HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-04; Traffic and Mobility Commission; ; RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS AT THREE LOCATIONSMeeting Date:
To:
Staff Contact:
Subject:
May 4, 2020
Traffic and Mobility Commission
Edd Alberto, Associate Engineer
Edd.Alberto@Carlsbadca.gov or 760-268-4794
Installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon at Three Locations,
Capital Improvement Program Project No. 6070
Recommended Action
Item 5
Support staff's recommendation to install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) at the
intersections of Paseo Del Norte/Elder Court, Monroe Street/Magnolia Avenue, and Salk
Avenue/Fermi Court.
Background
RRFBs are user-actuated amber LEDs that supplement warning signs at unsignalized intersections
or mid-block crosswalks. They can be activated by pedestrians manually by a push button or
passively by a pedestrian detection system. RRFBs may be installed on either two-lane or multi-
lane roadways. On Apr. 9, 2018, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) granted the State
of California interim approval to install RRFB systems at uncontrolled pedestrian and school
crosswalk locations (Caltrans IA-21).
The following are the benefits of installing RRFB's, according to a report prepared by the Federal
Highway Administration (Report FHWA-SA-09-009):
• Including RRFBs on the roadside increases driver yielding behavior significantly.
• Including RRFBs on a center island or median as well can further increase driver yielding
behavior, although with a lower marginal benefit than roadside beacons.
• RRFBs are a lower cost alternative to traffic signals and hybrid signals that are shown to
increase driver yielding behavior at crosswalks significantly when supplementing
standard pedestrian crossing warning signs and markings.
• An official FHWA-sponsored experimental implementation and evaluation conducted in
St. Petersburg, Florida found that RRFBs at pedestrian crosswalks are dramatically more
effective at increasing driver yielding rates to pedestrians than traditional overhead
beacons.
• The novelty and unique nature of the stutter flash may elicit a greater response from
drivers than traditional methods.
• The addition of RRFB may also increase the safety effectiveness of other treatments, such
as the use of advance yield markings with YIELD (or STOP) HERE FOR PEDESTRIANS signs.
These signs and markings are used to reduce the incidence of multiple-threat crashes at
crosswalks on multi-lane roads (i.e., crashes where a vehicle in one lane stops to allow a
pedestrian to cross the street while a vehicle in an adjacent lane, traveling in the same
direction, strikes the pedestrian), but alone they only have a small effect on overall driver
yielding rates.
A key feature of the city's Mobility Element of the General Plan is an emphasis on
Livable/Complete Streets. Mobility Element Policy 3-P.15 directs staff to "evaluate methods and
transportation facility improvements to promote biking, walking, safety street crossings, and
attractive streetscapes." Furthermore, Policy 3-P.17 directs staff to "consider innovative design
and program solutions to improve the mobility, efficiency, connectivity, and safety of the
transportation system. Innovative design solutions include ... high visibility pedestrian treatments
and infrastructure." The Project will enhance existing crosswalks on Paseo Del Norte, Monroe
Street, and Salk Avenue with RRFB technology to help notify motorists of pedestrian activity and
increase safety.
Data
In 2015, Carlsbad had approximately 38 marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations. In an
effort to prioritize opportunities for pedestrian improvements, staff formed an evaluative
analysis based on the City of San Diego Marked Crosswalk Criteria at Uncontrolled Locations
(June 11, 2015). Using factors such as roadway speed, roadway width and number of lanes,
proximity to school, presence of nearby controlled crossing, pedestrian volumes and collisions
involving pedestrians, an informal point system was established to help prioritize potential
improvements at uncontrolled locations.
• Speed -1 point for every MPH above 25 MPH
• School -10 points if near a school
• Crossing -5 points if nearest controlled crossing is at least 300 feet away
• Volume -1 point for every 1000 vehicles
• Width -1 point for every 5 feet wider than 40 feet
• Lanes -10 points if more than one lane
• Ped Vol -5 points if Med, 10 points if High
• Collisions -5 points if ped-related collision
Based on the assumed point assignment, a list of uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations in
Carlsbad was prepared that could be used to prioritize the implementation of pedestrian
enhancements such as RRFB's (see Table 1 below)
Table 1 -Marked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations
Location Score Notes
Carlsbad Boulevard n/o Cypress Avenue (yellow school crosswalk) 67.8 Exist. RR FB
Carlsbad Boulevard at Oak Avenue 65.9 Exist. RRFB
Carlsbad Bouleva rd at Cherry Ave nue 60.1 Exist. RRFB
Carlsbad Boulevard at Hemlock Avenue 60.1 Exist. RRFB
Carl sbad Boulevard at Sycamore Avenue 59.5 Exist. RRFB
Carlsbad Boulevard at Maple Avenue 58.1 Exist. RRFB
Armada Drive at Fleet Street (south) 54.5 Exist. RRFB
Armada Drive at Grand Pacific Driveway 48.1 Exist. RRFB
Armada Drive at Fleet Street (north) 47.1 Exist. RRFB
Carlsbad Boulevard at Shore Drive (southerly intersection) 43.4 CIP Project
Tamarack Avenue at Valley St1·eet (yellow school crosswalk) 39.6 Exist. RRFB
Paseo del Norte at Elder Court 36.6 New RRFB
Monroe Street at Magnolia Avenue (yellow school crosswalk) 34 New RRFB
Kelly Drive s/o Hillside Drive (yellow school crosswalk) 33.6 CIP Project
State Street n/o Carlsbad Village Drive 30.5 CIP Project
Jefferson Street at Carol Place (yellow school crosswalk) 29 Development Project
Ruthe1·ford Road at Aston Avenue 28.4 Exist. RRFB
Loke1· Avenue West n/o Pa loma1· Airport Road 26.4 Exist. RRFB
Alicante Road at Lapis Road (southerly intersection) 26.2 Exist. RRFB
Grand Avenue at Madison Street (two crosswalks) 24.9
Salk Avenue at Fermi Court 24 New RRFB
Cypress Avenue at Garfield Street (yellow school crosswalk) 20.5
Strata Drive at Contour Place (yellow school crosswalk) 20.5
Harding Street at Oak Avenue (two crosswalks) 20.2
Harding Street at Pine Avenue 19.2
Avenida Encinas at Ponto Drive (two crosswalks) 19.1
Grand Avenue e/o of State Street 18
Grand Avenue w/o Carlsbad Boulevard 17.6
Park Drive at Kelly Drive 17
Madison Street at Walnut Avenue 15.6
Cypress Avenue e/o Garfield Street (yellow school crosswalk) 15.5
Forest Avenue at Spruce Street (yellow school crosswalk) 15.5
Segovia Way at Quebrada Circle (yellow school crosswalk) 15.5
Roosevelt Street n/o Carlsbad Village Drive 15
Roosevelt Street at Walnut Avenue 12.6
Ocean Street n/o Cypress Avenue (two yellow school crosswalks) 10.5
Madison Street n/o Carlsbad Village Drive 6.5
Pine Avenue at Jefferson Street 3.5
Since 2015, staff has implemented RRFB's at many locations. CIP and Development projects are
proposing pedestrian improvements at some of the locations on the list. Using this list and
working with the public through the city's service request system, three locations for
implementation of the RRFBs have been identified and proposed as part of this Project. The
locations are as follows:
1. Paseo Del Norte at Elder Court
2. Monroe Street at Magnolia Avenue
3. Salk Avenue at Fermi Court
Each location was observed in the field to determine if additional supplemental pedestrian
safety enhancements were appropriate for each location. All locations will have additional
pavement markings and signage to notify approaching vehicles where to yield when the RRFBs
are activated. The locations at Paseo Del Norte/Elder Court and Salk Avenue/Fermi Court will
have the existing transvers crosswalk lines replaced with high-visibility continental style
crosswalks. The location at Monroe Street/Magnolia Avenue has an existing high-visibility
ladder style crosswalk that will remain.
Necessary Council Action
None.
Next Steps
• A Request for Bids to construct the Project will be advertised. (Spring 2020}
• Staff recommends to City Council to award the contract to the lowest responsible
bidder. (Summer 2020)
• Construction completion. (Fall 2020}
Exhibits
1. Location Map
2. Plan
3.' City of San Diego -Marked Crosswalk Criteria at Uncontrolled Locations
LOCATION MAP
PACIFIC
OCEAN
NOT TO
SCALE
OCEANSIDE
78
PASEO DEL N RTE
@ELDER CT.
MAGNOLIA AVE. @
MONROE ST.
SALK AVE.@
FERMI CT.
