present)
Phase 2 of the traffic signal CIP project builds upon the framework and equipment
improvements achieved in Phase 1. New equipment installed at the traffic signal controllers
allows traffic signal operations that adapt to inconsistent traffic flows typical of the off-peak
conditions. These equipment upgrades were not included in Part 1 because adaptive signal
operations technology had not yet reached a point where staff was confident in expected
outcomes. Staff is using the term "adaptive" to cover all technologies that improve traffic flow
under fluctuating traffic.
Phase 2 has the following objectives:
• Add new stations to the traffic monitoring system
• Conduct a "proof of concept" project to evaluate adaptive operations and set
expectations
• Upgrade the Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) located in the TMC
• Upgrade and configure existing vehicle detection equipment to enhance vehicle
counting capabilities needed for adaptive operations
• Upgrade the traffic signal controllers at each intersection in the city to be compatible
with the new ATMS
• Conduct a "pilot project" along Rancho Santa Fe Road to evaluate adaptive operations
and establish protocols for future work
• Implement adaptive signal operations along the city's primary corridors
The proof of concept project was conducted by installing test equipment along Aviara Parkway,
Cannon Road and El Camino Real. The results showed that the existing product line was
promising along minor corridors, but a more stable operating system was needed along our
main corridors. Staff used these results to establish a bid package for the adaptive signal
equipment that emphasized the need to procure an off-the-shelf system that minimized the
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 10 of 22
need for staff to integrate equipment from different vendors. Staff also determined that a high
value would be placed on the system's capability to produce efficient reports and graphics.
At the time this report was prepared, the upgraded ATMS was in place and 100 of the 179
traffic signals have new controllers installed. The remaining 79 intersections are expected to be
upgraded by spring 2020.
A pilot project was completed this fall along Rancho Santa Fe Road, and staff is preparing a
before/after analysis to evaluate this phase of the project. El Camino Real south of Palomar
Airport Road is the next corridor scheduled to be upgraded to adaptive operations by early
summer 2020. The following corridors are expected to be upgraded to adaptive operations by
late summer 2020:
• El Camino Real north of Palomar Airport Road
• Palomar Airport Road east of El Camino Real
• Palomar Airport Road west of El Camino Real
• Cannon Road between Interstate 5 and Faraday Avenue
• Aviara Parkway between Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real
The Future of Traffic Signals in Carlsbad
Phase 1 and 2 of the Traffic Signal Program have established a sound foundation for a high
performing traffic signal management system that will be an integral part of connected
communities of the future. The traffic signal equipment installed as part of Phase 2 can
communicate with the software commonly used in connected and autonomous vehicles.
Features such as displaying the time remaining before the signal light turns green and alerts
when driving past cyclists-traveling in adjacent bike lanes may soon be available.
The city has funded a separate CIP project to upgrade speed feedback signs and RRFBs in school
zones. With the upgraded equipment, traffic data can be transmitted to the TMC an·d drivers
will soon be able to receive messages on their cell phone with alarms to slow down when
exceeding the posted speed limit. Data can be shared with our Police Department to allow for
focused enforcement when there are concerns of vehicle speeding.
This item was presented to the Traffic and Mobility Commission on Jan. 6, 2020. Attached as
Exhibit 1 are the draft minutes from that meeting.
Fiscal Analysis
This item is a presentation on the work related to management of the city's transportation
assets and as such there is no financial impact related to this item.
Next Steps
This is the third semiannual t ransportation report to the City Council. Future transportation
reports can begin to drill down into the work related to a specific mode of travel and/or a phase
of the asset management concept. The next semiannual transportation report is expected to be
in summer 2020.
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 11 of 22
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, receiving a presentation on the work of the
Public Works Branch, Transportation Department does not constitute a "project" within the
meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it has no potential to cause
either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably 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.Draft minutes from the Jan. 6, 2020, Traffic and Mobility Commission
2.Memorandum on Regional Traffic Calming Practices from the Traffic and Mobility
Commission
3.Jan. 22, 2020 correspondence received from Dr. Mehdi Sarram
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 12 of 22
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 14 of 22
~Commissioner Penseyres inquired about the feasibility of lowering the speed measure
threshold less than 32mph. City Traffic Engineer Kim answered that it could be considered.
