Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-04; Traffic and Mobility Commission; ; TRAFFIC CALMING ON COLLEGE BOULEVARDItem 4 Meeting Date: May 4, 2020 To: Traffic and Mobility Commission Staff Contact: John Kim, City Traffic Engineer John.Kim@carlsbadca.gov or 760-602-2757 Tom Frank, Transportation Director Tom.Frank@carlsbadca.gov or 760-602-2766 Subject: Provide traffic calming recommendations for College Boulevard. Recommended Action Support staff’s recommendation to City Council regarding traffic calming recommendation for Option 1 for College Boulevard. Executive Summary On June 11, 2019, a Minute Motion was proposed by Council Member Schumacher, seconded by Council Member Hamilton, to bring back an analysis of changing the physical character specifically for traffic calming on the following streets: College Boulevard from Carlsbad Village Drive to Sage Creek High School, Tamarack Avenue from Skyline Road to Carlsbad Boulevard, and Carlsbad Boulevard from the Agua Hedionda Trailhead to State Street. The Motion carried unanimously 5/0. On Sept. 24, 2019, staff presented to City Council a presentation on traffic calming recommendations for the above referenced portions of College Boulevard, Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard. After hearing staff’s recommendation to install speed feedback signs on College Boulevard to address speeding concerns, a Minute Motion was proposed by Council Member Schumacher, seconded by Council Member Blackburn, to bring back to Council options and analysis, including unintended consequences, on physical changes to the College Boulevard segment, from Carlsbad Village Drive to Cannon Road. Motion carried 4/0/1. Discussion Traffic calming on residential streets is formalized through the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program (CRTMP). Currently, the CRTMP offers traffic calming strategies for residential streets and features tools such as speed cushions, speed tables and traffic circles that are intended for low volume/low speed streets. Residential streets, as defined by the California Vehicle Code, are unique in that no engineering and traffic survey (including a speed survey) is required to post a 25-mile per hour (mph) speed limit on a residential street. Prevailing speeds may be higher than the posted speed limit; therefore, a traffic calming program may be beneficial to help encourage drivers to drive closer to the posted speed limit in those situations. On all other streets in the city, the posted speed limit must have a valid engineering and traffic survey and be posted within 5 mph of prevailing speeds, per the requirements of the California Vehicle Code. College Boulevard Background College Boulevard from the northern City limits to Cannon Road is a not defined as a residential street and therefore not eligible for the CRTMP process as currently written. College Boulevard is designated as an arterial street in the General Plan Mobility Element. Arterial streets are described by the General Plan Mobility Element as, “primary vehicle routes through the city for both local and regional vehicle trips.” College Boulevard was built circa 2000 to major arterial standards in accordance with the prior General Plan Circulation Element, designed to carry 20,000-40,000 vehicles per day at 50 mph. Recent traffic counts indicate that the average daily traffic (ADT) is approximately 22,000 vehicles per day. The roadway speed limit is currently posted at 45 mph, consistent with the required engineering and traffic survey. College Boulevard features two vehicle lanes in each direction separated by a raised median and signalized intersections where warranted. Marked bicycle lanes are provided on both sides of the roadway and no on-street parking is allowed. The travel-lane widths were reduced to eleven feet and bicycle lanes recently were enhanced with painted buffers to help separate bicyclists from vehicular traffic. Primary land uses along this portion of the roadway are single- family residential developments, Calavera Hills Elementary and Middle Schools and Sage Creek High School on the northeast corner of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. There are also three trail head access points to the Calavera Hills Nature Preserve along the east side of College Boulevard between Carlsbad Village Drive and Cannon Road. As part of this report, staff investigated collision records. Reported collisions, while not the sole determinant in identifying proposed improvements, can help staff identify possible collision patterns and help staff prioritize resources. Querying our collision database for the period between Jan. 1, 2019 to Dec. 31, 2019, four collisions were reported on College Boulevard between Cannon Road and Carlsbad Village Drive. Two collisions were reported between Carlsbad Village Drive and the North City Limits. One of these collisions is common to both queries (at the intersection of College Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive) so there was a total of five collisions reported along the entire corridor. All reported collisions were property