The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-06-01; Traffic and Mobility Commission; ; MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGYItem 4 Meeting Date: June 1, 2020 To: Traffic and Mobility Commission Staff Contact: Nathan Schmidt, Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager, Public Works Nathan.schmidt@carlsbadca.gov, 760‐602‐2734 Subject: Multimodal Level of Service Methodology Recommended Actions Receive report. Executive Summary This report provides an overview of the City of Carlsbad’s multimodal level of service (MMLOS) methodology for pedestrian and bicycle travel modes. This report is intended to inform the Traffic and Mobility Commission of the methodology prior to reviewing the results of the pedestrian and bicycle MMLOS as part of the FY 2018‐19 Growth Management Plan (GMP) Monitoring Report at a future meeting. Discussion Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) For the first time in City of Carlsbad history, bicycle and pedestrian travel modes were monitored in FY 2018‐19. Since this is the first time that staff is monitoring bicycle and pedestrian travel modes and using the MMLOS tool, this data and the MMLOS results will be evaluated to identify if adjustments to the new MMLOS methodology are warranted. The MMLOS method to measure service to pedestrian and bicycle modes was originally developed as part of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and is provided in Exhibit 1. This approach (the development of the MMLOS tool) is unique to the City of Carlsbad, but is similar to methodologies used by other jurisdictions. The Carlsbad MMLOS approach reports a letter grade (A thru F) that reflects the quality of service provided to a user of that mode of travel based on the attributes of the associated pedestrian, bicycle or transit facility. Each attribute contributes to a point system that, when the total points for all attributes are added together, corresponds to a MMLOS letter grade. The MMLOS tool, used to monitor the LOS for individual streets based on minimum operating standards defined by street type, was finalized July 2018 with some modifications made. The MMLOS thresholds are presented in Table 1 below. 2 The detailed MMLOS scoring sheets for pedestrian and bicycle travel modes are provided in Exhibit 2. Table 1: Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) Thresholds Point Score LOS 90 ‐ 100 A 80 ‐ 89 B 70 ‐ 79 C 60 ‐69 D 41 ‐ 59 E 0 – 40 F Source: City of Carlsbad Pedestrian MMLOS Methodology The Pedestrian MMLOS scoring criteria was established so that a facility can meet the LOS D standard if it can adequately serve people who walk and disabled users. Additionally, five criteria were identified that support the City of Carlsbad’s Climate Action Plan goals. A facility segment must fulfill a majority of these criteria to be assigned a score commensurate with LOS D. The scoring criteria include, but are not limited to the following:  Design consistent with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Design (MUTCD)  Sidewalk width, condition, and ramps and landing consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)  Street light locations  Speed limit and number of through lanes  Sidewalk buffer width from traffic  Presence of a landscaped buffer  Safety and speed control at crossings along the segment  Presence of street tress. Bicycle MMLOS Methodology The Bicycle LOS scoring criteria was established so that a facility can meet the LOS D standard if it meets the expectations laid out in the Bike Master Plan. Similar to Pedestrian LOS, three criteria were identified that support the CAP. A facility segment must fulfill a majority of these criteria in order to be assigned a score of LOS D. The scoring criteria include:  Roadway pavement conditions and presence of obstructions  Design of bikeway consistent with the MUTCD  Presence of on street parking and parking type  Speed limit  Bicycle facility designation and consistency with the Bicycle Master Plan for the study segment and intersecting segments 3  Presence of bicycle detection  Presence of bicycle racks. MMLOS Monitoring Tool The Carlsbad MMLOS tool provides a cost‐effective and locally validated method of determining deficiencies in the non‐automobile transportation network based on easily obtained quantitative information. Analyses can be performed by both City staff and developer consultants to ultimately ensure compliance with the Growth Management Program (GMP) monitoring efforts. Print outs of the Carlsbad MMLOS tool and corresponding data entry sheets for pedestrian and bicycle travel modes are provided in Exhibit 2. Next Steps Staff will present the findings of the Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report for fiscal year 2018‐19 including the MMLOS results for pedestrian and bicycle travel modes at the July 2020 Traffic and Mobility Commission meeting. In addition, staff will initiate a task to update and revise the MMLOS methodology as needed. Staff will gather stakeholder feedback on the multi‐modal level of service (MMLOS) tool including review by the Traffic and Mobility Commission. Based on the feedback received staff will update the MMLOS methodology accordingly and apply the updated MMLOS tool to City streets as part of the FY 2019‐20 annual monitoring process. Exhibits 1. Carlsbad General Plan Mobility Element 2. Carlsbad MMLOS Tool with Input Worksheets for Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel Modes 3-11 Mobility3 General Plan TABLE 3–1: CARLSBAD LIVABLE STREETS GUIDE STREET TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES ACCOMMODATED MODES SUBJECT TO MMLOS STANDARD (Y/N) STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES Freeways Y • High-speed facilities designed to accommodate vehicles and buses moving through the city and region • Bicycles and pedestrians are prohibitedY Arterial Streets Y •These are the primary vehicle routes through the city for both local and regional vehicle trips. •Designed to safely move all modes of travel while efficiently moving vehicles and buses throughout the city. • Traffic signals shall be coordinated to optimize vehicle movements •Bicycle lanes shall be provided and can be further enhanced or complemented by other facilities or off-street pathways •Pedestrian facilities to be provided consistent with ADA requirements •Mid-block crossings should not be provided •On-street parking should be prohibited along these corridors •Vertical traffic calming techniques (such as speed tables, humps, etc.) should not be considered •Special considerations can be considered on arterials within proximity to schools to enhance Safe Routes to Schools for pedestrians and bicyclists. N N Y Identity Streets N •These streets provide the primary access to and from the heart of the city - the Village •Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists •Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle movement •No pedestrian shall cross more than five vehicular travel and/or turn lanes •In addition to ADA compliant ramps and sidewalks, sidewalks should support the adja- cent land uses as follows: –Adjacent to retail uses, modified/new sidewalks should generally be a minimum of 10 feet (12 feet preferred) in width where feasible and taking into consideration the traffic volumes of the adjacent roadway, and allow for the land use to utilize the sidewalk with outdoor seating and other activities –Adjacent to residential uses, modified/new sidewalks should be a minimum of six feet in width Elsewhere, modified/new sidewalks should be a minimum of eight feet in width •Where feasible, bicycle lanes should be provided •Vehicle speeds should complement the adjacent land uses •Bicycle parking should be provided in retail areas •Bike racks should be readily provided within the public right-of-way and encouraged on private property •Traffic calming devices, such as curb extensions (bulbouts) or enhanced pedestrian crossings should be considered and evaluated