HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-04-06; Traffic and Mobility Commission; ; FOUR DEFICIENT STREET FACILITIESItem 5
Meeting Date: April 6, 2020
To: Traffic and Mobility Commission
Staff Contact: Paz Gomez, Deputy City Manager, Public Works
paz.gomez@carlsbadca.gov, 760-602-2751
Tom Frank, Transportation Director, Public Works
Tom.frank@carlsbadca.gov, 760-602-2766
Subject: Determination of four deficient street facilities and financing program
options for the College Boulevard extension project.
Recommended Actions
Support Staff’s recommendations to the City Council to:
1. Adopt a resolution to:
A. Determine the following street facilities to be deficient because they do not meet the
vehicular level of service (LOS) performance standard required by the city’s Growth
Management Plan:
1. Southbound El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Boulevard
2. Northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road
3. Eastbound Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard
4. Westbound Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real
B. Determine the following street facilities to be built out and exempt from the vehicular
LOS performance standard, in accordance with General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-
P.9:
1. Southbound El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Boulevard
2. Northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road
3. Eastbound Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard
4. Westbound Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real
C. Expedite Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 6094, to improve traffic
circulation by widening northbound El Camino Real from Sunny Creek Road to Jackspar
Drive, by proposing different funding sources which may necessitate meeting
Proposition H requirements if more than $1 million of general funds are used.
2. Provide direction to city staff on whether to develop a city-led financing program for
construction of the College Boulevard extension project, which would include the city
undertaking a preliminary design and engineering assessment.
2
3. Provide direction to city staff on whether to amend the Local Facilities Management Zone
15 Plan and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan relating to the obligation of
private development in Zone 15 to fund the College Boulevard extension project, which
would include funding consultant assistance to amend these plans.
Executive Summary
Each year, staff collects traffic data in accordance with the Growth Management Plan (GMP)
monitoring program to determine if the vehicular performance standard is being met for each
street facility.1 Eight street facilities in the city were identified in the Annual Growth
Management Monitoring Report for fiscal year 2017-18 as falling short of the vehicular LOS
performance standard (Exhibit 2).
These eight street facilities1 are:
1. Southbound El Camino Real from the Oceanside city limits to Marron Road
2. Northbound El Camino Real from Marron Road to the Oceanside city limits
3. Southbound College Boulevard from Aston Avenue to Palomar Airport Road
4. Southbound Melrose Drive from the Vista city limits to Palomar Airport Road
5. Southbound El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Boulevard
6. Northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road
7. Eastbound Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard
8. Westbound Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real
Exhibit 3 shows a map with locations of these eight deficient street facilities.
The issues identified with the first four street facilities were addressed during the City Council
meeting on Dec. 17, 2019, in which the council determined them to be deficient.
The council determined the street facilities identified as 1, 2 and 4 above to be built out and
exempt from the vehicular LOS performance standard. Transportation demand management
(TDM) and transportation system management (TSM) strategies now apply on those facilities.
The council also expedited two Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects for street facilities
3 and 4 above. The deficiency reported for street facility 3 is expected to be resolved by the
expedited CIP project approved by the City Council.
This staff report addresses issues related to the last four street facilities identified above. Staff
recommends the City Council find street facilities 5, 6, 7 and 8 listed above to be deficient,
considering the fiscal year 2017-18 Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report results.
Staff recommends that the council determine those four street facilities to be built out and
1 This report uses the term “street facility” and the July 16, 2019 staff report referred to deficient “street
segments.” “Street facility” is a section of roadway that shares the same roadway characteristics, and
that is composed of one or more street segments, while a “street segment” is the portion of a street
facility between two intersections. In some cases, such as with the four deficient sections of roadway
discussed in this report, a street segment is also a street facility. The term “street facility” is being used
in this report for greater consistency with terminology from the General Plan Mobility Element.
3
exempt from the LOS performance standard per General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9
criteria. Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9, discussed in greater detail below, outlines the City’s
authority to “exempt” street facilities from the city’s vehicular LOS standards.
During the July 16, 2019 City Council meeting, staff recommended construction of the College
Boulevard extension project to resolve the deficiencies identified on those four street facilities.
It was assumed at that time that funding the construction of the extension through private
development alone, as currently required by City Council direction in the Local Facilities
Management Zone (LFMZ) 15 Plan and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP),
was feasible.
However, further research, including direct input from property owners in LFMZ 15, revealed
that funding the construction of the College Boulevard extension project solely by private
development is infeasible, at least for the foreseeable future.
Considering that infeasibility, staff assessed the possibility of constructing improvements at
street facilities 5, 6, 7 and 8 to address the deficiencies. However, as those projects would
trigger one or more of the exemption criteria under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9,
as detailed below, staff recommends that the City Council determine these four street facilities
to be built out and exempt from the vehicular LOS performance standard; TDM and TSM
strategies would then apply. For northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon
Road, the street facility will remain deficient with three through lanes (upon completion of
expedited CIP Project No. 6094) so it is requested that determination be made that the facility
is built out and exempt.
Staff also requests City Council direction on whether to develop a city-led financing program for
construction of the College Boulevard extension. As further described in this report, that effort
would include the city undertaking a preliminary design and engineering assessment for the
extension project.
Staff also requests council direction on whether to amend the LFMZ 15 Plan and the Citywide
Facilities and Improvements Plan now to remove the obligation of private development in LFMZ
15 to solely fund the College Boulevard extension, considering the infeasibility of that
approach. Amending these plans would require funding of a consultant for assistance.
If the City Council declines to amend the plans now but directs staff to develop a city-led
financing program for the extension project, those plans would need to be amended in the
future to include such a city-led financing plan for the extension of College Boulevard, as
approved by council.
Discussion
Background
This is the third of three staff reports stemming from a discussion at the July 16, 2019 City
Council meeting. At that meeting, staff presented a report on how the eight deficient street
4
facilities had been identified in the Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report for fiscal
year 2017-18 as falling short of the level of service performance standard.
The City Council directed staff to consider additional options to address the deficiencies and
indicated a need for a detailed discussion with additional information before the City Council
would take action on the matter. As a result, the City Manager asked that the matter be
continued to a future City Council meeting to allow time for staff to prepare presentations
related to:
1) The different ways the TSM and TDM programs work to manage traffic congestion and
improve mobility
2) Recommendations on addressing the deficient level of service on the first four street
facilities
3) Additional options to address the deficiencies in level of service on the remaining four
street facilities, which is affected by the uncompleted portion of College Boulevard
The first of these presentations occurred on Dec. 10, 2019, when staff presented an
informational report to the City Council on how the city manages traffic with transportation
system and demand management strategies. The second of these presentations occurred on
Dec. 17, 2019. At that meeting, the City Council determined the first four street facilities to be
deficient, expedited two CIP projects for street facilities 3 and 4, and exempted three of the
street facilities, 1, 2 and 4. The deficiency reported for street facility 3 is expected to be
resolved by the expedited CIP project approved by the City Council. This staff report will
address the last four street facilities that have been identified as falling below the city’s
required LOS standard.
The City’s Growth Management Plan and circulation performance standards
In 1986, the city adopted Proposition E, which amended the city’s General Plan to “ensure that
all necessary public facilities will be available concurrent with need to serve new development…
In guaranteeing that facilities will be provided emphasis shall be given to ensuring good traffic
circulation, schools, parks, libraries, open space and recreational amenities.”
To implement this general guidance, Proposition E directed the city to adopt amendments to
the section on growth management in the Carlsbad Municipal Code (Chapter 12.90). The city
also adopted its Citywide Facilities and Improvement Plan (CFIP) and Local Facilities
Management Zone Plan to implement Proposition E. The CFIP divided the city into 25
management zones, or LFMZs.
Under state law, the city is required to prepare a General Plan, which includes a circulation
element “to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all
users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable
to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.” (Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, the
Complete Streets Act of 2008). Similarly, Senate Bill 743 explains, “It is the intent of the
Legislature to balance the need for level of service standards for traffic with the need to build
infill housing and mixed-use commercial developments within walking distance of mass transit
5
facilities, downtowns, and town centers and to provide greater flexibility to local governments
to balance these sometimes competing needs.” (Gov. Code § 65088.4(a).)
In adopting AB 1358, the legislature found that, “Shifting the transportation mode share from
single passenger cars to public transit, bicycling, and walking must be a significant part of short
and long-term planning goals if the state is to achieve the reduction in the number of vehicle
miles traveled and in greenhouse gas emissions required by current law.” The legislature
further found that, “In order to fulfill the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
make the most efficient use of urban land and transportation infrastructure, and improve
public health by encouraging physical activity, transportation planners must find innovative
ways to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to shift from short trips in the automobile to biking,
walking, and use of public transit.”
Consistent with these changes to state law, the City of Carlsbad’s circulation performance
standards were amended in 2015 to plan for multimodal transportation network that meets the
needs of all users, including but not limited to pedestrian traffic, bicycle traffic, and transit, as
opposed to focusing exclusively upon vehicular traffic. (General Plan Mobility Element, Section
3.3). As explained in the City’s Mobility Element and its CFIP, “[t]he City’s approach to provide
livable streets recognizes that optimum service levels cannot be provided for all travel modes
on all streets within the City. This is due to competing interests that arise when different travel
modes mix.”
The following performance standard was adopted (emphasis added):
Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the system –
vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain LOS D or better for all modes
that are subject to this multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) standard, as identified in
Table 3-1 of the General Plan Mobility Element, excluding LOS exempt intersections and
streets approved by the City Council. (Mobility Element, Implementing Policy 3-P.4).
As further explained in the Mobility Element,
Concurrent with City Council adoption of this Mobility Element, the city’s Growth
Management standard for circulation identified in the Citywide Facilities and
Improvement Plan will be amended to reflect the livable street approach to mobility
described in this element. (See also Mobility Element Policy 3-P.12.)
The Circulation Performance Standard in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP)
was concurrently amended on Sept. 22, 2015 to mirror the city’s new mobility policies.
The CFIP divided the city into 25 Local Facility Management Zones (LFMZs). Each LFMZ is
required to have an adopted Local Facilities Management Plan that must describe the
following:
• How the LFMZ will be developed
• How compliance with the GMP standards will be achieved
6
• What public facilities will be required to maintain each performance measure
• What financing mechanisms will be used to fund these facilities
If the performance standard is not met, a facility is deemed deficient. As noted above, the city’s
mobility policy and performance standards include the ability to “exempt intersections and
streets.” This exemption essentially reorients the city’s planning focus from making physical
improvements roadways toward indirect transportation demand measures to reduce overall
vehicle trips, and to focus upon non-vehicular modes of travel. (Mobility Element Policies 3-P.9
and 3-P.11)
The city’s GMP regulations state that, “If at any time after preparation of a local facilities
management plan the performance standards established by a plan are not met then no
development permits or building permits shall be issued within the local zone until the
performance standard is met or arrangements satisfactory to the city council guaranteeing the
facilities and improvements have been made.” [CMC § 21.90.080, see also § 21.90.130]
Considering this requirement and the identified street facility deficiencies, the July 16, 2019
staff report suggested that:
1) The City Council consider exempting certain street segments, in keeping with Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.11
2) The council consider enacting a permit prohibition in LFMZ 15.
At that meeting City Council directed staff to return with additional options to address the
deficiencies.
Senate Bill 330, Housing Crisis Act of 2019
Senate Bill 330, which became effective Jan. 1, 2020, established new procedures on placing a
“moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development, including mixed-use
development.” [Gov. Code, § 66300(b)(1)(B)(I)].
Where housing is an allowable use, that law prohibits a city from enacting a “development
policy, standard or condition” that would have the effect of “imposing a moratorium or similar
restriction or limitation on housing development…other than to specifically protect against an
imminent threat to the health and safety of persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity
of, the area subject to the moratorium…” Such a moratorium or similar restriction on housing
development is not enforceable until it has first been submitted and approved by the California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
The City Attorney’s Office is currently reviewing the city’s Growth Management Plan in light of
the new regulations contained in Senate Bill 330 and has requested a written determination
from HCD (Exhibit 4). Verbal responses from HCD have indicated that the moratorium
previously utilized by the city as part of the GMP (i.e., prohibiting development and the
7
issuance of building permits in affected LFMZs when facilities do not meet the performance
standard) and dwelling unit caps are no longer allowed.
Fiscal year 2017-18 Annual Monitoring Report and deficiencies in four street facilities
Each year, staff monitors circulation and other factors on the city’s public facilities and submits
a report to the City Council comparing performance data against the adopted standards.
The Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report for fiscal year 2017-18 identified a total of
eight street facilities that did not have exemptions from the vehicular LOS performance
standard and that do not meet the vehicular LOS performance standard. On Dec. 17, 2019, the
City Council determined that four of the street facilities are deficient and exempted three of the
street facilities. The fourth one will meet the vehicular LOS performance standard upon
completion of a CIP project that City Council expedited.
In accordance with CMC Section 21.90.130, staff recommends that the City Council determine
deficiencies to exist at the remaining four street facilities that were reported in the fiscal year
2017-18 Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report as falling short of the vehicular LOS
performance standard as listed below in Table 1.
Table 1
Proposed actions to address deficiencies at four street facilities
8
Based on this information, staff recommends that the City Council determine that a deficiency
exists at each of the street facilities under CMC Section 21.90.130(c):
If at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the city manager that facilities or
improvements within a facilities management zone or zones are inadequate to
accommodate any further development within that zone or that the performance
standards adopted pursuant to Section 21.90.100 are not being met he or she shall
immediately report the deficiency to the council. If the council determines that a
deficiency exists then no further building or development permits shall be issued within
the affected zone or zones and development shall cease until an amendment to the
citywide facilities and improvements plan or applicable local facilities management plan
which addresses the deficiency is approved by the city council and the performance is
met.
Policy options
When a deficiency is determined to exist, in accordance with CMC Sections 21.90.080 and
21.90.130, the City Council can either adopt measures that implement or guarantee the
facilities and improvements that address the deficiency, or the council can prohibit
development and the issuance of building permits in affected LFMZs until the performance
standard is met. Measures include:
1. Identifying and funding an improvement project that will result in that street facility
meeting the performance standard
2. Determining that the street facility is built out and exempt from the LOS standard
under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9, such that TDM/TSM strategies will
apply to development that adds vehicle traffic to the exempt street facilities
Although the GMP includes a circulation performance standard tied to LOS, the General Plan
Mobility Element acknowledges that the city cannot always rely on adding roadway capacity to
address deficiencies. In other words, the city cannot always build its way out of traffic
congestion. The City Council has the authority to deem a street facility built out and exempt
from the LOS D standard when the following build-out criteria are met, under General Plan
Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9:
Develop and maintain a list of street facilities where specified modes of travel are exempt
from the LOS standard (LOS exempt street facilities), as approved by the City Council. For
LOS exempt street facilities, the city will not implement improvements to maintain the LOS
standard outlined in Policy 3-P.4 if such improvements are beyond what is identified as
appropriate at build out of the General Plan. In the case of street facilities where the
vehicle mode of travel is exempt from the LOS standard, other non-vehicle capacity-building
improvements will be required to improve mobility through implementation of
transportation demand and transportation system management measures as outlined in
Policy 3-P.11, to the extent feasible, and/or to implement the livable streets goals and
policies of this Mobility Element. Evaluate the list of exempt street facilities, as part of the
Growth Management monitoring program, to determine if such exemptions are still
warranted. To exempt the vehicle mode of travel from the LOS standard at a particular
9
street intersection or segment, the intersection or street segment must be identified as built-
out by the City Council because:
a. acquiring the rights of way is not feasible; or
b. the proposed improvements would significantly impact the environment in an
unacceptable way and mitigation would not contribute to the nine core values of the
Carlsbad Community Vision; or
c. the proposed improvements would result in unacceptable impacts to other
community values or General Plan policies; or
d. the proposed improvements would require more than three through travel lanes in
each direction.
General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11 requires new development that adds vehicular
traffic to street facilities that are exempt from the vehicle LOS D standard to implement:
• TDM strategies that reduce the reliance on single-occupant automobile and assist in
achieving the city’s livable streets vision
• TSM strategies that improve traffic signal coordination and improve transit service
Issues with potential solutions for the four street facility deficiencies
This staff report identifies measures to address the remaining four deficient street facilities
reported in the fiscal year 2017-18 Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report. As noted
above, the recommendations below differ from the recommendations offered in the July 16,
2019 staff report because further research contradicted the prior assumption that private
development alone can feasibly undertake the College Boulevard extension, as identified in the
LFMZ 15 Plan and CFIP, and that those improvements will be sufficient to resolve the
deficiencies on those street facilities.
Currently the LFMZ 15 Plan and the CFIP obligate private development to fund the College
Boulevard extension with construction of two lanes and full width grading for four lanes.2 In
2015, a preliminary estimate of constructing a four-lane roadway (two lanes in each direction)
to connect College Boulevard from Cannon Road to Sunny Creek Road was $22 million. Using
escalation factors of 3% per year since 2015, an estimate for the same scope of work in 2020
dollars would be approximately $26 million. Staff recommends construction of the full four
lanes or an alternative roadway design with equivalent capacity. Since the estimate was
prepared for a private developer, staff added 20% to accommodate paying prevailing wage and
fulfilling other city requirements, which increased the estimate to approximately $30 million.
For the purposes of this discussion, it is assumed that a city-led College Boulevard extension
project for construction of four lanes or a roadway design with equivalent capacity would carry
that estimated cost of $30 million.
2 The LFMZ 15 Plan requires that the improvements contain the following elements: (i) full width grading to major
arterial standards; (ii) two center travel lanes including a raised median and left turn pockets; (iii) construction of
full width bridge over Agua Hedionda Creek; and (iv) full intersection improvements to Cannon Road and College
Boulevard including appropriate lane transitions to the southern leg of College Boulevard. Zone 15 LFMP,
Amendment E, at page 97.
10
Additionally, during a meeting with affected LFMZ 15 property owners in October 2019,
property owners described significant challenges associated with funding the College Boulevard
extension. Some of their tentative building maps are expiring in summer 2020 and ballooning
costs have made some projects not economically viable. Some property owners provided the
following feedback:
• The current density was insufficient to support the costs
• They’ve been unable to get private financing
• There is a lack of critical mass of property owners willing and able to develop their
properties in the near term
During the years 2012-2015, the city made several financing program efforts to assist the
property owners in LFMZ 15, as noted below:
• On Sept. 10, 2013, via Agenda Bill 21,360, the City Council approved a reimbursement
agreement between the City of Carlsbad and Bent-West LLC for assessment district
formation deposits and allowed Bent-West, LLC to temporarily bypass the initial Policy
No. 33 approval steps.
• On April 15, 2014, via Agenda Bill 21,567, the City Council made a finding under the
policy to waive the provision of the pass-through requirement for community facilities
districts based on the benefit of proceeding with the College Boulevard improvements
in a district with diverse ownership.
• On Feb. 17, 2015, via Agenda Bill 21,864, the City Council directed staff to pursue
alternative financing in the form of a development condition or reimbursement
agreement based on the challenges of applying community facilities district financing on
properties unentitled properties, parcels whose owners have not begun the process of
seeking building permits
• On July 28, 2015, via Agenda Bill 22,053 and Ordinance No. CS-281, the City Council
approved adding Chapter 3.40 to the Carlsbad Municipal Code setting forth procedures
for establishment of a reimbursement fee for funding the reimbursement of certain
costs of construction of eligible improvements.
Those efforts proved unsuccessful.
Aside from the financing issues, there are issues of road capacity to consider.
A recent city study (Exhibit 8) showed that traffic on a two-lane extension of College Boulevard
as described in the LFMZ 15 Plan and the CFIP would not be adequate to serve the anticipated
build-out traffic volumes for LFMZ 15. The study recommends construction of a four-lane
College Boulevard extension, which is currently not in the CIP. Since City Council direction in the
LFMZ 15 Plan and the CFIP (i.e., two-lane extension of College Boulevard) is for private
development funding and construction, staff is unable to recommend construction of four lanes
using city funding. City Council would need to direct staff to pursue funding for a four-lane
extension and allow for the city to lead the construction effort by amending the LFMZ 15 Plan
and CFIP.
11
That’s why staff recommends focusing on whether improvements at the four deficient street
facilities could make those facilities meet the LOS standard, and whether the exemption criteria
stated in General Plan Mobility Element 3-P.9, detailed above, apply to those facilities.
Recommended actions to address the four deficient street facilities
Staff has considered options other than the College Boulevard extension described in the LFMZ
15 Plan and CFIP to address the LOS deficiencies and recommends that the City Council adopt
the following measures to address the four street facility deficiencies covered in this report.
1. For Southbound El Camino Real from Cannon Road to College Boulevard
Current CIP Project No. 6071 was designed to enhance pedestrian and bicycle forms of mobility
and to upgrade the existing curb ramps and crosswalks to meet the Americans with Disabilities
Act standards. This proposed project would improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility
at the intersection of El Camino Real at College Boulevard and would include traffic signal
timing modifications to improve traffic operations. Staff expects to request City Council
approval of plans and specifications and authorization to bid for CIP Project No. 6071, a
roadway improvement project, in spring 2020. Exhibit 5 shows a location map for this project.
While this project will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility, it is not expected to
make this facility meet the LOS performance standard. Therefore, the street facility is expected
to remain deficient after completion of the project.
Staff recommends the City Council determine this street facility to be built out and exempt
from the LOS performance standard, under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (d).
That’s because future roadway improvements to address the anticipated remaining deficiency
after the completion of CIP Project No. 6071 would require further widening of El Camino Real
to accommodate a fourth through lane, which would conflict with General Plan Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.9 (d).
A project to widen El Camino Real to four lanes also conflicts with the following goals listed in
the General Plan Mobility Element:
• Keep Carlsbad moving with livable streets that provide a safe, balanced, cost-effective,
multi-modal transportation system (vehicles, pedestrians, bikes, transit)
accommodating the mobility needs of all community members, including children, the
elderly and the disabled (Goal 3-G.1)
• Provide inviting streetscapes that encourage walking and promote livable streets (Goal
3-G.3)
• Protect and enhance the visual, environmental and historical characteristics of Carlsbad
through sensitive planning and design of scenic transportation corridors (Goal 3-G.6)
If City Council determines this street facility to be deficient, built out and exempt, appropriate
TDM and TSM strategies would be required of future development that adds traffic to this
exempt street facility under Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11.
12
2. For Northbound El Camino Real from College Boulevard to Cannon Road
The road improvement work detailed in current CIP Project Nos. 6042/6056 would help
improve traffic flow of northbound El Camino Real at Cannon Road, but the street facility would
still not meet the LOS performance standard. Staff expects to request City Council approval of
plans and specifications and authorization to bid for CIP Projects Nos. 6042/6056 in fall 2021.
Exhibit 6 shows a project location map for those projects.
CIP Project No. 6094 to widen northbound El Camino Real from Sunny Creek Road to Jackspar
Drive is estimated to cost $4 million and is currently scheduled for funding in fiscal year 2025-
29. Though this project is expected to improve traffic circulation, it is not expected to make the
street facility meet the LOS performance standard, as shown in Table 1. Therefore, the street
facility is expected to remain deficient after completion of the project. Staff recommends the
City Council expedite CIP Project No. 6094 and direct staff to return with potential funding
sources including consideration of Proposition H if more than $1 million of general funds is
used.
Even with the widening of northbound El Camino Real from two to three lanes from Sunny
Creek Road to Jackspar Drive, the LOS would still not meet the acceptable LOS standard during
the afternoon (PM) peak hour unless the four-lane College Boulevard extension is constructed.
As shown in Table 1 of the College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis (Exhibit 8),
the PM peak hour volume in the northbound direction is 2,929 vehicles per hour which would
operate at a LOS F (not meet LOS D standard).
Staff recommends the City Council also determine this street facility to be built out and exempt
from the LOS performance standard, under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (d).
Future roadway improvements to address the anticipated remaining deficiency after
completion of CIP Project Nos. 6042/6056 and 6094 would require further widening of El
Camino Real to accommodate a fourth through lane, which would conflict with General Plan
Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (d).
A project to widen El Camino Real to four lanes also conflicts with the goals listed in the General
Plan Mobility Element, as noted above. If City Council determines this street facility to be
deficient, built out and exempt, appropriate TDM and TSM strategies would be required of
future development that adds traffic to this exempt street facility under Mobility Element Policy
3-P.11.
3. For Eastbound Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard
Staff recommends the City Council determine this street facility to be built out and exempt
from the LOS D standard under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (a), acquiring the
rights of way is not feasible, and in keeping with Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (c), that the
proposed improvements would result in unacceptable impacts to other community values or
General Plan policies because of effects on sidewalks, crosswalks and bicycle lanes.
13
Relating to General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (a), widening Cannon Road to three lanes
in each direction between El Camino Real and College Boulevard would require the acquisition
of additional right of way. Acquiring the additional right of way is infeasible due to the
following:
• The additional right of way would require encroachment into open space for the
preservation of natural resources near the intersection of El Camino Real and Cannon
Road. This will result in destruction of some of the natural resources in that area.
• The new travel lane on the north side of Cannon Road would encroach into the road
setback of the adjacent residential community. The residents along Cannon Road would
experience increased road noise due to the decreased separation of the road and the
homes. Large slopes border the north side of Cannon Road and would require
considerable grading and construction of tall retaining walls. The necessary height of the
walls would conflict with zoning, building the walls would be costly and their presence
would be disruptive to residents in adjacent homes.
• The additional right of way contains areas under private ownership. The city would
either need to pay for the acquisition, if the owners were willing to negotiate a sale, or
condemn the property.
• A trail easement along the south side of Cannon Road, which is located within the
additional right of way, would need to be relinquished by the city.
Relating to General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (c), the proposed improvements would
present unacceptable impacts to the following community values and General Plan policies:
• The Carlsbad Community Vision (Exhibit 7) core value of “Walking, biking, public
transportation and connectivity” calls for increasing travel options through enhanced
walking, bicycling and public transportation systems and enhancing mobility through
increased connectivity and intelligent transportation management. Accommodating
three through lanes on Cannon Road between El Camino Real and College Boulevard
would discourage bicycling and walking by placing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in
much closer proximity to high-speed vehicle travel (the speed limit is 50 mph in this
section.) Meandering pedestrian trails would be removed and replaced with sidewalks
closer to the travel lanes. This placement is highly likely to result in lower facility use as
users would likely feel less safe.
• The Carlsbad Community Vision core value of “Open space and the natural
environment” relates to prioritizing protection and enhancement of open space and the
natural environment and supporting and protecting Carlsbad’s unique open space and
agricultural heritage. Accommodating three through lanes would require grading and
roadway widening beyond the existing right of way, cutting into existing open space and
preserve habitat. Impacts to habitat preserve areas would trigger environmental review,
discretionary approvals, biological reports, and require wildlife agency permits, as well
as identifying or constructing mitigation areas to offset the impacted habitat. Adding a
through lane would require that the city relinquish a trail easement on the south side of
Cannon Road, and a habitat area at the corner of El Camino Real and Cannon Road
would be encroached upon by road improvements.