damage only (no injuries) and none of the reported collisions involved a pedestrian or bicyclist. For comparative purposes, we can look at the State of California’s collision data published in 2016. For a similar classification of roadway (4 lane divided highway in an urban setting), the collision rate for California state highways was found to be 1.43 collisions per million vehicle miles. This figure can be calculated by multiplying the number of collisions by 1,000,000 and dividing by the number of vehicle miles traveled on that corridor. Comparatively, the collision rate for College Boulevard between Cannon Road and Carlsbad Village Drive was less than the state average at 0.48 collisions per million vehicle miles and 0.16 collisions per million vehicle miles in 2019. The combined collision rate for the entire corridor was found to be less than the state average at 0.33 collisions per million vehicle miles in 2019. As a result of the concerns brought to our attention, staff has been working with residents, parents, principals, and the police department to enhance safety on College Boulevard over the past several years. Some of the improvements that city staff have already implemented include: • Traffic signal modification at College Boulevard and Rich Field Drive – A supplemental traffic signal indication has been installed on the southwest corner of College Boulevard and Rich Field Drive to address concerns with vehicles running red lights. This supplemental traffic signal indication increases visibility of the signal for northbound motorists. • Portable Speed Feedback signs –Temporary speed feedback signs have been deployed on College Boulevard, Rich Field Drive and Strata Drive to educate drivers of their traveling speed and to encourage speed reduction. • Adult Crossing Guards on College Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue (N & S) – To assist school pedestrians going to and leaving school, staff has worked with the police department to provide adult crossing guards on College Boulevard at both Tamarack Avenue north and south intersections during the school hours. • Traffic signal timing enhancements at College Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue (N & S) – Staff has implemented Lead Pedestrian Intervals to enhance pedestrian safety. This allows pedestrians to begin their crossing while all the vehicle signal indications are still red, giving pedestrians, a head start when entering the intersection. This feature increases the visibility of crossing pedestrians, enhances safety for pedestrians who may be slower to start into the intersection and increases the likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians. The duration of the lead pedestrian interval has also been extended recently. On Jan. 27, 2020, staff met with residents concerned with traffic safety in the vicinity of Calavera Hills Elementary and Middle Schools, with a focus on the portion of College Boulevard between Carlsbad Village Drive and the North City Limits. Based on the concerns heard at the meeting, staff committed to issuing work orders for TURNING VEHICLES YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS signs at the intersection of College Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue (North and South). After completion of this work order, all approaches to these two intersections will have signage that requires turning motorists to yield to pedestrians. Staff is currently investigating a request for NO RIGHT TURN ON RED signs at the intersection of College Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue (North and South). Since this sign would impact peak hour school traffic and possibly result in increased congestion, staff needs to conduct a more formal evaluation including looking at turning movement volumes. Traffic Management Options In 2015, the City updated the General Plan and included a new Mobility Element to replace the previous Circulation Element. The Mobility Element utilizes a complete streets approach to help balance the needs of all users of the street, including motorists, pedestrians, bicycles, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation. As explained in the Mobility Element, much of Carlsbad’s transportation system has been built within the last 30 years, concurrent with the city’s physical expansion. The transportation emphasis during this period has been on improving travel by the automobile, within the framework provided by Proposition E (commonly referred to as the Growth Management Plan) passed by Carlsbad voters in 1986. The 1994 General Plan and the Growth Management Plan helped assure that necessary infrastructure was provided as the city grew and developed. The transportation system envisioned in the 1994 General Plan has largely been realized, with the majority of the street infrastructure constructed to its ultimate configuration. As the city looks increasingly to infill development rather than outward expansion, the primary transportation issues now relate to protecting and enhancing the community’s quality of life, as reflected in the core values of the Carlsbad Community