for implementation •Street furniture shall be oriented toward the businesses •Mid-block pedestrian crossings could be provided at appropriate locations (e.g. where sight distance is adequate and speeds are appropriate) •On-street vehicle parking should be provided. In areas with high parking demand, in- novative parking management techniques should be implemented / considered •Pedestrians should typically be “buffered” from vehicle traffic using landscaping or parked vehicles Y Y N Exhibit 1 - General Plan Mobility Element Iii:. ~ Iii:. ~ A ~ Iii:. ~ A ~ 3-12 City of Carlsbad Mobility3 TABLE 3–1: CARLSBAD LIVABLE STREETS GUIDE STREET TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES ACCOMMODATED MODES SUBJECT TO MMLOS STANDARD (Y/N) STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES Village Streets N • Primary purpose is to move people throughout the Village; providing access to busi- nesses, residences, transit and recreation within the Village area. • Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle movement • Promote pedestrian and bicycle connectivity through short block lengths • Bicycle lanes should be provided • Bicycle boulevards can be considered • Pedestrians should be accommodated on sidewalks adjacent to the travel way (mini- mum 5’ wide sidewalk) • Mid-block pedestrian crossings and traffic calming devices should be considered, but only at locations with high pedestrian activity levels or major destinations/attractions • On-street parking may be provided Y Y N Arterial Connector Streets Y • Primary purpose is to connect people to different areas and land uses of the city by con- necting to/from arterial streets • Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists and efficiently moving vehicles between arterial streets. • Bicycle lanes should be provided • Pedestrians should be accommodated on sidewalks adjacent to the travel way (mini- mum 5’ wide sidewalk) • Mid-block pedestrian crossings and traffic calming devices should be considered, but only at locations with high pedestrian activity levels or major destinations/attractions • On-street parking may be provided Y Y N Neighborhood Connector Street N • Primary purpose is to connect people to different neighborhoods and land uses of the city • Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle movement • Bicycle lanes should be provided • Bicycle boulevards can be considered • Pedestrians should be accommodated on sidewalks adjacent to the travel way (mini- mum 5’ wide sidewalk) • Mid-block pedestrian crossings and traffic calming devices should be considered, but only at locations with high pedestrian activity levels or major destinations/attractions • On-street parking may be provided Y Y N itj;; ~ A ~ itj;; ~ A ~ jj;; ~ A ~ 3-13 Mobility3 General Plan TABLE 3–1: CARLSBAD LIVABLE STREETS GUIDE STREET TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES ACCOMMODATED MODES SUBJECT TO MMLOS STANDARD (Y/N) STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES Employment/Transit Connector Streets N • Primary purpose is to connect people to and from the employment areas of the city, as well as important destinations and major transit facilities. • Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists and efficiently moving buses to employment, transit stations and major destinations. • Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle movement • Direct connections to bus stops should be provided • Enhanced bus stops should be considered that include shelters, benches, and lighting • Bicycle lanes and sidewalks should be provided • Pedestrian crossing distances should be minimized • On-street parking may be provided Y Y Y Coastal Streets N • Primary purpose is to move people along the city’s ocean waterfront and connect people to the beach, recreation, businesses and residences in close proximity to the waterfront. The street serves as a destination for people who seek to drive, walk and bicycle along the ocean waterfront. • Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Vehicle speeds shall be managed to support uses along the coast • Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian crossings should be provided, including: –High visibility crosswalks –Enhanced pedestrian notifications (e.g. responsive push-button devices) –Enhanced bicycle detection –Bicycle lanes shall be provided and can be further enhanced or complemented by other facilities (such as bicycle lane buffers or off-street pathways) • Pedestrian facilities should be a minimum of five feet and shall strive for six to eight feet in width and shall conform to ADA requirements • Pedestrian crossing distances should be minimized • Trail facilities should be encouraged • Opportunities for mid-block pedestrian crossings should be investigated • On-street parking should be provided • Transit facility and operation improvements should be encouraged Y Y N .., ff A ~ .., ff A ~ 3-14 City of Carlsbad Mobility3 TABLE 3–1: CARLSBAD LIVABLE STREETS GUIDE STREET TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES ACCOMMODATED MODES SUBJECT TO MMLOS STANDARD (Y/N) STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES School Streets N • Primary purpose is to connect people to schools from nearby residential neighbor- hoods. • Designed to safely move all modes of travel with an emphasis on providing safe pedes- trian and bicycle access for students traveling to and from nearby schools. • Vehicle speeds shall be managed to support school uses (typically 25 MPH) • Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian crossings should be provided, including: –High visibility crosswalks –Enhanced pedestrian notifications (e.g. responsive push-button devices) –Enhanced bicycle detection –Bicycle lanes shall be provided and can be further enhanced or complemented by other facilities or off-street pathways • Pedestrian facilities should be a minimum of six feet and shall strive for eight feet in width and shall conform to ADA requirements • Pedestrian crossing distances should be minimized • Opportunities for mid-block pedestrian crossings should be investigated • Traffic calming devices that improve service levels and safety for pedestrians and bicy- clists should be considered Y Y N Industrial Streets Y • Primary purpose is to connect people to businesses within the city’s industrial parks. • Designed to safely move all modes of travel while efficiently moving vehicles and buses from arterial streets and employment/transit connector streets to businesses. • Traffic calming devices are generally discouraged given the propensity for larger trucks and heavy vehicles in this area • On-street parking may be provided as long as it does not interfere with the turning radii of heavy vehicles. N N Y Local/Neighborhood Street N • Primary purpose is to connect people to and through residential neighborhoods and local areas of the city. • Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle movement • Pedestrians should be accommodated on a sidewalk or soft surface trail (such as de- composed granite) unless those facilities are inconsistent with the existing desirable neighborhood character • Bicycles can be accommodated with a bicycle lane or route if vehicle volumes and/or speeds necessitate; otherwise bicycles can share the street • Bicycle boulevards can be considered • Traffic calming measures should be considered when supported by the neighborhood or when warranted for safety reasons • On-street parking should be considered Y Y N ~ I ~ ~ ;liii;. I A ~ Ii:. I ~ ~ 3-15 Mobility3 General Plan Multi-Modal Levels of Service Traditionally, transportation systems have been designed to achieve a level of service from the perspective of the driver, not pedestrians or bicyclists. However, cities throughout the country are now designing their transportation systems to achieve levels of service for all travel modes. Some cities, such as Fort Collins, CO, San Francisco, CA, Gainesville, FL, Charlotte, NC, and others, have been doing this for more