14
• General Plan Mobility Element Goal 3-G.6 calls for the city to, “Protect and enhance the
visual, environmental and historical characteristics of Carlsbad through sensitive
planning and design of scenic transportation corridors.” Adding lanes to this corridor
would greatly impact the scenic aspect of this corridor. Large swaths, 15 to 20 feet, of
scenic landscaping including trees and meandering trails would be removed on each
side of the corridor to make way for asphalt and concrete improvements. The corridor
would look much less appealing due to a significant decrease in landscaping.
If City Council determines this street facility to be deficient, built out and exempt, appropriate
TDM and TSM strategies would be required of future development that adds traffic to this
exempt street facility under Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11.
4. For westbound Cannon Road from College Boulevard to El Camino Real
For the same reasons described above for eastbound Cannon Road, staff recommends the City
Council determine this street facility to be deficient, built out and exempt from the LOS
performance standard, under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (a), acquiring the
rights of way is not feasible, and in keeping with General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (c),
the proposed improvements would result in unacceptable impacts to other community values
or General Plan policies because of potential elimination of sidewalks, crosswalks and bicycle
lanes.
If City Council determines this street facility to be deficient, built out and exempt, appropriate
TDM and TSM strategies would be required of future development that adds traffic to this
exempt street facility under Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11.
Extending College Boulevard
Completing the missing link of College Boulevard involves more than building a roadway. Items
to consider include design, permitting, technical reports, wildlife agency approvals,
construction, acquisition of easements and constructing mitigation areas.
The city reviewed construction drawings for the College Boulevard extension from the early
2000’s to 2015. Constructing the College Boulevard extension requires hiring consultants
including engineers and landscape architects to develop construction drawings that meet
current federal, state, and local requirements. Additional consultants must be hired to update
and revise several technical reports such as biological, drainage, geotechnical, storm water
quality and storm water pollution prevention.
To define the improvements of the College Boulevard extension, the project consists of several
elements such as:
• Full-width grading for the road, paved travel lanes and sidewalks
• Median and median landscaping
• Bridge over Agua Hedionda Creek
• Underground utilities including potable water pipes and sewer and storm drains
• Intersection control and street lights
15
Environmental clearances required by the California Environmental Quality Act are in place to
construct the College Boulevard extension. The three certified environmental impact reports
are:
1. Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 & Detention
Basins, reference no. EIR 98-02
2. Cantarini Ranch, reference no. EIR 02-02
3. Dos Colinas, reference no. EIR 09-01
There are other non-roadway improvements associated with extending College Boulevard and
are required per the above certified environmental impact reports. These non-roadway
improvements consist of acquisition and construction of:
• A replacement site for the existing recreational vehicle and garden site serving the
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park community
• A proposed flood control facility adjacent to the College Blvd extension
• Water quality treatment basins required to treat storm runoff the College Boulevard
extension to current satisfy storm water requirements
• Habitat mitigation area to address habitat impacts associated with constructing the
College Boulevard extension
Making these College Boulevard improvements requires the city to have the right of way, or
easements. The city currently has right of way for the College Boulevard roadway. However,
there are additional easements and property that must be obtained to build the roadway and
the other improvements listed above. Easements are required for temporary grading and
construction, drainage and access, stormwater flow, sewers, water quality basins and habitat
mitigation.
As part of the certified environmental impact reports listed above, prior to construction,
approvals from wildlife agencies are needed. This will require resources to hire consultants to
process and secure approvals with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and others, as
required.
Financing the College Boulevard extension
Per City Council direction, private development in LFMZ 15 is currently obligated to fund the
College Boulevard extension project which consists of full width grading (to accommodate four
lanes) but constructing only two of the four lanes. As discussed above, staff believes this
approach is infeasible considering the unique hurdles in LFMZ 15 involving private
development.
Though construction of the College Boulevard extension with only two lanes would be
beneficial, a four-lane extension project would be preferable. To construct a four-lane College
Boulevard extension project, City Council would need to direct staff to pursue a four-lane
extension project since it would change the previous direction provided in the LFMZ 15 Plan
16
and CFIP. City Council would also need to allow for the city to lead the design and construction
effort, which is a change to current direction in the LFMZ 15 Plan and CFIP (private
development lead). Private development would still be obligated to contribute their portions of
the extension project as currently outlined, if the city were to lead the effort and enter into
reimbursement agreements with developers.
The city’s General Plan Mobility Element includes the proposed extension of College Boulevard
as an arterial street gap closure project. The purpose of the city’s corridor study (Exhibit 8) was
to establish a preliminary set of baseline conditions and identify potential near-term (existing
conditions) multimodal issues/opportunities assuming completion of the extension as a two-
lane or four-lane roadway. While transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and services will be
important elements of the proposed extension, this initial analysis focuses on projected near-
term vehicle demand and resulting segment capacities consistent with Growth Management
Program requirements.
Roadway capacity analysis was conducted for all study arterial roadway segments to determine
how they are currently operating and the effect of the extension on segment operations. The
peak directional volume LOS thresholds for all arterial streets in the area were used. As the
extension of College Boulevard does not yet exist, peak directional volume threshold for the
segment to the north of the roadway extension (College Boulevard from Carlsbad Village Drive
and Cannon Road, which is a four-lane road) was used. To evaluate operations of the initial
two-lane extension, the four-lane College Boulevard volume thresholds for the peak direction
were divided in half.
With construction of the extension, existing vehicle trips will be re-distributed across the
surrounding roadway network. In addition, the extension will provide access to parcels within
the LFMZ 15 planning area that are expected to develop with a variety of land uses. Two new
streets are expected to intersect the extension and provide direct access to LFMZ 15 parcels.
The study includes estimates of traffic volumes associated with both re-distribution and new
adjacent development that would use the College Boulevard extension upon completion of the
roadway.
The analysis indicated that the planned two-lane roadway extension is operating at capacity in
the southbound direction in the AM (morning) peak, and the extension is operating well over
capacity in the northbound direction in the PM (afternoon) peak hour. There is no additional
capacity for development.
The planned four-lane roadway extension would operate with additional capacity in both
directions in both the AM and PM peak hours. The roadway capacity deficiencies that were
observed on study roadways under existing conditions (El Camino Real and Cannon Road) have
been ameliorated with the reassignment of existing trips to the College Boulevard extension.
When built, the extension will have a positive effect on surrounding roadway segments.
17
Under LFMZ 15 buildout conditions, a two-lane extension will not be adequate to serve the
anticipated buildout traffic volumes from LFMZ 15, so it is not considered viable with these
volumes. A four-lane extension is projected to operate at or over capacity in both the AM and
PM peak hours with the addition of trips associated with LFMZ 15 buildout.
The study recommends construction of the ultimate planned cross-section of four lanes for the
College Boulevard extension to serve existing traffic and to accommodate traffic associated
with expected buildout of LFMZ 15. The four-lane extension will provide relief on the
surrounding network (El Camino Real and Cannon Road) while providing additional capacity for
development.
The construction of the College Boulevard extension is identified in General Plan Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.21:
Implement connections and improvements identified in this Mobility Element, including
those identified in policy 3-P.19, as well as: Extension of College Boulevard from Cannon
Road to El Camino Real …
The implementation of Policy 3-P.19 serves as CEQA mitigation for vehicular LOS congestion
under the 2015 General Plan update under Mitigation Measure TR-1:
MM TR-1: The city shall implement all policies identified in the Mobility Element to reduce
the demand for vehicles on I- 5. However, even with implementation of these policies, the
impact will remain significant and unavoidable.
However, recent amendments to state law provide that vehicular LOS is statutorily no longer
identified as a significant environmental impact under CEQA. [Pub. Res. Code 21099(b)(2)]
Consequently, if the city elects not to proceed with this improvement, it is recommended that
the city also concurrently remove this mitigation measure.
Though the LFMZ 15 Plan calls for interim improvements for College Boulevard, staff
recommends building the College Boulevard extension to its ultimate configuration, which
includes full width grading and constructing all four lanes or a roadway design with equivalent
capacity. As detailed above, it is assumed that a city-led extension of College Boulevard to four
lanes carries an estimated cost of $30 million.
Considering the above information, staff requests City Council direction on whether to develop
a city-led financing program for construction of the College Boulevard extension (four lanes).
This process would include a preliminary design and engineering assessment to develop a more
accurate cost estimate that would then need to be funded and prepared in the CIP. If directed
by the City Council, staff could review what funding sources are available to fund the
preliminary design and engineering assessment, which is expected to cost approximately $3
million.
18
Staff also requests direction on whether to amend the LFMZ 15 Plan and the CFIP now to
remove or update the obligation of private development in LFMZ 15 to fully fund the College
Boulevard extension, due to the apparent infeasibility for that to occur. Under CMC Section
21.90.130, no LFMZ 15 development permits can be approved by the city unless the map or
permit is consistent with the LFMZ 15 Plan and this funding obligation. Considering this, staff
recommends amending the LFMZ 15 Plan and CFIP now. If the City Council declines to amend
the plans at this time but directs staff to develop a city-led financing program, those plans
would ultimately require amending upon the council adopting a city-led financing program for
the project.
If the City Council elects to fund the preliminary design and engineering assessment cost
estimate of $3 million in the fiscal year 2020-21 CIP budget, it could take about 18 more months
to award a contract to a consultant and complete preparation of the preliminary design and
cost estimate, which would bring the timeline to early 2022.
Of note, under the expenditure limitation established in 1982 under Proposition H, a public
vote may be necessary before spending money from the city’s General Fund for the preliminary
design and engineering assessment if the expense would take more than $1 million from that
fund, and if that money was spent on an improvement project that would ultimately be
accepted into the city’s circulation system. If the City Council directs staff to pursue the
preliminary design and cost assessment, and if funding sources other than city General Funds
are not feasible, staff will consult with the City Attorney’s Office to determine whether a vote is
necessary.
Other funding mechanisms
The reimbursement fee ordinance (Exhibit 9), established under the powers available to charter
cities offers an additional financing tool available to help finance public improvements. It allows
the city to place conditions on properties within an LFMZ and may be used in LFMZ 15 and
other situations in which an applicant(s) constructs public improvements on behalf of multiple
property owners also conditioned to construct the same public improvements. The affected
properties’ proportional share and related reimbursement fee is determined by a
reimbursement fee study. The reimbursement fees pass through the city and are eventually
remitted back to the applicants who incurred the public improvement construction costs. This
attempt was previously unsuccessful in LFMZ 15 due to high upfront construction costs having
to be assumed by only a few property owners, with little to no assurance of reimbursement
fees for several years.
To circumvent the unsuccessful attempt above, the city may wish to move the project forward
and build College Boulevard to its ultimate configuration before collecting any funds from
affected property owners in LFMZ 15. In this case, the city would conduct the preliminary
design and engineering assessment to update the required public infrastructure costs. The city
would then determine, by way of a reimbursement fee study, the affected properties’
proportional share and their related reimbursement fees. The city and the affected properties
19
would establish terms to collect this reimbursement fee. The following would need to be
considered:
• Upfront construction costs to the city would require funding or financing approximately
$30 million
• Financing the construction as a CIP using $1 million or more of General Funds would
require voter approval
• Delayed or lack of development from affected properties would delay or negate
reimbursement back to city
Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan
Section VII of the CFIP (attached as Exhibit 10) discusses some general financing options and
policies available to the city under the GMP. Table 2 provides an overview of four potential
debt financing mechanisms available to assist the city, two of which are noted in the CFIP. The
use of debt financing is usually justified by the rationale of spreading out the costs of public
infrastructure over the period of the bond or loan repayments.
Efforts were made during years 2012-2015 by West Partners, a large property owner within
LFMZ 15, to formulate a 1915 Bond Act assessment district and a Community Facility District.
That effort failed to gain enough consent of the benefitting property owners to move forward.
In the interim, construction of the new Sage Creek High School provided improvements to
certain LFMZ 15 facilities, including the Cannon Road-College Boulevard intersection and an
adjacent portion of Cannon Road, as well as funding for other local traffic improvements.
Generally speaking, community facility district or assessment district financing under City
Council Policy No. 33 (Exhibit 11) afford the city the best protection while providing the
property owners with assistance in the financing of such a project. However, if there are several
property owners in the potential district or if all the property owners are not ready to develop
at the same time, it may be difficult to get agreement on a CFD or assessment district. Both
mechanisms assume the city would issue debt and, once that has been done, taxes or
assessments must be collected to pay the debt.
City Council Policy No. 33 sets up guidelines which protect the city from some of the more
common pitfalls of using 1913/1915 Bond Act assessment districts, community facility districts
and bridge and thoroughfare districts financing. The city does not have any such guidelines for
enhanced infrastructure financing districts, so more care should be exercised in developing the
terms and conditions of these options.
A bridge and thoroughfare district should generally be a last choice as it does not get a project
built immediately, and it is more difficult to adjust if the cost of the project exceeds the
estimate. Any property owner who has already paid the fee would not be contributing to the
additional costs; which places the burden on the remaining property owners or the city to make
up the difference. If there is a large variation in the development schedules of the property
owners or many property owners, then a bridge and thoroughfare district may be the only
choice. In that case, there are several precautions that should be taken during the formation of
20
the district to minimize the risk of insufficient funds later in the life of the project. These would
include:
• Design of the project should be at the 50% level or better
• The city should own all rights of way or easements for the road alignment or irrevocable
offers to dedicate. Such rights of way should be obtained prior to formation of the
district.
• Reimbursement agreements may be done for work constructed before sufficient fees
have been collected; however, reimbursements should be subject to availability of funds
after the project is complete and should only cover the amounts set forth in the project
budget.
• Fee reviews should be required every year until the project is complete with fee updates
as needed.
An enhanced infrastructure financing district may be an option for constructing the facilities
and improvements required in LFMZ 15. Such districts are authorized to combine tax increment
funding with other permitted funding sources, including property and sales tax revenue, hotel
tax, fee or assessment revenues, or loans from a city, county or special district. The process for
creating an enhanced infrastructure financing district includes certain procedural and
substantive requirements that coincide with the redevelopment dissolution process of
Assembly Bill (AB) 126, which eliminated redevelopment agencies. For example, the city’s
successor agency must have a Finding of Completion on file with the Department of Finance,
RDA litigation must be resolved, and a State Controller review must be complete.
At a special City Council meeting held on Aug. 29, 2019, city staff presented a report on “Public
Infrastructure Financing” which was intended to inform the City Council and the public about
the challenges and trends of local infrastructure financing. The presentation included a lengthy
discussion of specific and innovative financing mechanisms and the differences between
financing, which is borrowing money to pay for infrastructure over the life of the asset; versus
funding, in which a specific revenue source pays for the infrastructure.
Table 2
Potential debt financing mechanisms for College Boulevard extension project
Type of district Pros Cons
Special assessment district
(noted in CFIP)
Provides a fixed lien on the
property so owner knows the full
amount of the debt.
Requires property owners to begin paying
immediately whether they are ready to develop
or not.
Can provide funding for the
project immediately so the entire
project can be completed.
Amount of assessment must be proportional to
the benefit being received – must use benefit to
spread the cost of the project (less flexible-may be a pro or a con).
21
Vote for district is based on
majority protest. Where large
property owners support the
formation of a district, the
likelihood of success is high.
Assessments show up on future property owner
(home owner) tax bills and may be viewed as an
unfair burden at some time in the future.
Allows for the issuance of debt to
fund early construction of
project.
Majority protest ballot procedure, per
Proposition 218.
Community facility district or
parcel tax (noted in CFIP)
Can finance certain services as
well as facilities
Vote for district requires a two-thirds approval
by property owners (if large property owners
oppose formation of the district, the district
cannot be formed)
Provides greater flexibility in
structuring the special tax: does
not need to be based on benefit
but on any equitable method
Mello-Roos districts have a “bad” name
May use as a pay-as-you-go
district or issue bonds
Carlsbad Council policy does not allow pass-
through of the tax to residential properties
Allows for the issuance of debt to
fund the early construction of the
project
Current Council policy may not pass Internal
Revenue Service tests for the issuance of tax-
exempt debt. The policy would probably have to
be amended to allow pass-through of taxes
before tax-exempt debt could be considered as a
funding source
Bridge and thoroughfare
district
Developer payment occurs
concurrent with development
(more easily accepted by
developers)
Pay-as-you-go system provides funding for the
project in arrears (typically at building permit
which may be after construction has occurred)
Bridge and thoroughfare
district
Developer payment occurs
concurrent with development
(more easily accepted by
developers)
Relatively simple to create and
administer – no bond issue
Pay-as-you-go system provides funding for the
project in arrears (typically at building permit
which may be after construction has occurred)
Since project is built over time, it is more likely
that costs will increase before adjustments to the
fees can occur
When costs increase, there is no mechanism to
recover additional costs from developments
already completed. This creates potential
financial exposure for the city.
22
Developer fee programs cannot be used to
support debt issues. All project costs must be
paid for on a pay-as-you-go basis, or through
reimbursement programs.
Enhanced infrastructure
financing district
Best suited for a municipality
with a relatively high share of
total property tax revenues or
large tax increment share
No vote to form and 55% vote is required to
issue bonds
Financed through tax increment
generated from growth in
property taxes collected within a
designated district boundary
May not use eminent domain to acquire
property, nor may it buy and sell property
Tax increment available to repay for up to 45 years
Requires a Joint Powers Authority. Authority may
consist of other government agencies, such as cities, counties, and special districts
Requires voluntary and affirmative contributions
of tax increment from participating agencies, if
applicable
Other types of debt financing tools
Most government agencies have access to three kinds of financing options: municipal bonds,
loans and private equity investments. Table 3 below illustrates several types of debt financing
tools available to cities, along with some of the advantages and limitations of each.
Debt financing can take the form of either municipal bonds (bond financing) or private bank
loans (loan financing) and is usually governed by several factors including the economy, public
need, and availability of funds. The types and issuance of debt financing involve many aspects
including both long-term and short-term debt, tax-exempt and taxable debt, as well as debt
issued for refunding existing indebtedness. Market data, credit ratings, oversight and current
trends in the industry are important considerations pertaining to overall debt issuance of any
kind. General obligation bonds and revenue bonds are options discussed in the CFIP. In
addition, attached as Exhibit 12 is a comprehensive list of financial instruments related to debt
financing published by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission).
23
Public-private partnerships are contractual agreements in which governments form
partnerships with the private sector to design, finance, build, operate and/or maintain
infrastructure such as toll roads, water supply facilities and wastewater treatment plants. It
should be noted that these types of agreements, depending upon the circumstances, contain
varying degrees of risk, and some organizations have pursued projects that have been
controversial and detrimental to the short-term and long-term fiscal health of the public-sector
entity.
Table 3
Other Types of Debt Financing Tools
Privatization, as in the case of toll roads, makes sense for the public when certain conditions are
met. For example, the private company has a proven comparative advantage over the
governmental agency in providing the good or service. The services should be well-defined and
have clear criteria for evaluating results. Other implications for the public may include:
• Not realizing or receiving the full value for its toll revenues
• Loss of public control over transportation policy
• Inability to ensure privatization contracts will be fair and effective
Given the limited revenue potential with the College Boulevard extension project, privatization
of a toll road would not be a viable option.
Types of funding and revenue sources
To generate revenue for infrastructure projects, cities have traditionally used either taxes or
user fees for infrastructure services that people have been accustomed to paying for, such as
water or wastewater. Financial strategies typically involve expanding the revenue base to new
options, including:
24
• Redefining utility fees to include new types of infrastructure services (e.g., stormwater
and transportation utility fees)
• Diversifying revenue sources to both project-specific and broader sources (such as
combining sales tax with user fees)
• Examining revenue generation potential associated with infrastructure projects
• Tapping property and economic development value created by projects
Table 4 shows several types of funding and revenue sources available to cities, along with some
of the advantages and limitations of each.
Table 4
Types of funding and revenue sources
Broad sources such as property and sales taxes can be used to finance large infrastructure
projects and already have a collection process in place. Property and sales taxes can raise large
amounts for a comparatively small rate increase and in contrast to an assessment or a fee,
these taxes need not be levied in proportion to a specific benefit to a property. For example, a
half percent sales tax increase would yield approximately $10 million a year to the city. This
additional sales tax may then be used specifically to pay the debt service obligation associated
with financing the College Boulevard extension project.
In general, revenue sources that have a closer nexus to the project are typically more politically
acceptable because the link between the project and the revenue source will be widely
understood by voters and policy makers. Linking projects to additional benefits may also open
25
access to other sources of funds. For example, projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions
may become eligible for targeted funding or grants related to those goals.
Regional Transportation Improvement Program
On Nov. 4, 2004, the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego Transportation
Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. This plan states that San Diego
Association of Governments, known as SANDAG, acting as the Regional Transportation
Commission, shall approve a Regional Transportation Improvement Program, every other year
that lists projects submitted by local jurisdictions and identifies those transportation projects
that are eligible to use the transportation sales tax funds collected under TransNet. TransNet is
the region’s voter-approved, half percent sales tax for transportation improvements
administered by SANDAG. The city’s current 2018 Regional Transportation Improvement
Program list was approved by SANDAG’s Board of Directors on Sep. 28, 2018.
SANDAG has provided the city with a forecast of annual TransNet local street improvement
program revenues for fiscal year 2019 through 2023. According to the information provided by
SANDAG, as of January 2020, the city’s TransNet local street improvement balance is over $18.7
million. SANDAG’s forecast indicates that the city’s balance will be approximately $19.6 million
by the end of fiscal year 2019-20. Currently, 27 of the city’s CIP projects are included in the
2018 RTIP, of which 20 projects are financed, either fully or partially, by TransNet funds. For
these projects, approximately $19.1 million of TransNet funds have been allocated as of fiscal
year 2019-20. This leaves an unallocated TransNet balance of approximately $550,000.
A project to extend College Boulevard to Cannon Road was listed in the city’s 2018 Regional
Transportation Improvement Program with an estimated total cost of almost $12 million. That
cost estimate needs to be updated. No TransNet funds have been allocated for this College
Boulevard extension project in the 2018 Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
Additionally, the city has $1.8 million in previously provided developer funds that are available
for this project and could be used for the project’s preliminary design and engineering
assessment, if the City Council directs staff to develop a city-led effort. These funds were paid
by the developer of the Terraces at Sunny Creek under a fair share cost agreement approved by
the City Council on October 3, 2000. This agreement allowed the property owner to proceed
with development in Zone 15 in advance of the formation of a fee program.
Financing summary
In summary, the financing associated with construction of the College Boulevard extension
project will be challenging and demanding a prudent approach. Matching the appropriate
financing tool or tools to the project will involve using complex financing techniques requiring
careful planning and consideration from city staff and external financial partners.
Staff recommends direction from City Council to develop a city-led financing program for
construction of the College Boulevard extension project, which would include the city
undertaking a preliminary design and engineering assessment for approximately $3 million.
26
Staff also recommends City Council consider whether they can make findings to support a
moratorium per SB 330 (Gov. Code Section 66300 et seq.)
Traffic and Mobility Commission recommendation
As part of the fiscal year 2017-18 annual growth management monitoring report update, this
item was presented to the Traffic and Mobility Commission on March 2, 2020. Staff’s
recommendations to the City Council to determine the four street facilities to be deficient, built
out and exempt did not pass by a vote of 3-3-1 (with Commissioner Steve Linke absent).
Attached as Exhibit 13 are the draft minutes from that meeting.
Additionally, during the meeting, Commissioners discussed making comments at the City
Council meeting regarding support of funding and expediting an unnumbered CIP (which is now
referred to as CIP Project No. 6094) and a city-led financing program to construct the College
Boulevard extension project. With a vote of 6-0-1 (Commissioner Linke absent), the Traffic and
Mobility Commission approved Chair Mona Gocan presenting the Commission’s
recommendations at the March 24, 2020 City Council meeting.
As a result of the discussions during the Traffic and Mobility Commission meeting, staff
amended this staff report to add a request to City Council to expedite CIP Project No. 6094,
widening northbound El Camino Real from Sunny Creek Road to Jackspar Drive and to return
with proposed funding sources.
Fiscal Analysis
CIP projects have been identified in this staff report (CIP Nos. 6071, 6042/6056 and 6094). Staff
has outlined the anticipated future funding needs for those CIP projects below and will adjust
the project costs as part of the fiscal year 2020-21 CIP approval process or separately for City
Council approval. Other funding needs will depend on the direction given by City Council and
are not included below.
Table 5
Anticipated funding requests for CIP Nos. 6071, 6042/6056 and 6094
CIP Project No. 6071
Current appropriation $1,026,000
Current expenditures and/or encumbrances $251,153
Total available funding $774,847
Future appropriation needed $0
Total anticipated funds needed $1,026,000
CIP Projects Nos. 6042 and 6056
Current appropriation $2,825,000
Current expenditures and/or encumbrances $1,353,435
Total available funding $1,471,565
27
Future appropriation needed $695,000
Total anticipated funds needed $3,520,000
CIP Project No. 6094
Current appropriation $0
Future appropriation needed $4,000,000
Total anticipated funds needed $4,000,000
Total of all projects
Total anticipated funds needed $8,546,000
Next Steps
If directed by the City Council, staff can return at a future date with a city-led financing plan to
construct a four-lane College Boulevard extension for the council’s consideration, including the
city undertaking a preliminary design and engineering assessment for approximately $3 million.
Staff would meet with LFMZ 15 property owners to determine interest in participating in the
project.
Staff will also return to City Council to present funding sources for consideration, if City Council
directs staff to expedite CIP No. 6094.
Consistent with the City Council’s direction, staff will update the applicable LFMP and CFIP
relating to the obligation of private development in LFMZ 15 to fully fund the College Boulevard
extension project per CMC Section 21.90.125.
Staff also recommends the City Council consider whether it can make the findings required to
support a moratorium on development that are required under Senate Bill 330 (Gov. Code
Section 66300 et seq.)
This staff report has focused on the results of the fiscal year 2017-18 Annual Growth
Management Monitoring Report. Staff is in the process of preparing the fiscal year 2018-19
Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report, which is expected to be presented to the
Traffic and Mobility Commission and City Council later this year.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
Exempting street facilities and intersections from the Growth Management Program circulation
LOS standard is an activity that was previously evaluated in the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) 13-02 for the General Plan update (GPA 07-02), dated Sept. 22, 2015. The
City Council may declare certain street facilities as built-out and approve LOS exemptions
consistent with General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 provided that subsequent
development projects located in LFMZs with exempted facilities incorporate appropriate TDM
and TSM measures to reduce project impacts.
The EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of the implementation of General Plan
policies and Climate Action Plan measures that would reduce congestion and vehicle-related
demand through TDM and TSM. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (c) (2),
the action to exempt the recommended street facilities from the Growth Management Program
28
circulation LOS performance standard is within the scope of the Final Program EIR 13-02 and no
further CEQA compliance is required.
Street improvement projects recommended in this staff report will be subject to appropriate
project-level CEQA review during their planning and design prior to implementation.