Vision. The community’s vision includes improving pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the city, and a balanced transportation system, rather than a singular focus on automobile movement. Upon completion of the city’s transportation infrastructure, the new Mobility Element was intended to give the city flexibility on how the streets are utilized, based on typology. We can consider options on improvements to streets that would help achieve the complete streets vision found in the Mobility Element. Each option typically has some potential advantages (pros) and disadvantages (cons). Additionally, some of the options may include unintended consequences. When considering options, it is important to remember that College Boulevard is defined as an Arterial in the Mobility Element serving as a primary vehicle route through the city for both local and regional vehicle trips. While the Mobility Element does recommend that vertical traffic calming techniques (such as speed tables, humps, etc.) should not be considered, it allows special considerations on arterials within proximity to schools to enhance Safe Routes to Schools for pedestrians and bicyclists. The mobility element lists several related policies regarding street design and connectivity including:  3-P.15 Evaluate methods and transportation facility improvements to promote biking, walking, safer street crossings, and attractive streetscapes. The City Council shall have the sole discretion to approve any such road diet or vehicle traffic calming improvements that would reduce vehicle capacity to or below a LOS D; this also applies to streets where the vehicle is not subject to the MMLOS standard as specified in Table 3-1.  3-P.17 Consider innovative design and program solutions to improve the mobility, efficiency, connectivity, and safety of the transportation system. Innovative design solutions include, but are not limited to, traffic calming devices, roundabouts, traffic circles, curb extensions, separated bicycle infrastructure… While changing the design of a road is possible, any changes should be thoroughly studied and publicly vetted considering how these changes may alter travel patterns throughout the surrounding road network. College Boulevard serves as a primary commuter route through the city with many users ultimately moving between State Route 78 (SR78) and Interstate 5 (I-5), among other routes included in the City’s road network provided in Exhibit 1. Traffic seeks equilibrium. Changes to College Boulevard may impact critical congestion points and traffic patterns throughout the area. The current widening of I-5 between Manchester Avenue and SR78 is targeted for completion in 2022. When completed, the improvements will likely move the congestion points along the I-5 corridor and change commuter patterns both regionally and locally. The congestion at the SR78/I-5 interchange during the morning peak will likely resume once traffic demand returns post-COVID-19 and this interchange is not programed for replacement in the foreseeable future. With the return of congestion associated with normal traffic patterns, morning commuters will resume searching for the quickest path from west bound SR78 to south bound I-5. The same travel patterns will likely reverse during the afternoon commute. Navigation apps such as Waze and Google Maps help find the quickest paths for commuters and often divert trips from congestion freeways onto local streets to the dismay of some neighborhoods along those programmed routes. An increase in capacity of these commuter routes through the city will likely further increase traffic volume on the local street when the adjacent freeway is congestion. Likewise, a reduction of roadway capacity will redistribute the displaced vehicles to an alternate route. Traffic congestion tends to maintain equilibrium, whereas traffic volumes increase to the point that congestion delays discourage additional peak-period vehicle trips. Expanding congested roads attracts latent demand, shifts trips from other routes, times and modes, and encourage longer and more frequent travel. In response to council direction, staff has developed several options for traffic calming consisting of physical design and other measures to put in place on College Boulevard to reduce vehicle speeds or address other concerns to improve pedestrian safety. Considering that most of the public feedback received was focused at the intersections along College Boulevard, staff’s presented options focuses mainly on intersection improvements. A summary of the traffic calming options for College Boulevard is presented in Exhibit 2 and are further explained below. Option 1 – Radar Speed Feedback Signs Based on concerns associated with drivers violating the posted speed limit of 45 mph on College Boulevard and in compliance with the recommendations found in the General Plan Mobility Element, staff is recommending installation of up to eleven permanent speed feedback signs along College Boulevard. In addition to the 6-8 speed feedback signs that were originally recommended between Cannon Road and Carlsbad Village