than a decade; and in 2010, national guidelines were developed by the Transportation Research Board to encourage other cities to establish levels of service for all travel modes. The California Complete Streets Act (2008) requires cities in California to plan for a balanced, multi-modal transportation system that meets the needs of all travel modes. This Mobility Element establishes a multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) methodology for Carlsbad that determines the vehicle level of service by the Highway Capacity Manual and evaluates the service levels for pedestri- ans, bicyclists and transit users. The city’s MMLOS methodology will provide a qualitative “grade” assigned to specified travel modes (see Table 3-1), ranging from a level of service (LOS) A to LOS F. LOS A reflects a high service standard for a travel mode (e.g. outstanding characteristics and experience for that mode) and LOS F would reflect a poor service standard for a travel mode (e.g. congestion for vehicles, no bicycle, pedes- trian, or transit facilities, etc.). Thresholds are identified to balance supply and demand to create a sustainable system of public right-of-way, keeping in mind TABLE 3–1: CARLSBAD LIVABLE STREETS GUIDE STREET TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES ACCOMMODATED MODES SUBJECT TO MMLOS STANDARD (Y/N) STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES Bicycle/Pedestrian Pathway Y • Primary purpose is to provide safe bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the com- munity by connecting people to residences, businesses and recreation uses. • For bicycles and pedestrians only – no vehicular access is permitted • Serves commuters and recreational usersY Streets within ½ Mile of a Transit Center N • Primary purpose is to connect people to/from the city’s transit centers. • Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists and efficiently moving vehicles and buses to/from transit centers. • Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle movement • Provides access to the Breeze/COASTER system via enhanced bicycle/pedestrian connec- tivity or via shuttle service from the stations to the ultimate destination • Could include enhanced transit systems, such as signal priority for transit, dedicated ROW for transit, or queue bypass lanes. • Mid-block pedestrian crossings and traffic calming devices should be considered in these areas • Parking should be provided and managed using innovative parking techniques Y Y Y I A ,ai;, I A ~ Point Score LOS 90‐100 A 80‐89 B 70‐79 C 60‐69 D 50‐59 E 0‐49 F IMPORTANT: This tool requires macros to be enabled in Excel. MMLOS TOOL TOOL INSTRUCTIONS PURPOSE Similar to many cities throughout the United States, the City of Carlsbad desires to evaluate transportation services of roadways from a multi‐modal perspective. As a result, the Mobility Element of the City's General Plan presents a multi‐modal level of service (MMLOS) methodology that identifies attributes of a location and identifies a qualitative LOS grade based on the attributes of the pedestrian, bicycle or transit facility. Fehr & Peers has taken the Carlsbad MMLOS approach and has developed this tool, which provides a user‐ friendly platform to evaluate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit level of service. This tool can be used by developers as they prepare a transportation impact study for their proposed land use development, as well as by City staff for their infrastructure projects in Carlsbad. MMLOS POINT SYSTEM & RATING MMLOS Point System Each travel mode (i.e. pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facility) receives its own LOS score and corresponding letter grade as shown in the table below. The City strives to maintain LOS D or better for each mode of travel. However, as stated in the Mobility Element, there is no required minimum level of service for some travel modes on some types of streets, since the intent is to provide a balanced mobility system which may not always provide an optimum level of service for all travel modes on a facility. Please refer to Table 3‐1 in the Mobility Element (also shown to the right) to verify whether or not the MMLOS standard is applicable for a particular mode along a certain street typology. Exhibit 2 : Carlsbad MMLOS Tool City of Carlsbad MMLOS Scoping Requirements: All pedestrian facilities/access points located along all frontages and to the nearest intersections in both directions, to include all sidewalks, crosswalks, signalized pedestrian crossings, and ADA‐compliant facilities. 1. Refer to the latest Mobility Element for additional background on the City's livable streets approach to provide a balanced mobility system that identifies the travel modes for which levels should be enhanced and maintained per the MMLOS standard (LOS D or better). 2. A glossary sheet is available as an additional tab. Typical terms are defined within this glossary. Helpful maps can be seen by clicking on this icon. Clear all button. Roadway Info Section: Fill out the extents and general characteristics of the study roadway segment being evaluated for MMLOS operations. This section only needs to be filled out once and will be applied to all the other tabs. Transit_Detail: Produces the point allocation across all the transit‐related criteria. This output produces these results automatically as the user answers each criteria in the Transit Tab. Transit Tab: Answer the following transit‐related questions using their respective pull down menus. Please note that transit amenities section requires toggling the amenities provided within the study segment. HELPFUL HINTS Pedestrian LOS: The Carlsbad MMLOS method evaluates the quality of the pedestrian system (e.g. number of vehicle lanes that need to be crossed and the speed of adjacent traffic) and the friendliness of the infrastructure at intersections (e.g. pedestrian countdown heads, dedicated pedestrian phases (e.g. a scramble phase), curb extensions, refuge median). In addition, the connectivity and contiguity of the pedestrian system along street sections (particularly ADA‐compliant connectivity/contiguity) is a critical component of pedestrian facilities. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Ped Tab: Answer the following pedestrian‐related questions using their respective pull down menus. Please note that some criteria require manual data input. Bike Tab: Answer the following bicycle‐related questions using their respective pull down menus. Please note that some criteria require manual data input. Roadway Direction Section: Use the pull down menu to set the roadway segment direction being evaluated. This section only needs to be filled out once and will be applied to all the other tabs. Score & LOS Section: The MMLOS point score and corresponding LOS rating for each travel mode auto‐ calculates as each criteria is answered. Ped_Detail: Produces the point allocation across all the pedestrian‐related criteria. This output produces these results automatically as the user answers each criteria in the Ped Tab. Bike_Detail: Produces the point allocation across all the bicycle‐related criteria. This output produces these results automatically as the user answers each criteria in the Bike Tab. CRITERIA NOTES MMLOS Scoping Requirements: All bicycle facilities located along all frontages and to the nearest intersections in both directions, to include all off‐street and on‐street bicycle paths, lanes and routes. Signing and Striping Design Guidelines: Until the City develops design guidelines, use the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000, and AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012) Striped Continuously Through: Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes or driveways Examples of Traffic Calming Features: Speed humps, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, textured pavement, traffic circles, roundabouts, chicanes, re‐aligned intersections, neckdowns, center island narrowings, chokers, median barriers, etc. Examples of Apparent Sight Distance Issues: Physical obstructions Active Building Frontage Examples: Pedestrian attracting frontages, such as active storefronts and recreational spaces Examples of Trip Hazards: Uneven or raised concrete sidewalks and curbs BICYCLE FACILITIES Bicycle LOS: The Carlsbad MMLOS method evaluates the quality of the bicycle system (e.g. bicycle route, bicycle lanes, or bicycle pathway; presence of bicycle buffers from the vehicle travel way), the amenities of the system (e.g. presence of bicycle parking), and the friendliness of the infrastructure (e.g. bicycle detection at intersections, pavement conditions, presence of vehicle parking). In addition, the connectivity and contiguity of the bicycle system along street sections is a critical component of bicycle facilities. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Requirements: Below are links to helpful resources in determining whether or not the sidewalks, ramps, and/or landings are ADA compliant. • https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/Guidance2010ADAstandards.htm • https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm • http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/camutcd/camutcd2014rev1.html California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) Standards: Below is a link to the latest CA MUTCD. Please review the appropriate chapters to determine whether or not crosswalks appropriately. Essential Features (indicated with "*"): The first five criteria are essential features. For the sidewalk width input, a minimum 4 feet must be entered in order to meet ADA unobstructed width requirements. Active Building Frontages Storefront windows and entrances, patio seating and other ground floor building features attractive and accessible to pedestrians. American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements Ensure that facilities comply with standards for accessible design. Average Daily Traffic (ADT)The vehicle count on a given street segment within a 24‐hour period, typically on a weekday. Bicycle Master Plan City of Carlsbad planning document detailing the city’s goals and policies for the future development of bicycle facilities and programs. Bikeway A generic term for any road, street, path, or way which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. Bulbout Extends the corner sidewalk at an intersection, which reduces the crossing distance for pedestrians and typically installed as a traffic calming measure. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) Provides standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices in California. The 2014 CA MUTCD is the latest edition of the publication. Climate Action Plan (CAP) Designed to reduce Carlsbad’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and streamline environmental review of future development projects in the city in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Chokers Curb extensions at midblock locations that narrow a street by widening the sidewalk or planting strip. They are good for areas with substantial speed problems and no on‐ street parking shortage. Countdown Heads A feature of pedestrian signals indicating the amount of seconds left for pedestrians to cross the street during the current signal phase. Cross‐Slope An important cross‐sectional design element that refers to a slope that is perpendicular to the direction of travel. Cycle Track An exclusive bike facility that combines the user experience of a separated path with the on‐street infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. Headways The time between transit vehicles on the same route. Landing A level area at the top or bottom of a ramp allowing people with mobility impairments to move completely off the ramp and onto the sidewalk or street. Landscape Buffer The planting strip located between a sidewalk and street. Mobility Element The section of the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan directly pertaining to transportation. Mobility Hub Provides an integrated suite of mobility services, amenities, and technologies to bridge the distance between high‐frequency transit and an individual’s origin or destination. Multi‐Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) Evaluates the safety and quality of access and mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. Pedestrian Refuge Also known as a refuge island or pedestrian island. A small section of pavement or sidewalk surrounded by asphalt or other road materials, where pedestrians can stop before finishing crossing a road. Pedestrian Scale Lighting A lighting source that provides lighting for public pathways and gathering areas, which increase the perception of safety for pedestrians. Pedestrian Signal Phasing A form of intersection traffic signal phasing allowing pedestrians adequate time to cross the street. Permanent Speed Control Devices Also known as radar speed signs or speed feedback signs; traffic‐calming devices that display actual speed against the posted speed limit and alert drivers traveling at excessive speeds to slow down. Glossary Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) A flashing warning beacon system installed at crosswalks that increases the visibility of pedestrians crossing the road and creates a safer pedestrian crossing environment. Ridesharing The sharing of vehicle trips so that more than one person travels in a car, also known as carpooling. Right‐Turn Median Island A refuge area for pedestrians located between through travel lanes and channelized right‐turn lanes at an intersection. Street Typology Each street in the City of Carlsbad is classified as a specific type of street based on characteristics that include the location, adjacent land uses, and the desired use of that facility. Subsidized To support with a subsidy or form of financial assistance. Through Lanes Travel lanes on a roadway carrying traffic straight through an intersection or street segment. Transit Priority Measures or techniques designed to minimize delays to transit (buses) at intersections and along congested roadways ensuring a faster commute time for passengers. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) The application of strategies and policies to reduce single‐occupancy vehicle travel demand and yield a more efficient use of transportation resources. ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total) PEDESTRIAN Roadway Direction * Do pedestrian crossings appear consistent with the CA MUTCD? * Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet (Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'): * Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g., cross‐slope and trip hazards)? * Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA requirements? * Do the street light locations appear adequate? Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph): Number of Through Lanes: Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge? (Include turn lanes in count) Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian facility and vehicle travel way: Does on‐street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way? Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings? Are there any permanent speed control devices installed? Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median island)? Do crosswalks appear to be high visibility? Are there intersection enhancements provided for pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown heads)? Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at street crossings? Is there pedestrian scale lighting? Do active building frontages appear to be present on 80% of street curb line? Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards businesses or attractions? Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more than 50% of the sidewalk length? Arterial Connector 7,000 *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). 