CITY OF VISTA
PROJECT NAME PROPOSED RRFB LOCATIONS EXHIBIT
1
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING
BEACON SIGN INSTALLATIONS
"AS BUILT"
DATE
INSPECTOR DATE
REVIEWED BY:TRAFFICSHEET INDEX
SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CONSTRUCTION PLANS
FOR
CARLSBAD, CA
CITY COUNCIL
MATT HALL - MAYOR
PRIYA BHAT-PATEL - COUNCIL MEMBER
KEITH BLACKBURN - COUNCIL MEMBER
CORI SCHUMACHER - COUNCIL MEMBER
SCOTT CHADWICK - CITY MANAGER
VICINITY MAP
LOCATION MAP
PASEO DEL NORTE AT ELDER COURT
MONROE STREET AT MAGNOLIA AVE
SALK AVENUE AT FERMI COURT
LOCATION MAP
LOCATION MAP
~ "' " /
N 0 N
I co
0 N
E a. ~ ...
I
0 N 0 N
-i N
.D LE
£ -e " .D
McmcJE STREET--.
AT MAGNOLIA AVEN.£
STANDARDS
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
PACIFIC
OCEAN
78
CITY OF VISTA
RoAo
~o~
CITY OF
SAN MARCOS
CITY OF ENCINITAS
N.T.S.
THE It.f'ROVEMENT WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDAtn: WITH THE FOLLOW I NG
Docu.ENTS, CLRRENT AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTicx--l, AS DIRECTED BY THE TRANSPORTATION
DIRECTOR.
1 • CARLSBAD MLtH CI PAL CODE
2. CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGi NEER ING STANDARDS
3. LA TEST EDIT! ON OF CAL TRANS STANDARD PLANS
4. LATEST EDITION OF CALTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICATicx--lS
5. LA TEST EDI TI ON OF CAL TRANS SPECIAL PROVISIONS
6. LATEST EDITION OF CALIFORNIA MANUAL cx--l UNIFORM TRAFFIC Ccx--lTROL DEVICES (CAMUTCD)
7. PRO..ECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
2
3
4
5
"DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE"
I HEREBY DECLARE THAT I AM THE ENGINEER OF WORK FOR THIS PROJECT, THAT I
HA VE EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT AS
DffiNED IN SECTION 6703 OF THE BUS/NESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE, AND THAT
THE DESIGN /S CONS/STENT WITH CURRENT STANDARDS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHECK OF PROJECT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS BY
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DOES NOT RELIEVE ME AS ENG/NEER OF WORK, OF MY
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROJECT DESIGN.
FIRM: STC TRAFFIC
ADDRESS: 5865 A VEN/DA ENCINAS, #142B
CITY, ST.: CARLSBAD, CA
TELEPHONE: 760-602-4290
BY: _______________ DATE: ________ _
CHRISTIAN LAMBARTH
R.C.E. N0.:_8_6_6_75 ___________ _
REGISTRATION EXP/RATION DA TE: J-Jl-2021 DIAL TOLL FREE
8-1-1
AT WST TWO DAYS
BEFORE YOU DIC
LN>ERGROI.N) SER\1CE ALERT OF SOUTHERN CAI.FCRIIA
~iof ESS Io.;. ~ J. < 'ft ,::f --,,:~ ,..;; .., "' -~o;; >SC
\;i. ;:►. NO. 86675 !t S
ii Jf-
J'/,ft, C/V\\.. 'II,.~
£ OF C~\.\\l"S
<12 ~
5865 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE 142 B, CARLSBAD, CA 92008
PHONE: 760-602-4290 WWW.STCTRAFFIC.COM
CAMINO DE LAS ONDAS
N.T.S.
DA1E N11AL DA1E INl11AL
ENGINEER 0F WDRK REVISION DESCRIPTION 01l£R APPROVAL
DA1E
CARLSBAD
HIGH Sa-lOOL
ifHE CROSSINGS
AT CARLSBAD _ _,-,,
N.T.S.
N.T.S.
AU. STANDARD DRAWINGS ARE SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD
DRAWINGS (SDRSD} UNLESS NOlED OTHERWISE: • arr OF CARLSBAb STANDARD
• CARLSBAD W/NlaPAL WAlER DISTRICT STANDARD DRAMING
-SDRSD AS 1100/FIED BY arr OF CARLSBAD
P.E. EXP.
I SH~T I CITY OF CARLSBAD I SH~•S 1 ENGINEERING DEPARlMENT
DIPROVIIIINT PLANS l'OR:
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING
BEACON SIGN INSTALLATION
Tln.E SHEET I APPROVED BABAQ TAJ
1RANSPORTA110N Dm:CTOR PE C77173 12~L20 DA~ I
INITIAL OWN BY:
aiKD BY: a. PROJECT NO.
QTY APPROVAL RVWD BY: HM I 8070
I DRAWING NO.
522-1
E
.Q
" .. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ...
TRAFFIC~
GENERAL NOTES
1. THIS PLAN SU'ERSEDES ALL OTHER PLANS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY 11-E CITY OF CARLSBAD REGARDING
It.f'ROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS SET OF PLANS.
2. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN DOES NOT LESSEN OR WAIVE ANY PORTION OF THE CARLSBAD t.fvt.llCIPAL CODE, RESOLUTION
OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, CITY STANDARDS OR OTHER ADDITIONAL Docu.4ENTS LISTED HEREON AS THEY MAY
PERTAIN TO THIS PRCU:CT. THE ENGINEER IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE SHALL REVISE Tf£SE PLANS WHEN
NON-CONFORMANCE IS DISCOVERED.
3. A R!Gff-OF-WAY PERMIT FROM Tf£ CITY WILL BE REOOIRED FOR ANY WORK IN 11-E PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. PRIOR TO
PERMIT ISSUANCE, A CERTIFICATE OF INSlW.NCE I.UST BE FILED NAMING THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AS AN ADDITIONAL
INSURED ON THE PERMITTEE 'S POLI CY IN THE MI Nlt.Ut AMOUNT OF $1 , 000, 000. 00 FOR EACH OCCURRENCE OF
LIABILITY. 11-E INSURANCE CWPANY WRITING It£ POLICY MUST HAYE A RATING OF "A " OR BETJER At,IJ A SIZE
CAJEGORY OF CLASS VII OR BETTER AS ESTABLISt£P BY "BESTS" KEY RATING GUIC£,
4, NO WORK SHALL BE COMMENCED UNTIL ALL PERMITS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROt.t 11-E CITY AND OTHER APPRCPRIATE
AGENCIES.
5, NO REVISIONS WILL BE MADE TO Tf£SE PLANS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF 11-E TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR,
NOTED WITHIN THE REVISION BLOCK, ON 11-E APPROPRIATE Sf£ET OF 11-E PLANS AND TITLE Sf£ET.
6. ORIGINAL DRAWINGS SHALL BECOt.E 11-E PROPERTY OF THE CITY UPON BEING SIGNED BY THE TRANSPORTATION
DIRECTOR.
7. THE ORIGINAL DRAWING SHALL BE REVISED TO REFLECT AS-BUILT CONDITIONS BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO FINAL
ACCEPTANCE OF Tf£ Wrnt< BY Tf£ CITY.
8. ACCESS FOR FIRE AND 011-ER Et.ERGENCY VEHICLES SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO THE PRO.£CT SITE AT ALL TIMES
DURING CONSTRUCTION.
9. WHERE TRENCf£S ARE WITHIN CITY EASEt.ENTS, CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A SOILS REPORT
COt.f'RISED OF: (A) SUMMARY SHEET, (B) LABORATORY WORK Sf£ETS AND (C) COMPACTION CURVES, SHALL BE
SUBMITTED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OF Tf£ STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PRINCIPALLY DOING EJJSINESS IN Tf£
FIELD OF APPLIED SOILS t.ECHANICS. THE SOILS REPORT WILL BE SUBMITTED TO 11-E CITY ENGINEER!t,.X; INSPECTOR
WITHIN TWO WORKING DAYS OF cm.f'LETION OF FIELD TESTS. Tf£ WRITTEN FIELD COMPACTION REPORT(S) SHALL BE
!Mt.EDIATELY SUBMITTED TO 11-E CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR UPON COMPLETION OF THE FIELD TESTS.
10. ~ PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE_HEULALTHE_SIIE... PRIOR TO_THE_ BEGINNING OLWORILA!:IL SHALL E!E. ATTENDED BY ALL REPRESENTATIVES RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION, INSPECTION, SU'ERVISION, TESTING AND ALL
0Tf£R ASPECTS OF THE WORK. Tf£ CONTRACTOR SHALL SCf£DULE Tf£ MEETING BY CALLING THE INSPECTION LINE
AT (760) 438-3891 AT LEAST FIVE (5) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION. APPROVED DRAWINGS
MUST BE AVAILABLE PRIOR TO SCHEDULING.