Drive, staff recommends increasing the scope of this effort to include the concerns surrounding the schools in the Calavera Hills area and add speed feedback signs between Carlsbad Village Drive and the north city limits. These devices will serve to educate the driving public and have been found to help reduce speeding. The Police Department will also continue to provide ongoing enforcement on College Boulevard. The new speed feedback signs will have the ability to transmit data directly to our Traffic Management Center and provide staff with information so that our Police Department can provide focused enforcement based on actual speeding behavior. Sufficient funds exist in the FY 2019-20 Public Works budget to accommodate up to eleven speed feedback signs and these will take approximately 8-10 months to design and install. Option 2 - Redesign the road segment with a lower design speed Redesign of two travel lanes and traffic signals redesigned at lower design speed and more pedestrian friendly intersections. Improvements would include narrower travel lanes, revised medians, reduced corner and horizontal deflection radii, and revised access pathways. The advantages of this option include improving safety by reducing the vehicle speeds and shorter pedestrian crossing distances. Additionally, drivers are familiar with two vehicular travel lanes and signals. The challenges with the option include that it maintains the existing traffic signals which have their own challenges relating to driver behavior, cost, reduced roadway capacity, unknown public support, and it would require an extensive public input process. Considering the option would result in a reduction in capacity from the existing conditions, the Growth Management Program would need to be revised to address the change. An unintended consequence is the option may increase travel times along the corridor due to increased congestion and redirect traffic to other routes. Option 3 – Single-Lane Roundabouts Redesign the intersections with single-lane roundabouts and a road diet converting the existing two-vehicular lane roadway in each direction to a one-lane in each direction facility. The advantages of this option include it addresses the intersection traffic signal safety issues and it keeps existing median. The challenges with the option include the cost, reduced roadway capacity, public support is unknown, and it would require an extensive public input process. The unintended consequence of the option may include redirecting traffic to other routes due to increased travel times, and the need to revise the Growth Management Plan considering the option would result in a reduction in capacity from the existing conditions. Option 4 – Two-Lane roundabouts Redesign the intersections with two-lane roundabouts and maintain two vehicle lanes and buffered bicycle lanes in each direction. The advantages of this option include it addresses the intersection traffic signal safety and efficiency issues and it keeps the existing median. The challenges with the option include the cost, the need for additional right-of-way to accommodate the two-lane roundabouts, the option would increase the capacity of the road segment, public support is unknown, and it would require an extensive public input process. Option 4 could result in an increase in capacity to approximately 40,000 average daily trips for this road segment. This significant increase in capacity could result in increased traffic volumes and congestion on other arterial road segments that connect to this segment of College Boulevard if implemented. Option 5 - Vertical Deflection – Speed Tables and Cushions The vertical deflection option would include speed tables at the crosswalks at each intersection, and speed cushions at regular intervals to promote speeds to maintain an average speed of 35 to 40 miles per hour (mph). The tables and cushions would be designed to encourage crossing speeds approximately 20 to 30 mph. The challenges with the option would the additional slowing and accelerating along the segment caused by the additional measures. This option would also be the least environmentally sustainable alternative because drivers would need to slow down as they approach the measures and speed up after traversing them, they burn more fuel, generate more noise, and emissions, and therefore. Additionally, the capacity of the street segment would be reduced due to the lower vehicle speeds. The General Plan Mobility Element cautions against certain types of traffic calming on arterial streets, stating, “vertical traffic calming techniques (such as speed tables, humps, etc.) should not be considered.” This restriction is based on the relatively high speeds and vehicle volumes that are present on arterial streets, which prioritize vehicular travel over pedestrians and bicyclists. While the caution regarding vertical deflection is supported by staff, the Mobility Element also includes that special considerations for arterial streets within close proximity to schools to enhance Safe Routes to Schools for pedestrians and bicyclists. A significant concern regarding