0 | F SCORE | LOS 0 | F SCORE | LOS X 00 Points Points Assigned Points Assigned * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 5' if unspecified) 10 0 0 Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified)50 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk segments meet ADA requirements (cross‐slope and trip hazards) 10 0 0 Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10 0 0 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 0 0 On‐street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 50 0 Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 50 0 Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 0 0 Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 0 0 Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 0 0 No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings 50 0 Permanent speed control devices installed on segments posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 50 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 0 0 Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the CA MUTCD)50 0 Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median island) 10 0 0 Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian‐friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown heads, signage, etc.) 10 0 0 RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light locations appear adequate 10 0 0 Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational spaces) 50 0 Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk length 50 0 Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0 Pedestrian scale lighting 5 0 0 00 FF No No Other Elements Accessibility and functionality Total Score: All Essential Feature Criteria Met? Pedestrian LOS: Street characteristics Crossing characteristics Criteria Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total) BICYCLE Roadway Direction *Do the roadway pavement conditions appear to be good (e.g., no pot holes)? *Does bike facility on roadway appear to be free of obstructions (e.g., drainage grates)? *Does the bicycle facility appear to meet MUTCD signing and striping design guidelines? Is on‐street parking provided? Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph): Does the bikeway on the study segment and side streets meet and/or exceed the Bicycle Master Plan? Is there enhanced bicycle detection or video detection provided at intersections? Any bicycle racks are provided along segment? Bicycle Facility Provided: Arterial Connector 7,000 0 | F SCORE | LOS 0 | F SCORE | LOS X *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). 00 Points Points Assigned Points Assigned Speed limit is ≤ 25 mph 25 0 0 Speed limit is 30 mph 15 0 0 Speed limit is 35 mph 10 0 0 Street with ADT < 3,000 15 0 0 Street with ADT between 3,000 and 6,000 10 0 0 Class I facility (off‐street path), Class IV (cycle track), or multiuse path 25 0 0 Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on‐street bicycle lanes)15 0 0 Bike lane buffer (2' min) is provided 5 0 0 Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only) 5 0 0 Additional traffic calming/speed management features have been applied to Class III facility (i.e. a bike boulevard)10 0 0 Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 25 0 0 Bike lane (including buffer) is at least 8' wide from face of curb 10 0 0 Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet design guidelines D 10 0 0 Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes) 10 0 0 Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates) 5 0 0 Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master Plan along segment 50 0 Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes or driveways 50 0 No on‐street parking and speed limit is 25 or 30 mph 5 0 0 Back‐in angled parking 5 0 0 Parallel parking with door‐side buffered bike lane 5 0 0 Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at intersections 50 0 Bicycle racks are provided along segment 5 0 0 00 FF Total Score: Bike LOS: Connectivity/ Contiguity Adjacent Vehicle Parking Other Elements Facility Bicycle MMLOS Criteria Criteria Street Characteristics Bikeway Design 1 Traffic and Mobility Commission, Commissioner Correspondence From: Commissioner Steve Linke Meeting Date: June 1, 2020 Subject: Item #4 - Multimodal Level of Service Methodology Introduction Carlsbad’s multimodal level of service (MMLOS) system came into existence in the Mobility Element of the 2015 General Plan update and should have been assessed as part of the City’s annual Growth Management Plan (GMP) monitoring since then. Similar to the rules on vehicle LOS, if a street facility prioritized for the pedestrian, bicycle, or transit mode of travel has an MMLOS grade worse than “D,” it should trigger a GMP deficiency and, theoretically, result in a development shutdown in the corresponding zone(s) until the deficiency is addressed. The upcoming GMP report will be the first time MMLOS results are reported for annual monitoring. However, various planning and traffic impact analysis documents developed since 2014 have included MMLOS results, and it is very concerning that at least four different point/grading systems (perhaps more) have been employed with highly variable results during that time (see below). It is unclear how all of these systems were developed, or whether the results have been validated by comparing them with established research –based standards and real-world observations. Carlsbad’s old custom vehicle LOS methods concealed street facility deficiencies that have existed for 10+ years, which are only now being revealed by applying the externally validated service volume table method adopted in 2018. We have already dealt with eight vehicle LOS deficient facilities from the last monitoring report, and there will be more such deficiencies in the upcoming report that were held out of the last one. Similarly, I believe one of the primary driving forces behind the continuing evolution of Carlsbad’s customized MMLOS point/grade systems has been to ensure that there are few (or no) failing facilities that would trigger GMP deficiencies. In fact, some of the exact same facilities change from LOS grade “F” to “A” between the oldest and newest systems (see below). While that may reduce the controversies surrounding deficiencies and allow development to proceed, it does not fulfill the GMP’s requirement that infrastructure keep up with growth by ensuring developer or city funding of needed improvement projects. In addition, only the pedestrian and bicycle LOS methodologies are being presented. That is likely due to the fact that transit LOS would be deficient on many facilities citywide, in the absence of the blanket exemption staff has created based on the existence of an adopted Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance—regardless of how effective it is. It has now been nearly five years since the General Plan update was adopted, and the widespread deficiencies for all modes of travel continue to be rolled out slowly to seemingly spread the pain. The MMLOS system should not be treated as a “living document” that can be tweaked to get a desired result. However, without access to the MMLOS grades assigned to the facilities in the FY 2018-19 GMP 2 Monitoring Report, it is very difficult to assess whether the current methodologies reflect real-world conditions—or how they could be modified to make them better. Also, the staff report includes screenshots of the spreadsheet-based “Carlsbad MMLOS Tool,” but that tool was not provided for review to allow the commission to see how it works. We are being forced to fly blind. Recommendation One of the four MMLOS systems used software to generate grades based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Apart from trying to manually pick apart all of the point values in Carlsbad’s customized MMLOS methods, I would recommend that we just use the HCM method. The likely disadvantage of that approach is that it may require special software and/or an expert consultant to generate the results, as opposed to the more user-friendly spreadsheet-based tool. In that case, I would recommend doing a one-time, citywide validation of the custom Carlsbad tool by comparing the results with the HCM method (or other research-supported method) and conducting real-world observations for any discrepancies. Then, if the spreadsheet tool is modified in the future, it should be re-validated with the research-based method. Evolution of the customized Carlsbad MMLOS methodologies Below are the various Carlsbad MMLOS point/grading systems I have seen in public records. This is intended to show alternatives and the high variability in the results. 