11 . ALL INSPECTION REQUESTS PJt£R THAN FOR PRECONSTRUCTION MEET ING WILL BE MADE BY CALLI NG THE ENG ltfERING
24-HOUR INSPECTION REOl£ST LINE AT (760) 438-3891. INSPECTION REOL£STS MUST BE RECEIVED PRIOR TO 2: 00
P.M. ON THE PAY BEFORE THE INSPECTION IS NEEDED, INSPECTIONS WILL BE MADE 11-E NEXT WORK DAY UNLESS YOU
REOOEST 0Tf£RWISE. REQUESTS MADE AFTER 2:00 P.M. WILL BE SCf£1JU..ED FOR TWO Fll.L WORK DAYS LATER.
12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN ALL SAFETY DEVICES, INCLLll!NG Sfm!NG, AND SHALL
BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFORMING TO ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS, LAWS
AND REGU.ATIONS.
13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORt.t TO LABOR CODE SECTION 6705 BY SUBMITTING A DETAIL PLAN TO Tf£
TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR AND/OR CONCERNED AGENCY SHOWING Tf£ DESIGN OF SHORING, BRACING SUJ'E OR OTHER
PROVISIONS TO BE MADE OF WORKER PROTECTION FROM Tf£ HAZARD OF CAVING GROUND DURING THE EXCAVATION OF
SUCH TRENCH OR TRENCHES OR DURING THE PIPE INSTALLATION Tf£REIN. THIS PLAN I.UST BE PREPARED FOR ALL
TRENCHES FIVE FEET (5') OR MORE IN DEPTH AND APPROVED BY 11-E TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR AND/OR CONCERNED
AGENCY PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. IF THE PLAN VARIES FROM THE SHORING SYSTEM STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS, TITLE 8 CALIFORNIA ADt.tlNISTRATIVE CODE, 11-E PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED BY A
REG! STEREO -ENG I NEER AL H CONTRACTORS EXPENSE, A_ !.!n_ OF_ THE_ OSHA. EXCAVATION PERMIT MUSL E!E.
SUBMITTED JO THE INSPECTOO PRIOR TO EXCAYATICJ:J.
14. IF ANY ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES A.RE P!SCOYEREP WITH! N ANY WORK ZoNE. DURING CONSTRUCT! ON, OPERATIONS
WILL CEASE IMMEDIATELY. AND THE PERMITTEE WILL NOTIFY 11-E TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR. OPERATIONS WILL NOT
RESTART UNTIL Tf£ PERt.tlTTEE HAS RECEIVED WRITTEN AUTHORITY FROM Tf£ TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR TO DO SO.
15. ALL OFF-SIJE HAU-ROUTES SHALL 1£... SUBMITTED BY_H CONTRACTOR ,:p_THE_CI.JY....FOR_ APPROVAL TWO_fULL.
WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DEBRIS OR DAMAGE
OCCURRING ALONG THE HAUL ROUJE OR ADJACENT STREETS AS A RESULT Of lliE GRAP II·~ OPERATION,
16. NO Bl..ASTING SHALL BE COMMENCED WITHOUT A CITY APPROVED BLASTING PROGRAM AND LASTING PERMIT. 17. THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF UTILITY STRUCTU<ES AND FACILITIES SHOWN ON Tf£ CONSTRUCTION PLANS WERE
OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF THE AVAILABLE RECORDS. ATTENTION IS CALLED TO 11-E POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF OTHER
UTILITY FACILITIES OR STRUCTURES NOT SHOWN OR IN A LOCATION DIFFERENT FROM THAT SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE DUE PRECAUTIONARY t.EASURES TO PROTECT 11-E UTILITIES SHOWN ON Tf£
PLANS AND ANY OTHER EXISTING FACILITIES OR STRUCTU<ES NOT SHOWN.
18. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY 11-E LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING FACILITIES (ABOVEGROUND AND UNDERGROUND)
WITHIN Tf£ PRO.£CT SITE SUFFICIENTLY Af£AD OF THE CONSTRUCTION TO PERMIT Tf£ REVISIONS OF Tf£
CONSTRUCTION PLANS IF IT IS FOI.Nl THAT Tf£ ACTUAL LOCATIONS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH 11-E PROPOSED WORK.
19. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY AFFECTED UTILITY cm,PANIES (SEE BELOW) AT LEAST TWO Flll WORKING DAYS
PR !OR TO ST ART ING CONSTRUCT! ON NEAR THEIR FACILITIES AND SHALL COORDINATE WORK WITH A COMPANY
REPRESENTATIVE.
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
SDG&E
ATt:T
TI t.E WARNER CABLE
COX COMMUNICATIONS
CITY OF CARLSBAD(STREETS AND STORM DRAIN)
* CITY OF CARLSBAD(SEWER,WATER t: RECLAIMED WATER)
* SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT
* LEUCADIA WASTEWATER DISTRICT
* VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT
* OLIVENHAIN WATER DISTRICT
* BUENA SANITATION DISTRICT
AS APPROPRIATE*
(800)422-4133
(800)411-7343
( 800 )892-0123
(760)438-7741
(619)262-1122
(760)434-2980
(760)438-2722
(760)633-2650
(760)753-0155
(760)744-0460
(760)753-6466
(760)726-1340 x1330
20. IN ACCORDANCE 11-E CITY STORM WATER STANDARDS ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS CONSTRUCTED BY THIS PLAN SHALL
INCLLOE "STENCILS" BE ADDED TO PROHIBIT WASTE DISCHARGE DOWNSTREAM. STENCILS SHALL BE ADDED TO Tf£
SATISFACTION OF Tf£ TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR.
QUANTITY ESTIMATE
>-Id ~ ~ §g u -:5 w 0.. 0.. -< ~ ~ ~ m ~
0:: ~
STANDARD NOTES FOR SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS
1. Tf£ CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL SIGNING AND STRIPING.
2. ALL SIGNING, STRIPING AND PAVEt.ENT MARKINGS SHALL CONFORM TO Tf£ CAI..IFCJ1NIA t.tANUAL ON
UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (LATEST VERSION), 11-E CAI.TRANS STANDARD PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS (LATEST VERSION), Tf£SE PLANS AND THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
3. ALL SIGNING AND STRIPING IS SUB.£CT TO THE APPROVAL OF 11-E TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR OR
HIS REPRESENTATIVE, PRIOR TO INST ALLA TI ON.
4. ANY DEVIATION FROM Tf£SE PLANS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR OR HIS
REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO ANY CHANGE IN Tf£ FIELD.
5. ALL STRIP ING SHALL BE REFLECT! VE PER CAL TRANS SPECIF! CA TI ONS. STR !PING SHALL BE
REPAINTED TWO WEEKS AFTER !NIT! AL PA INTI NG.
6. ALL PERMANENT SIGNAGE SHALL BE REFLECTIVE PER ASTM DESIGNATION D4956 AND SHALL USE
TYPE IV PRISMATIC REFLECTIVE Sf£ETING (HIGH INTENSITY PRISMATIC OR EQUAL) UNLESS
011-ERWISE SPECIFIED. R1-1 'STOP", R1-2 ''YIELD", R2-1 'SPEED Lit.tIT" AND STREET NAME SIGNS
SHALL USE TYPE IX PRISMATIC CIJBE-cORNER REFLECTIVE Sf£ETING (DIAMOND GRADE VIP OR
EOOAL).
7. EXACT LOCATION OF STRIPING AND STOP LIMIT LINES SHALL BE APPROVED BY 11-E
TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR OR ~IS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
8. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL CONFLICTING PAINTED LINES, MARKINGS AND PAVEt.ENT LEGENDS
BY GRINDING. DEBRIS SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR.
9. ALL PAVEt.ENT LEGENDS SHALL BE HE LATEST VERSION OF THE CAI.TRANS STENCILS.
10. LIMIT LINES AND CROSSWALKS SHALL BE FIELD LOCATED. CROSSWALKS SHALL BE HIGH
VI SIB! LI TY 'CONTINENT AL" STYLE AND SHALL HAVE 10' INS IDE Dlt.ENS I ON UNLESS OTHERWISE
SPECIFIED.
11. ALL CROSSWALKS, LI t.t IT LINES, STOP BARS, PAVEMENT ARROWS AND PAVEMENT LEGENDS INCLUD!t,.X;
Bl KE LANE LEGEllllS AND ARROWS SHALL BE THERt.tOPLAST IC UNLESS 011-ERWISE SPECIF! ED.
PREFORt.ED THER~LASTIC ARROWS AND LEGENDS SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE.
12. SIZE OF SIGNS SHALL BE BASED UPON Tf£ RECOt.tMENDED SIGN SIZES FOI.Nl IN THE CALIFORNIA
MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.
13. SIGN POSTS SHALL BE SOOARE PERFORATED STEEL TUBING WITH BREAKAWAY BASE PER SAN DIEGO
REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWING t.1-45.