the vertical deflection on arterial streets is the possible unintended consequence of proliferation of vertical deflection along other arterials throughout the City. The concerns with vertical deflection traffic calming measures include environmental impacts of both noise, pollution, and the long-term maintenance costs for users related to vehicle wear. Option 6 - Pedestrian Bridge During previous public meetings, a suggestion was made to consider a pedestrian bridge. Pedestrian Bridges tend to work well when there is grade separated barriers that need to be crossed like railroad tracks or freeways. At standard arterial at grade intersections, pedestrian bridges are a challenge considering pedestrians typically chose the quickest and most convenient path of travel. Pedestrian bridges many involve stairs or elevators which slow the trip. As an example, the City of Dana Point constructed a pedestrian bridge over SR1 near Dana Point Harbor Drive, however, most pedestrians still choose to use the at-grade crosswalks at the nearby intersection. In 2005, The City of Oceanside also removed a pedestrian bridge that was located on Mission Avenue and improved at-grade pedestrian crosswalks near Mission Elementary School. Considering the low cost to benefit ratio for a pedestrian bridge, this option is not recommended for further consideration. Considering the analysis of the options including the advantages, disadvantages, unintended consequences, staff is recommending Option 1 as the preferred option. If issues are identified following the review of the data obtained after implementation of Option 1, additional measures can be considered. Next Steps Following the review of the item by the Traffic and Mobility Commission, staff will include the T&MC’s comments and recommendation in the subject City Council staff report. The item is tentatively scheduled for the May 19 City Council agenda. Exhibits 1. Vicinity Map – Mobility Element 2. Physical Options Summary for College Boulevard North of Cannon Road Exhibit 1: Mobility Element ( I C a n City of Oceanside ,/ l I,. / \ I • : \ l_ ________ J \ .... 1 Maerkle i Reservoir i --, __ ,/ '-··----"'\ ! i i \ ( l_ Freeway -Arterial Streets -Identity Streets Village Streets ---Arterial Connector Streets Neighborhood Connector Streets -Coastal Streets School Streets Employment/Transit Connector Streets Industrial Streets Local/Neighborhood Street • • • • • Planned Arterial Streets • • • • • Planned Arterial Connector Streets * Planned Local/Neighborhood Streets Highways Railroad Transit Centers D Half Mile Radius ~---··-L ____ J City Limits Exhibit 2 – Physical Options for College Boulevard North of Cannon Road  College Boulevard – Physical Road Design Options Analysis No  Option Description  Advantage (Pros)  Challenges (Cons)  Unintended consequences Approx. Cost Range 1  Radar feedback signs   Lowest cost alternative  Gain information and data regarding existing traffic operations to help with enforcement and analyze if additional measures are needed  No change to challenges of signalized intersection  Sign Pollution  Waning driver response  May promote requests for additional radar feedback signs in other locations.  $195K 2  Redesign the road segment with a lower design speed   Drivers familiar with two vehicular travel lanes and signals.  Does not address signal challenges   Reduces Capacity   questionable public support  would require an extensive public input process.  Possibly redirect traffic to other routes.  Revise the Growth Management Plan $4 to $6 million 3  One lane roundabouts and one vehicular travel lane and buffered bicycle lanes   Addresses the intersection safety issues, keeps existing median  Cost  Limits vehicular capacity near 20k ADT  Questionable public support  Would require long extensive public input process.  Possibly redirect traffic to other routes.  Revise the Growth Management Plan $6 to $8 million 4  Two lane roundabouts and two travel lanes  Improves the efficiency of the intersection and the capacity of the road segment.  Cost  May increase higher vehicular capacity near 40k ADT  Multilane Roundabouts are less ped friendly.   Create additional congestion points on other arterial segments. $8 to $12 million  Exhibit 2 – Physical Options for College Boulevard North of Cannon Road   Questionable public support  Would require long extensive public input process 5  Vertical deflection including raised speed tables at intersections and speed cushions in‐between intersections   Costs are lower than other options.   Questionable public support   Would require substernal public input process  Additional slowing and accelerating along corridor  Increased fuel use, emissions and greenhouse gases  Other parts of the community may request the vertical deflection and results in proliferation throughout town.  Environmental Impacts noise and pollution.   $2 to $4 million 6  Pedestrian Bridge  Creates separated pedestrian pathway away from vehicular traffic.   Cost  Low cost to benefit ratio  Pedestrians prefer the quickest route and tend not to use bridge crossings  Long term maintenance costs.  