1. Original 10-point system (~2014-2015) The initial MMLOS system was included in the General Plan’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) first released in 2014 (Attachment 1). Generally, a maximum of 10 points is available for each mode, and the grades from “A” through “F” are assigned based on ranges of points on a 0 to 10 scale. This system also was cited in the Carlsbad Active Transportation Strategy (CATS) and some traffic impact analyses, including one for the Poinsettia 61 project. The EIR and CATS reported application of the MMLOS system to a very limited number of street facilities and disclosed several pedestrian, bicycle, and transit LOS deficiencies (LOS “E” or “F”) along Carlsbad Boulevard. 2. Transition to a 100-point system (~2015-2018) In the 2015-2018 timeframe, some traffic impact analyses started using a new system with scores ranging up to 100 points (e.g., Agua Hedionda mall, Legoland Hotel 2, Pacific Winds Apartments, and the McClellan-Palomar Airport). Many more point-generating criteria were added for each mode, and far more than 100 total points are actually available, particularly for the pedestrian (~180 available points) and transit (~200 available points) modes (Attachment 2). A maximum score of 100 is set, if more than 100 points are generated. 3. HCM-based system (~2018) A traffic analysis of the Terramar Area Coastal Improvement Project used CompleteStreetLOS software, which appears to be based on the HCM. This is a completely different—and far more 3 sophisticated—system, in which interactions between all of the modes are taken into account. The Sustainable Mobility Plan (SMP) also seems to include references to this system. For comparison purposes, the bicycle facilities in the subject area of Carlsbad Boulevard had LOS grades in the “C” to “D” range under both the original 10-point system and this HCM-based method, suggesting that they may have good correlation. The pedestrian facilities were generally “E” or “F” under the original 10-point system but “C” or “D” under this HCM method, suggesting that the 10-point system may be overly pessimistic by one or two letter grades. This all assumes there were no changes to the facilities between the analyses. 4. Current 100-point system (~2019-present) To create the current 100-point system, the point-generating criteria were further expanded and point values were tweaked (see the Staff Report for the current point system). The impact of the changes is very difficult to discern without some real-world examples. The original and current MMLOS methodologies produce completely different results (Poinsettia Lane traffic studies) Poinsettia Lane is prioritized for pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles, so it is subject to assessment of all of those modes. Two different MMLOS studies were done by the same consultant (LSA Associates, Inc.) on the same segments of Poinsettia Lane in the area adjacent to the gap closure that the commission recently reviewed—one in 2016 under the original 10-point system and another in 2019 under the current 100-point system. This allows a direct comparison of the methods. From the first to the second study, the pedestrian LOS grade was changed from an “F” (3.5 points on the 10-point scale) to an “A” (100 points on the 100-point scale), and the bicycle LOS grade was changed from a “D” (6.5 points on the 10-point scale) to a “B” or “A” (80-100 points on the 100-point scale). These changes demonstrate the consequences of the massive manipulations that have been done over time to the MMLOS methodologies. See Attachment 3 for details. I would also note that, despite the deficient pedestrian and bicycle facilities reported in the Poinsettia 61 EIR, that EIR also surprisingly states: “…implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to transportation/circulation; therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed.” Possible comparisons with other service quality metrics The SMP includes assessments of the pedestrian and bicycle environments in Carlsbad using Pedestrian Environment Quality Evaluation (PEQE) and Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analyses, respectively (see figures below). Perhaps these metrics also could be used as a basis for comparison with the LOS grades generated by Carlsbad’s MMLOS methodologies. 4 ESl QUALITY OF PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT PEQE Rating -High Medium -Low 5 Level of Traffic Stress Rating --1 or 2 (Less Stressful) --3 --4 (M:,st Slressful) 0 Gracie Separated Ra1 C~sing 0 At-Grade RaJ Crossing 0 &-5 Crossing • !, ' I. ' '1 ' \ • • \ Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad General Plan Update Chapter 3.13: Transportation 3.13-16 Method to Evaluate Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Level of Service The Carlsbad MMLOS approach identifies attributes of a location and identifies a qualitative LOS grade based on the attributes of the pedestrian, bicycle or transit facility. Each attribute contributes to a point system that, when the total points for all attributes are added together, corresponds to a qualitative letter grade as shown in Table 3.13-2 below. The specifics for each MMLOS component are further described below. Table 3.13-2: MMLOS Point System and LOS Rating Point Score LOS 9.0-10 A 8.0-8.99 B 7.0-7.99 C 6.0-6.99 D 5.0-5.99 E 0-4.99 F Pedestrian MMLOS For pedestrian priority streets, the MMLOS criteria evaluates the quality of the pedestrian system (e.g. number of vehicle lanes that need to be crossed and the speed of adjacent traffic) and the friendliness of the infrastructure at intersections (e.g. pedestrian countdown heads, dedicated pedestrian phases (e.g. a scramble phase), curb extensions, refuge median). The pedestrian level of service criteria are outlined below in Table 3.13-3. Table 3.13-3: Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria Criteria Evaluated Point System Total number of lanes (including travel lanes and turn lanes) at a pedestrian crossing ¥4 points for roads with two lanes or fewer; or ¥3 points for roads with three lanes; or ¥2 points for roads with four lanes; or ¥1 point for roads with five lanes; or ¥0 points for roads with more than five lanes Crossing Quality ¥0.5 points for presence of a pedestrian refuge ¥0.5 points for well-marked crossways and mid-block crossings at safe and convenient locations ¥0.5 points for signing, striping, sidewalks, and other elements that suggest the presence of a pedestrian crossing ¥0.5 points for rectangular rapid flashing beacons at an uncontrolled crossing ¥0.5 points for drivers and pedestrians having unobstructed views of each other ¥0.5 points for posted speeds of 25 miles per hour or less ¥0.25 points for posted speeds of 30 miles per hour or less Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad General Plan Update Chapter 3.13: Transportation 3.13-18 Table 3.13-3: Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria Criteria Evaluated Point System Other Elements ¥1 point for active building frontages (e.g. buildings that front the street) ¥0.5 for pedestrian lighting at night ¥0.5 points for street trees and/or quality street furniture facing the land uses ¥0.5 points for twinkle lights in trees along the corridor ¥0.5 points for sidewalks that are at least 10 feet wide adjacent to retail, at least six feet wide adjacent to