~Commissioner Penseyres asked if we consider roundabouts seriously before considering traffic
lights. City Traffic Engineer answered yes, with the appropriate situation.
~Commissioner Linke prepared the memorandum on Regional Traffic Calming Practices,
requested by City Council at the Nov. 19, 2019 meeting.
0 Deputy City Attorney Guy explained that the T&MC could choose to bring the memorandum to
the City Council at a future date, or it could be part of the talking points on the Semiannual
Transportation presentation to the City Council.
~Commissioner Linke recommended to bring the memorandum to the City Council as part of
the talking points on the Semiannual Transportation Report.
0 Vice-Chair Johnson asked Commissioner Linke about the last bullet point on page 2 under the
Carlsbad Residential Traffic and Mobility Program (CRTMP).
Motion by Vice-Chair Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Penseyres, to strike out the sentence on page
2 that reads: Based on State guidance, staff proposes removing stop signs from the program.
Motion approved: 3/2/0/2 (No: Linke and Penseyres-Absent: Gocan and Hunter)
Motion by Commissioner Linke, seconded by Commissioner Pensey es, to approve the revised
memorandum.
Motion approved: 5/0/0/2 (Absent: Gocan and Huriter)
Commission Semiannual Transportation Report Comments:
1. Submit the Memorandum on Regional rfraffic Calming Practices for consideration, in
response to City Council request on Nov. 19, 2019.
2. Work Plan items shoulcj focus in actions and other items that were brought to the
T&MC, such as providing public input on documents and programs.
3. Staff should pr, vide a timeline to the T&MC for upcoming agenda items that will need
the commissioners input such as the work plan and_ the semiannual transportation
report.·
4. Staff shoul provide ad'e.guate time for T&MC to review upcoming agenda items, '. ~ specially the review of large technical documents.
Motion by Commissioner Linke, seconded by Commissioner Perez, to submit the revised T&MC
Semiannual Transportation Report Comments including the Memorandum on Regional Traffic Calming
Practices.
Motion approved: 5/0/0/2 (Absent: Gocan and Hunter)
Motion by Vice-Chair Jo,hnson, seconded by Commissioner Perez, to elect Commissioner Linke to
present the Semiannual Transportation Report Comments on Jan. 28, 2020, Council meeting.
Motion approved: 5/0/0/2 (Absent: Gocan and Hunter)
6. ELECT A NEW TRAFFIC & MOBILITY COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR -(Staff Contact:
Doug Bilse, Public works)
Staff Recommendation: Elect Chair and Vice-Chair for T&MC
Page 3 of 4
Public Works
Transportation 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2730 t Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 15 of 22
Memorandum
January 6, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor Hall and Members of City Counci l
From: Traffic and Mobility Commission
Re: Regional Traffic Calming Practices
Background
Exhibit 2
At the 11/19/2019 City Council meeting, a minute motion passed to have the "Regional Traffic Calming
Practices" item of business presented to our commission with the opportunity to provide
recommendations and comments in the form of a memorandum. The commission addressed the item at
our 12/2/2019 meeting, for which staff provided a report, a presentation, and written answers to a
series of pre-submitted questions.
The Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program (CRTMP) addresses traffic calming only on streets
with the "Local/Neighborhood Street" (residential) typology. While there is no formal protocol for all of
the other (non-residential) street typologies, staff indicated that they are open to developing one.
Commission recommendations
The commission recommends that the City Council have staff formalize a protocol based on best
practices for identifying and prioritizing traffic calming measures on non-residential streets. For
consistency with the General Plan Mobility Element, the protocol should:
• Acknowledge that some street typologies, such as Arterial Streets and Arterial Connector
Streets, are not ideal candidates for traffic calming, because they are expected to carry larger
volumes of vehicles at higher speeds, although special considerations can be made for streets in
close proximity to schools.
• Identify other street typologies, such as Identity Streets and School Streets, which are better
candidates for traffic calming, because they generally are expected to carry lower vehicle
volumes and encourage non-vehicle travel.
• Establish objective criteria for identification and prioritization of candidate Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) projects, including confirmation of the safety concern through data
collection/analysis.