Difficult conforming with ADA $1 to $3 million    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. 1 May 4, 2020 Nathan Schmidt, AICP Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager Staff Liaison: Traffic and Mobility Commission 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Agenda Item #4, May 4 T&MC Commission Meeting Dear Mr. Schmidt, We represent a group of residents, parents and school crossing guards who are concerned about the safety of people, especially children, who use College Boulevard to get to and from school. We ask that you share this letter with all members of the Traffic and Mobility Commission (TMC) and appropriate city staff. First, we are very appreciative of you and Commissioner Linke’s visit to our neighborhood on the morning of March 10th. You both had an opportunity to speak with our crossing guards and our residents about their concerns, experiences and ideas for improving street safety, especially around Calavera Hills Elementary and Middle School. We hope that this visit gave you additional insight and appreciation of the challenges and risks we face living adjacent to an arterial road with high speeds especially one where children have to cross to get to school. Second, thank you for highlighting the Mobility Element in the Carlsbad General Plan, which identifies complete and livable streets as a top strategic focus area for the city. The report acknowledges that historically, transportation projects have favored vehicle movement and traffic control over other types of transportation. However, throughout California, the nation and the world, best-in-class cities support a new paradigm, one that prioritizes the reduction of vehicle traffic to improve safety, air quality and congestion and promote the overall health and welfare of communities. This shift promotes a broad-based plan of multi- modal transportation that envisions enhanced walking, biking and public transportation options rather than an emphasis on single-occupancy vehicles. More important, however, decision makers at every level 2 choose to prioritize human life and pedestrian safety over vehicle needs. We understand that College Boulevard is a designated arterial street and is not eligible for CRTMP as currently written. Fortunately, the Carlsbad Livable Street Guide does allow for ‘special consideration on arterials within proximity to schools to enhance Safe Routes to Schools for pedestrians and bicyclists.’ By making our roads safer for pedestrians, we increase the likelihood that families will walk or bike, rather than drive the short distance to school thus reducing congestion, pollution and the cost of road maintenance. Third, thank you for a very detailed and thorough analysis of options to address our concerns. We appreciate staff’s time to develop this report and your responsiveness. We surveyed the Calavera Hills Traffic Safety Group for their feedback on the options presented and asked that they rank choice their preferences. High speed on College Blvd continues to be of significant concern. There was some variety of response in the actual ranking, but overall agreement on preferred options, so we included the respondents’ top three preferences as a percentage. Here are the results: Option 1: 92% favored Option 2: 77% favored Option 3: 8% favored Option 4: 46% favored Option 5: 15% favored Option 6: 15% favored Several residents pointed out that there should be a no right turn on red signal (like in the Village) during peak hours turning right from Carlsbad Village Drive onto College Blvd south. Also, our crossing guard would like to know what could be done to improve the safety for children crossing College Blvd. from Tamarack South. Currently, there is no left turn lane or dedicated left turn signal for cars turning left onto College Blvd north. The crossing guard is posted on the east side of College Blvd at this intersection and frequently has to run into the street to prevent cars from turning left when children are in the crossing. Based on his direct experience, he is very concerned about this intersection. 3 Thank you for the opportunity to be heard and for soliciting input from the residents who are most impacted by this issue. We look forward to a continued dialogue and to seeing the expeditious implementation of projects that improve the safety for our community, especially our children. Sincerely, Calavera Hills Traffic Safety Group Sandy Ahearn Will and Jackie Bynagte Teresa Curella Dana Ebete Sharon Edmiston Tom Gardner James Houghton Shauna Hurst Christine Inocelda Angela McCarthy Lela Panagides Mark NeSmith Carmen Rene Jim Simmonds Carolyn Koumaras Jennifer van Riet Donna Ruiz Lily Sampica Brad Sampica Iris Valdez 4 Addendum https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/higher-speed-limits-led-to-36760- more-deaths-study-shows/ Person 1 4, 2, 1 Person 2 1, 5, 2 Person 3 1,2,4 Person 4 1,2 Person 5 1,2, Person 6 3,4 Person 7 1 Person 8 1,2 Person 9 1,2,4 Person 10 1,5,6 Person 11 1,2,4 Person 12 1,2,4 Person 13 6,2,1 College Blvd intersections 5/4/2020 T&MC meeting Commissioner Linke Tamarack North Tamarack South CVD