Public Notification
This item was noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and was available for public
viewing and review at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. Draft City Council Resolution
2. Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report for fiscal year 2017-18: Circulation Section
3. Map of Deficient Street Facilities with Local Facility Management Zones
4. City letter to California Department of Housing and Community Development
5. Location Map for El Camino Real and College Boulevard, CIP Project No. 6071
6. Location Map for El Camino Real and Cannon Road, CIP Project Nos. 6042/6056
7. Carlsbad Community Vision
8. College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis
9. Reimbursement Fee Ordinance
10. Section VII of CFIP
11. City Council Policy No. 33
12. Comprehensive list of financial instruments related to debt financing published by the
California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC)
13. Draft Minutes from the March 2, 2020 Traffic and Mobility Commission Meeting
Exhibit 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING DEFICIENCIES OF FOUR STREET FACILITIES
ACCORDING TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS, on July 1, 1986 the City Council passed and adopted Ordinance No. 9808, amending
Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) by the addition of Chapter 21.90 establishing a Growth
Management Plan (GMP) for the city; and
WHEREAS, on Nov. 4, 1986, Carlsbad voters passed Proposition E, initiative Ordinance No. 9824,
establishing residential dwelling unit limits in the city’s four quadrants and requiring that public
facilities be made available concurrent with need in accordance with the city’s growth management
program; and
WHEREAS, the GMP makes the approval of new development contingent upon adequacy of
public facilities, based on performance standards for eleven identified public facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP) includes the circulation
performance standard that requires facilities to maintain Level of Service (LOS) D or better, excluding
LOS exempt intersections and streets approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the GMP requires annual monitoring to measure adequate performance of various
public facilities, including circulation; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Mobility Element, adopted in September 2015, requires that the
city’s LOS analyses for growth management purposes use Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
methodology; and
WHEREAS, staff employed HCM methodology for its LOS analyses in the fiscal year (FY) 2017-
2018 annual monitoring report, in lieu of the city’s prior use of the Intersection Capacity Utilization-
Carlsbad (ICU-C) methodology; and
WHEREAS, CMC Section 21.90.080 states, “If at any time after the preparation of a local facilities
management plan the performance standards established by a plan are not met then no development
permits or building permits shall be issued within the local zone until the performance standard is met
or arrangements satisfactory to the City Council guaranteeing the facilities and improvements have
been made.”; and
Exhibit 1
WHEREAS, the General Plan Mobility Element, Policy 3-P.9, allows City Council to exempt the
vehicle mode of travel from the LOS D standard for a street intersection or facility that has been
identified as built-out because one or more enumerated criteria has been met; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11 requires new development that adds
vehicle traffic to street facilities that are exempt from the vehicle LOS D standard to implement
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation System Management (TSM)
strategies to improve the efficiency of the existing transportation system, reduce reliance on single-
occupant automobiles and provide attractive alternatives to driving an automobile according to the
city’s livable streets vision; and
WHEREAS, the FY 2017-2018 annual monitoring report identified the following four street
facilities not meeting the LOS D performance standard, and that roadway improvement projects and/or
exemptions from the performance standard can fully address these deficiencies: El Camino Real
southbound from Cannon Road to College Boulevard; El Camino Real northbound from College
Boulevard to Cannon Road; Cannon Road eastbound from El Camino Real to College Boulevard; and
Cannon Road westbound from College Boulevard to El Camino Real; and
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2019, city staff presented recommended actions to City Council to
address the LOS D performance standard deficiencies identified in the FY 2017-2018 annual monitoring
report for the four above-described street facilities, and City Council returned the item with direction
for staff to formulate alternate solutions; and
WHEREAS, city staff continue to recommend addressing the LOS deficiencies at El Camino Real
southbound from Cannon Road to College Boulevard and El Camino Real northbound from College
Boulevard to Cannon Road through an exemption to the LOS D standard pursuant to Mobility Element
Policy 3-P.9 (d), because roadway improvements would require more than three through lanes in each
direction of travel, which is inconsistent with the General Plan Mobility Element; and
WHEREAS, city staff continue to recommend addressing the LOS deficiencies at Cannon Road
eastbound from El Camino Real to College Boulevard and Cannon Road westbound from College
Boulevard to El Camino Real through an exemption to the LOS D standard pursuant to Mobility Element
Policy 3-P.9 (a), because roadway improvements would require acquisition of additional right of way.
This is infeasible because it will require encroachment into open space for the preservation of natural
resources, the westbound new travel lane would encroach into the road setback of the adjacent
Exhibit 1
community and large slopes would require considerable grading and a trail easement along the
eastbound lane would need to be relinquished by the city; and
WHEREAS, although it will not fully address the LOS D deficiency at El Camino Real northbound
from Sunny Creek Road to Jackspar Drive, city staff recommend implementing CIP No. 6094 to widen
El Camino Real to add a third northbound through lane to improve traffic congestion at this location;
and
WHEREAS, for the street facilities of El Camino Real southbound from Cannon Road to College
Boulevard; El Camino Real northbound from College Boulevard to Cannon Road; Cannon Road
eastbound from El Camino Real to College Boulevard; and Cannon Road westbound from College
Boulevard to El Camino Real, staff recommends that the City Council determine the deficient street
facility to be built-out and exempt from the LOS D standard and apply TDM and TSM strategies to new
development that adds vehicle traffic to the exempt street facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Planner has determined that: 1) exempting street facilities and intersections
from the GMP circulation LOS D vehicle performance standard is a subsequent activity of the General
Plan Mobility Element for which Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 13-02 was prepared;
2) a notice for the activity has been given, which includes statements that this activity is within the
scope of the program approved earlier, and that program EIR 13-02 adequately describes the activity
for the purposes of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15168(c)(2) and (e); 3) that the
proposal to exempt certain sections of El Camino Real and College Boulevard has no new significant
environmental effect that was not analyzed as significant in program EIR 13-02; and 4) none of the
circumstances requiring a subsequent or a supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or
15163 exist.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council determines a deficiency of the LOS D performance standard exists for
the following street facilities based on the results of the FY 2017-2018 growth management
annual monitoring report:
a. El Camino Real southbound from Cannon Road to College Boulevard
b. El Camino Real northbound from College Boulevard to Cannon Road
Exhibit 1
c. Cannon Road eastbound from El Camino Real to College Boulevard
d. Cannon Road westbound from College Boulevard to El Camino Real
3. That the City Council determines El Camino Real southbound from Cannon Road to College
Boulevard and El Camino Real northbound from College Boulevard to Cannon Road are
built-out and exempt from the LOS performance standard for the vehicle mode of travel
under General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (d), as roadway improvements to address
the deficiencies would require more than three through travel lanes in each direction. Any
future development which adds vehicle traffic to these exempt street facilities shall
implement TDM and TSM strategies in accordance with General Plan Mobility Element
Policy 3-P.11.
4. In relation to the street section of El Camino Real northbound from Sunny Creek Road to
Jackspar Drive, City Council directs staff to expedite the roadway improvements under
existing CIP Project No. 6094 to partially address the identified LOS performance standard
deficiency.
5. That the City Council determines Cannon Road eastbound from El Camino Real to College
Boulevard and Cannon Road westbound from College Boulevard to El Camino Real through
an exemption to the LOS D standard pursuant to Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9 (a), because
roadway improvements to address the deficiency would require acquisition of additional
right of way. This is infeasible as stated in the findings above. Any future development
which adds vehicle traffic to these exempt street facilities shall implement TDM and TSM
strategies in accordance with General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.11.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the __ day of ____, 2020, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
_________________________
MATT HALL, Mayor
_________________________
Exhibit 1
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Exhibit 2
CIRCULATION
A. Performance Standard
Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the system –
vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain level of service (LOS) D or
better for all modes that are subject to this multi-modal level of service (MMLOS)
standard, as identified in Table 3-1 of the General Plan Mobility Element, excluding LOS
exempt intersections and streets approved by the City Council.
The service levels for each travel mode are represented as a “grade” ranging from LOS A
to LOS F: LOS A reflects a high level of service for a travel mode (e.g. outstanding
characteristics and experience for that mode) and LOS F would reflect an inadequate level
of service for a travel mode (e.g. excessive congestion for vehicles, inadequate facilities
for bicycle, pedestrian, or transit users).
B. Livable Streets
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.
Accomplishing this state mandate requires a fundamental shift in how the city plans and
designs the street system – recognizing the street as a public space that serves all users
of the system (elderly, children, bicyclists, pedestrians, etc.) within the urban context of
that system (e.g. accounting for the adjacent land uses).
• Prior to adoption of the General Plan Mobility Element on September 22, 2015, the
growth management circulation performance standard was based on the circulation
needs of a single mode of travel – the automobile.
• The General Plan Mobility Element identifies a new livable streets strategy for mobility
within the city.
• The livable streets strategy focuses on creating a ‘multi-modal’ street network that
supports the mobility needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and vehicles.
• Providing travel mode options that reduce dependence on the vehicle also supports
the city’s Climate Action Plan in achieving its goals of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions within the city.
C. Street Typology
The city’s approach to provide livable streets recognizes that improving the LOS for one
mode of transportation can sometimes degrade the LOS for another mode. For example,
pedestrian friendly streets are designed to encourage pedestrian uses and typically have
slow vehicle travel speeds and short-distance pedestrian crossings that restrict vehicle
mobility. Therefore, the General Plan Mobility Element’s livable streets approach
Exhibit 2
identifies, based on the location and type of street (street typology), the travel modes for
which service levels should be enhanced and maintained per the MMLOS standard (LOS
D or better).
• Mobility Element Table 3-1 describes the livable street typologies and Figure 3-1
depicts the livable street system.
• The street typology identifies which modes of transportation are subject to, and which
modes are not subject to, the MMLOS standard.
• The vehicle mode of travel is subject to the MMLOS standard only on the following
street typologies: Freeways, Arterial Streets, Arterial Connector Streets, and Industrial
Streets.
• The city has historically monitored vehicle LOS along 26 street segments.
o When the Mobility Element was adopted in 2015, eight of those street
segments were designated with street typologies where the vehicle is
accommodated but is not subject to the MMLOS standard.
o These eight street segments are streets where the LOS of other travel modes
(pedestrian, bicycle, transit) is a priority.
o These eight street segments were not monitored for vehicular LOS in this
report.
o Vehicular LOS data was collected along the remaining eighteen (26-8=18)
street segments as discussed below.
D. Methods to Measure Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS)
• Vehicle LOS is measured as described below.
• The method to measure pedestrian, bicycle and transit LOS is based on the approach
used in preparation of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which
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. Following the adoption of the General Plan
Mobility Element and the MMLOS standard, city staff developed the MMLOS Tool,
which refines the method used in the General Plan EIR.
E. Changing How Vehicle LOS is Measured
During this reporting period, changes were made to how vehicle LOS is measured, in
comparison to previous years. The changes are summarized below and were made to
be consistent with the General Plan Mobility Element, recent changes to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the latest version of the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM).
Exhibit 2
• Eliminated intersection vehicle LOS analysis.
The city has historically monitored vehicle LOS using both intersection and street
segment methodologies. The city eliminated the use of intersection LOS analysis and
now evaluates vehicle LOS using only street segment LOS analysis.
• Updated street segment vehicle LOS analysis.
The methodology used to evaluate vehicle LOS along street segments was updated to
be consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual, per the General Plan Mobility
Element. This update resulted in significantly reduced roadway capacities which
subsequently led to significantly lower LOS results on most roadway segments.
• Re-Defined street segments to monitor.
The 18 street segments that were historically monitored and will continue to be
monitored for vehicle LOS have been divided into 43 smaller street segments.
Changes in the number of lanes, signal spacing or speed limit define the segment
division. For this reporting period, traffic counts were not collected for all 43 street
segments. Rather, traffic counts were collected at the same 18 historical locations as
in previous years, and vehicle LOS is reported for the 18 street segments that align
with the historical locations. The other 25 street segments (43-18=25) were not
monitored in this report. All 43 street segments will be monitored in 2019.
• Changing vehicle LOS monitoring from summer conditions to average spring/fall
conditions.
The schedule for collecting field data for vehicle LOS was changed from summer to
spring and fall data collection. The industry standard is to monitor traffic in the spring
and fall to reflect typical conditions when school is in session. This report reflects
traffic data gathered in the fall of 2018. Traffic data is scheduled to be collected in the
spring of 2019.
Exhibit 2
F. LOS D Exemptions
The City Council has the authority to exempt a street facility from the LOS D standard if
the street facility meets one or more of the following criteria from General Plan Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.9:
To exempt the vehicle mode of travel from the LOS standard at a particular street
intersection or segment, the intersection or street segment must be identified as built-out
by the City Council because:
a. Acquiring the rights of way is not feasible; or
b. The proposed improvements would significantly impact the environment in an
unacceptable way and mitigation would not contribute to the nine core values of
the Carlsbad Community Vision; or
c. The proposed improvements would result in unacceptable impacts to other
community values or General Plan policies; or
d. The proposed improvements would require more than three through travel lanes
in each direction.
The following street facilities were identified in the General Plan and are expected to
provide a vehicle level of service below LOS D at buildout. Per General Plan Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.10, the following street facilities, including the intersections along
these segments, are exempt from the vehicle level of service standard:
• La Costa Avenue between Interstate-5 and El Camino Real
• El Camino Real between Palomar Airport Road and La Costa Avenue
• Palomar Airport Road between Interstate-5 and College Boulevard
• Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and Melrose Drive
G. FY 2017-18 Facility Adequacy Analysis
This report includes circulation facility adequacy analysis for FY 2017-18. The details of
all LOS results are found in the 2018 GMP traffic monitoring data. The following table
summarizes the street segments where vehicle and other modes of transportation exceed
(do not meet) the MMLOS standard (LOS D or higher).
1. Street Segments with Vehicle LOS Exceeding LOS D Standard
Compared to previous growth management monitoring reports, this report identifies
more street segments that do not meet the MMLOS standard – LOS D or higher. The
increase in segments with a LOS below D is primarily due to the changes in how vehicle
LOS is measured (as summarized above), and to a lesser degree changes in volume of
vehicles compared to previous years. Following this report, city staff will deliver a
Exhibit 2
more detailed report to the City Council on the vehicle LOS reported in the table below
and shown in Figure 4.
Deficient
Roadway
Segment
From To
Level of Service
(LOS) Adjacent Facility
Management Zone
(LFMZ) AM PM
El Camino Real Oceanside
City Limits
Marron Road E E 1, 2
El Camino Real Marron Road Oceanside
City Limits
E E 1, 2
El Camino Real College Blvd Cannon Road C F 5, 8, 14, 15, 24
El Camino Real Cannon Road College Blvd F B 5, 8, 14, 15, 24
College Blvd. Aston
Avenue
Palomar
Airport Rd.
B F 5
Melrose Drive Vista City
Limits
Palomar
Airport Rd.
F E 5, 18
Cannon Road El Camino
Real
College Blvd D F 8, 14, 15, 24
Cannon Road College Blvd El Camino
Real
E D 8, 14, 15, 24
2. Roadway Segments with Pedestrian LOS Exceeding LOS D Standard
None (all of the roadway segments monitored met the LOS standard)
3. Roadway Segments with Bicycle Los Exceeding LOS D Standard
None (all of the roadway segments monitored met the LOS standard)
4. Roadway Segments with Transit LOS Exceeding LOS D Standard
None (the recently adopted Travel Demand Management ordinance addresses all
outstanding issues)
Exhibit 2
Figure 4: Deficient Street Segments and LFMZ
Exhibit 2
H. Buildout Facility Adequacy Analysis
The Environmental Impact Report for the 2015 General Plan evaluated how buildout of
the land uses planned by the General Plan will impact the vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle and
transit levels of service, and identified that additional circulation facilities may need to be
constructed in order to meet the GMP performance standard at buildout. The following
summarizes the results of that evaluation:
Vehicle Level of Service at Buildout
• Additional future road segments (extensions of College Boulevard, Poinsettia Lane
and Camino Junipero) needed to accommodate the city’s future growth were
identified as part of the General Plan update. The General Plan Mobility Element
identifies these needed future road segments as “Planned City of Carlsbad Street
Capacity Improvements.”
• The General Plan also called out the need to implement the scheduled Interstate-5
North Coast Project and Interstate-5/Interstate-78 Interchange Improvement Project
that are needed to accommodate future growth.
• The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds projects that will upgrade the LOS
including several roadway widenings along El Camino Real near: College Road
(northbound), La Costa Avenue (southbound), and Cassia Road (northbound).
• The General Plan EIR identifies travel demand management (TDM) and traffic system
management (TSM) as mitigation measures for roadway sections that have been
given LOS exemptions.
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Level of Service at Buildout
Improvements to pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities may be needed to ensure
compliance with the MMLOS standard at buildout. Needed improvements will be
identified after the city has completed an evaluation of the facility according to the
roadway typology.
I. Next Steps
Carlsbad Municipal Code ∮21.90.130 (c) states:
If at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the city manager that facilities or
improvements within a facilities management zone or zones are inadequate to
accommodate any further development within that zone or that the performance
standards adopted pursuant to Section 21.90.100 are not being met, he or she
shall immediately report the deficiency to the council. If the council determines
that a deficiency exists, then no further building or development permits shall be
issued within the affected zone or zones and development shall cease until an
Exhibit 2
amendment to the city-wide facilities and improvements plan or applicable local
facilities management plan which addresses the deficiency is approved by the city
council and the performance standard is met.
A staff report will be sent to the City Council that includes the following:
• a list of the street segments subject to the LOS D standard and do not meet this
standard;
• a list of these deficient street segments that meet the conditions for an
exemption;
• a list of projects that could be implemented to meet the LOS D standard;
• a request that City Council determine which of these segments is deficient,
identify which ones should gain exemptions, and identify which projects to fund
in order to meet the LOS D standard.
Exhibit 3
CITY OF CARLSBAD Office of the City Attorney
February 27, 2020
VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL
Anastasia Baskerville, Esq. Melinda Coy, HCD Policy Specialist Department of Housing & Community Development Housing Policy Development Division
2020 W. El Camino Ave, Suite 525
Sacramento, CA 95833
www.carlsbadca.gov
Re: Housing Crisis Act of 2019 -Request for Opinion: Government Code, §66300 et seq.
Dear Ms. Baskerville and Ms. Coy:
The City of Carlsbad ("City") requests Department of Housing & Community Development's opinion as to the enforceability of a moratorium proposed pursuant to the City's
Growth Management Program1 (Proposition E and implementing regulations, collectively
"GMP"). Specifically does the moratorium satisfy the standard mandated by the Legislature for moratoria of " ... an imminent threat to the health and safety of person residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium ... "? (Gov. Code,§ 66300 (b)(B)(ii).)
As set forth in greater detail below, the moratorium would prohibit the issuance of any development or building permits in Local Facilities Management Zone ("LFMZ") 15 until the four ( 4) identified street facilities meet the vehicle level of service ("LOS") performance standard of D or the necessary improvements are guaranteed. (See CMC § 21.90.080). Approximately 1,406 residential units are planned for development within the moratorium area.
LFMZ15
Zone 15 includes approximately 1,528 gross acres. The General Plan Land Use
designations in Zone 15 include OS (Open Space), P (Public), R-4 (Residential 0-4 du/ac), R-8
(Residential 4-8 du/ac), R-15 (Residential 8-15 du/ac), R-30 (Residential 23-30 du/ac), 0 (Office), and R-15/L (Residential 8-15 du/ac/Local Shopping Center). Existing land uses within
1 CMC Section 21.90.080, 130 & Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report
http://www.qcode.us/codes/carlsbad/ https :/ /www.carlsbadca.gov/ ci vi cax/file bank/blo bdload.aspx?Blo bID=3 5 807
City Attorney
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-434-2891 I 760-434-8367 fax
EXHIBIT 4
Page 2
Zone 15 include single-family dwellings, manufactured/mobile homes, an executive golf
course, and a reservoir site owned and operated by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. A professional care facility is also under construction in Zone 15. There are approved development permits for an additional professional care facility, several large lot subdivisions, and a 127-unit apartment complex.
All of the properties remaining for development allow residential development. The remaining residential dwelling unit capacity projected for Zone 15 by the General Plan is 1,406 dwelling units. This projection includes approved but not built projects.
The four street segments identified in LFMZ 15 exceeding the vehicle LOS D standard
are as follows: 1) El Camino Real south bound from Cannon Rd. to College Blvd., 2) El
Camino northbound from College Blvd. to Cannon Blvd., 3) Cannon Rd. east bound from El Camino Real to College Blvd., and 4) Cannon Rd. westbound from College Blvd. to El Camino Real.
City staff have proposed physical improvements to address these four ( 4) congested road
facilities, however, their implementation is complicated due to several hurdles unique to LFMZ 15, including buildout of the proposed projects located on private property. An estimated $30 million2 is needed to fund the ultimate road configuration.
While the City explores its options to address these deficiencies, we would appreciate
HCD's opinion on the enforceability of a moratorium. This matter is currently scheduled to be heard by the City's Traffic and Mobility Commission on March 2, 2020 and the City Council on March 24, 2020.
Attachment: Proposition E
cc: City Manager
Very truly yours, '
Celia A. Brewer
CITY ATTORNEY
2 Estimate assumes prevailing wage.
E
CITY OF CARLSBAD Proposition E
(This ::,roposltlon wm appear on the ballot In the following form.)
Shall an ordinance be adopted to provide as a part of the 1986 growth managemont plan that 1) NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE APPROVED by the City of Carlsbad unless It is guarantA0d that concurrent with need all necessary public facilities be provided as required by said plan with emphasis on ensuring good traffic clrculatlon, schools,· parl<s, libraries, cµen space and recreational amenities; and 2) the City Council shall not approve residential development which would increase the number of dwelling units beyond the limit in said ordinance WITHOUT AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THE CITIZENS. The C,ty may add additional public facilities. The City shall not reduce public facilities without a corresponding reduction In the residential dwelling unit limit.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The People of the City of Carlsbad do ordain as follows:
A.That the Carlsbad general plan shall be amende,d by the amendment of thePublic Facllities and Land Use Elements to add the followill',f
"The City of Car1sbad In Implementing Its public facilities element and growth management plan has made an estimate or the number of dwelling units that will be built as a result of the application of the density ranges in the land Use Element to Individual projects. The City's Capital Improvement Budget, growth management plan, and public facllltles plans are all based on this estimate. In order to ensure that all necessary public facilities will be available concurrent wlth need to serve new development It Is necessary to limit the number of residential dwelling units which can be constructed In the City to that estimate. For that purpose the City has been divided Into four quadrants along El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. The maximum number of residential dwelling units to be constructed or approved in the City after November 4, 1986 is as 'follows: Northwest Quadrant 5,844; Northeast Quadrant 6,166; Southwest Quadrant 10,667; Southeast Quadrant 10,801.
The City shall not approve any General Plan amendment, zone change, tentat:ve subdivision map or other discretionary approval for a development which could result in development above the llmlt In any quadrant. In order to ensure that development does not exceed the llrrit the following growth management control point'.. are established tor the Land Use Element density ranges.
ALLOWED DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
General Plan Density Ranges
RL o -1.5 RLM o :.. 4.0 RM 4 -a.oRMH 8 -15.0 RH 15 -23.0
Growth Management Control Point
1.0 3.2 6.0 11.5 19.0
(Continued on nalCI page)
PA-001.1 415-38
l l 1
I I I
.
·!
. r
......
I I
!
I
!
I
. i
• ,J
; _,.-.
i -r,
., ;-
The C'ty shall not approve any residential development at a density that exceeds the growth management control point for the applicable density. range without making the following flnd!ngs:
i.That the project wilt provide sufficient additional public facilities for the density In excess of the control point to ensure that the adequacy of the City's public facilities pls.ns will not be adversely _Impacted. .
2.That there have been sufficient developments approved in the quadrant atdensities below the control point to cover the units In the project above the control point so the approval will not result In exceeding the quadrant limit.
The City Manager shall monitor all approvals and report to the Planning Commission and City Council on an annual basis to ensure that the construction of residential units within each quadrant, on a cumulative basis, will be at or below the growth management control points and that the overall quadrant limits are being maintal:,ed. • If the annual report indicates in any way that it is likely that the limit may be exceeded, the Council shall take appropriate action by revising the growth management plan and the City's :zoning code to ensure that the ceilings will be maintained.
The City Council or the Planning Commission shall not find that all necessary public facilities will be available concurrent with need as required by the Public Facilities Element and the City's 1986 growth management plan unless the provision of such facilities is guaranteed. In guaranteeing that the facilities will be provided emphasis shall be given to ensuring good traffic circulation, schools, parks, libraries, open space and recreational amenities. Public facilities may be added. The City Council shall not materially reduce public facllltles without making corresponding reductions In residential densities .•
Nothing In this section shall be construed as changing the requirement that any specifte residential density above the minimum a!lowed by the land Use Element density ranges and the applicable zoning shall be justified according to the requirements of the appropriate General Plan and :zoning provisions.
(Continued on next page)
PR-001.2 415-311
·,
i
I
~
I
.. ~-•212•••••· 11,mm1;1_~,!!ll'•~.~~'."~""'.'"".."'~---:--·------·,
:r ,,
. l
. i
'· ;;
. -.:�
B.The zoning map of the City of Carlsbad shall be amended to provide that buildingpermits Issued or approved for residential dwelling units In the City after November 4, '1986shall not exceed the limits established In the map In this section. The numbers on the map shall not be increased without an affirmative vote of the people.
NE QUADRANT
5,844 Dwelling Units
SW QUADRANT SE QUADRANT
10,667 Dwelling Units 10,801 Dwelllng Units
C.The City Council shall adopt amendments to Chapter 21.90 of the CarlsbadMunicipal Code (Growth Management) as necessary to Implement the General Plan amendment of Section A and the Map of Section B.
D.This ordinance Is Inconsistent with and Intended as an alternative to any Initiativeordinance which W<>Uld place an annual numerical limitation on the rate of residential construction. If this ordinance and any such Initiative ordinance are both paSSE>'; by a majority voting thereon then the one with the most votes shall prevail."
PR-001.3 · 415-40
-........, C , -• ... -,,,·•-··--� -··,-. ,_.�;:·--· .. , ... _...,...-.... ·r'�.��-.,.. ....... � .. ";'.,..�;t{--"'"·�·•·\'.{1'.;,?.��":-�-r
i ! I I
I
l l
! I ! I I I I I
.
,,
:! ;i
,,
.1 . ! :t
~
; ; .. •
I
. '
' ! ~
... _J ; .J
I l
t ) I. ~ l I
' l I
I I I l l f !
.... -. --.
EL CAMINO REAL & COLLEGE BLVD.