The commission further recommends that the City Council endorse and track the status of the following
traffic calming-related initiatives that Staff has indicated are currently in progress:
• Study of non-residential traffic calming programs from neighboring agencies.
• Implementing an annual reporting/monitoring system that includes collision data.
• CRTMP program and website updates, including public project tracking capability.
1
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 17 of 22
Exhibit 2
Information from Staff and Commission Discussion
CRTMP-traffic calming on residential (neighborhood/local) streets
• The program has been active since 2001, but the first eight Phase II projects were completed in
the 2010-2013 timeframe.
• The program was on hold from 2014-2016, so Phase II projects that were in the queue were
delayed for an extended period, leading to some resident dissatisfaction.
• The program was restarted in 2017, and four of the on-hold Phase II projects were completed in
2018, while nine'\dditional Phase II projects are scheduled for implementation in 2020.
• Due to the success of the Phase II projects, no Phase Ill projects have been necessary, and no
projects have been removed. (A traffic circle pilot project on Cassia Road was removed, but that
was not a CRTMP project.)
• Phase II projects are normally prioritized based on dates of concerns received from residents,
although other factors can affect scheduling.
• Staff summarized residential traffic calming programs in neighboring agencies and pointed out
that several of them had modeled their programs after the CRTMP.
• The CRTMP was last updated in 2011, and staff is evaluating the program for a possible update
based on resident feedback and the types of Phase II projects that have been successful. Staff
is also working to make project information available on the c!ty's website to improve
communication with residents.
Traffic calming on non-residential streets
• Projects can be identified, scoped, and budgeted during the City Council's annual Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) process.
• In addition, residents can request investigation of potential projects, but, unlike the CRTMP for
residential streets, there is currently no formal process.
• Staff is open to developing a formal process, but they are not proposing one at this time.
• Although staff reported that four of the neighboring agencies (Encinitas, Oceanside, San Diego,
and Solana Beach) had non-residential traffic calming programs, they did not analyze them, but
they have agreed to follow up on the recommendation to do that.
• During commission work plan development, a proposal was made for staff to develop methods
for periodic safety monitoring studies based on collision data to identify candidates for safety
improvements, analogous to the annual "level of service" monitoring. That was not included in
the commission's final work plan, because the City Council had not included it in the current
scope of work. However, staff is now proposing an annual collision data report as a priority in
the upcoming year.
2
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 18 of 22
Jan 22, 2020
To: Elaine Lukey, Paz Gomez, Tom Frank, John Kim, Shelby Nelson, Elaine Paiva
From: Mehdi Sarram, resident at , Carlsbad CA 92009
Subject: My report on the status of the City of Carlsbad traffic issues
Background
On July 3, 2019, I met with Elaine Lukey and her staff to discuss issues with our city traffic signals.
Before that meeting, on April 23, 2019, I met with Paz Gomez, Massoud Saberian, Marshall Plantz
and Doug Bilse to discuss the same concerns with our traffic issues.
I have been involved with our city traffic management since late 2008, when I met Mayor Lewis in
his office to discuss traffic signal synchronization. Since then, I have worked with Doug Bilse to
improve the synchronization of traffic signals and to reduce CO2 emissions. Also, since then, I
have made numerous presentations to our City Council after Mayor Hall was elected as our Mayor.
Test run for the new Adaptive System:
On August 23, 2019, at my request, Doug Bilse asked me to join him and Ed for a test run on the
RFS. After a few hours of testing the new Adaptive system on RSF, I asked Doug how he would
grade his own performance. Doug said a "D". He is right as essentially nothing worked. I
understand this was just a test run, but the grade should have been higher than D if the Contractors
had done a better job.
I attended a Traffic & Mobility Commission (Commission) meeting on Jan 6, 2020. Doug stated
that he had spent $4.2 M for Phase I from July 2011 to Jan 2018. He added, Phase II started in July
2018 and was funded for $3.7 M. He has spent $1.8 M to Date.
Doug tells me that he corrected the problems we faced on the test run on RFS on Aug 23, 2019. He
tells me in his email dated Jan 21, 2020 that the Adaptive system has significantly improved traffic
flow on this corridor, especially during the midday.