14. WHEN A SIGN IS ATTACHED TO A POLE, IT SHALL BE r.oJNTED USING A STANDARD CITY OF
CARLSBAD APPROVED MOUNTING BRACKET WITH STRAPS.
15. EXISTING SIGNS REMOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE DELIVERED BY Tf£ CONTRACTOR TO 11-E
CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS YARD AT 405 OAK AVENUE.
16. ALL SIGNS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS SHALL BE NEW SIGNS PROVIDED AND INSTALLED BY 11-E
CONTRACTOR EXCEPT THOSE SIGNS SPECIFICALLY SHOWN AS EXISTING TO BE RELOCATED OR TO
REMAIN.
17. Tf£ RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) SYSTEM SHALL CONFORM TO THE FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION INTERIM APPROVAL IA-21 DATED 3/20/2018 AND SHALL BE CARMANAH
R920-F SOLAR RRFB OR APPROVED EOOAL.
18. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE POLE LOCATION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR OR HIS
REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
19. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SOLAR PANEL LOCATION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR OR
HIS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
20. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROV! DE NEW WIRING TO CONNECT SYSTEMS. NEW WIRING SHALL BE PER
MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS.
21. CAT SE CABLE SHALL BE OUTDOOR-RATE/SHIELDED.
22. ALL SIGNS AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE t.tOUNTED US!t,.X; t°' 'BAND IT" STEEL FASTENER FOR
INSTALLATION."
23. W11-2, W16-9P, W16-7P AND S1-1 SIGN FACES SHALL BE FLUORESCENT YELLOW GREEN.
TOP MOLNTED SOLAR PANELS --
WITH CHARGE CONTROLLER
AND ANTI-Tf£FT FASTENERS.
W11-2 (DOUBLE SIDED)
(36" X 36")
BI-OIRECTIONAL
LIGHT BAR
W16-7P (DOUBLE SIDED)
(24" X 12")
GALVANIZED STEEL TELESPAR
POST PER SDRSO M-45
ADA COt.tPLIANT 2"
PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON
WITH SIGN PLACARD
FINISHED SURFACE
ANCHOR SLEEVE t: POST
PER SDRSD M-45
PCC SHALL BE 560-C-3250
PER SECTION 201-1, SSPWC.
~
CJ
I ~ I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D ,-..
0
0
0
0
• 0 .... 0
I') 0
0
0
0
12·
DETAIL "A"
.... -
z -""
"' I')
TOP MOUNTED SOLAR PANELS --
WITH CHARGE CONTROLLER
AND ANTI-THEFT FASTENERS.
S1-1 (DOUBLE SIDED)
(36" X 36")
BI-OIRECTIONAL
LIGHT BAR
W16-7P (DOUBLE SIDED)
(24" X 12")
GALVANIZED STEEL TELESPAR
POST PER SDRSD M-45
ADA COMPLIANT 2"
PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON
WITH SIGN PLACARD
FINISHED SURFACE
I
• ....
I')
ANCHOR SLEEVE t POST ., /'
PER SDRSD M-45
PCC SHALL BE 560-C-3250
PER SECTION 201-1, SSPWC.
0
0
CJ
~ I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
lo
10
lo
10 <,"
,, Io
LO
12·
DETAIL "B"
-.... -
z -:::E
TELESPAR FLASHING BEACON DETAIL
N.T.S
TELESPAR FLASHING BEACON DETAIL
N.T.S
LEGEND
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON ASSEt.tBLY __ _ ~
SOLAR PANEL ___________ _ ~
PROPOSED SIGN ___________ _ ~
EXISTING SIGN ___________ _ 9
EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLE ______ _ 'r-".,~ ,, ,:,.---<..
CURB ______________ _
EDGE OF SIDEWALK __________ _
GUTTER _____________ _
EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL _______ _
ABBREVIATIONS
AC
ASTM
AVE
BCR
BLVD
CAMUTCD
CT
ECR
EX
FBS
MIN
N.T.S.
OSHA
PCC
PKWY
PL
R/W
RRFB
SDRSD
SNS
ST
STA
TYP
ASPHALT CONCRETE
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS
AVENLE
BEG IN CURB RETURN
BOULEVARD
CALIFORNIA t.tANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
COURT
END CURB RETURN
EXISTING
FLASHING BEACON STANDARD
MIN!f.LM
NOT TO SCALE
OCCUPATION SAFETY AND f£AI..TH ADMINISTRATION
PORTLAND CEt.ENT CONCRETE
PARKWAY
PLACE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL STANDARD DRAWINGS
STREET NAt.E SIGN
STREET
STATION
TYPICAL
2· 3' -Jr H
0 -z -""
24" WHITE Tf£RMOPLASTIC
DETAIL "D"
CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK MARKINGS
N.T.S.
NOTES:
1 . CONTINENT AL CROSSWALK MARKINGS SHALL BE ALIGNED
PARALLEL TO 11-E DIRECTION OF VEHICULAR TRAVEL.
9t ' ~ ~ 0:: i ~ !!l PROPOSED SIGN LEGEND fSHffil CITY OF CARLSBAD I SHEETS I
LOCATION NO. INTERSECTION NAt.E >-u u
1 PASEO DEL NORTE AT ELDER COURT 2 2 1
2 MONROE STREET AT MAGNOLIA AVEMJE 2 - -
3 SALK AVE~ AT FERMI COURT 2 2
0::
1
-
2 V
NO
PARKING
Alf-/
~::::t:::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::t::::t:::jt:::j:::j L..!_j ENGINEERING DEPARlMENT 5
t---+---1--------------+----1-----1~--1----1 DIPROVIIIBNT PLANS l'OR:
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING
BEACON SIGN INSTALLATION
TOTAL 6 2 3 3 [Z] I AHEAD I HERE 1{ ~ TIME
S1-1 R1-5 R26(CA) W11-2 W16-7P W16-9P
(36"x36") (36"x36") ( 12"x 18") (36"x36") (24"x12") (24"x12")
a N
: al<NOTE: CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY ALL OOANTITIES, <12 t----+--+---------------1----+--+----1---11-M>-PR_o_vm __ BAB_A_Q_T_AJ ________ _
BEFORE YOU DIG l-"'DA""1E;;;._.....:;.;IN;..;;111AL;:.;;;..+...;;DA;;.;1E=-..J...:IN.:;.;111;;;.Al.=--i CHKD BY: CL E '"'" A'IENIDA ENaNAS, '""" ,., ,. CARLSBAD, CA 020011 ENGINEER OF WORK REVISION DESCRIPTION ono lfflRfNAL a,v APPROVAL RWD a~ NU 6070 522-2
-§ L-------------------------------------------------------------------~-==:.:SER\1=CE~AURT~OF:SOU::TH:ERN~-=:.• _.,!;;;;'";o';";';'°;-'°;'-;',.;';""";;·-;;;';·co;•;;;!;;;;;;;;;~~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;~;;;;;;;;;;!;;;;;;;;~~;;~~: ~~~~;;;;;;~~;;;;~;;~~~~J
TRAFFICCt 800 6700
~ "' " /
N 0 N
I co
0 N
E a. ~ ...
I
0 N 0 N
-i N
.D LE
£ -e " .D
ELDER COURT
I \ ' "'R~ I
A✓
I \ -
\
\
I
I
7'
U")
U") -
3'
11 U") -
DETAIL "E"
SCALE: 1" = 5'
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
(
I
I
NCllE:
CCM"RACTOR SHALL VERIFY POST
LOCATIONS WITH THE DIRECTOR CF
TRANSPORTATION OR CITY REPRESENTATIVE
PRIOR TO POST INSTALLATION.
EX. W11-2,\ \/ ;
W16-9P ; \
EX. STREET L!GlT AT j/
20' 20' 510' FROM CROSSWALK
----R/W-- ----
7-1{)0
PASEO DEL NORTE
POSTED SPEED 40MPH
8'
5'
14'
---·I------10·- -8-l{)f-0 __ _
14'
___ EX. R2-1-(4_0_)--:+ --_J_~_ ~'_.;::::---1~1--• __ _,
" i
9-1{)0 ◄ --+---◄
◄ ◄
---1 -
~----=4'.::'._0_' ___ ,__.,_
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --"""--
---
\
'
92'
1
7 R1-5
..... ----
► ► -►
► ►
('
8'
5' - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
14'
11+00 __ 10, ______ 12
14'
------------rr---------------!5~· ________________________ _:◄r=========;;;---~150• • • =-,--( 211------....... ~--------==ir---'~--------------------------,
' • 8' ' ' 8' ) ... ,...(._ >--r<...
5'
'
EX. STREET L!GlT AT
240' FRa.t CROSSWALK
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
[TI FURNISH AND INSTALL CARMANAH R920-F SQAR RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING
BEACON ASSEMBLY (OR APPROVED EQUAL) ON TEI..ESPAR POST WITH W11-2 AND
W16-7P SIGNS. SEE DETAIL "A", SHEET 2.