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 6071 5
EL
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
COLLEGE BLVD.PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
Exhibit 5
BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS
EL CAMINO REAL AND CANNON ROAD 6042 &6056 6EL CAMINO REALCANNON ROAD
AGU
A
H
E
D
I
O
N
D
A
C
R
E
E
K
PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
Exhibit 6
Small town feel, beach community character and connectedness
Enhance Carlsbad’s defining attributes—its small town feel and beach community character. Build on the city’s culture
of civic engagement, volunteerism and philanthropy.
Open space and the natural environment
Prioritize protection and enhancement of open space and the natural environment. Support and protect Carlsbad’s
unique open space and agricultural heritage.
Access to recreation and active, healthy lifestyles
Promote active lifestyles and community health by furthering access to trails, parks, beaches and other recreation
opportunities.
The local economy, business diversity and tourism
Strengthen the city’s strong and diverse economy and its position as an employment hub in north San Diego County.
Promote business diversity, increased specialty retail and dining opportunities, and Carlsbad’s tourism.
Walking, biking, public transportation and connectivity
Increase travel options through enhanced walking, bicycling and public transportation systems. Enhance mobility
through increased connectivity and intelligent transportation management.
Sustainability
Build on the city’s sustainability initiatives to emerge as a leader in green development and sustainability. Pursue public/
private partnerships, particularly on sustainable water, energy, recycling and foods.
History, the arts and cultural resources
Emphasize the arts by promoting a multitude of events and productions year-round, cutting-edge venues to host world-
class performances, and celebrate Carlsbad’s cultural heritage in dedicated facilities and programs.
High quality education and community services
Support quality, comprehensive education and life-long learning opportunities, provide housing and community
services for a changing population, and maintain a high standard for citywide public safety.
Neighborhood revitalization, community design and livability
Revitalize neighborhoods and enhance citywide community design and livability. Promote a greater mix of uses citywide,
more activities along the coastline and link density to public transportation. Revitalize the downtown Village as a
community focal point and a unique and memorable center for visitors, and rejuvenate the historic Barrio neighborhood.
Thousands of community members have participated
in the city-sponsored Envision Carlsbad program to create a community
vision for Carlsbad’s future. The core values and vision statements emerging
from this process serve as a guide for city leaders as they carry out their
service to all who live, work and play in the City of Carlsbad.
CommunityVision
EXHIBIT 7
College Boulevard
Extension Traffic
Operations Analysis
Prepared for:
City of Carlsbad
March 11, 2020
SD19-0297.03
EXHIBIT 8
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1
2. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Traffic Analysis Methodology for Roadway Segments .......................................................................................... 5
3. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations .................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Existing Roadway Capacity Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 7
4. Reassignment of Existing Trips ............................................................................................. 11
4.1 Reassignment of Existing Trips Roadway Capacity Analysis ..............................................................................11
5. Zone 15 Buildout Conditions ................................................................................................. 16
5.1 Zone 15 Buildout Conditions Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................16
5.1.1 4-Lane Roadway Extension .................................................................................................................................16
5.2 Zone 15 Buildout Conditions Roadway Capacity Analysis .................................................................................21
6. Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 24
Appendices
Appendix A – College Boulevard Extension Analysis – Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
Appendix B – City of Carlsbad Facility Service Volume Table
Appendix C – Existing (2019) Traffic Count Data
List of Figures
Figure 1– Project Site & Study Locations .................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2 – Existing (2019) Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes and Geometries ..................................................... 8
Figure 3 - Existing (2019) Peak Hour Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................ 10
Figure 4 - Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips Peak Hour Volumes and Geometries ...................................... 12
Figure 5 – Reassignment of Existing Trips Peak Hour Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................ 15
Figure 6 - Zone 15 Development Potential ............................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 7 - Buildout Trips ................................................................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 8 - Buildout Plus Reassignment of Existing Trips – 2 Lane Roadway – Peak Hour Volumes and Geometries .................................................................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 9 - Buildout Plus Reassignment of Existing Trips - 4 Lane Roadway – Peak Hour Volumes and Geometries .................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 10 - Buildout Plus Reassignment of Existing Trips - 4 Lane Roadway –Roadway Segment Analysis 23
List of Tables
Table 1: Existing Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis ........................................................................................................ 9
Table 2: Roadway Capacity Analysis for Study Roadways with Reassignment of Existing Trips ...................... 13
Table 3: Zone 15 Buildout Roadway Capacity Analysis with Reassignment of Existing Trips - Four-Lane Roadway Extension .................................................................................................................................................. 21
College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis March 11, 2020
1
1. Executive Summary
The proposed extension of College Boulevard in the City of Carlsbad from Cannon Road to El Camino Real
is included as an arterial street gap closure project in the City’s General Plan Mobility Element (see Table 3-
2 – Planned City of Carlsbad Street Capacity Improvements). This future connection will help to distribute
existing and future traffic volumes using the College Boulevard corridor both within the City of Carlsbad, as
well as trips traveling to and from the north (i.e., to/from the City of Oceanside and the SR 78 Freeway
Corridor). The extension is planned as a four-lane arterial street that will connect to a short existing segment
already constructed north of El Camino Real.
The purpose of this study is to establish a preliminary set of baseline conditions and identify potential near-
term (existing conditions) multimodal issues/opportunities assuming completion of the extension as a two-
lane or four-lane roadway. While transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and services will be important
elements of the proposed extension, this initial analysis focuses on projected near-term vehicle demand
and resulting segment operations consistent with Growth Management Program requirements.
With construction of the extension, existing vehicle trips will be re-distributed across the surrounding
roadway network. In addition, the extension will provide access to parcels within the Zone 15 planning area
that are expected to develop with a variety of land uses. Two new future streets are expected to intersect
the extension and provide direct access to Zone 15 parcels. This analysis includes estimates of traffic
volumes associated with both re-distribution and new adjacent development that would use the College
Boulevard extension following construction. No regional growth was assumed as a part of the analysis for
opening of the extension or the analysis for buildout of Zone 15.
Consistent with the City’s traffic operations methodology for roadways, this document includes analysis of
the following roadway segments:
1. College Boulevard
a. Carlsbad Village Drive to Cannon Road
b. Cannon Road to Future Street 2* c. Future Street 2 to Future Street 1*
d. Future Street 1 to Sunny Creek Road*
e. Cannon Road to El Camino Real f. El Camino Real to Aston Avenue
2. Cannon Rd
a. College Boulevard to El Camino Real b. El Camino Real to Faraday Avenue
3. El Camino Real
a. Cannon Road to Jackspar Drive
College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis March 11, 2020
2
b. Jackspar Drive to College Boulevard
*Analyzed under Zone 15 Buildout Condition
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) was also conducted for proposed intersections along the College
Boulevard extension and existing intersections in the vicinity of the extension. This analysis is included as
Appendix A.
The study area is shown on Figure ES-1.
This analysis indicated that with a reassignment of existing trips that would result from completion of the
College Boulevard roadway extension, a two-lane roadway extension would operate near capacity without assuming any additional local or regional traffic growth. As such, a four-lane roadway extension was analyzed to evaluate the potential effect of adding vehicle trips associated with the buildout of land uses
in Zone 15. This analysis showed that the four-lane College Boulevard extension would operate at or above capacity with the addition of buildout of land uses anticipated in Zone 15. Ultimately, the addition of the College Boulevard extension provides a valuable connection for the City of Carlsbad and for the
region and as shown in the analysis will effectively redistribute trips throughout the network to reduce the effect of congestion on several existing roadway segments in the project vicinity.
!
!
!
!îî
îîîîîCANNON R
D
CANNON R
D
CAMINO HILLS DRLONG
F
E
L
L
O
W
R
D
COLLEGE BLVDEL C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
RANCHO CARLSBAD DRC
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
FROS
T
A
V
E
JACKSPAR DRSALK AVECANNON RDC
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
1
2
4
3
N:\Projects\2019_Projects\0297.03 Carlsbad College Boulevard Existing Assessment\GIS\MXD\StudyIntersections.mxdProject Site & Study Locations
Legend
Project Roadway Extension
!Study IntersectionsîAverage Daily Trips (ADT) Count Locations
Figure ES-1X
!5
!6
!7
Project Driveway FUTURE ST 2
FUTURE
S
T
1
SUN
N
Y
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis March 11, 2020
4
2. Introduction
The proposed extension of College Boulevard in the City of Carlsbad from Cannon Road to El Camino Real
is included as an arterial street gap closure project in the City’s General Plan Mobility Element (see Table 3-
2 – Planned City of Carlsbad Street Capacity Improvements). This future connection will help to distribute
existing and future traffic volumes using the College Boulevard corridor both within the City of Carlsbad, as
well as trips traveling to and from the north (i.e., to/from the City of Oceanside and the SR 78 Freeway
Corridor). The extension is planned as a four-lane arterial street that will connect to a short existing segment
already constructed north of El Camino Real.
The purpose of this study is to establish a preliminary set of baseline conditions and identify potential near-
term (existing conditions) multimodal issues/opportunities assuming completion of the extension as a two-
lane or four-lane roadway. While transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and services will be important
elements of the proposed extension, this initial analysis focuses on projected near-term vehicle demand
and resulting segment capacities consistent with Growth Management Program requirements.
With construction of the extension, existing vehicle trips will be re-distributed across the surrounding
roadway network. In addition, the extension will provide access to parcels within the Zone 15 planning area
that are expected to develop with a variety of land uses. Two new future streets are expected to intersect
the extension and provide direct access to Zone 15 parcels. This analysis includes estimates of traffic
volumes associated with both re-distribution and new adjacent development that would use the College
Boulevard extension following construction.
Consistent with the City’s traffic operations methodology for roadways, this document includes analysis the
following roadway segments:
1. College Boulevard
a. Carlsbad Village Drive to Cannon Road
b. Cannon Road to Future Street 2*
c. Future Street 2 to Future Street 1*
d. Future Street 1 to Sunny Creek Road* e. Cannon Road to El Camino Real
f. El Camino Real to Aston Avenue
2. Cannon Rd
a. College Boulevard to El Camino Real
b. El Camino Real to Faraday Avenue
3. El Camino Real
a. Cannon Road to Jackspar Drive b. Jackspar Drive to College Boulevard
College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis March 11, 2020
5
*Analyzed under Zone 15 Buildout Condition
Intersection Level of Service (LOS) was also conducted for proposed intersections along the College
Boulevard extension and existing intersections in the vicinity of the extension. This analysis is included as
Appendix A.
2.1 Traffic Analysis Methodology for Roadway Segments
Roadway capacity analysis was conducted for all study arterial roadway segments to determine how the segments are currently operating and the effect of the extension on segment operations. The City of
Carlsbad utilizes a custom Facility Service Volume Table that outlines the peak directional volume LOS thresholds for all arterial streets in the City. The Facility Service Volume Table is included in Appendix B. The Facility Service Volume Table was developed based on roadway segments with signalized
intersections. Roadways with other traffic control devices such as roundabout may yield different results.
As the extension of College Boulevard analyzed within this report does not yet exist, peak directional volume LOS thresholds have not yet been outlined for the extension roadway segments. To determine an
appropriate proxy, the peak direction volume LOS threshold for the segment to the north of the roadway extension, College Boulevard from Carlsbad Village Drive and Cannon Road, was used. This portion of College Boulevard is a four-lane road. To evaluate operations of the initial two-lane extension, the four-
lane College Boulevard volume thresholds for the peak direction were divided in half.
!
!
!
!îî
îîîîîCANNON R
D
CANNON R
D
CAMINO HILLS DRLONG
F
E
L
L
O
W
R
D
COLLEGE BLVDEL C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
RANCHO CARLSBAD DRC
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
FROS
T
A
V
E
JACKSPAR DRSALK AVECANNON RDC
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
1
2
4
3
N:\Projects\2019_Projects\0297.03 Carlsbad College Boulevard Existing Assessment\GIS\MXD\StudyIntersections.mxdProject Site & Study Locations
Legend
Project Roadway Extension
!Study IntersectionsîAverage Daily Trips (ADT) Count Locations
Figure 1X
!5
!6
!7
Project Driveway FUTURE ST 2
FUTURE
S
T
1
SUN
N
Y
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis March 11, 2020
7
3. Existing Conditions
This section describes the existing mobility network surrounding the location of the proposed College
Boulevard extension. This section also includes a discussion of existing roadway segment operational
analysis and results plus information on intersection layouts and traffic count data.
3.1 Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
Existing segment and intersection lane configurations were obtained through field observations and
existing traffic signal controls and timing data were provided by the City of Carlsbad. Average daily traffic
(ADT) counts were conducted at select locations in October 2019. Supplemental ADT counts were
obtained from the City of Carlsbad growth monitoring program counts collected in May 2019. In
addition, traffic counts were collected during the weekday AM and PM peak periods at the key
intersections in October 2019 under normal traffic and weather conditions.
Figure 2 presents the existing ADT roadway segment counts, as well as AM and PM peak hour turning
movement volumes, corresponding lane configurations, and traffic control devices. Detailed daily roadway
segment and intersection peak period traffic count data are provided in Appendix C.
3.2 Existing Roadway Capacity Analysis
Peak hour directional roadway capacity analysis was performed for all study arterials using the City’s methodology described previously and traffic count data collected for this study. The results of the
roadway capacity analysis for existing study segments are shown in Table 1 and illustrated on Figure 3.
As shown in Table 1, most roadway segments are operating acceptably, except for the following that
operate at LOS E or F in one or both directions:
• Cannon Rd – El Camino Real to College Blvd (AM and PM peak hours) • El Camino Real – Cannon Rd to Jackspar Dr (AM and PM peak hours) • El Camino Real –Jackspar Dr to College Blvd (AM and PM peak hours)
The extension is expected to alleviate the congestion on these poorly operating segments by providing an alternate route that will enhance connectivity in this area of Carlsbad.
Existing (2019) Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Volumes and GeometriesFigure 2
!
!
!
!îî
îîîîî
C ANN ON R DCA NN O N R D
CAMINO HILLS DRLONGFELLOW RD
COLLEGE BLVDEL CAMINO REAL
RANCHO CARLSBAD DRCOLLE
GE BLVD
FROST AVE
JACKSPAR DRSALK AVECANNON RDC
O
LLE
GE BLV
D
1
2
4
3
N:\Projects\2019_Projects\0297.03 Carlsbad College Boulevard Existing Assessment\GIS\MXD\StudyIntersections.mxd!5
!6
!7
53 (321)2 (10)28 (31)1 (0)15 (45)3,086 (911)142 (45)24 (40)3 (3)14 (21)9 (39)856 (2,276)13 (14)1 (5)
3. Rancho Carlsbad Dr-Jackspar Dr/El Camino Real
139 (532)9 (40)3 (23)1 (2)22 (30)2,478 (824)634 (135)69 (23)22 (22)43 (22)15 (49)669 (1,785)48 (44)76 (9)
4. College Blvd/El Camino Real
El Camino Real Rancho Carlsbad DrJackspar DrEl Camino Real College BlvdD
ICCEBFICCFAACE
ICCCFAACEICCCF399 (1,572)388 (71)1,358 (496)316 (27)4 (0)191 (64)284 (71)
1. College Blvd/Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd
164 (477)203 (696)71 (74)7 (6)80 (54)2,202 (630)454 (168)111 (61)667 (222)974 (319)420 (1,015)492 (1,555)58 (40)
2. Cannon Rd/El Camino Real
Cannon Rd Bobcat BlvdCollege BlvdEl Camino Real Cannon RdAACCIAFFCCFAACE
ICCCFAACEACCFACFLane Configuration
Peak Hour Traffic VolumeAM(PM)
Signalized
LEGEND
Project Roadway Extension
!Study IntersectionsîAverage Daily Trips (ADT) Count Locations
Project Driveway
2,35522,25840,69146,12723
,
8
8
8
43,
3
2
5
13,090
College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis March 11, 2020
9
Table 1: Existing Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis
College Blvd – Carlsbad Village Drive to Cannon Road
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F
1040 veh 1760 veh 1800 veh
AM SB/NB 1564/673 NB SB
PM SB/NB 726/1565 NB SB
College Blvd – El Camino Real to Aston Avenue
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F
390 veh 1440 veh 1810 veh
AM SB/NB 572/710 SB/NB
PM SB/NB 701/615 SB/NB
Cannon Rd – El Camino Real to College Blvd
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F
280 veh 1310 veh 1690 veh
AM EB/WB 771/1590 EB WB
PM EB/WB 1705/923 WB EB
Cannon Rd – Faraday Ave to El Camino Real
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS F2
1280 veh 1620 veh
AM EB/WB 389/1173 EB/WB
PM EB/WB 1120/517 EB/WB
El Camino Real – Cannon Rd to Jackspar Dr
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
EB/WB Thresholds1
LOS B LOS C LOS F2
2150 (EB)/1060 (WB) veh 2900 (EB)/1860 (WB) veh
AM EB/WB 3014/1257 WB EB
PM EB/WB 1349/2929 EB WB
El Camino Real –Jackspar Dr to College Blvd
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
EB/WB Thresholds1
LOS B LOS LOS F2
2150 (EB) /1060 (WB) veh 2900 (EB)/1860 (WB) veh
AM EB/WB 3096/1459 WB EB
PM EB/WB 1559/3216 EB WB
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019. 1 Different thresholds are provided for two-lane roadway segment in the westbound direction and three-lane roadway segment in the eastbound direction. 2 Thresholds are not provided for LOS D or LOS E for these roadway segments as “capacity jumps to LOS F because intersection capacities have been reached.”
!
!
!
!îî
îîîîîCANNON R
D
CANNON R
D
CAMINO HILLS DRLONG
F
E
L
L
O
W
R
D
EL C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
RANCHO CARLSBAD DRC
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
FROS
T
A
V
E
JACKSPAR DRSALK AVECANNON RD1
2
4
3
N:\Projects\2019_Projects\0297.03 Carlsbad College Boulevard Existing Assessment\GIS\MXD\StudyIntersections.mxdExisting (2019) Peak Hour Roadway Segment Analysis
Legend
Project Roadway Extension!Study IntersectionsîAverage Daily Trips (ADT) Count Locations Figure 3X
!5
7
Project Driveway
AM(PM) Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOSX(X)
C(
C
)
D(
D
)D(D)D(D)E (D)
D(F )C(C)C(C)C(F)F(B)
C(F)F (B)
College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis March 11, 2020
11
4. Reassignment of Existing Trips
This chapter describes the process by which existing volumes were reassigned assuming that the
proposed College Boulevard extension was in place today. This reassignment forms the baseline to which
traffic growth will be added from new development on parcels adjacent to the planned extension (see
Chapter 5 for additional growth). The trips included in this analysis do not account for regional growth.
Figure 4 illustrates the reassignment of trips.
4.1 Reassignment of Existing Trips Roadway Capacity Analysis
Peak hour directional roadway capacity analysis was performed for all study arterials and the College
Boulevard extension using the methodology described previously and traffic count data collected for this
study. The results of the roadway capacity analysis for the two-lane road extension using the assumed
reassignment of existing trips is shown in Table 2. This table also shows the results of the analysis of
study roadways to determine the effect that the roadway extension would have on the existing roadway
segments. The roadway segment analysis results are shown on Figure 5.
As shown in Table 2, the planned two lane roadway extension is operating at capacity in the southbound
direction in the AM peak hour, and the roadway extension is operating well over capacity in the
northbound direction in the PM peak hour. Although, there is a small amount of additional capacity in the
southbound direction during the AM peak hour, there is no available capacity in the northbound direction
during the PM peak hour and therefore, there is no additional capacity for development.
The planned four lane roadway extension would operate with additional capacity in both directions in
both the AM and PM peak hours. The largest vehicle load occurs in the PM peak hour in the northbound
direction at which time 909 peak hour trips are expected. The capacity of the segment is 1760 trips, with
an expected vehicle load of 909 trips there is additional capacity for 851 trips. The equates to the
expected trips from approximately 859 single-family detached residences.
The roadway capacity deficiencies that were observed on study roadways under existing conditions have
been ameliorated with the reassignment of existing trips to the College Boulevard extension. This
indicates that when the roadway extension is built it will have a positive effect on surrounding roadway
segments and will improve the operations of the City of Carlsbad’s roadway network.
Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips Peak Hour Volumes and GeometriesFigure 4
!
!
!
!îî
îîîîî
C ANN ON R DCA NN O N R D
CAMINO HILLS DRLONGFELLOW RD
COLLEGE BLVDEL CAMINO REAL
RANCHO CARLSBAD DRCOLLE
GE BLVD
FROST AVE
JACKSPAR DRSALK AVECANNON RDC
O
LLE
GE BLV
D
1
2
4
3
N:\Projects\2019_Projects\0297.03 Carlsbad College Boulevard Existing Assessment\GIS\MXD\StudyIntersections.mxd!5
!6
!7
ACFLane Configuration
Peak Hour Traffic VolumeAM(PM)
Signalized
LEGEND
Project Roadway Extension
!Study IntersectionsîAverage Daily Trips (ADT) Count Locations
Project Driveway
53 (321)2 (16)28 (31)1 (0)15 (45)2,162 (643)142 (45)24 (40)3 (3)14 (21)9 (39)489 (1,382)13 (14)1 (0)
3. Rancho Carlsbad Dr-Jackspar Dr/El Camino Real
80 (326)68 (246)3 (23)1 (2)13 (22)1,788 (602)409 (97)40 (14)247 (60)733 (244)294 (728)390 (1,106)48 (44)76 (9)
4. College Blvd/El Camino Real
El Camino Real Rancho Carlsbad DrJackspar DrEl Camino Real College BlvdD
ICCEBFICCFAACE
ICCCFAACEICCCF5 (5)187 (868)180 (36)212 (714)208 (35)5 (5)632 (263)776 (233)316 (27)4 (0)191 (35)136 (36)148 (64)
1. College Blvd/Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd
164 (477)202 (696)71 (74)7 (6)80 (54)2,152 (630)454 (168)111 (61)667 (222)100 (51)53 (121)492 (1,555)58 (40)
2. Cannon Rd/El Camino Real
Cannon Rd Bobcat BlvdCollege BlvdEl Camino Real Cannon RdACF
AACEICFFACFAACE
ICCCFAACEACCF* Analysis shown was conducted for a two-lane College Boulevard Extension
College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis March 11, 2020
13
Table 2: Roadway Capacity Analysis for Study Roadways with Reassignment of Existing Trips
College Blvd – Cannon Road to El Camino Real (2-lane Extension)
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F
520 veh 880 veh 900 veh
AM SB/NB 879/372 NB SB
PM SB/NB 302/909 SB NB
College Blvd – Cannon Road to El Camino Real (4-lane Extension)
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F
1040 veh 1760 veh 1800 veh
AM SB/NB 879/372 SB/NB
PM SB/NB 302/909 SB/NB
College Blvd – Carlsbad Village Drive to Cannon Road
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F
1040 veh 1760 veh 1800 veh
AM SB/NB 1728/590 NB SB
PM SB/NB 523/1617 SB NB
College Blvd – El Camino Real to Aston Avenue
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F
390 veh 1440 veh 1810 veh
AM SB/NB 704/151 NB SB
PM SB/NB 195/595 SB NB
Cannon Rd – El Camino Real to College Blvd
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F
280 veh 1310 veh 1690 veh
AM EB/WB 335/878 EB/WB
PM EB/WB 871/334 EB/WB
Cannon Rd – Faraday Ave to El Camino Real
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS F2
1280 veh 1620 veh
AM EB/WB 151/704 EB/WB
PM EB/WB 595/201 EB/WB
College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis March 11, 2020
14
Table 2: Roadway Capacity Analysis for Study Roadways with Reassignment of Existing Trips (continued)
El Camino Real – Cannon Rd to Jackspar Dr
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS B LOS C LOS F2
2150 veh 2900 veh
AM EB/WB 2323/303 WB EB
PM EB/WB 755/1716 EB/WB
El Camino Real –Jackspar Dr to College Blvd
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds1
LOS B LOS C LOS F2
2150 (EB) /1060 (WB) veh 2900 (EB)/1860 (WB) veh
AM EB/WB 2204/512 WB EB
PM EB/WB 695/1435 EB WB
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019. 1 Different thresholds are provided for two-lane roadway segment in the westbound direction and three-lane roadway segment in the eastbound direction. 2 Thresholds are not provided for LOS D or LOS E for these roadway segments as “capacity jumps to LOS F because intersection capacities have been reached.”
!
!
!
!îî
îîîîîCANNON RD
C A N N O N R D
CAMINO HILLS DRLONGFELLOW RD
COLLEGE BLVDEL CAMINO REAL
RANCHO CARLSBAD DRC
OLLE
G
E BLV
D
FROST AVE
JACKSPAR DRSALK AVECANNON RDC
O
LLE
G
E BLV
D
1
2
4
3
N:\Projects\2019_Projects\0297.03 Carlsbad College Boulevard Existing Assessment\GIS\MXD\StudyIntersections.mxdFigure 5
!5
Legend
Project Roadway Extension!Study IntersectionsîAverage Daily Trips (ADT) Count Locations
X
Project Driveway
AM(PM) Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOSX(X)
Reassignment of Existing Trips Peak Hour Roadway Segment Analysis
C(
D
)
D(
C
)
C(
F)D(
C
)D(C)C(D)D (D)
D(D )C(C)C(C)B(B)
C(B)
B(C)
C(B)
2-Lane Extension
C(C)C(C
)
4-Lane Extension
College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis March 11, 2020
16
5. Zone 15 Buildout Conditions
The College Boulevard extension will extend through a currently undeveloped area, Zone 15. Within this
zone, a certain amount of development is expected, some of which is already entitled and permitted.
5.1 Zone 15 Buildout Conditions Traffic Volumes
The expected traffic that will result from this development were derived from the Local Facilities
Management Plan Amendment Zone 15 (E) (Approved in January 2012). The number of average daily trips
were estimated by City of Carlsbad staff and are shown on Figure 6. Within this zone, all new
development is expected to gain access from two new four-legged public street intersections on the
College Boulevard extension and a third location: the existing intersection of College Boulevard/Sunny
Creek Road intersection, which will be upgraded to a four-legged intersection. City staff also developed
the expected peak hour turning movements at the two new public street intersections and the existing
intersection of College Boulevard/Sunny Creek Road and provided those estimates to Fehr & Peers. The
expected peak hour turning movements do not account for regional growth and the volumes shown are
only those trips expected from the new development in Zone 15. These volumes were then distributed
throughout the study network and the resulting intersection volumes are shown on Figure 7. Note that
this assignment initially assumes that all vehicle access to and from the site at the northwest corner of the
El Camino Real/College Boulevard intersection is provided on College Boulevard and not on El Camino
Real.
For this analysis, the volumes analyzed in the Reassignment of Existing Trips were added to the
distributed buildout volumes. These combined volumes are shown on Figure 8.
5.1.1 4-Lane Roadway Extension
As the analysis in Section 4.1 confirms, a two-lane College Boulevard extension will not be adequate to
serve the anticipated buildout traffic volumes from Zone 15. Accordingly, the same buildout and
reassignment of existing trips volumes were analyzed with the College Boulevard extension built to its
ultimate condition, a four-lane roadway.
