Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-04; Traffic and Mobility Commission; ; SANDAG RAILROAD TRENCH INFORMATIONItem 2 Meeting Date: May 4, 2020 To: Traffic and Mobility Commission Staff Contact: Hossein Ajideh, Engineering Manager hossein.ajideh@carlsbadca.gov, 760-602-2756 Subject: Presentation from the San Diego Association of Governments regarding the Carlsbad Village and Barrio Railroad Trench Alternatives. Recommended Action Receive an informational presentation from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) regarding the status of an analysis of short trench and long trench alternatives of putting the railroad tracks in a trench in the city’s Village and Barrio areas. Executive Summary The City of Carlsbad, SANDAG and North County Transit District (NCTD) have completed an alternatives analysis for a future railroad trench in the downtown railroad corridor. Two alternatives, long trench and short trench, were evaluated along the coastal railroad corridor from the Buena Vista Lagoon in the City of Oceanside to just north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon in the City of Carlsbad. The project would place two railroad tracks in a trench below grade, facilitating grade-separated crossings at various locations in the downtown area. The primary difference between the two alternatives is that Tamarack Avenue is a grade-separated crossing in the long trench alternative, but remains an existing at-grade crossing in the short trench alternative. SANDAG will provide an update for the project and the trench alternatives study. Discussion Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner rail corridor is the nation’s second busiest, serving six counties and 351 miles along the southern California coastline. This rail corridor, where the project area lies, is also known as the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail corridor. The Carlsbad Village and Barrio double-track project would construct a second railroad track from Cassidy Street in Oceanside south to and/or through Tamarack Avenue in Carlsbad. The two alternatives would include grade separation of the railroad tracks (existing track and new second track) by constructing them in a trench, beneath the existing street elevations. The first alternative, known as the short trench alternative, would construct the double-track railroad lowered in a trench passing under vehicular overpasses at Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive and Oak Avenue, with pedestrian overpasses at Beech Avenue/Carlsbad Village Station and Chestnut Avenue. The second alternative is the long trench alternative, which would construct a railroad trench passing under vehicular overpasses at Grand Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, Oak Avenue, Chestnut Avenue and Tamarack Avenue, with a pedestrian overpass at Beech Avenue/Carlsbad Village Station. Both trench alternatives would require replacement of the Carlsbad Boulevard overcrossing with a new bridge spanning the tracks. The short trench and long trench alternatives are shown in Exhibit 1. In 2014, the City Council decided to pursue lowering the railroad tracks through the Village and Barrio areas due to concerns about the impacts of the increased train traffic and second set of tracks in these two neighborhoods. In 2014, the City of Carlsbad, SANDAG and the NCTD initiated a feasibility study to double-track the railroad tracks in the city’s downtown Village area in a railroad trench below grade. The Carlsbad Village Double Track – Railroad Trench Alternative Economic Analysis and Feasibility Study was completed in 2017 and identified that a trench would be feasible in the downtown Village area and would accommodate additional double-tracking that is necessary along the corridor. The alternatives analysis updated the preliminary engineering designs and cost estimates. In 2019 dollars, the short trench and long trench are estimated to cost $255 million and $386 million, respectively. In addition, city staff developed a public outreach program for the project which included a well-attended open house in November 2019 and a number of small group informational presentations. At the current preliminary level of design, the long trench alternative could require acquiring right-of-way from private property owners in the vicinity of Tamarack Avenue. Information regarding the potential right-of-way acquisition was shared and meetings were held with the three private landowners. Fiscal Analysis This item has no fiscal impact. Next Steps No additional analysis is funded and scheduled at this time. Environmental Evaluation (CEQA) Receiving a presentation does not qualify as a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, as it does not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Public Notification This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Section 54950 et seq.), published and distributed at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time. Exhibit 1. Location Map - Carlsbad Village and Barrio Railroad Trench Alternatives. Exhibit 1 Location Map - Carlsbad Village and Barrio Railroad Trench Alternatives ta9una Dr Magnolia Aw. 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.