Having worked with Doug for over 10 years, I trust what he has concluded BUT will drive on RSF
to verify his conclusions. I will report my observations to the Council meeting on Jan 28, 2020. I
hope I can give Doug a better grade after my observations by driving on RSF at different times.
Grading System
In his Jan 6, 2020 presentation to the Commission, Doug had a slide # 24 on "Traffic Signal
Program Report Card". He said these grades ranging from C minus to B plus are on PROGRAM,
meaning it is like a checklist to ensure all items are checked, like you check your car.
In my own presentation to the Commission, I said, first the GRADE should be on the
PERFORMANCE and Program. The City management or Doug cannot grade themselves on the
performance. The resident like me driving every day in our city can in an unbiased manner grade
the traffic system.
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 19 of 22
Conclusion
So, having spent $4.2 M plus 1.8 M so far, which equals $6.0 M, my questions are:
1. Is the City management happy with the overall performance of our traffic system? I AM not.
2. Doug told me years back that with his traffic management system, one could drive from La
Costa Ave to near HWY 78 on ECR and get about 70% green lights meaning he would
synchronize the signals. Well, we are NOWHERE close to this goal.
3. The staff working for the traffic management just forgot one of the main goals of spending
about $6 Mand that is to reduce CO2 emissions by synchronizing the signals. We are
NOWHERE close to achieving this. What works is the left turn signal on the 4 second rule.
4. Is the City management holding the Contractors working on the traffic system accountable?
I am NOT talking just about the performance of Phase II Adaptive System. I am talking
about the overall performance since 2011 that I am not happy with considering the
money we have spent. All we have to do is drive around our nice city at various time and
observe if the signals are working properly.
5. I understand that improving city traffic system is a continuous process. I also understand the
traffic staff are doing their best to improve the situation. I thank the staff for their efforts.
6. On ECR going north from about College/Cannon toward Village Drive at about 4-5 pm, the
traffic is typically backed up with a few hundred cars. I have personally experienced this
major problem many times. I have talked to Doug about this problem that he could adjust
the times for Green/Red on side streets so more cars can drive on ECR. This is my point,
after 10 years of work, the signals on our main street ECR are not working properly. Each
idle car emits about 80 mg CO2 per minute. We are a Role Model city and need to pay
more attention to CO2 emissions affecting our climate.
7. Final Note: In the past 10 plus years, I have driven on EVERY street in our city at various
times to test the traffic signals. As a resident, having spent so much of my time with our City
traffic signal issues, I am not happy with the overall results so far. This has been reported to
Mayor Hall and the Council on numerous occasions. I am hoping the staff under the
leadership of Elaine Lukey can improve the City traffic system to an acceptable level in
the near future.
Sincerely, J/Jd,.d.. -~4M,ec---D' Mehdi Sarram
Carlsbad CA
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 20 of 22
January 28, 2020
Good evening Mayor Hall and Council members
My name is Mehdi Sarram, a resident at
,~~
)ISTRh .... U lEu ~l.cf"di'·j;3 ,•lJJI ;e
'\()Ml'J!EI IF r -r _:' ,\ li'-inL
· \EETING ';F. \J~}?O-W ______ .
I have made many presentations to you and the Council on our City traffic issues ever since you
became our Mayor in 2010. My main concern has always traffic signal synchronization so we reduce
the CO2 emissions in our City, which is a Role Model City. I have also met with the staff in the traffic
department many times.
I have NO vested interest and I am not on anyone's payroll. I simply care for my city as an active
resident.
The test drive for Adaptive system on RSF with Doug Bilse on August 23, 2019 was not successful,
Doug gave himself a grade "D". Doug tells me that he corrected the problems we faced that day.
2019.
I attended a Traffic & Mobility Commission (Commission) meeting on Jan 6, 2020. Doug Bilse stated
that he had spent a total of $6 M so far on Phases I and II including $1.8 M on the Adaptive system.
In that meeting, Doug Bilse had a slide # 24. He showed grades ranged from C minus to B plus which
are on PROGRAM, meaning it is like a checklist to ensure all items are checked.