[I] FURNISH AND INSTALL SIGN AND POST PER SDRSD M-45 , SIGN PER PLAN.
[[) APPLY CONTINENTAL CROSSWALK PER DETAIL "D", SHEET 2.
[j] CONSTRUCT TYPE C CURB RAMP PER SIJRSD G-29 WITH YELLOW TRLt,ICATED DOMES
PER SDRSD G-30.
~ REMOVE EXISTING CONFLICTING STRIPING BY GRINDING.
[j]] APPLY THER~LASTIC WHITE YIELD LINE PER CALTRANS STANDARD PLAN A24G.
IIT] CONSTRUCT 4" PCC SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-7. SEE DETAIL "E", THIS SHEET.
~ REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING SIGNS AND POST.
SIGN LEGEND
PROPOSED:
W11-2
(36"x36")
W16-7P
(24"x12")
R1-5 7
HERF.v
i,t TO~
Rl-5
(36"x36")
EX. Wl 1-2, 20
W16-7P
EX. R2-1(40)
---l+?LISCALE 1·=20'
-
~ APPLY RED PAINT ON CURB.
~ PROTECT IN PLACE LANDSCAPING.
EXISTING: SPEED
LIMIT
20 10 0 20 40 60
@ 40
R1-1 R2-1(40)
II * II IIAHEAo[]
W16-7P W16--9P
W3-3 W11-2
Elder ➔ I I Paseo Del Norte .. 1
SNS 1 SNS 2
DIAL TOLL FREE
8-1-1
AT WST TWO DAYS
BEFORE YOU DIC
.__I ___,~f----1 __ 1-----11
SCALE: 1 "=20 '
~~ J. ijl-ft
,::f <-,,: ~ ,..;; .., "' -~o;; >SC
\;i. ;:►. NO. 86675 !t S
ii Jf,
J'/,ft, C/V\\. 'II,.~
£ OF C~\.\\l"S
<12 ~ DA1E N11AL DA1E INl11AL DA1E INITIAL
5865 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE 142 B, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ENGINEER 0F WDRK REVISION DESCRIPTION 01l£R APPROVAL QTY APPROVAL PHONE: 760-602-4290 WWW.STCTRAFFIC.COM LN>ERGROI.N) SER\1CE ALERT OF SOUTHERN CAI.FCRIIA
I SH~T I CITY OF CARLSBAD I SH~IS I ENGINEERING DEPARlMENT
DIPROVIIIINT PLANS l'OR:
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING
BEACON SIGN INSTALLATION
PASEO DEL NORTE AT El.DER COURT I APPROVED BABAQ TAJ
1RANSPORTA110N Dm:CTOR PE C77173 12~L20 DA~ I
DWN BY: I PROJECT NO. I DRAWING NO. aiKD BY: a.
RVWD BY: HM 8070 522-3
E
.Q
" .. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ..
TRAFFICSt 3600 1900Av 2000Ln
~ "' " /
N 0 N
I co
0 N
E a. ~ ...
I
0 N 0 N
-i N
.D LE
£ -e " .D
-R/W-- ----
EX. 51-1,
W16-9P
-R/W-- ----
EX. TEL.ESPAR POST AT
275 ' FRO.I CROSSWALK
DWY
-:J -
'
,_
' ' \.J-(
' ' )--<..
B ~
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
DWY
EX. 51-1,
W16-9P
8+00 = =
DWY
@ FURNISfl AND INSTALL CARt.tANAH R92D-f SOLAR RECTANGLlAR RAPID FLASflING
BEACON ASSEM31...Y (OR APPROVED EQUAL) ON TEl..£SPAR POST W!Tfl S1-1 AND W16-7P
SIGNS. SEE DETAIL "B", SHEET 2.
IT] FURNISfl AND INSTALL SIGN AND POST PER SDRSD M-45, SIGN PER PLAN.
[j]] APPLY THERIO'LASTIC WHITE YIELD LINE PER CAL TRANS STANDARD PLAN A24G.
~ REMOVE AND SALVAGE EX !STING SIGNS AND POST.
~APPLY RED PAINT ON CUlB.
MONROE STREET
POSTED SPEED 25MPH
20'
9+00
20' EX. RED OJRB
SIGN LEGEND
PROPOSED:
S1-1
(36"x36")
EXISTING:
W16-7P
(24"x12")
R1-5 7
HER~ . --;~
R1-5
(36"x36")
◄ ◄
◄ ◄ ◄
....
@~~B
R1-1 S1-1 W16-7P W16-9P
[ Monroe .. I [ Magnolia .. J I Karren .. J
SNS 3 SNS 4 SNS 5
DWY
\
\
~
I
I
i
EX. 51-1, 20
W16-7P
--
EX. SNS 3,
SNS 5
EX. RED ClRl
► 20' ► ~
,___,~.,_ _ _,,_,__EX~·=R .... E~D-,
25' OJRB ,-1-----=-~-i
10+00 ► ------
73'
EX. RED CUlB
~
~
w !ii!
I EX. SNS 3, ffl~~ SNS4, W1tJiJ R1-1
u.
1§ ~
I~ "' u. ...
IO ~
~ "' ~ -c::,
I
I 20' 20' I "" T
MAGNOUA A VENUE
POSTED SPEED 25MPH
DIAL TOLL FREE
8-1-1
AT WST TWO DAYS
BEFORE YOU DIC
LN>ERGROI.N) SER\1CE ALERT OF SOUTHERN CAI.FCRIIA
f
I
I
I
KARREN LANE
l
>-r i!i I
I
16' 16' I >-"" c::,
I
I
~
' ±
11+00 _L_
NOTE:
CONTRACTCR SflALL VERIFY POST
LOCATIONS W!Tfl TflE DIRECTCR OF
TRANSPORTATION OR CITY REPRESENTATIVE
PRICR TO POST INSTALLATION.
~~ J, ijl.ft
,::f <-,,: ~ ,..;; .., "' -~o;; >SC
\;i. ;:►. NO. 86675 !t S
ii Jf,
J'/,ft, CIVIi.. 'II,.~
l' OF C~\.\\l'S
<12 ~ DA1E N11AL
5865 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE 142 B, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ENGINEER OF WDRK PHONE: 760-602-4290 WWW.STCTRAFFIC.COM
20'
12+00
20'
20 10 0 20 40 60 l ... ~1----1~~~~1-----11
SCALE: 1 "=20 '
DA1E INl11AL DA1E INITIAL
REVISION DESCRIPTION 01l£R APPROVAL QTY APPROVAL
13+00
EX. TEI..£SPAR POST
AT 320' FRo.t CROSSWALK
---- -~/W-
EX. 51-1,J
W16-9P
DWY
- ---fl./W-
I SH~T I CITY OF CARLSBAD I 9i~IS I ENGINEERING DEPARlMENT
DIPROVIIIINT PLANS l'OR:
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING
BEACON SIGN INSTALLATION
MONROE STREET AT MAGNOLIA AVENUE I APPROVED BABAQ TAJ
1RANSPORTA110N Dm:CTOR PE C77173 12~L20 DA~ I
DWN BY: I PROJECT NO. I DRAWING NO. aiKD BY: a.
RVWD BY: HM 8070 522-4
E
_Q
" .. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ..
TRAFFICCt 5500 2100Av
"' 3' ..,
<O
0
"j
0 I ----i 0 / 0 0 1'i / "' " ·.::
" " " ·c,,
" Lu I r--0 / N
E "' "' I 00 0 0
~ "' " /
N 0 N I 00
0 N
"' " " ·1:
" U)
" .2' "' " 0 ..,
" " "' " ·.::
" " " "' " Lu
" "' -e ,..,
"' .. "' 0
00 -.) ..,
" .0 "' .:: " '-' / "' -" " ·e
Cl.
/ "' E a. "' 9. ..
I
0 N 0 N
-i N
.0 " u..
£ -e " .0 E
_Q
"
SALK AVENUE
SPEED NOT POSTED - -
--fl./W--- -
-1
NOTE:
CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY POST
LOCA TI ex-JS WITH Tl£ DIRECTOR OF
TRANSPORTATION OR CITY REPRESENTATIVE
PRIOR TO POST INSTALLATION.
------
---
11'
10'
15'
8'
----------------------------
-fl./W------
7 W11-2
W16-9P
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
[TI MN!Sfl At--0 INSTALL CARMANAfl R920-F SOLAR RECTANGU.AR RAPID FLASflING
BEACON ASSEMBLY (OR APPROVED EQUAL) ON TELESPAR POST WITH W11-2 At--0
W16-7P SIGNS. SEE DETAIL "A", SflEET 2.