Due to the large volume of vehicles expected to turn left southbound at the El Camino Real / College Blvd
intersection, it is expected that a few vehicles will continue to use the currently existing route via El Camino
Real / Cannon Road intersection and head east through the El Camino Real / College Boulevard intersection.
This change in vehicle trips is reflected in Figure 9.
N:\Projects\2019_Projects\0297.03 Carlsbad College Boulevard Existing Assessment\GIS\MXD\Development Map.mxdZone 15 Development Potential
Legend
Project Roadway Extension Project Driveway
Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)!Study IntersectionsîAverage Daily Trips (ADT) Count Locations
Figure 6X
TAZ 5723,068 ADT
TAZ 5952,760 ADT
TAZ 65112,193 ADT
TAZ 6147,776 ADT
TAZ 64013,532 ADT
TAZ 4960 ADT
!
!
!
!CANNON R
D
CAMINO HILLS DRLONG
F
E
L
L
O
W
R
D
COLLEGE BLVDEL C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
RANCHO CARLSBAD DRC
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
FROS
T
A
V
E
JACKSPAR DRSALK AVECANNON RDîî
îîîîîCOL
L
EG
E
B
L
V
D
1
2
4
!5
!6
!7
3
Zone 15 Buildout Peak Hour Volumes OnlyFigure 7
!
!
!
!îî
îîîîî
CANNO
N
RD
CANNON R
D
CAMINO HILLS DRLONG
F
E
L
L
O
W
R
D
COLLEGE BLVDEL C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
RANCHO CARLSBAD DRCO
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
FROS
T
A
V
E
JACKSPAR DRSALK AVECANNON RDC
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
1
2
4
3
N:\Projects\2019_Projects\0297.03 Carlsbad College Boulevard Existing Assessment\GIS\MXD\StudyIntersections.mxd!5
!6
!7
ACFLane Configuration
Peak Hour Traffic VolumeAM(PM)
Signalized
Level of Service (LOS)AMPM A-C D E F
LEGEND
Project Roadway Extension
!Study IntersectionsîAverage Daily Trips (ADT) Count Locations
Project Driveway
120 (100)310 (680)10 (20)80 (50)1,020 (426)20 (10)
1. College Blvd/Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd
50 (0)40 (80)120 (365)20 (10)100 (90)10 (0)330 (100)60 (10)
2. Cannon Rd/El Camino Real
16 (10)170 (445)0 (10)10 (5)400 (110)0 (5)
3. Rancho Carlsbad Dr-Jackspar Dr/El Camino Real
Cannon Rd Bobcat BlvdCollege BlvdEl Camino Real Rancho Carlsbad DrJackspar DrEl Camino Real Cannon RdACF
FCACF
CACFACF
CAACF181 (465)186 (465)410 (120)670 (110)370 (105)181 (473)
4. College Blvd/El Camino Real
290 (500)258 (903)160 (500)11 (6)370 (170)560 (170)700 (170)12 (6)
5. College Blvd/Sunny Creek Rd
75 (144)289 (950)54 (309)40 (140)16 (10)100 (45)160 (50)950 (255)125 (108)120 (30)7 (9)290 (40)
6. College Blvd/Future St 1
El Camino Real College BlvdSunny Creek RdCollege BlvdFuture St 1 College BlvdC
AACFFAC
ACFCFCACF
ACFACFACF75 (144)320 (670)54 (306)40 (140)16 (10)100 (45)160 (50)845 (328)125 (108)120 (130)7 (9)290 (40)
7. College Blvd/Future St 2
Future St 2 College BlvdACF
ACFACFACFFUTURE ST 2
FUTURE
S
T
1
SUN
N
Y
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
Rancho Carlsbad DrBuildout Plus Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips Peak Hour Volumes and Geometries - 2 Lane RoadwayFigure 8
!
!
!
!îî
îîîîî
CANNO
N
RD
CANNON R
D
CAMINO HILLS DRLONG
F
E
L
L
O
W
R
D
COLLEGE BLVDEL C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
RANCHO CARLSBAD DRCO
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
FROS
T
A
V
E
JACKSPAR DRSALK AVECANNON RDC
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
1
2
4
3
N:\Projects\2019_Projects\0297.03 Carlsbad College Boulevard Existing Assessment\GIS\MXD\StudyIntersections.mxd!5
!6
!7
ACFLane Configuration
Peak Hour Traffic VolumeAM(PM)
Signalized
LEGEND
Project Roadway Extension
!Study IntersectionsîAverage Daily Trips (ADT) Count Locations
Project Driveway
125 (105)517 (1,653)210 (91)212 (714)208 (35)85 (55)632 (263)1,796 (659)316 (27)4 (0)191 (35)136 (36)168 (74)
1. College Blvd/Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd
164 (477)252 (696)111 (154)7 (6)80 (54)2,272 (995)454 (168)131 (71)767 (312)110 (51)53 (121)822 (1,655)118 (50)
2. Cannon Rd/El Camino Real
53 (321)2 (16)44 (41)1 (0)15 (45)2,332 (1,088)142 (45)24 (40)3 (3)14 (31)19 (44)889 (1,492)13 (19)1 (0)
3. Rancho Carlsbad Dr-Jackspar Dr/El Camino Real
Cannon Rd Bobcat BlvdCollege BlvdEl Camino Real
Jackspar DrEl Camino Real Cannon RdAE
AACEICFFACFAACE
ICCCFAACEACCFD
ICCEBFICCF80 (326)249 (711)3 (23)1 (2)199 (487)1,788 (602)409 (97)450 (134)617 (175)1,093 (349)475 (1,201)390 (1,106)48 (44)76 (9)
4. College Blvd/El Camino Real
290 (500)596 (1,803)37 (96)160 (500)11 (6)370 (170)560 (170)1,690 (430)9 (42)34 (9)12 (6)100 (58)
5. College Blvd/Sunny Creek
75 (144)661 (1,859)54 (309)40 (140)16 (10)100 (45)160 (50)1,869 (557)125 (108)120 (30)7 (9)290 (40)
6. College Blvd/Driveway 1
El Camino Real College BlvdSunny CreekCollege BlvdDriveway 1 College BlvdAACE
ICCCFAACEICCCFAACF
ACFAEACFAE
AEACEAE75 (144)692 (1,579)54 (306)40 (140)16 (10)100 (45)160 (50)1,764 (630)125 (108)120 (130)7 (9)290 (40)
7. College Blvd/Driveway 2
Driveway 2 College BlvdAE
AEAEAE
Buildout Plus Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips Peak Hour Volumes and Geometries - 4 Lane RoadwayFigure 9
!
!
!
!îî
îîîîî
CANNO
N
RD
CANNON R
D
CAMINO HILLS DRLONG
F
E
L
L
O
W
R
D
COLLEGE BLVDEL C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
RANCHO CARLSBAD DRCO
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
FROS
T
A
V
E
JACKSPAR DRSALK AVECANNON RDC
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
1
2
4
3
N:\Projects\2019_Projects\0297.03 Carlsbad College Boulevard Existing Assessment\GIS\MXD\StudyIntersections.mxd!5
!6
!7
ACFLane Configuration
Peak Hour Traffic VolumeAM(PM)
Signalized
LEGEND
Project Roadway Extension
!Study IntersectionsîAverage Daily Trips (ADT) Count Locations
Project Driveway
125 (105)517 (1,453)210 (91)212 (714)208 (35)85 (55)832 (263)1,596 (659)316 (27)4 (0)191 (35)136 (36)168 (74)
1. College Blvd/Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd
164 (477)252 (696)111 (154)7 (6)80 (54)2,272 (995)454 (168)131 (71)767 (312)310 (51)53 (121)822 (1,655)118 (50)
2. Cannon Rd/El Camino Real
53 (321)2 (16)44 (41)1 ()15 (45)2,552 (1,088)142 (45)24 (40)3 (3)14 (31)19 (44)889 (1,692)13 (19)1 ()
3. Rancho Carlsbad Dr-Jackspar Dr/El Camino Real
Cannon Rd Bobcat BlvdCollege BlvdEl Camino Real Rancho Carlsbad DrJackspar DrEl Camino Real Cannon RdACE
AACEICFFACFAACE
ICCCFAACEACCFD
ICCEBFICCF80 (326)249 (711)3 (23)1 (2)199 (487)1,988 (602)409 (97)450 (134)617 (175)893 (349)475 (1,001)390 (1,306)48 (44)76 (9)
4. College Blvd/El Camino Real
290 (500)596 (1,603)37 (96)160 (500)11 (6)370 (170)560 (170)1,490 (430)9 (42)34 (9)12 (6)100 (58)
5. College Blvd/Sunny Creek
75 (144)661 (1,659)54 (309)40 (140)16 (10)100 (45)160 (50)1,669 (557)125 (108)120 (30)7 (9)290 (40)
6. College Blvd/Driveway 1
El Camino Real College BlvdSunny CreekCollege BlvdDriveway 1 College BlvdAACE
ICCCFAACEICCCFACCF
ACFACCFACFACE
AEACEAE75 (144)692 (1,379)54 (306)40 (140)16 (10)100 (45)160 (50)1,564 (630)125 (108)120 (130)7 (9)290 (40)
7. College Blvd/Driveway 2
Driveway 2 College BlvdACE
AEACEAE
College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis March 11, 2020
21
5.2 Zone 15 Buildout Conditions Roadway Capacity Analysis
Roadway capacity analysis was analyzed for the study arterials including all segments of the College
Boulevard extension assuming it will be constructed as a four-lane roadway. As a two-Lane roadway is not
considered viable with Zone 15 buildout intersection volumes (see Section 3.2), roadway segment analysis
was not conducted for this condition. The results of the analysis with a four-lane extension are shown in
Table 3. The results of the roadway segment analysis are shown on Figure 10.
Table 3: Zone 15 Buildout Roadway Capacity Analysis with Reassignment of Existing Trips - Four-Lane Roadway Extension
College Blvd –Cannon Road to Intersection 7/Future Street 2
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F
1040 veh 1760 veh 1800 veh
AM SB/NB 1849/852 NB SB
PM SB 788/1644 SB NB
College Blvd –Intersection 7/Future Street 2 to Intersection 6/Future Street 1
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F
1040 veh 1760 veh 1800 veh
AM SB/NB 1954/821 NB SB
PM SB/NB 715/1829 SB NB
College Blvd –Intersection 6/Future Street 1 to Sunny Creek Rd
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F
1040 veh 1760 veh 1800 veh
AM SB/NB 2059/790 NB SB
PM SB/NB 642/2112 SB NB
College Blvd – Carlsbad Village Drive to Cannon Road
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F
1040 veh 1760 veh 1800 veh
AM SB/NB 2739/920 NB SB
PM SB/NB 949/2202 SB NB
College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis March 11, 2020
22
Table 3: Zone 15 Buildout Roadway Capacity Analysis with Reassignment of Existing Trips - Four-Lane Roadway Extension (continued)
College Blvd – El Camino Real to Aston Avenue
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F
390 veh 1440 veh 1810 veh
AM SB/NB 1074/332 NB SB
PM SB/NB 316/1060 SB NB
Cannon Rd – El Camino Real to College Blvd
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F
280 veh 1310 veh 1690 veh
AM EB/WB 385 EB/WB
PM EB/WB 871 EB/WB
Cannon Rd – Faraday Ave to El Camino Real
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS C LOS D LOS F1
1280 veh 1620 veh
AM EB/WB 527/1339 EB WB
PM EB/WB 1327/530 WB EB
El Camino Real – Cannon Rd to Jackspar Dr
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS B LOS C LOS F1
2150 veh 2900 veh
AM EB/WB 2693/966 WB EB
PM EB/WB 1200/2053 EB /WB
El Camino Real –Jackspar Dr to College Blvd
Peak Hour Direction Peak Volume
Thresholds
LOS B LOS C LOS F1
2150 veh 2900 veh
AM EB/WB 2597/922 WB EB
PM EB/WB 1188/1755 EB/WB
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019. 1 Thresholds are not provided for LOS D or LOS E for these roadway segments as “capacity jumps to LOS F because intersection capacities have been reached.”
As shown in the table above, the College Boulevard extension is projected to operate at or over capacity in
both the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of trips associated with buildout of Zone 15. Other study
roadways are projected to operate acceptably. Although, congestion may be experienced during peak hours
on the roadway extension it is anticipated that the extension will alleviate congestion on other roadway
segments in the area.
!
!
!
!îî
îîîîîCANNON R
D
CANNON R
D
CAMINO HILLS DRLONG
F
E
L
L
O
W
R
D
COLLEGE BLVDEL C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
RANCHO CARLSBAD DRC
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
FROS
T
A
V
E
JACKSPAR DRSALK AVECANNON RDCOLLEGE BLVD1
2
4
3
N:\Projects\2019_Projects\0297.03 Carlsbad College Boulevard Existing Assessment\GIS\MXD\StudyIntersections.mxdFigure 10
!5
Legend
Project Roadway Extension!Study IntersectionsîAverage Daily Trips (ADT) Count Locations
X
Project Driveway
AM(PM) Peak Hour Roadway Segment LOSX(X)
Buildout Plus Reassignment of Existing Trips - 4 Lane Roadway - Roadway Segment Analysis
C(
F)F(C
)
C(
D)F(C)
C(
F)F(C)D(C)C(D)D (D)
D(D )D(C)C(D )B(B)
C(B)
B(B)
C(B)C(
F
)F(C
)
!6
!7
College Boulevard Extension Traffic Operations Analysis March 11, 2020
24
6. Conclusion
We recommend that the College Boulevard extension be constructed with the ultimate planned cross-
section of four lanes at opening to serve existing traffic and to accommodate traffic associated with the
expected buildout of Zone 15. The four-lane extension will provide relief on the surrounding network
(Cannon Rd and El Camino Real) while providing additional capacity for development.
Appendix A – College Boulevard
Extension Analysis – Intersection Level
of Service (LOS) Analysis
1
College Boulevard Extension
Analysis: Intersection Level of Service
(LOS) Analysis
Introduction
In addition to the Roadway Segment LOS analysis, an intersection LOS analysis was conducted to
identified pinch points in the network and associated improvements that could be implemented at these
intersections to improve vehicular flow and reduce delay.
This document analyzes the existing traffic conditions at four existing intersections:
1. Cannon Rd-Bobcat Blvd/College Blvd
2. Cannon Rd/El Camino Real
3. Jackspar Dr-Rancho Carlsbad Dr/El Camino Real
4. College Blvd/El Camino Real
Additionally, this document analyzes the reassignment of existing trips that would be assumed to use the
College Boulevard extension following construction and the associated intersection conditions with this
reassignment. Finally, the associated intersection performance is analyzed for existing and reassigned traffic
with the addition of new trips expected to be added to the network by forthcoming Zone 15 development
on the east and west side of the College Boulevard extension.
The analysis of scenarios with the roadway extension in place assumes the addition of the following
intersections that will have been constructed at buildout.
5. College Blvd/Future Street 1
6. College Blvd/Future Street 2
The College Boulevard/Sunny Creek Road intersection is an existing intersection but will only be analyzed
under buildout conditions as the intersection is currently functioning as a two-legged intersection.
The study area is shown on Figure 1 of the report.
Traffic Analysis Methodology for Intersections
1.1 Traffic Analysis Methodology for Signalized Intersections
The method described in Chapter 18 of the HCM 6th Edition was used to prepare the LOS calculations for
all study intersections. This LOS method analyzes a signalized intersection’s operation based on average
2
control delay per vehicle. Control delay alone is used to characterize LOS for the entire intersection or an
approach. Control delay includes the initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and
final acceleration delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections is calculated using Synchro
10.0 analysis software and is correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Existing (2019) Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)
Level of Service Description Delay in Seconds
A Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. ≤ 10.0
B Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. > 10.0 to 20.0
C Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
> 20.0 to 35.0
D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 to 55.0
E This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of desirable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. > 55.0 to 80.0
F
This level is considered undesirable with oversaturation, which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels.
> 80.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2016.
Existing Conditions
This section describes the existing mobility network surrounding the location of the proposed College
Boulevard extension. This section also includes a discussion of existing intersection operational analysis
and results.
Study Intersections
The following four intersections were identified as existing study intersections needed to determine how
vehicles currently travel from one end of the gap in College Boulevard to the other:
1. Cannon Rd-Bobcat Blvd/College Blvd
2. Cannon Rd/El Camino Real
3. Jackspar Dr-Rancho Carlsbad Dr/El Camino Real
4. College Blvd/El Camino Real
3
Cannon Road, El Camino Real, and College Boulevard are arterial roadways under the jurisdiction of the
City of Carlsbad. Jackspar Drive is a local street under the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad and Rancho
Carlsbad Drive is a private, gated driveway serving the Rancho Carlsbad Community. The results of
existing conditions analysis of these four intersections is presented below.
Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
Existing lane configurations were obtained through field observations and existing traffic signal controls
and timing data were provided by the City of Carlsbad. Traffic counts were collected during the weekday
AM and PM peak periods at the study intersections in October 2019 under normal traffic and weather
conditions. Additionally, average daily trip (ADT) counts were collected in the study area. Additional ADT
counts were obtained from the City of Carlsbad growth monitoring program counts collected in May
2019.
Figure 2 in the report presents the existing AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes,
corresponding lane configurations, and traffic control devices. Detailed peak period intersection and daily
roadway traffic count data are provided in Appendix C of the report.
Existing Intersection Levels of Service
The operations of the existing intersections were evaluated during weekday AM and PM peak hours (7:00
AM – 8:00 AM and 4:45 PM – 5:45 PM). Peak hour intersection LOS analysis was performed for the existing
study intersections using the methodology described previously and traffic count data collected for this
study. Table 2 shows the results of the existing conditions analysis. Detailed LOS Worksheets are provided
in Attachment 1.
Table 2: Existing (2019) Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)
Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour Delay (sec/veh)1 LOS2,3
1. Cannon Rd-Bobcat Blvd/College Blvd Signalized AM 39.3 D
PM 15.5 B
2. Cannon Rd/El Camino Real Signalized AM 63.9 E
PM 84.3 F
3. Jackspar Dr-Rancho Carlsbad Dr/El
Camino Real Signalized AM 33.0 C
PM 52.5 D
4. College Blvd/El Camino Real Signalized AM 12.8 B
PM 53.8 D
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019. Notes: 1 Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. 2 LOS calculations performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition method. 3 Unacceptable seconds of delay per vehicle and LOS highlighted in bold.
4
As shown in Table 2, all study intersections except Cannon Road/El Camino Real operate at LOS D or
better during the AM and PM peak hours. At this location, the movements experiencing the greatest delay
are eastbound through, northbound through, and northbound right . The delay is caused by demand that
is exceeding the available capacity of that movement.
Reassignment of Existing Trips
This chapter describes the process by which existing volumes were reassigned assuming that the
proposed College Boulevard extension was in place today. This reassignment forms the baseline to which
traffic growth will be added from new development on parcels adjacent to the planned extension (see
Chapter 5 for additional growth).
Reassignment of Existing Trips Intersection Levels of Service
To simulate the change in travel patterns that are expected with the proposed roadway extension in place
today, existing trips were reassigned using the current turning movement proportions at the study
intersections. Additionally, some AM peak trips on College Boulevard are likely avoid College Boulevard
south of Carlsbad Village Drive due to the congestion and high-volume turning movements on College
Boulevard at Cannon Road and on Cannon Road at El Camino Real. Per guidance from City of Carlsbad
staff, 50 trips in the AM peak hour that currently make a southbound right turn from College Boulevard at
Carlsbad Village Drive and then make an eastbound left turn at El Camino Real and continue south
through the College Boulevard / El Camino Real intersection were rerouted to use the College Boulevard
extension. The reassignment of trips and existing lane configurations are shown on Figure 4 of the report.
With this reassignment, the delay at all study intersections was analyzed to determine the effect that the
proposed roadway extension may have on existing intersection operations.
Reassignment of Existing Trips Intersection Levels of Service
Peak hour intersection LOS analysis was performed for the existing study intersections with reassigned
traffic to evaluate expected travel patterns with the addition of the College Boulevard extension. Because
the volume of traffic is changing substantially for selected turning movement volumes, the signal timings
at all study intersections were optimized under this scenario. This is a normal process that the City would
employ with the opening of a new arterial street segment and change in network volumes. Table 3
shows the results of the Reassignment of Existing Trips conditions analysis. Detailed LOS Worksheets are
provided in Attachment 2.
5
Table 3: Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips Intersection Levels of Service (LOS)
Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour
Existing (2019) Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips ∆ Delay Delay (sec/veh)1 LOS2,3 Delay (sec/veh)1 LOS2,3
1. Cannon Rd-Bobcat Blvd/College Blvd Signalized AM 39.3 D 66.6 E 27.3
PM 15.5 B 77.7 E 62.2
2. Cannon Rd/El Camino
Real Signalized AM 63.9 E 45 D -18.9
PM 84.3 F 87.1 F 2.8
3. Jackspar Dr-Rancho
Carlsbad Dr/El Camino
Real
Signalized
AM 33.0 C 30.4 C -2.6
PM 52.5 D 37.5 D -15
4. College Blvd/El Camino
Real Signalized AM 12.8 B 54.5 D 41.7
PM 53.8 D 79.9 E 26.1
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019. Notes: 1 Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. 2 LOS calculations performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition method. 3 Unacceptable seconds of delay per vehicle and LOS highlighted in bold.
As shown in Table 3, overall operations at the intersections on either end of the College Boulevard extension worsen significantly due to the increase in traffic utilizing different movements at these
locations compared to Existing Conditions. In the case of the Cannon Road-Bobcat Boulevard/College Boulevard intersection, operations change substantially due to the addition of new signal phases.
To mitigate these impacts, the following improvements are recommended in addition to optimizing signal
timing that is assumed as part of the extension opening:
• 1. Cannon Road-Bobcat Boulevard/College Boulevard:
o Modify the College Boulevard southbound leg of the intersection to include one left turn
lane, two through lanes, and one right turn lane, and add two College Boulevard
northbound through lane at the intersection (i.e., the rest of the extension would still only
include one through lane between intersections). With these improvements the delay will
be reduced to 40.9 seconds, LOS D in the AM peak hour and 27.2 seconds, LOS C in the
PM peak hour.
• 2. Cannon Road/El Camino Real:
o Add an additional westbound through lane on El Camino Real for a total of three
westbound through lanes on El Camino Real. With this improvement the PM peak hour
delay will be reduced to 42.3 seconds, LOS D.
6
o This improvement is expected to be a condition of approval for the development located
at the northwest corner of the El Camino Real / College Boulevard intersection.
• 4. College Boulevard/El Camino Real:
o Add an additional westbound right turn lane on El Camino Real for a total of two
westbound right turn lanes. With this improvement, the PM peak hour delay will be
reduced to 31.4 seconds, LOS C.
The results of the mitigation are summarized in Table 4. The LOS worksheets that summarize the
operational results of the improvements are provided in Attachment 3.
Table 4: Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) (Mitigated)
Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour
Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips With Mitigation
Delay (sec/veh)1 LOS2,3 Delay (sec/veh)1 LOS2,3
1. Cannon Rd-Bobcat Blvd/College Blvd Signalized AM 66.6 E 40.9 D
PM 77.7 E 27.2 C
2. Cannon Rd/El Camino
Real Signalized AM 45.0 D 45.0 D
PM 87.1 F 42.3 D
3. Jackspar Dr-Rancho
Carlsbad Dr/El Camino
Real
Signalized
AM 30.4 C 33.9 C
PM 37.5 D 32.1 D
4. College Blvd/El Camino
Real* Signalized AM 54.5 D 47.9 D
PM 79.9 E 31.4 C
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019. Notes: 1 Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. 2 LOS calculations performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition method. 3 Unacceptable seconds of delay per vehicle and LOS highlighted in bold. * With the addition of signal phasing to protect pedestrians crossing the north leg of the intersection reported delay may increase.
Zone 15 Buildout Conditions
The College Boulevard extension will extend through a currently undeveloped area, Zone 15. Within this
zone, a certain amount of development is expected, some of which is already entitled and permitted.
Zone 15 Buildout Conditions Traffic Volumes
The expected traffic that will result from this development were derived from the Local Facilities
Management Plan Amendment Zone 15 (E) (Approved in January 2012). The number of average daily trips
7
were estimated by City of Carlsbad staff and are shown on Figure 4 in the report. Within this zone, all new
development is expected to gain access from two new four-legged public street intersections on the
College Boulevard extension and a third location: the existing intersection of College Boulevard/Sunny
Creek Road intersection, which will be upgraded to a four-legged intersection. City staff also developed
the expected peak hour turning movements and provided those estimates to Fehr & Peers. These
volumes were then distributed throughout the study network and the resulting intersection volumes are
shown on Figure 5 in the report. Note that this assignment initially assumes that all vehicle access to and
from the site at the northwest corner of the El Camino Real/College Boulevard intersection is provided on
College Boulevard and not on El Camino Real.
For this analysis, the volumes analyzed in the Reassignment of Existing Trips were added to the
distributed buildout volumes. These combined volumes are shown on Figure 6 in the report
Zone 15 Buildout Conditions Intersection Levels of Service
2-Lane Roadway Extension
Using the volumes illustrated on Figure 6 in the report and assuming construction of a two-lane College
Boulevard extension, peak hour intersection LOS was performed for the four existing study intersections
and three additional intersections:
5. College Blvd/Sunny Creek Rd
6. College Blvd/Future Street 1
7. College Blvd/Future Street 2
Table 5 shows the results of the buildout conditions analysis with the assumption that the College
Boulevard extension is two-lanes. Detailed LOS Worksheets are provided in Attachment 4.
8
Table 5: Zone 15 Buildout Plus Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) – Two-Lane Roadway Extension
Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour
Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips
Buildout Plus Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips ∆ Delay
Delay (sec/veh)1 LOS2,3 Delay (sec/veh)1,4 LOS2,3
1. Cannon Rd-Bobcat Blvd/College Blvd Signalized AM 66.6 E >180.0 F 113.4
PM 77.7 E >180.0 F 102.3
2. Cannon Rd/El Camino
Real Signalized AM 45 D 52.9 D 7.9
PM 87.1 F 121.1 F 34.0
3. Jackspar Dr-Rancho
Carlsbad Dr/El Camino
Real
Signalized AM 30.4 C 20.1 C -10.3
PM 37.5 D 25.6 C -11.9
4. College Blvd/El Camino
Real Signalized AM 54.5 D 90.1 F 35.6
PM 79.9 E >180.0 F 100.1
5. College Blvd/Sunny
Creek Road Signalized AM N/A N/A >180.0 F N/A
PM N/A N/A 164.7 F N/A
6. College Blvd/Future
Street 1 Signalized AM N/A N/A >180.0 F N/A
PM N/A N/A >180.0 F N/A
7. College Blvd/Future
Street 2 Signalized AM N/A N/A >180.0 F N/A
PM N/A N/A >180.0 F N/A
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019. Notes: 1 Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. 2 LOS calculations performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition method. 3 Unacceptable seconds of delay per vehicle and LOS highlighted in bold. 4 Specific delay value is shown in Appendix F for delays over 180 seconds.