In that same Commission meeting, I stated that the GRADE should be on the PERFORMANCE and
NOT the Program. Also, Doug Bilse cannot grade his own work, rather residents like me driving every
day in our great city are in a position to grade the Traffic System in an unbiased manner. Jonni
Johnson, the Commission Vice Chair told me after the meeting that she appreciated my brief
presentation on the city traffic issues.
Conclusion
So far, our City has spent about $6 M. I understand that improving city traffic system is a
continuous process. I also understand the traffic staff are doing their best to improve the situation. I
thank all the staff members for their efforts. But the results are not there and after nearly 10
years, I am not happy with the overall performance. I admit the overall performance has
improved slightly. I am hoping the traffic staff under the leadership of Elaine Lukey, the traffic
system can improve to an acceptable level in the near future. I will try to report to the Council
every six months as need
Now, I have a number of questions from the Council. These questions are in the more detailed report
that I provided to Elaine yesterday for inclusion in the Council records. I appreciate a response back in
due time.
1. Is the City management happy with the overall performance of our traffic system?
2. Doug Bilse told me years back that with the City traffic management system, one could drive
from La Costa Ave to near HWY 78 on ECR and get about 70% green lights. Well, we are
NOWHERE close to this goal, why?
3. To me, what is missing as major goal in our City Traffic Management system in the past years
is Reduction in CO2 emissions by synchronizing the signals. After nearly 10 years, we are
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 21 of 22
NOWHERE close to reducing emissions, why? What works is the left turn signal on the 4
second rule.
4. Is the City management holding the Contractors working on the traffic system accountable?
5. I am talking about the overall performance of our traffic system; I am not happy with
considering the $6 Million we have spent. All we have to do is drive around our nice city at
various times and days and observe if the signals are working properly or cars are idling at
RED lights. Why have we not achieved the goals set for our city?
6. Final Note: In the past 10 plus years, I have driven on EVERY street in our city at various
times to test the traffic signals. As a resident, having spent so much of my time with our City
traffic signal issues, I do not believe we have achieved the goals established years ago.
Sincerely, d}
J.-1 ~[ix., u CM,t_ ~
Dr Mebdi Sarram
Carlsbad CA
Jan. 28, 2020 Item #15 Page 22 of 22
Semiannual Transportation Report
Paz Gomez, Deputy City Manager, Public Works
John Kim, City Traffic Engineer
Doug Bilse, Senior Engineer
Jan. 28, 2020
Background
•On March 20, 2018, a Minute Motion was
proposed to ask staff to report back twice per
year on the progress of multi-modal
transportation initiatives. The Motion carried 4-0-1. Staff has made previous presentations in January and July of 2019.
•On January 6, 2020, staff presented the Semiannual Transportation Report to the Traffic and Mobility Commission.
2
The Focus of this Report
•Update of traffic calming projects
•How traffic signals work and the status of
traffic signal program
3
Traffic Calming is a 3-Phase Process
•Phase I –Education and Enforcement
–Initiated by phone call from resident
•Phase II –Cost Effective Traffic Calming Measures
–Requires a critical speed of 32 mph to begin
–Requires community support before implementation
•Phase III –Traditional Traffic Calming Measures
–Only considered if Phase II is not effective
4
Completed Streets in 2018
5
Street Before Speed
(mph)
Traffic Calming
Plan
After Speed
(mph)
Corintia Street 34 4 speed cushions 29
Daisy Avenue 34 2 speed cushions 29
Cadencia St
(Upper)
36 3 speed cushions 30
Harbor Drive 23*2 speed cushions 22
*Granted exemption into Phase II per Traffic and Mobility Commission 12/4/2017
Streets Currently in Phase II Process
6
Street Critical
Speed
(mph)
Neighborhood
Meeting
Date
Traffic Calming Plan
Amargosa Drive 33 4/11/19 3–speed cushions, 1-traffic circle, 1-