residential uses, or at least eight feet wide everywhere else ¥0.5 points for a sense of security by the presence of other people and clear sight lines ¥0.5 points for on-street parking and/or landscaping as a “buffer” from vehicle traffic and pedestrian walkway. Bicycle MMLOS For bicycle priority streets, the MMLOS criteria evaluates the quality of the bicycle system (e.g. bicycle route, bicycle lanes, or bicycle pathway; presence of bicycle buffers from the vehicle travel way), the amenities of the system (e.g. presence of bicycle parking), and the friendliness of the infrastructure (e.g. bicycle detection at intersections, pavement conditions, presence of vehicle parking). Bicycle level of service criteria are outlined below in Table 3.13-4. Table 3.13-4: Bicycle MMLOS Criteria Criteria Evaluated Point System Type of bicycle facility ¥6 points for multiple bicycle facilities (e.g. a bike path and bike lanes or something similar) along the corridor; or ¥5 points for a Class I facility (off-street path) or a Class II facility (on-street bicycle lanes) with a bicycle buffer (e.g. striped median buffering the bicycles from the vehicles either on the right side or left side of the bike lane depending on if parallel parking exists); or ¥4 points for a Class II facility that incorporates a painted lane that is at least 6 feet wide and signage or a Class III facility (bike route designated by signage only) that incorporates sharrows; or ¥3 points for Class II bike lanes that are under 6 feet wide or a Class III facility Connectivity ¥0.5 points if the street is directly connected to bicycle facilities in all four directions at intersections Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad General Plan Update Chapter 3.13: Transportation 3.13-19 Table 3.13-4: Bicycle MMLOS Criteria Criteria Evaluated Point System Amenities ¥0.5 points if bicycle racks are provided along the street segment corridor ¥0.5 points if signage denoting the bicycle facility is provided ¥0.5 points for bike-friendly intersections (e.g. bicycles are not trapped by right-turn lanes, there is space for bicycles to bypass the vehicle queue, etc.) ¥0.5 points for enhanced bicycle detection or video detection at an intersection Other Elements ¥0.5 points for posted speed limits of 25 miles per hour or less ¥0.25 points for posted speed limits of 30 miles per hour or less ¥0.5 points for good pavement conditions Adjacent Vehicle Parking ¥1.5 points for no parking along the street; or ¥1 point for backed-in angled parking; or 0.5 points for parallel parking Transit MMLOS For transit priority streets, the MMLOS criteria evaluates the transit vehicle right-of-way (e.g. dedicated or shared, signal priority), hours and frequency of service (e.g. weekday/weekend hours, peak period headway); performance (e.g. on-time or late); amenities and safety (e.g. lighting, covered stop, bench, on-board bike/surfboard storage); and connectivity (e.g. to other transit routes, employment areas, schools, visitor attractions, and other major destinations). The transit level of service criteria are outlined below in Table 3.13-5: Table 3.13-5: Transit MMLOS Criteria Criteria Evaluated Point System Right of Way 0.5 points for dedicated right of way for transit only Service ¥1.5 points for at least 15 minute headways during the peak hours ¥1 point for at least 30 minute headways during the peak hours ¥0.5 for at least 60 minute headways during the peak hours ¥1.5 points for good on-time performance ¥1.5 points if the route provides for a single transfer to reach one of the COASTER stations Visual Interest Adjacent Land Use and Amenity ¥0.5 points for covered bus stops ¥0.5 points for a bench ¥0.5 points for a well-lit stop that provides a sense of security, as observed by analyst Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad General Plan Update Chapter 3.13: Transportation 3.13-20 Table 3.13-5: Transit MMLOS Criteria Criteria Evaluated Point System Other Elements ¥0.5 points for a corridor that has transit preemption to reduce delays ¥0.5 points for routes that have available seats on the bus ¥0.5 points for the availability to directly access multiple routes (e.g. the stop serves more than one bus route) ¥1 point for bike parking availability at the bus stop ¥1 point for buses that provide on-board bike racks • • 2.3 Multimodal Level of Service Analysis The Multimodal Level of Service Analysis (MMLOS) is based on the methodology provided by the City of Carlsbad in June 2016. Table 2-2 summarizes the MM LOS Point System and LOS Rating, Table 2-3 breaks down pedestrian criteria, Table 2-4 bicycle criteria, and Table 2-5 transit criteria. TABLE 2-2: MMLOS POINT SYSTEM AND LOS RATING Point Score LOS 90-100 A J -~----80-89 B Acceptable 70-79 C 7 60-69 D 50-59 E 0-49 F Deficient Note: Point scores are tabulated irrespective of the type of mode (transit, bicycle, or pedestrian), Source: City of Carlsbad General Plan Mobility Element, 2015 LEGOLAND Hotel 2 -June 2016 41 Page • • • • Criteria Accessibility and functionality Street characteristics Crossing characteristics Other Elements LEGOLAND Hotel 2 -June 2016 TABLE 2-3: PEDESTRIAN MMLOS CRITERIA Points Sidewalk meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 25 Ramps and landings within segment meet ADA requirements 20 Sidewalk segments meet ADA requirements (cross slopes and trip hazards) 15 Meets recommended sidewalk width for typology and adjacent land uses along frontage according to Mobility 10 Element 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 15 Less than 3,000 per lane per day 5 Speed limit below 40 mph 5 Meets apparent standard stopping sight distance at all intersections and pedestrian crossings 5 _,_ Permanent traffic calming devices installed on segments 5 posted at 30 mph or below Existing crosswalks meet MUTCD standards 20 - Crosswalk is high visibility 5 Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width 10 (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, pork chop island) Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian-friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown 5 heads, signage, etc.) -- RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 Street lights meet city standards 5 On-street parking or landscaping provides 'buffer' between 5 pedestrians and travel way Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts 5 and recreational spaces) Street trees 5 Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 Decorative lighting 5 SI Page • • • Criteria Street Characteristics Facility (points earned for each side of the street) Bikeway1 Design Connectivity/ Contiguity Adjacent Vehicle Parking Other Elements LEGOLAND Hotel 2 -June 2016 TABLE 2-4: BICYCLE MMLOS CRITERIA Points Speed limit is 25 mph 30 Speed limit is 30 mph 20 Residential street with ADT < 1000 20 Street with ADT < 4,000 10 Class I facility (off-street path), Class IV (cycle track}, or 25 multiuse path Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on-street 10 bicycle lanes) Class Ill facility (bike route designated by sign age or paint only) 5 Bicycle buffer is provided 5 Bikeway is consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan 20 Bikeway is greater than 6' wide from face of curb for each 10 direction of travel Bicycle signage and striping meet design guidelines " 20 Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes} 5 Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates} 5 Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master 5 Plan along segment Bike lanes extend through intersections 10 No on-street parking 5 Back-in angled parking 5 Parallel parking with door-side buffered bike lane 5 Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at intersections 5 Bicycle racks are provided along segment 10 6I Page • TABLE 2-5: TRANSIT MMLOS CRITERIA Criteria Points Adjacent to Existing Transit Route No greater than 1/4 mile walk to the nearest transit stop 40 - No greater than 1/2 mile walk to the nearest transit stop 20 Access No