IT] MN!Sfl At--0 INST ALL SIGN At--0 POST PER SDRSD M-45, SIGN PER PLAN •
[[j APPLY CONTINENT AL CROSSWALK PER DETAIL "D" , SHEET 2 .
lg] REMOVE EXISTING CONFLICTING STRIPING BY GRlt--OING.
[}fil APPLY Tl£RMOPLASTIC WHITE YIELD LINE PER CALTRANS STAt--OARD PLAN A24G.
i1ID REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING W 11-2 At--0 W16-7P SIGNS. CUT EX I STING
TELESPAR POST APPROPRIATELY TO ACHIEVE t.t!NIMLM CLEARANCE OF 7' BETWEEN
BOTTOM OF SIGN At--0 TOP OF SIDEWALK.
~ REMOVE AND SALVAGE EXISTING SIGNS At--0 POST.
250'
SIGN LEGEND
PROPOSED:
W11-2
(36"x36")
EXISTING:
@
R1-1
11*11
W16-7P
(24"x12")
NO
PARKING
ANY
TIME
R26(CA)
9-t-00
IIAHEAol]
W16-9P
(24"x12")
W1-7
EX. R26(CA)
HER'!" • TO~
R1-5
(36"x36")
EX. SNS 9,
SNS 10,
Rl-1
NO
PARKING
ANY
TIME
R26(CA)
◄ ◄
(12"x18")
\
FERMI COURT
SPEED NOT POSTED
EX. W14-1
77'
EX. W1-7,F --
N-1 (CA)
EX. W11-2,20
W16-7P
0 [Fermi ➔I [Salk ➔ I
W14-1 N-1(CA) SNS 9 SNS 10
\
I
I
\
I
\
\
I
\
DIAL TOLL FREE
8-1-1
AT WST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIC
LN>ERGROI.N) SER\1CE ALERT OF SOUTHERN CAI.FCRIIA
18 EX. W11-2,
W16-7P,
R26(CA)
7 R1-5
11-100
250'
11 '
---1-------_1}+001-----14•·--
11 '
8'
DWY
----------------
0 11' • -i
20 10 0 20 40 60 l ... ~1-----1~~~~1-------11
SCALE: 1 "=20 '
~~ J. ijl-ft
,::f <-,,: ~ ,..;; .., "' -~o;; >SC
\;i. ;:►. NO. 86675 !t S
ii *
J'/,ft, CIVIi.. 'II,.~
£ OF C~\.\\l'S
<12 ~ DA1E N11AL DA1E INl11AL DA1E INITIAL
5865 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE 142 B, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 ENGINEER 0F WDRK REVISION DESCRIPTION 01l£R APPROVAL QTY APPROVAL PHONE: 760-602-4290 WWW.STCTRAFFIC.COM
_1...:..J-f(),O
I----"-------
\·-< ' ' .-h~--
EX. R26(CA)
-------R/w-
I SH~T I CITY OF CARLSBAD I 9i~IS I ENGINEERING DEPARlMENT
DIPROVIIIINT PLANS l'OR:
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING
BEACON SIGN INSTALLATION
SALi( AVENUE AT FERMI COURT I APPROVED BABAQ TAJ
1RANSPORTA110N Dm:CTOR PE C77173 12~L20 DATE I
DWN BY: I PROJECT NO. I DRAWING NO. aiKD BY: a.
RVWD BY: HM 8070 522-6
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
CP-200-07
Page 1 of 9
SUBJECT: MARKED CROSSWALK CRITERIA AT UNCONTROLLED
LOCATIONS
POLICY NO.:200-07
EFFECTIVE DATE:June 11, 2015
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Marked crosswalks are an important tool that can enhance pedestrian safety with proper traffic
controls on public streets. There have been many changes in technology and practice related to
pedestrian safety since Council Policy 200-07 was adopted in 1990. This council policy
incorporates those changes and supersedes that policy based on the 2015 City of San Diego
Pedestrian Crosswalk Guidelines.
1.2 Purpose
The main function of marked crosswalks is to channelize pedestrians to desirable paths of travel
across streets at intersections or mid-block locations. Crosswalks alone at uncontrolled
locations do not guarantee the safety protection of pedestrians, therefore careful consideration of
their location and warning devices is essential. This Council Policy provides standards for
when to install crosswalks at uncontrolled locations, and for when they must be accompanied by
other traffic control devices.
Council Policy 200-07 consists of:
Basic Warrants
Point Warrants
Crossing treatments to supplement marked crosswalks
Requirements for the removal of marked crosswalks
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
CP-200-07
Page 2 of 9
1.3 Summary
Council Policy 200-07 provides the requirements uncontrolled pedestrian crossings must meet
in order to be considered for a marked crosswalk, how a crosswalk must be marked, and the
process of removal, if necessary.
If a location meets each of the Basic Warrants and scores a minimum of 16 points in the Point
Warrants, it qualifies for a marked crosswalk. Point Warrants are indicated in Table 1. In
addition, crossing treatments and/or warning devices must accompany the crosswalk. Table 2
identifies categories for crossing treatments that are needed based on thresholds of vehicle
volumes and crossing distances. Table 3 lists the crossing treatments for each category.
For unusual conditions not identified in this policy, engineering judgment should be used to
apply these guidelines or adjust them to fit individual field site conditions. These guidelines are
not intended to be a substitute for engineering knowledge, experience or judgment.
In addition, any removal of a marked crosswalk must follow the procedure outlined in the
California Vehicle Code.
2.0 POLICY
2.1 Basic Warrants
Each of the following warrants must be satisfied in order for an uncontrolled location to be
considered for a marked crosswalk.
2.1.1.Pedestrian Volume Warrant
The pedestrian volumes must be equal to or greater than ten (10) pedestrians per hour
during the peak pedestrian hour. Children under 13, elderly over 64 years and/or
disabled persons count as 1.5 pedestrians. Alternatively, this warrant can be satisfied
using Latent Pedestrian Demand if conditions (a), (b), or (c) under Table 1, T1.1b are
met.
2.1.2.Approach Speed Warrant
The 85th percentile approach speed must be equal to or lower than 40 MPH. This
warrant does not apply when a pedestrian hybrid beacon or a pedestrian traffic signal
will be installed.
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
CP-200-07
Page 3 of 9
2.1.3.Nearest Controlled Crossing
The proposed location must be farther than 250 feet from the nearest controlled
pedestrian crossing (measured from the nearest edge of the proposed marked crosswalk
to the closest edge of the controlled crossing).
2.1.4.Visibility Warrant
The motorist must have an unrestricted view of all pedestrians at the proposed location
for a distance required by the following table (stopping sight distance is to be
interpolated when 85th percentile speed is between 5 mph increments):
85th Percentile Speed
(MPH)
Stopping Sight Distance
(feet)
25 150
30 200
35 250
40 300
2.1.5.Illumination Warrant
The proposed location must have existing lighting.
2.1.6.Accessibility Warrant
The proposed location must have existing accessibility to disabled pedestrians or have
accessibility improvements programmed.
2.2 Point Warrants
Point warrants are the number of points a location is required to meet (in with the Basic
Warrants above) to qualify for a marked crosswalk. Sixteen points are required and can be
achieved through pedestrian volumes or latent pedestrian demand, general conditions, and/or
the average gaps in traffic. A summary of each Point Warrant and the allocation of points are
presented in Table 1. A discussion of each Point Warrant variable follows the table.
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
CP-200-07
Page 4 of 9
Table 1: Point Warrants
T1.1a Pedestrian Volume Warrant
Number of Pedestrians (Peak Hour)Points Total Available
Points
10 – 25 4
26 – 50 8
51+10
10
T1.1b Latent Pedestrian Demand Warrant (in lieu of Pedestrian Volume Warrant)
Condition Points Total Available
Points
(a) The proposed crosswalk is in a commercial, mixed land use, or high
density residential area.3
(b) A pedestrian or shared use path is interrupted by a restricted crossing.3
(c) A pedestrian attractor/generator is directly adjacent to the proposed
crosswalk as defined in the explanatory notes below.4
10
T1.2 General Condition Warrant
Condition Points Total Available
Points
(a) The nearest controlled crossing is greater than 300 feet from the
proposed crosswalk.3
(b) The proposed crosswalk will position pedestrians to be better seen by
motorists.3
(c) The proposed crosswalk will establish a mid-block crossing between
adjacent signalized intersections or it will connect an existing
pedestrian path.
3
(d) The proposed crosswalk is located within ¼ mile of pedestrian
attractors/generators as defined in the explanatory notes below.3
(e) An existing bus stop is located within 100 feet of the proposed
crosswalk.3
(f) Other factors.3
18
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
CP-200-07
Page 5 of 9
Table 1: Point Warrants (continued)
T1.3 Gap Time Warrant
Average Number of Vehicular Gaps per Five-Minute Period Points Total Available
Points
0 – 0.99 0
1 – 1.99 1
2 – 2.99 8
3 – 3.99 10
4 – 4.99 8
5 – 5.99 1
6 or over 0
10
Total Available Points 38
Table 1, Explanatory Notes:
T1.1a Pedestrian Volume Warrant
The Pedestrian Volume Warrant assigns point values based on pedestrian crossing volumes at the proposed
location. Children under 13, elderly over 64 years and/or disabled persons count as 1.5 pedestrians.