crosswalk
Basswood Avenue 33 4/25/19 3-speed cushions
Hillside Drive 32 5/9/19 4-speed cushions, 1 traffic circle
Avenida Diestro 33 7/11/19 4-speed cushions
Estrella De Mar Rd 30*8/1/19 5-speed cushions
La Golondrina St 34 8/29/19 5-speed cushions
Avenida Pantera 33 9/12/19 4-speed cushions
Segovia Way 32 9/26/19 7-speed cushions
Cadencia Street (lower)37 10/24/19 2-speed cushions
Harwich Drive 33 11/14/19 4-speed cushions
*Granted exemption into Phase II per Traffic and Mobility Commission 12/5/2016
Public Input Process
7
Avenida Diestro
La Golondrina Street
Amargosa Drive Traffic Calming Plan
8
Project Status
9
Street Survey
Results
(Return/Support)
Traffic and
Mobility
Commission
Comments
Amargosa Drive 76%/76%Aug. 5, 2019 City Council on Mar. 10, 2020
Basswood Avenue 46%/N.A.N.A.Did not meet support criteria
Hillside Drive 79%/81%Aug. 5, 2019 City Council on Mar. 10, 2020
Avenida Diestro 68%/79%Jan. 6, 2020 City Council on Mar. 10, 2020
Estrella De Mar Rd 69%/94%Jan. 6, 2020 City Council on Mar. 10, 2020
La Golondrina St 46%/N.A.N.A.Did not meet support criteria
Avenida Pantera TBD TBD
Segovia Way TBD TBD
Cadencia Street (lower)70%/100%Jan. 6, 2020 City Council on Mar. 10, 2020
Harwich Drive TBD TBD
Traffic Calming Requests
Received in 2019
•In 2019, staff received 36 requests for traffic calming on residential streets.
•After evaluation, three of the 36 exhibited prevailing speeds greater than 32 mph and qualified for Phase II to be addressed in 2020.
•Poinsettia Traffic Analysis recommended CRTMP
implementation on Oriole Court/Mimosa Drive
10
Traffic Calming Projects in 2020
•Oriole Court/Mimosa Drive
•Hummingbird Road
•Victoria Avenue
•Monroe Street
11
Location Map of Traffic Calming Projects
12
CompletedIn ProgressFuture
Traffic Calming on
Non-Residential Streets
•Mobility Element Guidance based on street types
•Traffic and Mobility Commission - Recommendation
•City Council - Approval
•Capital Improvement Program - Funding
13
Traffic Calming Recommendations
per Street Typology
14
Street Type Traffic Calming Recommendations
Freeway None
Arterial Street 1-Vertical traffic calming techniques (such as speed tables, humps, etc.) should NOT
be considered
2-Special considerations can be considered on arterials within proximity to schools to
enhance Safe Routes to Schools for pedestrians and bicyclists
Identity Street 1-Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe ped and bike movement
2-Traffic calming devices such as curb extensions (bulbouts) or enhanced pedestrian
crossings should be considered
Village Street 1-Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe ped and bike movement
2-Mid-block pedestrian crossings and traffic calming devices should be considered,
but only at locations with high pedestrian activity levels or major
destinations/attractions
Arterial Connector Mid-block pedestrian crossings and traffic calming devices should be considered, but
only at locations with high pedestrian activity levels or major destinations/attractions
Neighborhood Connector 1-Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe ped and bike movement
2-Mid-block pedestrian crossings and traffic calming devices should be considered,
but only at locations with high pedestrian activity levels or major
destinations/attractions
Traffic Calming Recommendations
per Street Typology, cont’d
15
Street Type Traffic Calming Recommendations
Freeway None
Transit Connector Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe ped and bike
movement
Coastal Street Vehicle speeds shall be managed to support uses along the coast
School Street Vehicle speeds shall be managed to promote safe ped and bike
movement
Industrial Street Traffic calming devices are generally discouraged given the propensity
for larger trucks and heavy vehicles in this area
Neighborhood Street 1-Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe ped and bike
movement
2-Traffic calming measures should be considered when supported by
the neighborhood or warranted for safety reasons
Bike/Ped Pathway None
Within ½ Mile of Transit 1-Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe ped and bike
movement