As shown in Table 5, all intersections except Intersection 3 (El Camino Real/Jackspar Drive) have an increase
in vehicle delay due to the addition of buildout trips. Additionally, all intersections that intersect with the
College Boulevard extension (Intersections 5 -7) are projected to experience LOS F in one or both peak
hours indicating that the two-lane roadway does not have adequate capacity for the Zone 15 buildout
volumes.
9
4-Lane Roadway Extension
As the analysis in Section 4.1 of the report confirms, a two-lane College Boulevard extension will not be
adequate to serve the anticipated buildout traffic volumes from Zone 15. Accordingly, the same buildout
and reassignment of existing trips volumes were analyzed with the College Boulevard extension built to its
ultimate condition, a four-lane roadway.
Due to the large volume of vehicles expected to turn left southbound at the El Camino Real / College Blvd
intersection, it is expected that a few vehicles will continue to use the currently existing route via El Camino
Real / Cannon Road intersection and head east through the El Camino Real / College Boulevard intersection.
This change in vehicle trips is reflected in Figure 8 in the report.
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 6, and detailed LOS worksheets are provided in Attachment
5.
Table 6: Zone 15 Buildout Plus Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) – Four-Lane Roadway Extension
Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour
Buildout Plus Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips – 2 Lane Roadway
Buildout Plus Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips – 4 Lane Roadway ∆ Delay
Delay (sec/veh)1 LOS2,3 Delay (sec/veh)1 LOS2,3
1. Cannon Rd-Bobcat Blvd/College Blvd Signalized AM >180.0 F 130.3 F -49.7
PM >180.0 F 41.2 D -138.8
2. Cannon Rd/El Camino
Real Signalized AM 52.9 D 54.9 D 2.0
PM 121.1 F 117.0 F -4.1
3. Jackspar Dr-Rancho
Carlsbad Dr/El Camino
Real
Signalized AM 20.1 C 22.2 C 2.1
PM 25.6 C 29.6 C 4.0
4. College Blvd/El Camino
Real Signalized AM 90.1 F 82.5 F -7.6
PM >180.0 F >180.0 F 0
5. College Blvd/Sunny
Creek Road Signalized AM >180.0 F 38.4 D -141.6
PM 164.7 F 23.2 C -141.5
6. College Blvd/Future
Street 1 Signalized AM >180.0 F 14.8 B -165.2
PM >180.0 F 5.0 A -175.0
7. College Blvd/Future
Street 2 Signalized AM >180.0 F 15.7 B -164.3
PM >180.0 F 9.1 A -170.9
10
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019. Notes: 1 Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. 2 LOS calculations performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition method. 3 Unacceptable seconds of delay per vehicle and LOS highlighted in bold. 4 Specific delay value is shown in Appendix G for delays over 180 seconds.
As shown in Table 6, the delay at intersections #5-7 would be greatly improved with the provision of four-
lane extension. Other poorly performing intersections are projected to experience a decrease in delay
compared to a two-lane extension; however, additional mitigation would be necessary to reduce projected
delays.
To mitigate anticipated deficiencies with a four-lane College Boulevard extension, the following
improvements are recommended in addition to optimizing signal timing:
• Addition of a right-in/right-out driveway on El Camino Real between College Boulevard and
Jackspar Drive to provide access to the retail commercial site. This should be made a condition of
approval for the subject development on this site.
• 1. Cannon Road-Bobcat Boulevard/College Boulevard:
o Add a separate northbound right-turn lane on College Boulevard and adjust the
configuration of the southbound leg on College Boulevard to have one right turn lane, two
through lanes, and one left turn lane.
• 2. El Camino Real / Cannon Road:
o Convert the existing separate right-turn lane to a third westbound through lane on El
Camino Real and add a separate southbound right turn lane on El Camino Real.
• 4. El Camino Real / College Boulevard
o Add a second eastbound left turn lane on El Camino Real and a second westbound right
turn lane on El Camino Real.
The results of the improvements are summarized in Table 7. The LOS worksheets for these improvements
are included in Attachment 6.
11
Table 7: Zone 15 Buildout Plus Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) – Four-Lane Roadway Extension (Mitigated)
Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour
Buildout Plus Reassignment of Existing (2019) Trips – 4 Lane Roadway With Mitigation
Delay (sec/veh)1 LOS2,3 Delay (sec/veh)1 LOS2,3
1. Cannon Rd-Bobcat Blvd/College Blvd Signalized AM >180.0 F 126.2 F
PM >180.0 F 30.6 C
2. Cannon Rd/El Camino
Real Signalized AM 52.9 D 53.3 D
PM 121.1 F 68.4 E
3. Jackspar Dr-Rancho
Carlsbad Dr/El Camino
Real
Signalized
AM 20.1 C 21.3 C
PM 25.6 C 29.5 C
4. College Blvd/El Camino
Real Signalized AM 90.1 F 49.9 D
PM >180.0 F 46.3 D
5. College Blvd/Sunny
Creek Road Signalized AM >180.0 F 8.4 A
PM 164.7 F 16.3 B
6. College Blvd/Future
Street 1 Signalized AM >180.0 F 14.8 B
PM >180.0 F 4.0 A
7. College Blvd/Future
Street 2 Signalized AM >180.0 F 15.7 B
PM >180.0 F 6.8 A
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019. Notes: 1 Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections. 2 LOS calculations performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition method. 3 Unacceptable seconds of delay per vehicle and LOS highlighted in bold. 4 Specific delay value is shown in Attachment 6 for delays over 180 seconds.
With this mitigation, most deficiencies are reduced or eliminated. Ultimately, the roadway extension
provides a valuable regional connection and provides multiple vehicle routes for those traveling through
this part of the City of Carlsbad. Despite the projection of several locations operating at LOS F under Zone
15 buildout conditions, the extension provides much needed additional capacity, which is anticipated to
minimize delays at other adjacent locations intersections and improve overall connectivity.
Attachment 1 – Existing (2019)
Intersection LOS Worksheets
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd & College Blvd 11/07/2019
Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBU SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 399 388 284 191 4 316 1358
Future Volume (veh/h) 399 388 284 191 4 316 1358
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0000 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 539 524 384 22 427 1721
Peak Hour Factor 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
Percent Heavy Veh, %2222 22
Cap, veh/h 613 1600 763 298 1498 1704
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.45 0.21 0.21 0.43 0.43
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3647 3647 1389 3456 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 539 524 384 22 427 1721
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1777 1389 1728 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 17.5 11.0 11.0 1.5 9.2 50.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.5 11.0 11.0 1.5 9.2 50.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 613 1600 763 298 1498 1704
V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.33 0.50 0.07 0.28 1.01
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1199 1600 1541 602 1498 1704
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.2 20.4 39.9 36.1 21.1 22.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 24.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.3 4.3 4.8 0.5 3.6 5.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.9 20.5 40.1 36.2 21.1 46.6
LnGrp LOS DCDD CF
Approach Vol, veh/h 1063 406 2148
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.4 39.8 41.6
Approach LOS C D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 58.6 56.7 27.2 31.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.7 * 6.7 6.7 6.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 40.0 * 50 40.0 50.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.0 52.0 19.5 13.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.0 0.0 0.9 1.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 11/07/2019
Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 80 2202 454 58 492 420 164 203 71 974 667 111
Future Volume (veh/h) 7 80 2202 454 58 492 420 164 203 71 974 667 111
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 2270 390 60 507 304 169 209 49 1004 688 105
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 257 2139 763 77 1085 962 216 254 58 1043 1050 160
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.42 0.42 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.30 0.34 0.34
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1584 1781 3554 1585 3456 2870 659 3456 3091 471
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 2270 390 60 507 304 169 128 130 1004 395 398
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1584 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1752 1728 1777 1785
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 62.8 25.4 5.0 17.3 0.0 7.2 10.6 11.0 42.9 28.3 28.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 62.8 25.4 5.0 17.3 0.0 7.2 10.6 11.0 42.9 28.3 28.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.26
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 257 2139 763 77 1085 962 216 157 155 1043 603 606
V/C Ratio(X) 0.32 1.06 0.51 0.78 0.47 0.32 0.78 0.81 0.84 0.96 0.66 0.66
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 261 2139 763 164 1085 962 392 187 185 1060 603 606
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.5 43.6 26.8 71.1 42.2 14.3 69.3 67.2 67.3 51.5 42.1 42.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 38.1 2.4 6.2 1.4 0.8 2.3 17.2 21.8 19.0 2.0 2.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 32.3 9.7 2.4 7.6 5.0 3.2 5.5 5.8 20.7 12.4 12.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.8 81.7 29.2 77.2 43.6 15.2 71.6 84.3 89.1 70.5 44.1 44.1
LnGrp LOS E F C E D B E F F E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2742 871 427 1797
Approach Delay, s/veh 73.5 36.0 80.8 58.9
Approach LOS E D F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s27.7 51.8 51.3 19.3 10.6 68.8 13.6 56.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 * 6 * 6 * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s22.0 * 46 * 46 * 16 * 14 54.0 * 17 * 45
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s8.2 19.3 44.9 13.0 7.0 64.8 9.2 30.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 63.9
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real 11/07/2019
Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 15 3086 142 1 13 856 9 53 2 28 14 3 24
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 15 3086 142 1 13 856 9 53 2 28 14 3 24
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 16 3248 147 14 901 7 56 2 15 15 3 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 222222222
Cap, veh/h 23 3183 142 21 2277 1015 121 9 23 143 25 128
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.64 0.64 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5011 223 1781 3554 1584 963 105 276 1214 304 1562
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 16 2191 1204 14 901 7 73 0 0 18 0 1
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1830 1781 1777 1584 1344 0 0 1517 0 1562
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 95.3 95.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 95.3 95.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.21 0.83 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 23 2163 1163 21 2277 1015 153 0 0 168 0 128
V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 1.01 1.04 0.67 0.40 0.01 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.01
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 300 2163 1163 166 2277 1015 265 0 0 291 0 260
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.09 0.09 0.09 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 73.7 27.3 27.4 72.9 0.0 0.0 67.3 0.0 0.0 63.9 0.0 63.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 9.5 19.3 12.3 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 36.0 41.9 0.6 0.2 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 75.0 36.9 46.6 85.3 0.5 0.0 68.1 0.0 0.0 64.0 0.0 63.3
LnGrp LOS E F F F AAEAAEAE
Approach Vol, veh/h 3411 922 73 19
Approach Delay, s/veh 40.5 1.8 68.1 64.0
Approach LOS D A E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.9 102.1 17.0 7.8 101.3 17.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 * 4.7 6.0 * 6 *4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s25.3 84.0 * 24 14.0 * 95 * 25
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.3 2.0 10.2 3.2 97.3 3.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 11/07/2019
Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 22 2478 634 76 48 669 15 139 9 3 43 22 69
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 22 2478 634 76 48 669 15 139 9 3 43 22 69
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 23 2555 0 49 690 10 143 9 0 44 23 3
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 222222222
Cap, veh/h 711 3746 63 1855 576 191 208 0 77 81 10
Arrive On Green 0.80 1.00 0.00 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 1781 5106 1585 3456 3647 0 3456 3169 405
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 23 2555 0 49 690 10 143 9 0 44 13 13
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1585 1728 1777 0 1728 1777 1797
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.0 0.0 4.1 14.9 0.5 6.1 0.4 0.0 1.9 1.1 1.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 0.0 0.0 4.1 14.9 0.5 6.1 0.4 0.0 1.9 1.1 1.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.23
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 711 3746 63 1855 576 191 208 0 77 46 46
V/C Ratio(X)0.03 0.68 0.78 0.37 0.02 0.75 0.04 0.00 0.57 0.28 0.29
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 711 3746 160 1855 576 553 806 0 576 415 419
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.42 0.42 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.1 0.0 0.0 71.8 35.2 22.1 69.8 66.7 0.0 72.6 71.7 71.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.2 0.0 7.4 0.6 0.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.2 1.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 0.1 0.0 2.0 6.1 0.2 2.7 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.1 0.2 0.0 79.1 35.7 22.1 72.1 66.7 0.0 75.0 72.9 73.0
LnGrp LOS A A E D C E E A E E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 2578 A 749 152 70
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.3 38.4 71.7 74.3
Approach LOS A D E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s65.9 60.5 8.4 15.3 10.3 116.1 13.3 10.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s14.0 * 55 25.0 34.0 13.5 55.0 24.0 35.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.4 16.9 3.9 2.4 6.1 2.0 8.1 3.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.2 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 11/07/2019
Existing AM Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: Cannon Rd/Bobcat Driveway & College Blvd 11/07/2019
Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1572 71 71 64 27 496
Future Volume (veh/h) 1572 71 71 64 27 496
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1638 74 74 2 28 325
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222
Cap, veh/h 1800 2462 213 95 288 1685
Arrive On Green 0.52 0.69 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.08
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3647 3647 1585 3456 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1638 74 74 2 28 325
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1777 1585 1728 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 25.8 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.4 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.8 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.4 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1800 2462 213 95 288 1685
V/C Ratio(X) 0.91 0.03 0.35 0.02 0.10 0.19
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2310 2462 2969 1324 2888 3784
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.1 2.9 27.0 26.5 25.3 5.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.3 2.9 27.4 26.5 25.4 5.3
LnGrp LOS B A C C C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1712 76 353
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.7 27.3 6.9
Approach LOS B C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 48.2 11.7 37.9 10.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.7 * 6.7 6.7 6.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 40.0 * 50 40.0 50.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 2.4 27.8 3.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.7 3.3 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 11/07/2019
Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 54 630 168 40 1555 1015 477 696 74 319 222 61
Future Volume (veh/h) 6 54 630 168 40 1555 1015 477 696 74 319 222 61
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 677 132 43 1672 1039 513 748 74 343 239 48
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 190 2796 1149 55 1635 909 614 562 56 392 283 56
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.55 0.55 0.03 0.46 0.46 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.10 0.10
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 3265 323 3456 2958 584
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 677 132 43 1672 1039 513 407 415 343 142 145
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1812 1728 1777 1765
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.5 10.4 0.8 3.6 69.0 55.3 21.5 25.8 25.8 14.7 11.8 12.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.5 10.4 0.8 3.6 69.0 55.3 21.5 25.8 25.8 14.7 11.8 12.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.33
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 190 2796 1149 55 1635 909 614 306 312 392 170 169
V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.24 0.11 0.78 1.02 1.14 0.84 1.33 1.33 0.88 0.83 0.86
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 190 2796 1149 95 1635 909 751 306 312 525 190 188
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.9 17.7 1.8 72.1 40.5 16.3 59.6 62.1 62.1 65.5 66.7 66.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 13.6 65.8 5.8 169.9 169.9 9.9 22.2 26.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 3.9 0.3 1.6 31.1 32.9 9.7 25.8 26.3 6.9 6.3 6.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.2 17.7 1.8 73.0 54.1 82.2 65.3 232.0 232.0 75.4 88.8 93.3
LnGrp LOS EBAEFFEFFEFF
Approach Vol, veh/h 867 2754 1335 630
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.3 65.0 167.9 82.5
Approach LOS B E F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s22.0 75.0 21.2 31.8 8.9 88.1 32.7 20.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 * 4.2 * 6 * 4.2 6.0 * 6 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s12.0 * 69 * 23 * 26 * 8 73.0 * 33 * 16
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s6.5 71.0 16.7 27.8 5.6 12.4 23.5 14.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.7 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 84.3
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real 11/07/2019
Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 911 45 5 14 2276 39 321 10 31 21 3 40
Future Volume (veh/h) 45 911 45 5 14 2276 39 321 10 31 21 3 40
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 939 43 14 2346 25 331 10 30 22 3 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 222222222
Cap, veh/h 48 2612 119 190 2163 965 362 10 29 429 56 412
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.52 0.52 0.14 0.81 0.81 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5004 229 1781 3554 1585 1219 37 110 1477 215 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 638 344 14 2346 25 371 0 0 25 0 8
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1702 1829 1781 1777 1585 1366 0 0 1692 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 16.5 16.6 1.0 91.3 0.5 37.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 16.5 16.6 1.0 91.3 0.5 39.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.08 0.88 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 48 1777 955 190 2163 965 401 0 0 485 0 412
V/C Ratio(X) 0.97 0.36 0.36 0.07 1.08 0.03 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 48 1777 955 202 2163 965 401 0 0 485 0 412
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.66 0.66 0.66 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh72.9 21.1 21.1 57.9 14.3 5.6 57.1 0.0 0.0 41.7 0.0 41.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 112.7 0.5 1.0 0.0 44.1 0.0 26.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln3.2 6.4 7.0 0.5 28.1 0.2 17.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 185.7 21.6 22.1 58.0 58.4 5.7 84.0 0.0 0.0 41.7 0.0 41.3
LnGrp LOS F C C E F A F A A D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1028 2385 371 33
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.1 57.9 84.0 41.6
Approach LOS C E F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.0 97.3 43.7 22.0 84.3 43.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 * 4.7 6.0 * 6 *4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s4.0 91.3 * 39 17.0 * 78 * 39
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.9 93.3 41.0 3.0 18.6 3.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 11/07/2019
Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 30 824 135 9 44 1785 49 532 40 23 22 22 23
Future Volume (veh/h) 2 30 824 135 9 44 1785 49 532 40 23 22 22 23
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 32 867 0 46 1879 33 560 42 2 23 23 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 222222222
Cap, veh/h 431 3025 60 1927 598 541 717 34 57 204 0
Arrive On Green 0.48 1.00 0.00 0.03 0.38 0.38 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.06 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 1781 5106 1585 3456 3454 163 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 32 867 0 46 1879 33 560 21 23 23 23 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1585 1728 1777 1840 1728 1777 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 0.0 0.0 3.8 54.4 1.7 23.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.9 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.0 0.0 3.8 54.4 1.7 23.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.9 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 431 3025 60 1927 598 541 369 382 57 204 0
V/C Ratio(X)0.07 0.29 0.77 0.98 0.06 1.03 0.06 0.06 0.40 0.11 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 431 3025 428 1927 598 541 675 699 104 900 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.95 0.95 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.7 0.0 0.0 71.9 46.0 21.8 63.3 47.7 47.7 73.0 67.1 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.2 0.0 7.6 15.4 0.2 47.8 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.1 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.1 0.0 1.8 24.5 0.8 13.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.8 0.2 0.0 79.6 61.4 21.9 111.1 47.7 47.7 74.8 67.2 0.0
LnGrp LOS C A E E C F D D E E A
Approach Vol, veh/h 899 A 1958 604 46
Approach Delay, s/veh 1.3 61.2 106.5 71.0
Approach LOS A E F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s42.3 62.6 7.5 37.7 10.0 94.9 30.0 15.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 6.5 * 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s9.4 * 57 4.5 57.0 36.0 30.0 23.5 * 38
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.4 56.4 3.0 3.5 5.8 2.0 25.5 2.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.8
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 11/07/2019
Existing PM Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Attachment 2 – Reassignment of
Existing Trips Intersection LOS
Worksheets
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: College Blvd & Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 212 208 5 148 136 191 5 187 180 4 316 776
Future Volume (veh/h) 212 208 5 148 136 191 5 187 180 4 316 776
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 286 281 7 200 184 22 7 253 243 427 1049
Peak Hour Factor 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222 22
Cap, veh/h 343 622 15 228 352 273 65 499 423 447 900
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.18 0.18 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.48
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3543 88 1781 1870 1451 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 286 141 147 200 184 22 7 253 243 427 1049
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1855 1781 1870 1451 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870
Q Serve(g_s), s 11.2 9.7 9.8 15.2 12.2 1.7 0.5 15.8 18.3 32.5 66.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.2 9.7 9.8 15.2 12.2 1.7 0.5 15.8 18.3 32.5 66.2
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 343 312 325 228 352 273 65 499 423 447 900
V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.45 0.45 0.88 0.52 0.08 0.11 0.51 0.58 0.95 1.16
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 880 514 537 381 435 338 65 499 423 457 900
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.8 50.8 50.8 58.9 50.3 46.0 64.1 42.8 43.7 50.7 35.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.4 0.4 11.9 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.3 30.0 86.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.9 4.3 4.5 7.6 5.8 0.6 0.2 7.1 7.4 17.7 49.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.9 51.1 51.1 70.8 50.7 46.1 64.4 43.1 44.9 80.7 122.0
LnGrp LOS E D D E D D E D D F F
Approach Vol, veh/h 574 406 503 2216
Approach Delay, s/veh 57.0 60.4 44.3 75.3
Approach LOS E E D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.2 43.4 22.1 30.8 11.7 72.9 20.3 32.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.7 6.7 4.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 * 6.7 6.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 35 35.9 29.4 39.8 5.0 66.2 * 35 32.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 34.5 20.3 17.2 11.8 2.5 68.2 13.2 14.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 66.6
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: College Blvd & Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 632
Future Volume (veh/h) 632
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 740
Peak Hour Factor 0.74
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 1618
Arrive On Green 0.48
Sat Flow, veh/h 2787
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 740
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1393
Q Serve(g_s), s 11.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.8
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1618
V/C Ratio(X) 0.46
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1618
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.0
LnGrp LOS A
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 80 2152 454 58 492 53 164 202 71 100 667 111
Future Volume (veh/h) 7 80 2152 454 58 492 53 164 202 71 100 667 111
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 2219 390 60 507 -74 169 208 49 103 688 105
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 102 2590 902 76 1751 848 214 778 179 146 742 113
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.51 0.51 0.04 0.49 0.00 0.06 0.27 0.27 0.04 0.24 0.24
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1584 1781 3554 1585 3456 2867 661 3456 3090 471
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 2219 390 60 507 -74 169 127 130 103 395 398
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1584 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1751 1728 1777 1785
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 56.8 7.9 5.0 12.7 0.0 7.2 8.4 8.7 4.4 32.6 32.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 56.8 7.9 5.0 12.7 0.0 7.2 8.4 8.7 4.4 32.6 32.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.26
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 102 2590 902 76 1751 848 214 482 475 146 426 428
V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.86 0.43 0.79 0.29 -0.09 0.79 0.26 0.27 0.70 0.93 0.93
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 356 2590 902 93 1751 848 253 487 480 205 462 464
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 69.9 32.2 9.6 71.1 22.5 0.0 69.4 42.9 43.0 70.9 55.7 55.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.4 3.9 1.5 24.1 0.4 0.0 11.0 0.1 0.1 2.4 23.1 23.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 22.6 4.5 2.7 5.2 0.0 3.5 3.7 3.7 2.0 16.9 17.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 75.3 36.1 11.1 95.2 22.9 0.0 80.4 43.0 43.1 73.3 78.9 79.1
LnGrp LOS E D B F C A F D D E E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 2691 493 426 896
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.7 35.1 57.9 78.3
Approach LOS C D E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s12.8 79.9 10.6 46.7 10.6 82.1 15.3 42.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s* 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 * 6 * 4.2 6.0 * 6 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s* 30 49.6 * 8.9 * 41 * 7.8 71.8 * 11 * 39
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s8.8 14.7 6.4 10.7 7.0 58.8 9.2 34.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 8.8 0.0 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.0
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 15 2162 142 1 13 489 9 53 2 28 14 3 24
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 15 2162 142 1 13 489 9 53 2 28 14 3 24
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 16 2276 147 14 515 7 56 2 15 15 3 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 222222222
Cap, veh/h 33 2589 166 21 1829 815 138 9 27 162 29 152
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.53 0.53 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4904 314 1781 3554 1584 988 95 280 1214 294 1565
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 16 1573 850 14 515 7 73 0 0 18 0 1
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1814 1781 1777 1584 1363 0 0 1508 0 1565
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 60.9 62.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 60.9 62.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.21 0.83 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 33 1797 958 21 1829 815 175 0 0 190 0 152
V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.88 0.89 0.67 0.28 0.01 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.01
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 214 1797 958 190 1829 815 410 0 0 427 0 408
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 72.9 31.1 31.4 72.9 0.0 0.0 65.1 0.0 0.0 61.8 0.0 61.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 2.8 5.6 12.6 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 23.6 26.5 0.6 0.1 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.6 33.9 37.0 85.5 0.4 0.0 65.6 0.0 0.0 61.9 0.0 61.2
LnGrp LOS E C D F AAEAAEAE
Approach Vol, veh/h 2439 536 73 19
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.2 2.6 65.6 61.8
Approach LOS D A E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s8.8 83.2 19.3 6.8 85.2 19.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 * 4.7 5.0 6.0 * 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s18.0 * 77 * 39 16.0 79.2 * 39
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.3 2.0 10.0 3.2 64.4 3.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 0.2 0.0 10.8 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 13 1788 409 76 48 390 294 80 68 3 733 247 40
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 13 1788 409 76 48 390 294 80 68 3 733 247 40
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 13 1843 0 49 402 298 82 70 0 756 255 -27
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 222222222
Cap, veh/h 449 2981 63 1842 572 123 121 0 645 693 0
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.58 0.00 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.19 0.20 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 1781 5106 1585 3456 3647 0 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 13 1843 0 49 402 298 82 70 0 756 228 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1585 1728 1777 0 1728 1777 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 35.3 0.0 4.1 8.2 22.2 3.5 2.9 0.0 28.0 8.3 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 35.3 0.0 4.1 8.2 22.2 3.5 2.9 0.0 28.0 8.3 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 449 2981 63 1842 572 123 121 0 645 693 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.62 0.78 0.22 0.52 0.67 0.58 0.00 1.17 0.33 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 449 2981 119 1842 572 170 948 0 645 1436 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.78 0.78 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.3 20.3 0.0 71.8 33.3 37.8 71.4 71.4 0.0 61.0 51.9 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.2 0.0 7.4 0.3 3.4 2.3 1.6 0.0 88.2 0.1 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 12.9 0.0 2.0 3.3 8.9 1.6 1.3 0.0 19.8 3.6 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.3 20.6 0.0 79.2 33.5 41.1 73.7 73.0 0.0 149.2 52.0 0.0
LnGrp LOS D C E C D E E A F D A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1856 A 749 152 984
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.7 39.6 73.4 126.7
Approach LOS C D E F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s43.8 60.1 34.5 11.6 10.3 93.6 10.4 35.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 6.5 * 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s5.4 * 54 28.0 * 40 10.0 49.5 7.4 60.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.8 24.2 30.0 4.9 6.1 37.3 5.5 10.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: College Blvd & Sunny Creek 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 100 0 34 0 338 37 9 920 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 100 0 34 0 338 37 9 920 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 109 0 37 0 367 40 10 1000 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 139 170 0 301 170 144 279 1375 1165 795 1375 0
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1371 1870 0 1781 1870 1585 1093 1870 1585 978 1870 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 109 0 37 0 367 40 10 1000 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1371 1870 0 1781 1870 1585 546 1870 1585 978 1870 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 3.3 0.4 0.2 15.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 3.3 0.4 3.5 15.7 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 139 170 0 301 170 144 279 1375 1165 795 1375 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.27 0.03 0.01 0.73 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 492 651 0 760 651 552 279 1375 1165 795 1375 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 21.9 0.0 2.3 1.9 2.8 3.9 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 3.4 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 0.0 22.8 0.0 2.7 1.9 2.9 7.3 0.0
LnGrp LOS A A A C A C AAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 0 146 407 1010
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 23.3 2.7 7.2
Approach LOS C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 42.5 9.2 42.5 9.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.0 18.0 38.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 0.0 17.7 5.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.1 0.0 7.3 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.6
HCM 6th LOS A
HCM 6th TWSC
6: College Blvd & Driveway 1 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 000000372009290
Future Vol, veh/h 0 000000372009290
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 200 - 0 200 - 0 200 - - 200 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 000000404001010 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1414 1414 1010 1414 1414 404 1010 0 0 404 0 0
Stage 1 1010 1010 - 404 404 -------
Stage 2 404 404 - 1010 1010 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 115 138 291 115 138 647 686 - - 1155 - -
Stage 1 289 317 - 623 599 -------
Stage 2 623 599 - 289 317 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 115 138 291 115 138 647 686 - - 1155 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 115 138 - 115 138 -------
Stage 1 289 317 - 623 599 -------
Stage 2 623 599 - 289 317 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1EBLn2EBLn3WBLn1WBLn2WBLn3 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 686 --------1155 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ------------
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - -0000000--
HCM Lane LOS A - -AAAAAAA - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 --------0--
HCM 6th TWSC