T1.1b Latent Pedestrian Demand Warrant (in lieu of Pedestrian Volume Warrant)
The Latent Pedestrian Demand Warrant may be used in lieu of the Pedestrian Volume Warrant.
T1.2 General Condition Warrant
The General Condition Warrant presents six (6) unique categories. A location can score either zero (0) or three
(3) points for each unique category, making a total of 18 points possible. The general conditions include the
following:
(a)The nearest controlled crossing is greater than 300 feet from the proposed crosswalk.
The distance should be measured from the proposed location of the crosswalk to the nearest controlled
intersection, i.e. stop sign, traffic signal, etc.
(b)The proposed crosswalk will position pedestrians to be better seen by motorists.
This condition should be considered at locations where one leg of the intersection provides better sight
distance than the other legs or midblock location with better sight distance.
(c)The proposed crosswalk will establish a mid-block crossing between adjacent signalized intersections.
This warrant refers to a condition where there is a major pedestrian attractor/generator nearby, and an
adequate crossing can be provided that could help channelize a heavy flow of mid-block pedestrians.
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
CP-200-07
Page 6 of 9
Table 1: Point Warrants (continued)
(d)The proposed crosswalk is located within ¼ mile of a pedestrian attractor/generator as defined below:
- International Border Crossing
- Major Multi-Modal Transit Centers
- Transit Stops
- Elementary/Middle/High Schools
- Universities and Colleges
- Neighborhood Civic Facilities (Libraries, Post Office & Religious Facilities)
- Neighborhood and Community Retail
- Pedestrian Intensive Beaches
- Parks & Recreation (excludes non-useable open space)
- Mixed Land Uses (housing near employment and/or commercial)
(e)A bus stop is located within 100 feet of the proposed location.
This warrant applies if there is a bus stop within 100 feet of the proposed crosswalk.
(f)Other factors.
Other factors allow for extenuating circumstances not covered in the proposed warrants. These are to be
evaluated using engineering judgment.
T1.3 Gap Time Warrant
Gap time is the time needed for a pedestrian to cross the travelled lanes of a roadway at an average walking speed
without the need for a driver to yield. The number of usable gaps (or gaps that exceed the minimum time needed
to cross) are counted during the peak vehicular hour and averaged per five-minute period.
2.3 Crossing Treatments
2.3.1 Crossing Treatment Thresholds
If the proposed crossing location meets the criteria set by both the Basic and Point
warrants, the next step is to evaluate the most appropriate crossing treatment(s) to be
installed with the marked crosswalk. Marked crosswalks at streets that have less than
1,500 ADT can be installed with signs and markings alone. Table 2 provides thresholds
for determining whether additional treatments are required prior to installing a marked
crosswalk. The thresholds are based on vehicle volumes, vehicle speeds, and pedestrian
crossing distance at the proposed location. Location types are divided into categories A,
B, C, and D, and are used to determine the appropriate treatment for the proposed marked
crosswalk location.
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
CP-200-07
Page 7 of 9
2.3.2 Crossing Treatments
Table 3 presents treatment requirements for the categories shown in Table 2. As new
devices or treatments are proven, they may be considered in lieu of these treatments, with
the City Engineer’s approval.
Table 3: Crossing Treatments for Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks if Warrants are Met
Category Crossing Treatments
A
The following is required:
(W11-2) Pedestrian Warning Signage with the corresponding (W16-7P) arrow plaque as shown
in CA MUTCD Section 2C.50
B
At least one of the following is required:
(R1-6) State Law – Yield to Pedestrian sign if median is present
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
Raised crosswalk or other traffic calming treatments if the City of San Diego’s Traffic Calming
Guidelines are met
C
At least two of the following are required:
Radar Speed Feedback Signs
Striping changes such as narrower lanes, painted medians, road diets, or other speed reducing
treatments.
RRFBs
Staggered crosswalks and pedestrian refuge island
Horizontal deflection traffic calming treatments1 if the City of San Diego’s Traffic Calming
Guidelines are met
D
A Traffic Signal is required if the CA MUTCD warrants are met and it is recommended by a traffic
engineering study. Otherwise at least one of the following is required:
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon if the CA MUTCD warrants are met
Horizontal deflection traffic calming treatment1 with RRFBs if the City of San Diego’s Traffic
Calming Guidelines are met
1. Horizontal deflection treatments include, but are not limited to: roundabouts, pedestrian refuge islands, and pedestrian pop-outs.
Table 2: Crossing Treatment Thresholds for Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks
if Warrants are Met
Crossing
Distance2
Roadway ADT
(vehicles per day)
< 1,500 1,501 – 5,000 5,001 – 12,000 12,001 – 15,000 > 15,000
< 40’A B B C C D1
40’ to 52’A B C C D1 D
> 52’A B C1 C D1 D D
1. For streets with more than one lane at an approach or posted speed limit 30 mph or greater.
2. Crossing distance can be measured to a pedestrian refuge island if one is present.
I
I
I I
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
CP-200-07
Page 8 of 9
2.4 Stop Controlled Crosswalks
At stop controlled intersection approaches, stop signs are the major factor controlling both the
motorist’s and pedestrian’s behavior, rather than crosswalk markings. The warrants reflected in
this policy do not apply at stop controlled intersection approaches. At such approaches stop
bars are intended to define pedestrian paths. A marked crosswalk may be installed at a stop
controlled intersection on a case by case basis if a clear benefit to pedestrians is demonstrated.
Examples of such demonstrated benefits are:
An all-way stop controlled intersection where at least one street is a one-way street with
more than one lane, and marking the far side crossing will highlight pedestrian crossing
(all approaches that pedestrians are allowed to cross should be marked in this case).
An all-way stop controlled intersection where pedestrians are restricted on one or more
legs and marking the alternate crossing routes will highlight where pedestrians are
allowed to cross.
2.5 Removal of Crosswalks
It shall be the Policy of the City of San Diego to follow the California Vehicle Code
requirements when a crosswalk is considered for removal.
The California Vehicle Code, Section 21950.5, states the following:
(a) An existing marked crosswalk may not be removed unless notice and opportunity to be
heard is provided to the public not less than 30 days prior to the scheduled date of removal.
In addition to any other public notice requirements, the notice of proposed removal shall be
posted at the crosswalk identified for removal.
(b) The notice required by subdivision (a) shall include, but is not limited to, notification to the
public of both of the following:
(1) That the public may provide input relating to the scheduled removal.
(2) The form and method of providing the input authorized by paragraph (1).
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
CP-200-07
Page 9 of 9
3.0 HISTORY:
“Installation of Parking Facility Guide Signs”
Adopted by Resolution R-171103 - 05/31/1962
Repealed by Resolution R-212199 - 12/12/1974
“Comprehensive Pedestrian Crossing Policy”
Adopted by Resolution R-275560 - 04/23/1990
“Marked Crosswalk Criteria at Uncontrolled Locations”
Amended by Resolution R-309772 - 06/11/2015
May 4, 2020 Traffic and Mobility Commission Comments and Questions by Pete Penseyres
Item 2:
What were the results of the public survey regarding the two alternatives for trenching? How many
votes for each option?
One NextDoor post from a Barrio resident suggested that if residents were voting for the long extension,
that they make a comment that the crossing at Chestnut should remain bikes and pedestrians only. Why
was that option not included in the survey? When I tried to add this comment to my survey response, I
did not see a place to add the comment. Will there be another survey and more public education/input
before the City provides the official recommendation on this issue? Since Chestnut has been chosen by
the City to receive pedestrian and bicycle enhancements by CalTrans and the street has been designated
as a future “bicycle boulevard” leading to the Coastal Rail Trail and the Beach by an overpass (or a bridge
if the trench is not constructed), opening another crossing to the beach for motorized traffic would
seem to defeat the objectives stated in the Barrio and Village Master Plan.
In addition, since Carlsbad Village Drive and Grand Ave will have overpasses, it is essential to provide
another motor vehicle overpass at Oak? What is the cost difference between a ped/bike vs motor
vehicle overpass that includes pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure? It seems that we are defeating the
primary purpose of traffic calming in the Village and Barrio plan by focusing on automobiles.