Non-residential Streets –Private
Development
16
Raised X-Walk (Gateway Rd)Chicane (Gateway Rd)
Bulbouts (Bressi Ranch)
Non-residential Streets –City Projects
•Road Diets
–La Costa Avenue
–Avenida Encinas
17
Non-residential Streets –City Projects
•Speed Feedback Signs
–Jefferson Street, State Street, Tamarack Avenue,
Alicante Road and El Fuerte Street
18
Proposed Traffic Calming on
Non-residential Streets
•Kelly Drive/Park Drive
•Carlsbad Boulevard –In-pavement flashing lights and
curb extensions
•Tamarack Avenue/Valley Street –Hybrid pedestrian
signal and curb extensions
19
Traffic Signals
•Intro to Traffic Signals
•Status Report on Traffic Signal CIP Project
20
•Intro to Traffic Signals
•Status Report on Traffic Signal CIP Project
Options for Traffic Control at Intersections
•Two-Way STOP control
–Mainline traffic not required to stop
–Side street must find gaps in traffic
21
•All-Way STOP control
–Serves one vehicle in queue at a time
–Vehicles typically stop multiple times
•Signalized intersection
–Vehicles queue up at intersection
–Entire queue served each cycle
Signals Serve 16 Movements in Groups
22
2 groups served at
the same time
6 phases get a red
light
25% Efficiency
•Coordinated mode
–Rigid schedule
–Mainline priority
–Side street delay
–Best for close intersections
Traditional Signal Operation Modes
•“Free” mode
–Flexible: First come/first serve
–Equal priority
–Little waisted green time
–Best for isolated intersections
23
Signal Coordination
•Good conditions (peak hour)
–Heavy traffic along mainline
–Clear travel patterns
–Consistent traffic
•Poor conditions (midday)
–Inconsistent traffic
–No clear travel patterns
–Traffic surges
24
Adaptive Coordination
•Coordination does not follow a rigid schedule
•Automatically adjusts to changes in traffic
•Shorter cycle lengths = shorter side street delay
•Requires extensive traffic monitoring equipment
•Not completely automated
25
Traffic Signals
•Intro to Traffic Signals
•Status Report on Traffic Signal CIP Project
26
Traffic Signal CIP Project
27
Phase I: 2011 –2017
•Build TMC and construct wireless network
•Upgrade signal equipment
•Improve peak-hour traffic: 8 corridors
Phase II: 2018 –end of 2020
•Install automated monitoring system
•Upgrade to adaptive equipment
•Improve off-peak traffic flow: 6 corridors
Traffic Signal CIP Project
Adaptive
Controllers
Monitoring System
Equipment Upgrades
Video Detection
Upgrade
Wireless Communication
Traffic Management Center (TMC)
Phase II
Phase I
Phase I: Benefits to Our Community
•Improved “peak” hour traffic flow: 8 corridors
•Lower collision rates
•Improved emergency response times
•Signals operate longer during power outages
•Improved bike detection at signals
•Video feeds to Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
•Increased reliability
Peak Hour Travel Time Study:
3rd-Party Evaluation
El Camino Real “Before” Travel
Time (min)
Improved Travel Time
Time Reduced (Min)Improvement
Morning Peak Hour 8.7 3.5 40%
Afternoon Peak Hour 7.4 2.8 38%
30
Palomar Airport Road “Before” Travel
Time (min)
Improved Travel Time
Time Reduced (Min)Improvement
Morning Peak Hour 8.1 2.0 25%
Afternoon Peak Hour 9.7 3.5 36%
Traffic Signal Program Report Card
Item Before
Phase I
After
Phase I
Management
Signal Timing Practices
Traffic Signal Operations:
Isolated Intersections
Traffic Signal Operations:
Corridors
Traffic Monitoring & Data Collection
Maintenance
TOTAL D+B-
Off-Peak needed
adaptive
operations
Needed automated
way to monitor
traffic
Phase II: Adaptive Signal Operations
Adaptive
Controllers
Monitoring System
Equipment Upgrades
Video Detection
Upgrade
Wireless Communication
Traffic Management Center (TMC)
Phase II
Phase II Schedule
TMC Software upgrades (done)
RSF Pilot project (done)
•All intersection controllers upgraded (Spring 2020)
•El Camino Real South adaptive (Spring 2020)
•Five more adaptive corridors (Summer 2020)
•Final report due (end of 2020)
33
Pilot Project: Rancho Santa Fe Road
•Cycle length decreased 27 seconds (20%)
–Reduced side street delay
•More cars arrive during green light (19%)
–Improved air quality
•Slight decrease in travel time in both directions (5%)
–Mainline traffic flow improved
34
RSF: Before and After Data