7: College Blvd & Driveway 1 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 9
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 000000372009290
Future Vol, veh/h 0 000000372009290
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 200 - 0 200 - 0 200 - - 200 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 000000404001010 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1414 1414 1010 1414 1414 404 1010 0 0 404 0 0
Stage 1 1010 1010 - 404 404 -------
Stage 2 404 404 - 1010 1010 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 115 138 291 115 138 647 686 - - 1155 - -
Stage 1 289 317 - 623 599 -------
Stage 2 623 599 - 289 317 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 115 138 291 115 138 647 686 - - 1155 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 115 138 - 115 138 -------
Stage 1 289 317 - 623 599 -------
Stage 2 623 599 - 289 317 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1EBLn2EBLn3WBLn1WBLn2WBLn3 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 686 --------1155 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ------------
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - -0000000--
HCM Lane LOS A - -AAAAAAA - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 --------0--
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: College Blvd & Cannon Rd/Bobcat Driveway 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips PM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 714 35 5 64 36 35 5 868 36 27 233 263
Future Volume (veh/h) 714 35 5 64 36 35 5 868 36 27 233 263
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 744 36 5 70 38 -29 5 943 39 28 253 82
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 838 834 113 91 95 80 535 784 664 49 317 1145
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.30 0.42 0.42 0.03 0.17 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3143 427 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 2765
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 744 20 21 70 38 -29 5 943 39 28 253 82
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1793 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1383
Q Serve(g_s), s 19.6 0.8 0.8 3.7 1.9 0.0 0.2 39.6 1.4 1.5 12.3 0.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 19.6 0.8 0.8 3.7 1.9 0.0 0.2 39.6 1.4 1.5 12.3 0.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 838 471 476 91 95 80 535 784 664 49 317 1145
V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.04 0.04 0.77 0.40 -0.36 0.01 1.20 0.06 0.57 0.80 0.07
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1280 805 812 234 356 302 535 784 664 660 1378 2713
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.6 25.8 25.8 44.3 43.5 0.0 23.2 27.4 16.3 45.4 37.7 7.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 0.0 0.0 12.8 2.7 0.0 0.0 103.4 0.0 3.8 4.6 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.1 0.3 0.3 1.9 0.9 0.0 0.1 38.0 0.5 0.7 5.7 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.2 25.8 25.8 57.1 46.2 0.0 23.2 130.8 16.4 49.2 42.3 7.2
LnGrp LOS D C C E D A C F B D D A
Approach Vol, veh/h 785 79 987 363
Approach Delay, s/veh 37.6 72.8 125.8 34.9
Approach LOS D E F C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.3 46.3 9.3 29.6 35.1 20.5 29.6 9.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.7 * 6.7 4.5 4.5 6.7 4.5 * 6.7 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 35 * 40 12.4 42.8 5.0 69.6 * 35 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 41.6 5.7 2.8 2.2 14.3 21.6 3.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.7 1.3 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 77.7
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips PM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 54 630 168 40 1555 121 477 696 74 51 222 61
Future Volume (veh/h) 6 54 630 168 40 1555 121 477 696 74 51 222 61
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 677 132 43 1672 78 513 748 74 55 239 48
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 288 2661 1086 55 1336 639 566 840 83 94 315 62
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.52 0.52 0.03 0.38 0.38 0.16 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.11 0.11
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 3266 323 3456 2958 584
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 677 132 43 1672 78 513 407 415 55 142 145
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1812 1728 1777 1765
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 9.1 0.7 3.0 47.0 2.0 18.2 27.6 27.6 2.0 9.7 10.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 9.1 0.7 3.0 47.0 2.0 18.2 27.6 27.6 2.0 9.7 10.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.33
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 288 2661 1086 55 1336 639 566 457 466 94 189 188
V/C Ratio(X) 0.20 0.25 0.12 0.78 1.25 0.12 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.58 0.75 0.77
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 288 2661 1086 104 1336 639 566 637 649 166 554 551
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.61 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.4 16.5 1.9 60.1 39.0 9.0 51.3 44.7 44.7 60.1 54.2 54.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.3 117.0 0.2 18.0 9.0 9.0 2.1 2.2 2.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 3.3 0.2 1.4 40.6 0.8 9.0 12.8 13.0 0.9 4.3 4.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.5 16.5 1.9 65.4 156.0 9.3 69.3 53.8 53.7 62.2 56.5 56.9
LnGrp LOS D B A E F A E D D E E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 867 1793 1335 342
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.2 147.5 59.7 57.6
Approach LOS B F E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s26.2 53.0 7.6 38.2 8.1 71.2 26.5 19.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 * 4.2 * 6 * 4.2 6.0 * 6 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s6.8 * 47 * 6 * 45 * 7.3 46.5 * 12 * 39
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.5 49.0 4.0 29.6 5.0 11.1 20.2 12.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 87.1
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips PM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 643 45 14 1382 39 321 16 31 21 3 40
Future Volume (veh/h) 45 643 45 14 1382 39 321 16 31 21 3 40
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 663 43 14 1425 25 331 16 30 22 3 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 59 2431 157 22 1717 766 407 17 32 472 61 461
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.50 0.50 0.01 0.32 0.32 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4901 316 1781 3554 1585 1212 59 110 1437 210 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 459 247 14 1425 25 377 0 0 25 0 8
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1702 1813 1781 1777 1585 1380 0 0 1647 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 9.8 9.9 1.0 46.4 1.3 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 9.8 9.9 1.0 46.4 1.3 33.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.08 0.88 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 59 1688 899 22 1717 766 456 0 0 533 0 461
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.27 0.27 0.64 0.83 0.03 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 86 1688 899 57 1717 766 535 0 0 611 0 549
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh60.0 18.4 18.4 61.7 37.5 22.3 43.9 0.0 0.0 31.9 0.0 31.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.6 0.4 0.7 9.8 4.4 0.1 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.6 3.7 4.0 0.5 21.3 0.5 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.6 18.7 19.1 71.5 41.9 22.4 51.8 0.0 0.0 31.9 0.0 31.6
LnGrp LOS E B B E D C D A A C A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 752 1464 377 33
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.2 41.8 51.8 31.8
Approach LOS CDDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.2 66.4 41.1 7.5 68.0 41.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 * 4.7 6.0 * 6 * 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s6.0 60.0 * 43 4.0 * 62 * 43
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.2 48.4 35.5 3.0 11.9 3.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.9 0.9 0.0 3.3 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips PM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 22 602 97 9 44 1106 728 326 246 23 244 60 14
Future Volume (veh/h) 2 22 602 97 9 44 1106 728 326 246 23 244 60 14
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 23 634 0 46 1164 747 343 259 2 257 63 -9
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 222222222
Cap, veh/h 505 2990 59 1671 519 433 423 3 290 226 0
Arrive On Green 0.57 1.00 0.00 0.03 0.33 0.33 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 1781 5106 1585 3456 3614 28 3456 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 23 634 0 46 1164 747 343 127 134 257 54 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1585 1728 1777 1865 1728 1777 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 0.0 0.0 3.2 24.8 30.4 12.0 8.5 8.5 9.2 1.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.7 0.0 0.0 3.2 24.8 30.4 12.0 8.5 8.5 9.2 1.8 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 505 2990 59 1671 519 433 208 218 290 226 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.05 0.21 0.77 0.70 1.44 0.79 0.61 0.61 0.89 0.24 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 505 2990 299 1671 519 433 584 613 290 1080 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.98 0.98 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.5 0.0 0.0 59.9 36.6 23.3 53.1 52.5 52.5 56.7 55.6 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.2 0.0 7.7 2.4 208.9 8.9 1.1 1.0 25.1 0.2 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 10.1 40.6 5.6 3.7 3.9 4.9 0.8 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.5 0.2 0.0 67.7 39.1 232.2 62.0 53.6 53.5 81.8 55.8 0.0
LnGrp LOS B A E D F E D D F E A
Approach Vol, veh/h 657 A 1957 604 311
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.8 113.5 58.4 77.3
Approach LOS A F E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s41.5 46.9 15.5 21.1 9.2 79.2 22.2 14.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 6.5 * 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s10.0 * 41 10.5 41.1 21.0 29.9 13.6 * 38
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.7 32.4 11.2 10.5 5.2 2.0 14.0 3.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 79.9
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips PM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: College Blvd & Sunny Creek 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips PM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 58 0 9 0 900 96 42 260 0
Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 58 0 9 0 900 96 42 260 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 63 0 10 0 978 104 46 283 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 22222222222
Cap, veh/h 246 143 0 383 143 121 493 1152 976 348 1152 0
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1405 1870 0 1781 1870 1585 2127 1870 1585 521 1870 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 63 0 10 0 978 104 46 283 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1405 1870 0 1781 1870 1585 1063 1870 1585 521 1870 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 12.3 0.8 2.3 2.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 12.3 0.8 14.6 2.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 246 143 0 383 143 121 493 1152 976 348 1152 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.85 0.11 0.13 0.25 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1004 1152 0 1343 1152 976 493 1152 976 348 1152 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 12.5 0.0 4.5 2.3 10.4 2.5 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 7.9 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 0.0 12.8 0.0 12.4 2.5 11.2 3.1 0.0
LnGrp LOS A AABABABABAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 0 73 1082 329
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 13.1 11.5 4.2
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.5 6.7 22.5 6.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.3 0.0 16.6 3.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.2 0.0 0.3 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.9
HCM 6th LOS A
HCM 6th TWSC
6: College Blvd & Driveway 1 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips PM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 7
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 000000909003020
Future Vol, veh/h 0 000000909003020
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 200 - 0 200 - 0 200 - - 200 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 000000988003280
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1316 1316 328 1316 1316 988 328 0 0 988 0 0
Stage 1 328 328 - 988 988 -------
Stage 2 988 988 - 328 328 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 135 158 713 135 158 300 1232 - - 699 - -
Stage 1 685 647 - 297 325 -------
Stage 2 297 325 - 685 647 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 135 158 713 135 158 300 1232 - - 699 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 135 158 - 135 158 -------
Stage 1 685 647 - 297 325 -------
Stage 2 297 325 - 685 647 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1EBLn2EBLn3WBLn1WBLn2WBLn3 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1232 --------699--
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ------------
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - -0000000--
HCM Lane LOS A - -AAAAAAA - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 --------0--
HCM 6th TWSC
7: College Blvd & Driveway 2 12/16/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips PM 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 8
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 000000909003020
Future Vol, veh/h 0 000000909003020
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 200 - 0 200 - 0 200 - - 200 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 000000988003280
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1316 1316 328 1316 1316 988 328 0 0 988 0 0
Stage 1 328 328 - 988 988 -------
Stage 2 988 988 - 328 328 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 135 158 713 135 158 300 1232 - - 699 - -
Stage 1 685 647 - 297 325 -------
Stage 2 297 325 - 685 647 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 135 158 713 135 158 300 1232 - - 699 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 135 158 - 135 158 -------
Stage 1 685 647 - 297 325 -------
Stage 2 297 325 - 685 647 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 0
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1EBLn2EBLn3WBLn1WBLn2WBLn3 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1232 --------699--
HCM Lane V/C Ratio ------------
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - -0000000--
HCM Lane LOS A - -AAAAAAA - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 --------0--
Attachment 3 – Mitigation for
Reassignment of Existing Trips
Intersection LOS Worksheets
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: College Blvd & Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd 12/23/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 212 208 5 148 136 191 5 187 180 4 316 776
Future Volume (veh/h) 212 208 5 148 136 191 5 187 180 4 316 776
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 286 281 7 200 184 22 7 253 243 427 1049
Peak Hour Factor 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222 22
Cap, veh/h 359 727 18 236 399 313 146 632 282 457 1252
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.21 0.21 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.35
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3543 88 1781 1870 1467 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 286 141 147 200 184 22 7 253 243 427 1049
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1855 1781 1870 1467 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.7 7.4 7.4 11.8 9.3 1.3 0.4 6.8 16.1 25.3 29.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.7 7.4 7.4 11.8 9.3 1.3 0.4 6.8 16.1 25.3 29.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 359 364 380 236 399 313 146 632 282 457 1252
V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.39 0.39 0.85 0.46 0.07 0.05 0.40 0.86 0.93 0.84
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1216 653 682 536 554 435 146 1063 474 577 2179
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.3 37.1 37.1 45.8 37.0 33.9 45.7 39.3 43.1 39.2 32.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.2 0.2 8.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.9 18.0 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 3.1 3.2 5.7 4.3 0.5 0.2 2.9 6.5 12.7 11.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.8 37.3 37.3 53.9 37.3 33.9 45.7 39.5 47.0 57.2 32.7
LnGrp LOS DDDDDCDDD EC
Approach Vol, veh/h 574 406 503 2216
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.1 45.3 43.2 39.0
Approach LOS D D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.4 25.9 18.8 28.8 15.6 44.7 17.9 29.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.7 6.7 4.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 * 6.7 6.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 35 32.3 32.5 39.7 5.0 66.2 * 38 32.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 27.3 18.1 13.8 9.4 2.4 31.3 10.7 11.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.0 6.8 0.5 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: College Blvd & Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd 12/23/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 632
Future Volume (veh/h) 632
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 740
Peak Hour Factor 0.74
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 722
Arrive On Green 0.35
Sat Flow, veh/h 1583
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 740
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1583
Q Serve(g_s), s 26.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 26.8
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 722
V/C Ratio(X) 1.02
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1135
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 26.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 13.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.4
LnGrp LOS F
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/23/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 7
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 80 2152 454 58 492 53 164 202 71 100 667
Future Volume (veh/h) 7 80 2152 454 58 492 53 164 202 71 100 667
Initial Q (Qb), veh 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 2219 390 60 507 -74 169 208 49 103 688
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, %22222222222
Cap, veh/h 102 2590 902 76 1751 848 214 778 179 146 742
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.51 0.51 0.04 0.49 0.00 0.06 0.27 0.27 0.04 0.24
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1584 1781 3554 1585 3456 2867 661 3456 3090
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 2219 390 60 507 -74 169 127 130 103 395
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1584 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1751 1728 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 56.8 7.9 5.0 12.7 0.0 7.2 8.4 8.7 4.4 32.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 56.8 7.9 5.0 12.7 0.0 7.2 8.4 8.7 4.4 32.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 102 2590 902 76 1751 848 214 482 475 146 426
V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.86 0.43 0.79 0.29 -0.09 0.79 0.26 0.27 0.70 0.93
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 356 2590 902 93 1751 848 253 487 480 205 462
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 69.9 32.2 9.6 71.1 22.5 0.0 69.4 42.9 43.0 70.9 55.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.4 3.9 1.5 24.1 0.4 0.0 11.0 0.1 0.1 2.4 23.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 22.6 4.5 2.7 5.2 0.0 3.5 3.7 3.7 2.0 16.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 75.3 36.1 11.1 95.2 22.9 0.0 80.4 43.0 43.1 73.3 78.9
LnGrp LOS E D B F C A F D D E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 2691 493 426 896
Approach Delay, s/veh 33.7 35.1 57.9 78.3
Approach LOS C D E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 79.9 10.6 46.7 10.6 82.1 15.3 42.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 * 6 * 4.2 6.0 * 6 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 30 49.6 * 8.9 * 41 * 7.8 71.8 * 11 * 39
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 14.7 6.4 10.7 7.0 58.8 9.2 34.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 8.8 0.0 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.0
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/23/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 8
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 111
Future Volume (veh/h) 111
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 105
Peak Hour Factor 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 113
Arrive On Green 0.24
Sat Flow, veh/h 471
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 398
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1785
Q Serve(g_s), s 32.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 32.7
Prop In Lane 0.26
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 428
V/C Ratio(X) 0.93
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 464
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 17.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 79.1
LnGrp LOS E
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real 12/23/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 11
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 15 2162 142 1 13 489 9 53 2 28 14
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 15 2162 142 1 13 489 9 53 2 28 14
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 16 2276 147 14 515 7 56 2 15 15
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2222222
Cap, veh/h 33 2589 166 21 1829 815 138 9 27 162
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.53 0.53 0.01 0.51 0.51 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4904 314 1781 3554 1584 988 95 280 1214
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 16 1573 850 14 515 7 73 0 0 18
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1814 1781 1777 1584 1363 0 0 1508
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 60.9 62.4 1.2 12.3 0.3 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 60.9 62.4 1.2 12.3 0.3 8.0 0.0 0.0 1.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.21 0.83
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 33 1797 958 21 1829 815 175 0 0 190
V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.88 0.89 0.67 0.28 0.01 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.09
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 214 1797 958 190 1829 815 410 0 0 427
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 72.9 31.1 31.4 73.8 20.7 17.7 65.1 0.0 0.0 61.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 2.8 5.6 12.6 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 23.6 26.5 0.6 5.0 0.1 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.6 33.9 37.0 86.4 21.0 17.8 65.6 0.0 0.0 61.9
LnGrp LOS E C D F C BEAAE
Approach Vol, veh/h 2439 536 73
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.2 22.7 65.6
Approach LOS D C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.8 83.2 19.3 6.8 85.2 19.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 * 4.7 5.0 6.0 * 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 * 77 * 39 16.0 79.2 * 39
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 14.3 10.0 3.2 64.4 3.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 0.2 0.0 10.8 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.9
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real 12/23/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 12
Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 24
Future Volume (veh/h) 3 24
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2
Cap, veh/h 29 152
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10
Sat Flow, veh/h 294 1565
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1565
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.1
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 152
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.01
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 408
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 61.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 61.2
LnGrp LOS A E
Approach Vol, veh/h 19
Approach Delay, s/veh 61.8
Approach LOS E
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 12/23/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 13 1788 409 76 48 390 294 80 68 3 733
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 13 1788 409 76 48 390 294 80 68 3 733
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 13 1843 0 49 402 298 82 70 0 756
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2222222
Cap, veh/h 442 2998 63 1880 1027 121 118 0 704
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.59 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.37 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.20
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 1781 5106 2790 3456 3647 0 3456
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 13 1843 0 49 402 298 82 70 0 756
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1395 1728 1777 0 1728
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 37.3 0.0 4.4 8.6 12.1 3.8 3.1 0.0 32.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 37.3 0.0 4.4 8.6 12.1 3.8 3.1 0.0 32.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 442 2998 63 1880 1027 121 118 0 704
V/C Ratio(X) 0.03 0.61 0.78 0.21 0.29 0.68 0.59 0.00 1.07
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 442 2998 126 1880 1027 177 888 0 704
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.78 0.78 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.65
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.6 21.3 0.0 76.6 34.7 35.8 76.3 76.3 0.0 63.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.2 0.0 7.5 0.3 0.7 2.4 1.8 0.0 49.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 13.9 0.0 2.1 3.5 4.2 1.7 1.4 0.0 18.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.6 21.6 0.0 84.0 34.9 36.5 78.7 78.0 0.0 113.1
LnGrp LOS D C F C D E E A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1856 A 749 152
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.7 38.8 78.4
Approach LOS C D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 45.7 64.9 37.6 11.8 10.7 99.9 10.6 38.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.5 * 59 32.6 40.0 11.3 53.1 8.2 64.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 14.1 34.6 5.1 6.4 39.3 5.8 10.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 47.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 12/23/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 247 40
Future Volume (veh/h) 247 40
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 255 -27
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2
Cap, veh/h 717 0
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 228 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.8 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 717 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.32 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1430 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.65 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.5 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.9 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.5 0.0
LnGrp LOS D A
Approach Vol, veh/h 984
Approach Delay, s/veh 99.5
Approach LOS F
Timer - Assigned Phs
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: College Blvd & Cannon Rd/Bobcat Driveway 12/23/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips PM - With Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 714 35 5 64 36 35 5 868 36 27 233 263
Future Volume (veh/h) 714 35 5 64 36 35 5 868 36 27 233 263
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 744 36 5 70 38 -29 5 943 39 28 253 82
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 861 902 123 91 112 95 497 1213 541 52 427 583
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.28 0.34 0.34 0.03 0.12 0.12
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3143 427 1781 1870 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1565
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 744 20 21 70 38 -29 5 943 39 28 253 82
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1793 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1565
Q Serve(g_s), s 15.8 0.6 0.6 3.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 18.3 1.3 1.2 5.2 0.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.8 0.6 0.6 3.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 18.3 1.3 1.2 5.2 0.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 861 510 515 91 112 95 497 1213 541 52 427 583
V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.04 0.04 0.77 0.34 -0.30 0.01 0.78 0.07 0.54 0.59 0.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1575 990 999 288 438 371 497 1832 817 812 3220 1813
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.6 19.8 19.8 36.0 34.6 0.0 20.0 22.7 17.1 36.8 32.0 6.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.1 3.2 1.3 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.9 0.2 0.2 1.6 0.7 0.0 0.1 6.8 0.5 0.5 2.1 0.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.6 19.8 19.8 48.8 36.4 0.0 20.0 23.9 17.1 39.9 33.3 6.1
LnGrp LOS C B B D D A C C B D C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 785 79 987 363
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.2 60.8 23.6 27.7
Approach LOS C E C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 32.9 8.4 26.5 28.1 13.7 25.8 9.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.7 * 6.7 4.5 4.5 6.7 4.5 * 6.7 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 35 * 40 12.4 42.8 5.0 69.6 * 35 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 20.3 5.0 2.6 2.2 7.2 17.8 3.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.8 1.3 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/23/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips PM - With Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 54 630 168 40 1555 121 477 696 74 51 222
Future Volume (veh/h) 6 54 630 168 40 1555 121 477 696 74 51 222
Initial Q (Qb), veh 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 677 132 43 1672 78 513 748 74 55 239
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, %22222222222
Cap, veh/h 288 2661 1086 55 1920 639 566 840 83 94 315
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.52 0.52 0.03 0.38 0.38 0.16 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.11
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 1781 5106 1585 3456 3266 323 3456 2958
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 677 132 43 1672 78 513 407 415 55 142
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1585 1728 1777 1812 1728 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 9.1 0.7 3.0 38.0 2.0 18.2 27.6 27.6 2.0 9.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 9.1 0.7 3.0 38.0 2.0 18.2 27.6 27.6 2.0 9.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 288 2661 1086 55 1920 639 566 457 466 94 189
V/C Ratio(X) 0.20 0.25 0.12 0.78 0.87 0.12 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.58 0.75
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 288 2661 1086 104 1920 639 566 637 649 166 554
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.61 0.61 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.4 16.5 1.9 60.1 36.2 9.0 51.3 44.7 44.7 60.1 54.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.3 3.6 0.2 18.0 9.0 9.0 2.1 2.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 3.3 0.2 1.4 15.3 0.8 9.0 12.8 13.0 0.9 4.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.5 16.5 1.9 65.4 39.8 9.3 69.3 53.8 53.7 62.2 56.5
LnGrp LOS D B A E D A E D D E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 867 1793 1335 342
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.2 39.1 59.7 57.6
Approach LOS B D E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.2 53.0 7.6 38.2 8.1 71.2 26.5 19.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 * 4.2 * 6 * 4.2 6.0 * 6 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.8 * 47 * 6 * 45 * 7.3 46.5 * 12 * 39
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 40.0 4.0 29.6 5.0 11.1 20.2 12.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.1 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/23/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips PM - With Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 61
Future Volume (veh/h) 61
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 48
Peak Hour Factor 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 62
Arrive On Green 0.11
Sat Flow, veh/h 584
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 145
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1765
Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0
Prop In Lane 0.33
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 188
V/C Ratio(X) 0.77
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 551
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.9
LnGrp LOS E
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real 12/23/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips PM - With Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 643 45 14 1382 39 321 16 31 21 3 40
Future Volume (veh/h) 45 643 45 14 1382 39 321 16 31 21 3 40
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 663 43 14 1425 25 331 16 30 22 3 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 59 2431 157 22 1717 766 407 17 32 472 61 461
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.50 0.50 0.01 0.48 0.48 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4901 316 1781 3554 1585 1212 59 110 1437 210 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 459 247 14 1425 25 377 0 0 25 0 8
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1813 1781 1777 1585 1380 0 0 1647 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 9.8 9.9 1.0 43.3 1.0 32.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 9.8 9.9 1.0 43.3 1.0 33.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.08 0.88 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 59 1688 899 22 1717 766 456 0 0 533 0 461
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.27 0.27 0.64 0.83 0.03 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 86 1688 899 57 1717 766 535 0 0 611 0 549
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.0 18.4 18.4 61.5 27.9 17.0 43.9 0.0 0.0 31.9 0.0 31.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.6 0.4 0.7 9.3 4.1 0.1 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 3.7 4.0 0.5 17.6 0.4 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.6 18.7 19.1 70.8 32.0 17.0 51.8 0.0 0.0 31.9 0.0 31.6
LnGrp LOS EBBECBDAACAC
Approach Vol, veh/h 752 1464 377 33
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.2 32.1 51.8 31.8
Approach LOS CCDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.2 66.4 41.1 7.5 68.0 41.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 * 4.7 6.0 * 6 * 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 60.0 * 43 4.0 * 62 * 43
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 45.3 35.5 3.0 11.9 3.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.8 0.9 0.0 3.3 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 12/23/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips PM - With Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 22 602 97 9 44 1106 728 326 246 23 244
Future Volume (veh/h) 2 22 602 97 9 44 1106 728 326 246 23 244
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 23 634 0 46 1164 766 343 259 2 257
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2222222
Cap, veh/h 29 3274 59 3387 1850 444 391 3 300
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.64 0.00 0.03 0.66 0.66 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.09
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 1781 5106 2790 3456 3614 28 3456
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 23 634 0 46 1164 766 343 127 134 257
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1395 1728 1777 1865 1728
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 8.7 0.0 4.4 17.1 21.9 16.5 11.8 11.9 12.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 8.7 0.0 4.4 17.1 21.9 16.5 11.8 11.9 12.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 29 3274 59 3387 1850 444 192 202 300