greater than 1 mile bicycle ride to the nearest transit stop 10 ADA compliant connections to transit stops 20 Multiple transit routes stop on segment 10 Connectivity Route provides a direct link to a COASTER station or mobility hub 30 Route provides for a single transfer to reach a COASTER station or 15 mobility hub Dedicated right of way 5 Transit priority Transit priority during peak hours 5 Headways of 15 minutes between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm on 20 weekdays - Headways of 30 minutes between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm on 10 weekdays Service ... Headways of 1 hour between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm on weekdays 5 No more than 2 hour headways between 6 am and 7 pm on weekdays 5 No more than 2 hour headways between 9 am and 5 pm on weekends 5 Covered bus stops 20 -- Bench 20 Amenities Well-lit stop that provides a sense of security 20 - Trash cans 5 - Bus stop located within a block of commercial services 5 Bike parking available at the bus stop 10 Bicycle Accommodations Buses that provide on-board bike racks 5 Not Adjacent to Existing Transit Route Documented TOM measures are in place that promote ridesharing 60 - Ridesharing Potential On demand service is subsidized for trips to transit service 60 Segment within FLEX service area 60 LEGOLAND Hotel 2 -June 2016 71 P age Attachment 3 15 ATTACHMENT 3 MMLOS summary table and pedestrian and bicycle LOS worksheets from the first LSA study: Table 5.14-22. MMLOS Summary Travel Mode Roadway Segment Score LOS Pedestrian Poinsettia Lane -Aviara Parl<way to BlacK Rail Road 3.5 F Poinsettia Lane -Black Rail Road to Ambrosia Lane 3.5 F Poinsettia Lane -Ambrosia Lane to Cassia Road 3.5 F Poinsettia Lane -Cassia Road to El Camino Real 3.5 F Cassia Road -Poinsettia Lane to El Camino Real 6.0 D Bicycle Poinsettia Lane -Aviara Parl<way to BlacK Rail Road 6.5 D Poinsettia Lane -Black Rail Road to Ambrosia Lane 6.5 D Poinsettia Lane -Ambrosia Lane to Cassia Road 6.5 D Poinsettia Lane -Cassia Road to El Camino Real 6.5 D Cassia Road -Poinsettia Lane to El Camino Real 6.5 D Transit El Gamino Real -Cassia Road to Poinsettia Lane 6.0 D Source: LSA Associates, Inc. 2016, Appendix P of this EIR, page 35 Pedestrian ~ll\ILOS Poinsettia Lane -Aviara Parkway to Black Rail Road Criteria Emluated Value I Score Number of Lanes to Cross (Choose One) 2 or fewer 4 0 3 3 0 4 2 0 5 I I 5 or more 0 0 Unsignaliiro Crossing Presence of median for pedestrian refuge (at least 6' wide with low plantings 0.5 0 or features) Well-marked crosswalk and mid-block crossings at safe and convenient locations 0.5 0.25 Amenities, signing, sidewalk and roadway character strongly suggest the presence 0.5 0.5 of a pedestrian crossing D1ivers and pedestrians have unobstructed views of each other 0.5 0.5 Appropriate speed (typically 25 mph or less zone) 0.5 0 Other Elements Active building frontages I 0 Pedestrian lighting 0.5 0.5 Street trees and quality street furniture facing businesses 0.5 0.25 Sidewalks are IO feet (adjacent to retail) or 6 feet (adjacent to residential uses) or 0.5 0.5 g feet otherwise Sense of security by presence of other people alld clear sight lines 0.5 0 Oo-strcet parking and/or lalldscaping as a pedestrian "buffer· from vehicle traffic 0.5 0 roi.-il 3.5 Ml'IILOS F Attachment 3 16 MMLOS summary table and pedestrian and bicycle LOS worksheets from the second LSA study: Bicycle MMLOS Poinseuia Lane -Aviara Park-way to Black Rail Road Crit:eria Evaluated Value Score Right-of-Way (Choose One) More than I Bike facility 6 0 Class I Shared Use Path 5 0 Class II Bike Lane 4 4 Class ill Bike Lane 3 0 No Bike Lane 0 0 Connectivity Directly connected to both North-South and East-West on-street lanes 0.5 0 IA mmenitie.s Bike racks provided frequenly 0.5 0 Bike facility signs provided frequently 0.5 0.5 Bike-friendly intersections (bicyclists are not trapped by right-tum lanes) 0.5 0 enhanced bicycle detection at imersection 0.5 0 Other Elements Posted speed limit is 25 mph or less 0.5 0 Good Pavement Conditions (including lack of obstacles such as storm drains) 0.5 0.5 !Adjacent Vehicle Parking (Choose One) No parking 1.5 1.5 Back-in Angled I 0 Parallel 0.5 0 Angled Parking 0 0 Total 6.5 MMLOS D Table F: Existing Multi-Modal LOS Summary RnArlwrty -~£:nlPl\t Str,,.pt Typnlngy LOS for Accommodated Modes Vehicle Pedestrian Bicyde Transit Poinsctti,1 Lane (Avi,1~ P.irkway to Ambrosi.) L,1rc) Artcri,11 Connector A A B Poinsettia Lane (Amt.rosia Lane to cassia Read) Arterial Connector A A A Poinsettia Lane (cassia Road to El camino Real) Arterial Connector A A B E.I Ca111i 1u R::al (•~:i.k:I Ruen.l lu Puiu:i.~llia l.cim::) A1h::rie1I Slrc-cl C C El cam no Real f Poinsettia Lane to Aviara Parkwov) Arterial Street C C cassia Road (Pohsettia Lene to El camino Real) Neighborhood/ A A Luuil Slr~l Ambrosia Lane f Poimettia Lane to Aviara Parkwov) School Street A C Minosa Drive (Oriole co,rt to Aviara Parkway) Neighborhood/ A A L.ocal Strttt OnvP I anP (MonrhPn Pl::irP to Rl;:Jr~ SkimmPr Rnarl) NPiehhorhnnrl/ A A Local 5trttt LOS = level of service Attachment 3 17 (uryof Carlsbad ROADWAY INFO 0 Stre-etTypologyfrom Mobility Elert'H!nt ;•~~ Averagt-Dalty Traffic {AOT) volurt'H! {2•way total) PEDESTRIAN • Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet (Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'): • Oo sidewalks meet ADA req1.1irements (•·•·• cross-slope and trip hazards)? • o r mps and la ings r uire nts? • othestr tli ht nsa d ua e? S d imit ( ·tes per hour• mph): umber of rou La Are there 3 lanes or less tote crossed without pedestrian refuge? (Include tum lanes ill count) Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian facility and vehide travel wcy: Does on-street parking or a bike lane provide 5• or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way? My epperent sicht distance issues et intersections end pedestrian crossings? Are there any permanent speed control devices installed? Are there traffic calming measures that reduce aossing width (e.g •• bulbouts, choke,-s, right-tum median island)? Ar er al visibi ity? Are there intersection enha11eements provided for pedestrians (e.g •• pedestriar, signal phasing, countdown heads)? Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons {RRFBs) at street crossings? Is ere d rian scate r ti ? Are there active buikUng frontages on 80% of street curb line? Is the street furniture oriented towards businesses or attractions? Do the street trees provide shade over more than 50% of the sidewalk length? and Poinsettia Lane Aviara Parkway Arterial Connector EB SCORE I LOS 100 I A WB SCORE I LOS 100 I A Roadway Direction EB WB Yes Yes 10 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes higher han 35 mph higher han 35 mph 2 2 Yes Yes O'to 2' O'to 2' No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No Attachment 3 18 Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element ;•~- Average Dally Traffic (ADT) volume (2-way total) ' Are the roadway pavement conditions good (e.g., no pot holes)? I I I I I Poinsettia Lane Aviara Parkway Ambrosia Lane Arterial Connec or EB SCORE I LOS 100 I A WB SCORE I LOS 100 I A Roadway Direction Yes Yes I I I I I I • 1:, unu: h::1\..-llllY V II IVdUWCIY UIC'IC' VI UU:>UUl.\.lUII> \C'•~·, Yes Yes I I ' Does the bicycle facility meet MUTCD signing and striping design guidelines? Yes Yes I • Is on-street parking provided? No No I • Speed limit (miles per hour-mph): 25 mph or lower 25 mph or lower I I Does the bikeway on the study segment and side f2[I streets meet and/or exceed the Bicycle Master Plan? Both Both I I Is there enhanced bicycle detection or video detection provided at intersections? Yes Yes I • Any bicycle racks are provided along segment? 0 No Bicycle Facility Provided: B,ke Lane Bike Lane lane Width (ft) lane Width (ft) Bicycle Buffer Width (ft) Bicycle Buffer Width (ft) Bike lanes are striped Bike lanes are striped continuously through continuously through the study segment? the study segment?