Phase II Corridors
36
RSF
ECR South
Cannon
PAR West PAR East
Aviara
Traffic Signal CIP Project Summary
•Phase I completed with numerous benefits
•Phase II on track to be completed this year
•Adaptive Pilot Project on Rancho Santa Fe Road
showed significant improvements
•5 more corridors on track to be completed by end
of year
37
Traffic and Mobility Commission
Report to City Council
Steve Linke, Commissioner
38
39
T&MC duties to City Council
(CMC 2.15.020 and Communications Plan)
•Create and participate in presentation of annual work plan
•Affirm recommendations
•Input on other traffic/mobility matters
•Participate in staff’s semi-annual update
•Provide “periodic” reports to council
–Attendance and ad hoc committees
–Work plan amendments
–Recent activities
–Other matters of concern
40
Summary of commission report/recommendations
•Traffic calming
–Residential traffic calming (CRTMP)
•Support staff’s proposed minor updates
–Non-residential traffic calming
•Establish formal protocol
–Establish annual safety monitoring/reporting (collision data)
•Encourage staff to bring mobility related matters to the commission to allow meaningful public input/review
41
Traffic calming recommendation background
•Staff presentations on CRTMP (for residential
streets) and select non-residential streets
•11/19/2019 City Council request
•12/2019 and 1/2020 Commission discussion
•Commission memorandum in staff report
42
CRTMP (residential streets)
•Program is exemplary (formal process, objective criteria, substantial public input)
•Main resident complaint has been delays in implementation
•Commission recommendation:
–Support staff’s proposed minor program and website updates, including public project tracking capability
43
Non-residential traffic calming
•General Plan
–Some street typologies not ideal candidates for
calming (e.g., arterial streets)
•Special considerations in close proximity to schools
–Other street typologies better candidates for
calming (e.g., school and identity streets)
44
Non-residential traffic calming program recommendations
•Establish formal protocol, including:
–Objective criteria for identification and prioritization of candidate CIP projects
–Appropriate for street typologies
–Confirmation of the safety concern through data collection/analysis
–Consider non-residential traffic calming programs from neighboring agencies for reference
45
Commission talking points on other matters of concern
•Opportunity for public and commission to provide
meaningful input on mobility-related matters
–Focus on action items (rather than information-only presentations) for referral to the City Council
•Particularly those that involve document/program-type reviews
–Staff should provide
•Rough timeline/sequence of items to be considered
•Sufficient time for commission to prepare
46
Summary of commission report/recommendations
•Traffic calming
–Residential traffic calming (CRTMP)
•Support staff’s proposed minor updates and sufficient resources
–Non-residential traffic calming
•Establish formal protocol
–Establish annual safety monitoring/reporting (collision data)
•Encourage staff to bring mobility related matters to the commission to allow meaningful public input/review
Thank you!
47
TSM Measures:
Third Phase (Overlap)
48
TSM Measures:
Protected/Permitted Left Turns
•Protected left turns
–green arrow
•Protected/permissive left turns
–green arrow
–flashing green arrow
49
Phase I Cost Breakdown:
Project Task Cost
Traffic Management Center (TMC)$83,000
Communications Network $1,279,000
Video Detection Upgrade $987,000
Emergency Vehicle Preemption Upgrade $439,000
Battery Back-Up Upgrade $280,000
Traffic Systems Management (TSM) Measures $246,000
Peak Hour Signal Plans $120,000
Design, Installation and Inspection $798,000
Total $4,232,000
Traffic Signal Program Report Card
Item Before
Phase I
After
Phase I
Management C-B
Signal Timing Practices C-B+
Traffic Signal Operations:
Isolated Intersections
D+B+
Traffic Signal Operations:
Corridors
F C-
Traffic Monitoring & Data Collection C-C+
Maintenance D B+
TOTAL D+B-
Off-Peak needed
adaptive
operations
Needed automated
way to monitor
traffic
After “Hi-Res” Data
53
After “Hi-Res” Data
54