Item 3:
The southbound approach to PAR on Melrose includes a long Class II Bike Lane between the leftmost
RTO land and rightmost straight through lane. There are currently Bikes May Use Full Lane signs to
educate motorists and cyclists that they may use the RTO lanes to turn right or to transition to the
straight through Bike Lane. The approach is a steep grade which results in a high-speed differential
between cyclists and motorists. With the addition of the third lane and restriping, could there be
additional space to widen the bike lane and/or to paint it green to make it more visible? Two
experienced North County Cycle Club members were seriously injured there recently when a motorist
made an unsafe lane change. The addition of a third straight through lane may further reduce the
visibility of cyclists on this section of roadway.
Upon completion of this Project, I noted that with 7 travel lanes southbound plus 4 northbound and
Class II Bike lanes on both sides, LOS will STILL be deficient! Will it be the widest intersection in
Carlsbad?
If a bicyclist enters this intersection on PAR on a “stale” green light in either direction, will they have
enough time at 15 MPH (22 ft/sec) to get all the way across before ECR drivers get a green light? And if
more cyclists become so intimidated that they use the pedestrian PB’s to get across, how much will that
negatively impact the LOS?
There was an earlier Item from Commissioner by Commissioner Hunter regarding the northbound
Melrose lane stripping. It was to consider realignment of the lanes on the south approach to better align
drivers in the #1 through lane continue to use the #1 lane rather than the #2 lane so that drivers to their
right are not pushed toward the #4 transition lane which becomes a RTO lane. This was mentioned to
also potentially help northbound cyclists weave left to transition to the Bike Lane when the RTO lane
begins. I had asked if the hashed off space adjacent to the median could be moved to the right of the
double left turn lanes and to consider if that space could be used for a buffered LTO Bike lane to the
right of the vehicle LTO lanes. Is this a different CIP? When will it be brought to the Commission?
Item 4:
Exhibit 2 Item 5 typo “substernal” = “substantial”
Staff has provided an excellent menu of options for resolving the concerns of the public and City Council
with respect to Councilmember Schumacher’s Minute Motion, even including single as well as two lane
roundabout options.
Option 1 is the easiest, cheapest, and fastest to implement, but it appears to simply “kick the can
down the road” rather than address the concerns now. And as pointed out, it has many cons, including
the fact that it is unlikely to produce more than a limited and waning driver response.
Option 2 may best be described as “lipstick on a pig” as it retains the existing traffic lights with all of
their inherent safety, capacity, and delay issues. It is also costly and wasteful if it does not resolve the
concerns.
Option 3 appears to be the best solution to all safety concerns. My personal experiences with
roundabouts as a cyclist, pedestrian, and motorist in Australia as well as in my current home adjacent to
the Carlsbad Blvd./State St. roundabout have reinforced my strong preference for this people and
environmentally friendly, traffic calming/control device.
When I previously lived in Oceanside, I was a member of the Coast Highway Corridor Steering
Committee and Co-Chair of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Committee. Both citizen groups became stronger
proponents of single lane roundabouts along Coast Highway as they learned more about their
advantages.
The reduction of fatal crashes in roundabouts vs. traffic light or stop controlled intersections is typically
90%. Reference: City of Fort Worth, Texas website (http://fortworthtexas.gov/roundabouts/benefits/)
which uses FHWA studies and documents for the following discussion:
“Roundabouts are the safest type of at-grade intersection. They create slower speeds, fewer conflict
points for pedestrians and motorists, and reduced collision angles compared to stop sign or traffic signal
control. A national study of intersections converted to modern roundabouts had the following
significant findings:
•A reduction in collisions of all types of 40 percent.
•A reduction in injury collisions of 75 percent.
• A reduction in fatal and incapacitating collisions of about 90 percent.”
In the process of researching single lane roundabouts I found many more benefits but believe that the
safety advantages are overwhelming.
Education is key to overcoming opposition and to ensure proper usage by all users after they are
installed. There are websites where roundabouts have been installed in spite of heavy opposition where,
after installation, many opponents admitted that they were wrong. For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHnY8IGv1sY
My experience with teaching Traffic Skills 101 (aka Smart Cycling) and in riding with friends is that some
cyclists don’t like roundabouts until they learn how to ride through them correctly. Certified League of
American Bicyclists Instructors in San Diego County have included classroom presentations and, in
Oceanside and Carlsbad, on the road practice in safely navigating the Carlsbad roundabout. We first
dismount and become pedestrians and later ride through just as we would as motorists.
There is a video on the Carlsbad City website that connects to a video from the Federal Highway
Administration entitled “Modern Roundabouts, A Safer Choice” It has been viewed 484 times and can be
seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMpqH0kohaM&list=PLCEF0BD7835D6E0B0&index=4
Tips on how to use the Carlsbad roundabout were posted on the City Website when it was new in 2014
and can be seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGc5aHbMfb4
Note that despite being on the City Website for more than 5 years, it has only been viewed 649 times.
There is also an excellent Power Point that was developed by John Kim for our Traffic Safety Commission
that I can’t find. These hard to find and little observed educational items can be overwhelmed by one
negative inflammatory Next Door or Facebook post based on emotion rather than facts.
This was done successfully by a relatively small group of South Oceanside residents who will retain their
end of Coast Highway as 4 lanes. The same result was accomplished in Solana Beach by another small
group opposed to all roundabouts in the City and specifically on Lomas Santa Fe.
Perhaps College Ave should not be the first arterial location to install single lane roundabouts due to the
potential capacity limitation/congestion and public opposition?
Single lane roundabouts were rejected on the Poinsettia extension, even though the LSA traffic analysis
showed that they would have provided LOS A for the foreseeable future and there was a “fresh palette”
along with more than adequate ROW that would have substantially reduced their cost compared to
removing and rebuilding the extra turn lanes, medians and traffic light infrastructure. That project was
taken to the City Council without our Commission recommendations since we received it after the
decision was made as an Information Only Item.
We had a discussion at the time, but arguments against it included a desire to maintain this little used
(13K ADT in 2035) road as a high speed 50 MPH multi lane arterial (using “typology”) with minimum
width 5’ unbuffered Bike Lanes and computer based Traffic Signal Management to platoon traffic and
even potentially punish speeding downhill traffic on Cassia street with Red light initiations and “No Right
Turn on Red” restrictions.
Perhaps our Commission should include a recommendation that City Council reconsider/reverse their
decision to install traffic lights on Poinsettia so that single lane roundabouts become more familiar and
accepted by the public?
Option 4 would also solve the traffic safety issues and would increase capacity beyond current pre-
COVID-19 usage. However, no two-lane roundabouts have been installed on any arterial in San Diego
County and would likely receive even more opposition.
In addition, although they still reduce fatal and serious injury crashed as well as single lane installations,
they do result in more property damage collisions. The following recent article in the Wall Street Journal
discussed this issue.
As noted in the WSJ article, “fender bender” crashes do increase upon installation of roundabouts.
Carlsbad experience was similar in that there were 20 reported crashes in the first two years, 17
occurred at night and 18 were DUI drivers. The “dirty little secret” of our roundabout is that it serves as
an “unmanned check point” which protects all other downstream motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
Options 5 & 6 are not credible solutions for all the reasons stated.
Item 5:
The informal point system indicates 5 points for Collisions if Ped related. Is that 5 points for each
collision and if so, what period of time is used for that parameter? What was the basis for this? Should it
be higher?
Item 6:
For both sections of El Camino Real, the slight reduction in travel lane width to create a buffer for
cyclists will increase their comfort level and perhaps even increase cycling that displaces car trips for
commuting or shopping. The intersection treatment is important from a safety standpoint as a majority
of car/bike crashes take place when turning or lane change movements are made.
There are 5 intersections involved on El Camino Real from Faraday to Cannon. There are several more
from Arenal to Levante. How will the striping for the Bike Lanes be done at each of these intersections?
Will all of them have RTO lanes with the Bike lanes correctly placed to the left of the RTO lanes? If not,
how will the shared 11’ space be striped? Where will the green paint be applied? Will there be “Begin
Right Turn Lane Yield to Bikes” R4-4 signs installed at all locations where separate RTO lanes exist?
Where RTO lanes do not and will not exist, these “shared” lanes will need careful markings, signage, and
striping to prevent drivers from passing cyclists and making right turns illegally from the rightmost
through lane. As students from the Aviara Oaks middle school explained to us, one of the most common
car bike crashes occurs when drivers turn right across a cyclist’s path. The risk of high speed “right hook”
type crashes is high when motorists do not yield and merge into the bike lane when it begins to be
dashed.
Please supply the detailed striping, painting, and signage plans for review when they become available.
Item 7:
If possible, I would like a paper copy of this item to read without sitting in front of a computer screen. I
did not have enough time to read and comment on this item. However, after a quick scan, it appears
that the VMT guidelines contradict some of the actions we have recommended to improve LOS on
congested roadways, and especially to create 4 travel lanes on the Poinsettia extension without
considering the possibility of a road diet. or GHG saving roundabouts in place of more traffic lights.