V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.19 0.78 0.34 0.41 0.77 0.66 0.66 0.86
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 139 3274 145 3387 1850 583 455 477 462
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.98 0.98 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 84.3 12.6 0.0 82.5 12.6 13.4 72.5 73.7 73.7 77.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.6 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.3 0.7 3.2 1.5 1.4 6.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 3.2 0.0 2.1 6.2 6.7 7.4 5.4 5.7 5.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 99.9 12.6 0.0 90.4 12.9 14.1 75.7 75.2 75.1 83.5
LnGrp LOS F B F BBEEEF
Approach Vol, veh/h 657 A 1976 604
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.7 15.2 75.5
Approach LOS B B E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.8 118.2 19.9 25.1 10.7 116.3 28.6 16.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6 * 4.1 5.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 6.5 * 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 13 * 71 23.0 44.0 14.0 68.4 29.0 * 38
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 23.9 14.6 13.9 6.4 10.7 18.5 4.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 2.5 0.5 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.4
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 12/23/2019
Reassignment of Existing Trips PM - With Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 14
Future Volume (veh/h) 60 14
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 63 -9
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2
Cap, veh/h 204 0
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3647 0
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 54 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 204 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.26 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 785 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 77.6 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 77.8 0.0
LnGrp LOS E A
Approach Vol, veh/h 311
Approach Delay, s/veh 82.5
Approach LOS F
Timer - Assigned Phs
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
Attachment 4 – Existing Plus
Reassignment Plus Buildout – 2 Lane
Roadway Intersection LOS Worksheets
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: College Blvd & Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 212 208 85 168 136 191 125 517 210 4 316 1796
Future Volume (veh/h) 212 208 85 168 136 191 125 517 210 4 316 1796
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 286 281 115 227 184 22 169 699 284 427 2427
Peak Hour Factor 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222 22
Cap, veh/h 333 342 137 250 315 242 309 456 185 378 747
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.21 0.40
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2479 990 1781 1870 1436 1781 1264 514 1781 1870
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 286 199 197 227 184 22 169 0 983 427 2427
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1692 1781 1870 1436 1781 0 1778 1781 1870
Q Serve(g_s), s 13.5 18.0 18.7 20.7 15.0 2.1 15.2 0.0 59.5 35.0 65.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.5 18.0 18.7 20.7 15.0 2.1 15.2 0.0 59.5 35.0 65.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 333 245 233 250 315 242 309 0 641 378 747
V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.81 0.84 0.91 0.58 0.09 0.55 0.00 1.53 1.13 3.25
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 733 394 375 352 363 278 309 0 641 378 747
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.00 0.81 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 73.4 69.1 69.4 69.9 63.3 57.9 71.5 0.0 72.7 65.0 49.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 2.8 4.8 20.9 0.7 0.1 1.0 0.0 246.5 86.5 1015.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.0 8.2 8.3 11.0 7.3 0.8 7.4 0.0 72.4 24.6 240.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.0 71.9 74.1 90.8 64.0 58.0 72.4 0.0 319.2 151.5 1065.0
LnGrp LOS E E E F EEEAF FF
Approach Vol, veh/h 682 433 1152 3594
Approach Delay, s/veh 74.3 77.7 283.0 739.6
Approach LOS E E F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.7 66.2 27.7 29.5 35.3 72.6 22.6 34.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.7 6.7 4.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 * 6.7 6.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 35 36.2 32.6 36.6 5.3 65.9 * 35 32.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 37.0 61.5 22.7 20.7 17.2 67.9 15.5 17.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 523.5
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: College Blvd & Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 632
Future Volume (veh/h) 632
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 740
Peak Hour Factor 0.74
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 1382
Arrive On Green 0.40
Sat Flow, veh/h 2786
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 740
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1393
Q Serve(g_s), s 12.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.5
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1382
V/C Ratio(X) 0.54
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1382
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.5
LnGrp LOS B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 80 2272 454 118 822 53 164 252 111 110 767
Future Volume (veh/h) 7 80 2272 454 118 822 53 164 252 111 110 767
Initial Q (Qb), veh 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 2342 390 122 847 -74 169 260 90 113 791
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, %22222222222
Cap, veh/h 102 2400 841 565 2636 1248 210 718 243 157 798
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.47 0.47 0.32 0.74 0.00 0.06 0.28 0.28 0.05 0.26
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1584 1781 3554 1585 3456 2607 881 3456 3070
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 2342 390 122 847 -74 169 175 175 113 458
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1584 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1712 1728 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 67.4 23.1 7.5 12.1 0.0 7.2 11.9 12.4 4.8 38.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 67.4 23.1 7.5 12.1 0.0 7.2 11.9 12.4 4.8 38.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 102 2400 841 565 2636 1248 210 489 471 157 462
V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.98 0.46 0.22 0.32 -0.06 0.81 0.36 0.37 0.72 0.99
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 179 2400 841 565 2636 1248 210 489 471 221 462
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 69.9 38.9 31.8 37.6 6.6 0.0 69.6 43.7 43.9 70.6 55.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.5 13.5 1.8 0.1 0.3 0.0 18.9 0.2 0.2 2.9 39.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 29.0 8.6 3.2 3.9 0.0 3.7 5.2 5.2 2.2 21.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 75.4 52.4 33.7 37.6 6.9 0.0 88.5 43.9 44.1 73.5 94.7
LnGrp LOS E D C D A A F D D E F
Approach Vol, veh/h 2814 895 519 1030
Approach Delay, s/veh 50.5 11.6 58.5 92.4
Approach LOS D B E F
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 117.6 11.0 47.3 53.8 76.5 13.3 45.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 * 6 6.0 * 6 * 4.2 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 15 66.4 * 9.6 * 39 11.0 * 71 * 9.1 * 39
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 14.1 6.8 14.4 9.5 69.4 9.2 40.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 52.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131
Future Volume (veh/h) 131
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 126
Peak Hour Factor 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 127
Arrive On Green 0.26
Sat Flow, veh/h 489
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 459
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1782
Q Serve(g_s), s 38.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 38.5
Prop In Lane 0.27
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 463
V/C Ratio(X) 0.99
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 463
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 39.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 21.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 94.7
LnGrp LOS F
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 15 2332 142 1 13 889 19 53 2 44 14
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 15 2332 142 1 13 889 19 53 2 44 14
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 16 2455 147 14 936 18 56 2 32 15
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2222222
Cap, veh/h 23 2965 175 23 2137 952 123 12 53 160
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.60 0.60 0.03 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4930 292 1781 3554 1584 812 117 513 1123
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 16 1686 916 14 936 18 90 0 0 18
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1818 1781 1777 1584 1442 0 0 1396
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 58.7 60.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 58.7 60.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 1.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.36 0.83
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 23 2047 1093 23 2137 952 188 0 0 189
V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.82 0.84 0.61 0.44 0.02 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 59 2047 1093 59 2137 952 418 0 0 413
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 73.7 23.6 24.0 72.7 0.0 0.0 64.4 0.0 0.0 61.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.7 1.5 8.9 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 21.3 23.8 0.6 0.2 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.2 24.3 25.5 81.5 0.6 0.0 65.1 0.0 0.0 61.0
LnGrp LOS E C C F AAEAAE
Approach Vol, veh/h 2618 968 90
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.1 1.8 65.1
Approach LOS C A E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.9 96.2 20.3 6.9 96.2 20.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 * 4.7 5.0 6.0 * 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 90.2 * 39 5.0 90.2 * 39
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 2.0 11.0 3.2 62.7 3.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.3 0.3 0.0 18.2 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 24
Future Volume (veh/h) 3 24
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2
Cap, veh/h 28 162
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10
Sat Flow, veh/h 273 1567
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1567
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.1
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 162
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.01
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 408
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 60.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 60.3
LnGrp LOS A E
Approach Vol, veh/h 19
Approach Delay, s/veh 61.0
Approach LOS E
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 7
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 199 1788 409 76 48 390 475 80 249 3 1093
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 199 1788 409 76 48 390 475 80 249 3 1093
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 205 1843 0 49 402 485 82 257 0 1127
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2222222
Cap, veh/h 418 2243 63 1191 370 123 529 0 783
Arrive On Green 0.47 0.88 0.00 0.04 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.15 0.00 0.23
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 1781 5106 1585 3456 3647 0 3456
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 205 1843 0 49 402 485 82 257 0 1127
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1585 1728 1777 0 1728
Q Serve(g_s), s 11.9 23.7 0.0 4.1 9.8 21.3 3.5 10.0 0.0 34.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.9 23.7 0.0 4.1 9.8 21.3 3.5 10.0 0.0 34.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 418 2243 63 1191 370 123 529 0 783
V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.82 0.78 0.34 1.31 0.67 0.49 0.00 1.44
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 418 2243 95 1191 370 170 948 0 783
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.73 0.73 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.09
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.6 6.5 0.0 71.8 47.9 21.3 71.4 58.6 0.0 58.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 1.8 0.0 9.9 0.8 158.3 2.3 0.3 0.0 198.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.3 3.2 0.0 2.0 4.1 23.8 1.6 4.4 0.0 36.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.9 8.3 0.0 81.7 48.6 179.6 73.7 58.8 0.0 256.1
LnGrp LOS C A F D F E E A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 2048 A 936 339
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.9 118.2 62.4
Approach LOS B F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.2 41.0 39.0 28.8 10.3 71.9 11.9 56.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 6.5 * 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 * 35 34.0 40.0 8.0 45.5 7.4 * 67
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.9 23.3 36.0 12.0 6.1 25.7 5.5 45.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 8.4 0.0 3.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 90.1
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 8
Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 617 450
Future Volume (veh/h) 617 450
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 636 396
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2
Cap, veh/h 693 432
Arrive On Green 0.33 0.33
Sat Flow, veh/h 2103 1309
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 537 495
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1635
Q Serve(g_s), s 43.6 43.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 43.6 43.6
Prop In Lane 0.80
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 586 539
V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.92
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 789 726
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.3 48.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 1.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 18.8 17.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.5 49.7
LnGrp LOS D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2159
Approach Delay, s/veh 157.4
Approach LOS F
Timer - Assigned Phs
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: College Blvd & Sunny Creek 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 160 11 370 100 12 34 290 596 37 9 1690 560
Future Volume (veh/h) 160 11 370 100 12 34 290 596 37 9 1690 560
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 174 12 402 109 13 37 315 648 40 10 1837 609
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 397 498 422 298 498 422 87 1270 1077 428 913 303
Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.90 0.90 0.90
Sat Flow, veh/h 1355 1870 1585 972 1870 1585 269 1870 1585 755 1344 446
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 174 12 402 109 13 37 315 648 40 10 0 2446
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1355 1870 1585 972 1870 1585 134 1870 1585 755 0 1790
Q Serve(g_s), s 18.0 0.8 41.1 15.4 0.8 2.9 0.0 28.1 1.4 0.7 0.0 112.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.8 0.8 41.1 16.2 0.8 2.9 112.1 28.1 1.4 28.8 0.0 112.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 397 498 422 298 498 422 87 1270 1077 428 0 1216
V/C Ratio(X) 0.44 0.02 0.95 0.37 0.03 0.09 3.61 0.51 0.04 0.02 0.00 2.01
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 419 527 447 313 527 447 87 1270 1077 428 0 1216
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.09 0.00 0.09
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.7 44.7 59.5 50.7 44.7 45.5 82.5 13.0 8.7 8.6 0.0 8.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 30.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 1195.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 455.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.3 0.4 20.1 3.9 0.4 1.2 16.3 11.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 158.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.4 44.7 89.6 51.4 44.8 45.6 1277.7 14.1 8.8 8.6 0.0 463.4
LnGrp LOS D D F D D D F BAAAF
Approach Vol, veh/h 588 159 1003 2456
Approach Delay, s/veh 77.7 49.5 410.7 461.6
Approach LOS E D F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 116.6 48.4 116.6 48.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 109.5 46.5 109.5 46.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 114.1 43.1 114.1 18.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 380.2
HCM 6th LOS F
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: College Blvd & Driveway 1 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 16 100 290 7 120 75 661 54 125 1869 160
Future Volume (veh/h) 40 16 100 290 7 120 75 661 54 125 1869 160
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 17 109 315 8 130 82 718 59 136 2032 174
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 37 9 312 43 0 312 44 1276 105 563 1271 109
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 46 1585 0 0 1585 176 1705 140 694 1699 145
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 60 0 109 323 0 130 82 0 777 136 0 2206
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 46 0 1585 0 0 1585 176 0 1845 694 0 1844
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 123.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 32.5 0.0 9.8 32.5 0.0 11.8 123.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 123.5
Prop In Lane 0.72 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.08
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 46 0 312 43 0 312 44 0 1381 563 0 1380
V/C Ratio(X) 1.29 0.00 0.35 7.49 0.00 0.42 1.88 0.00 0.56 0.24 0.00 1.60
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 46 0 312 43 0 312 44 0 1381 563 0 1380
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.33 1.33 1.33
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.87 0.00 0.87 0.09 0.00 0.09
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 76.3 0.0 57.1 82.5 0.0 58.0 61.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 229.8 0.0 0.7 2970.1 0.0 0.9 461.4 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.0 269.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.0 0.0 4.0 37.4 0.0 4.9 7.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 103.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 306.1 0.0 57.8 3052.6 0.0 58.8 523.1 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.0 269.9
LnGrp LOS F A E F A E F AAAAF
Approach Vol, veh/h 169 453 859 2342
Approach Delay, s/veh 146.0 2193.5 51.2 254.2
Approach LOS F F D F
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 128.0 37.0 128.0 37.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 123.5 32.5 123.5 32.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 125.5 34.5 125.5 34.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 433.6
HCM 6th LOS F
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: College Blvd & Driveway 2 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 11
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 16 100 290 7 120 75 692 54 125 1764 160
Future Volume (veh/h) 40 16 100 290 7 120 75 692 54 125 1764 160
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 17 109 315 8 130 82 752 59 136 1917 174
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 37 9 312 43 0 312 44 1281 101 547 1265 115
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 46 1585 0 0 1585 197 1712 134 673 1689 153
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 60 0 109 323 0 130 82 0 811 136 0 2091
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 46 0 1585 0 0 1585 197 0 1846 673 0 1843
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 123.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 32.5 0.0 9.8 32.5 0.0 11.8 123.5 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 123.5
Prop In Lane 0.72 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.08
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 46 0 312 43 0 312 44 0 1382 547 0 1379
V/C Ratio(X) 1.29 0.00 0.35 7.49 0.00 0.42 1.88 0.00 0.59 0.25 0.00 1.52
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 46 0 312 43 0 312 44 0 1382 547 0 1379
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.83 0.00 0.83 0.09 0.00 0.09
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 76.3 0.0 57.1 82.5 0.0 58.0 61.8 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 20.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 229.8 0.0 0.7 2970.1 0.0 0.9 458.7 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.0 232.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.0 0.0 4.0 37.4 0.0 4.9 7.3 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.0 131.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 306.1 0.0 57.8 3052.6 0.0 58.8 520.5 0.0 1.5 6.6 0.0 253.3
LnGrp LOS F A E F A E F AAAAF
Approach Vol, veh/h 169 453 893 2227
Approach Delay, s/veh 146.0 2193.5 49.2 238.2
Approach LOS F F D F
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 128.0 37.0 128.0 37.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 123.5 32.5 123.5 32.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 125.5 34.5 125.5 34.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 425.7
HCM 6th LOS F
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: College Blvd & Cannon Rd/Bobcat Driveway 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 714 35 55 74 36 35 105 1653 91 27 659 263
Future Volume (veh/h) 714 35 55 74 36 35 105 1653 91 27 659 263
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 744 36 60 80 38 -29 114 1797 99 28 716 82
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 785 95 85 369 63 54 127 494 418 580 942 2034
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.05 0.05 0.21 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.33 0.50 0.50
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 2781
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 744 36 60 80 38 -29 114 1797 99 28 716 82
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1391
Q Serve(g_s), s 31.8 2.9 5.6 5.6 3.0 0.0 9.6 39.6 8.0 1.6 46.2 0.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 31.8 2.9 5.6 5.6 3.0 0.0 9.6 39.6 8.0 1.6 46.2 0.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 785 95 85 369 63 54 127 494 418 580 942 2034
V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.38 0.71 0.22 0.60 -0.54 0.90 3.64 0.24 0.05 0.76 0.04
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 806 496 443 369 224 190 127 494 418 580 942 2034
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.1 68.6 69.8 49.3 71.5 0.0 70.9 61.7 48.7 34.7 29.9 1.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.5 2.5 10.2 0.3 8.8 0.0 7.7 1188.1 0.1 0.0 5.7 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.6 1.4 2.5 2.6 1.6 0.0 4.6 182.0 3.3 0.7 21.1 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.6 71.0 80.0 49.6 80.2 0.0 78.6 1249.9 48.9 34.7 35.7 1.4
LnGrp LOS E E F D F A E F D C D A
Approach Vol, veh/h 840 89 2010 826
Approach Delay, s/veh 76.6 78.9 1124.3 32.3
Approach LOS E E F C
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 55.5 44.1 37.8 12.5 17.4 82.2 40.8 9.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.7 * 4.5 6.7 * 4.5 6.7 * 6.7 6.7 * 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 35.0 * 40 13.3 * 42 10.7 * 64 35.0 * 18
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 41.6 7.6 7.6 11.6 48.2 33.8 5.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 4.2 0.3 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 626.2
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 54 995 168 50 1655 121 477 696 154 51 312
Future Volume (veh/h) 6 54 995 168 50 1655 121 477 696 154 51 312
Initial Q (Qb), veh 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 1070 132 54 1780 78 513 748 160 55 335
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, %22222222222
Cap, veh/h 240 2481 920 70 1336 639 326 828 177 94 660
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.49 0.49 0.04 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 2912 623 3456 3034
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 1070 132 54 1780 78 513 456 452 55 195
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1757 1728 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 17.0 4.8 3.8 47.0 2.2 11.8 30.9 30.9 2.0 12.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 17.0 4.8 3.8 47.0 2.2 11.8 30.9 30.9 2.0 12.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.35 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 240 2481 920 70 1336 639 326 506 500 94 386
V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.43 0.14 0.78 1.33 0.12 1.57 0.90 0.90 0.58 0.50
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 240 2481 920 134 1336 639 326 637 630 166 554
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.4 20.9 12.0 59.5 39.0 9.5 56.6 43.1 43.1 60.1 43.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 3.5 152.2 0.2 272.0 12.3 12.5 2.1 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 6.3 1.6 1.7 47.2 0.9 17.3 14.7 14.5 0.9 5.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.6 20.9 12.0 63.1 191.2 9.7 328.6 55.4 55.5 62.2 43.4
LnGrp LOS D C B E F A F E E E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1260 1912 1421 448
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.3 180.2 154.1 45.7
Approach LOS C F F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.8 53.0 7.6 41.6 9.1 66.7 16.0 33.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 * 4.2 * 6 * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.8 * 47 * 6 * 45 * 9.4 44.4 * 12 * 39
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 49.0 4.0 32.9 5.8 19.0 13.8 14.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 4.7 0.0 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 121.1
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71
Future Volume (veh/h) 71
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58
Peak Hour Factor 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 113
Arrive On Green 0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h 520
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 198
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 12.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.3
Prop In Lane 0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 386
V/C Ratio(X) 0.51
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 554
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.5
LnGrp LOS D
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 1088 45 19 1492 44 321 16 41 31 3 40
Future Volume (veh/h) 45 1088 45 19 1492 44 321 16 41 31 3 40
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 1122 43 20 1538 30 331 16 40 32 3 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 59 2495 96 31 1729 771 404 17 42 494 44 477
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.49 0.49 0.02 0.65 0.65 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5046 193 1781 3554 1585 1166 56 141 1458 146 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 757 408 20 1538 30 387 0 0 35 0 8
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1835 1781 1777 1585 1363 0 0 1604 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 18.1 18.1 1.4 45.0 0.9 33.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 18.1 18.1 1.4 45.0 0.9 34.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.10 0.91 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 59 1683 907 31 1729 771 464 0 0 538 0 477
V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.45 0.45 0.65 0.89 0.04 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.02
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 86 1683 907 71 1729 771 520 0 0 592 0 539
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.0 20.5 20.5 60.7 19.3 11.5 43.7 0.0 0.0 31.2 0.0 30.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.5 0.8 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 6.8 7.5 0.6 12.7 0.3 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.5 21.3 22.0 61.5 20.0 11.5 52.9 0.0 0.0 31.2 0.0 30.7
LnGrp LOS E C C E C B D A A C A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1211 1588 387 43
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.5 20.4 52.9 31.1
Approach LOS CCDC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.2 66.8 42.3 8.2 67.8 42.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 * 4.7 6.0 * 6 * 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 60.8 * 43 5.0 * 62 * 43
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 47.0 36.9 3.4 20.1 3.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.2 0.8 0.0 6.2 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 487 602 97 9 44 1106 1201 326 711 23 349
Future Volume (veh/h) 2 487 602 97 9 44 1106 1201 326 711 23 349
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 513 634 0 46 1164 1245 343 748 2 367
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2222222
Cap, veh/h 391 2524 59 1532 476 124 874 2 138
Arrive On Green 0.44 0.99 0.00 0.03 0.30 0.30 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.04
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 1781 5106 1585 3456 3636 10 3456
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 513 634 0 46 1164 1245 343 366 384 367
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1585 1728 1777 1869 1728
Q Serve(g_s), s 27.5 0.2 0.0 3.2 25.8 37.5 4.5 24.6 24.6 5.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 27.5 0.2 0.0 3.2 25.8 37.5 4.5 24.6 24.6 5.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 391 2524 59 1532 476 124 427 449 138
V/C Ratio(X) 1.31 0.25 0.77 0.76 2.62 2.76 0.86 0.86 2.66
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 391 2524 322 1532 476 124 569 598 138
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.0 0.4 0.0 59.9 39.7 43.7 60.2 45.4 45.4 60.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 156.0 0.2 0.0 7.7 3.6 734.3 812.8 7.7 7.4 762.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 24.9 0.1 0.0 1.5 10.7 110.9 16.0 11.3 11.9 16.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 191.0 0.6 0.0 67.7 43.3 778.0 873.0 53.1 52.8 822.7
LnGrp LOS F A E D F F D D F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1147 A 2455 1093
Approach Delay, s/veh 85.7 416.3 310.3
Approach LOS F F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.5 43.5 11.5 36.5 9.2 67.8 9.5 38.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 6.5 * 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 38 5.0 * 40 22.6 34.9 4.5 40.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.5 39.5 7.0 26.6 5.2 2.2 6.5 11.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 330.6
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 175 134
Future Volume (veh/h) 175 134
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 184 117
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2
Cap, veh/h 545 329
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26
Sat Flow, veh/h 2127 1284
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 152 149
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1634
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.7 9.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.7 9.3
Prop In Lane 0.79
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 455 419
V/C Ratio(X) 0.33 0.36
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 576 529
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.88 0.88
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.8 38.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 3.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.9 38.2
LnGrp LOS D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 668
Approach Delay, s/veh 469.2
Approach LOS F
Timer - Assigned Phs
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: College Blvd & Sunny Creek 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 500 6 170 58 6 9 500 1803 96 42 430 170
Future Volume (veh/h) 500 6 170 58 6 9 500 1803 96 42 430 170
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 543 7 185 63 7 10 543 1960 104 46 467 185
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 412 493 417 358 493 417 1120 1266 1073 48 862 342
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.68 0.68 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1396 1870 1585 1191 1870 1585 1514 1870 1585 202 1275 505
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 543 7 185 63 7 10 543 1960 104 46 0 652
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1396 1870 1585 1191 1870 1585 757 1870 1585 202 0 1779
Q Serve(g_s), s 39.1 0.4 14.6 6.2 0.4 0.7 27.1 101.5 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 39.5 0.4 14.6 6.6 0.4 0.7 27.1 101.5 3.4 101.5 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 412 493 417 358 493 417 1120 1266 1073 48 0 1204
V/C Ratio(X) 1.32 0.01 0.44 0.18 0.01 0.02 0.48 1.55 0.10 0.96 0.00 0.54
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 412 493 417 358 493 417 1120 1266 1073 48 0 1204
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.91 0.00 0.91
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.7 40.9 46.1 43.3 40.9 41.0 12.2 24.2 8.4 50.8 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 159.7 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 247.3 0.0 112.3 0.0 1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 34.2 0.2 5.9 1.9 0.2 0.3 4.1 124.9 1.1 3.2 0.0 0.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 217.4 40.9 46.8 43.5 40.9 41.0 12.4 271.5 8.4 163.0 0.0 1.6
LnGrp LOS F DDDDDBFAFAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 735 80 2607 698
Approach Delay, s/veh 172.8 43.0 207.0 12.2
Approach LOS F D F B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 106.0 44.0 106.0 44.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 101.5 39.5 101.5 39.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 103.5 41.5 103.5 8.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 164.7
HCM 6th LOS F
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: College Blvd & Driveway 1 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 140 10 45 40 9 30 144 1859 309 108 557 50
Future Volume (veh/h) 140 10 45 40 9 30 144 1859 309 108 557 50
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 152 11 49 43 10 33 157 2021 336 117 605 54
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 46 0 190 43 6 190 684 1282 213 52 1388 124
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1585 0 48 1585 775 1564 260 151 1692 151
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 163 0 49 53 0 33 157 0 2357 117 0 659
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1585 48 0 1585 775 0 1824 151 0 1843
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 118.8 4.2 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.0 0.0 4.2 18.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 118.8 123.0 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.93 1.00 0.81 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.08
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 46 0 190 49 0 190 684 0 1495 52 0 1511
V/C Ratio(X) 3.51 0.00 0.26 1.08 0.00 0.17 0.23 0.00 1.58 2.24 0.00 0.44
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 46 0 190 49 0 190 684 0 1495 52 0 1511
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.88 0.00 0.88
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 75.0 0.0 59.9 72.9 0.0 59.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.3 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1183.4 0.0 0.7 151.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 259.6 608.2 0.0 0.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 17.0 0.0 1.7 4.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 107.8 10.8 0.0 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1258.4 0.0 60.6 224.0 0.0 59.7 0.1 0.0 259.6 669.5 0.0 0.8
LnGrp LOS F A E F AEAAFFAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 212 86 2514 776
Approach Delay, s/veh 981.5 161.0 243.4 101.6
Approach LOS FFFF
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 127.5 22.5 127.5 22.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 123.0 18.0 123.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 120.8 20.0 125.0 20.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 254.4
HCM 6th LOS F
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: College Blvd & Driveway 2 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 2 Lanes 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 140 10 45 40 9 130 144 1579 306 108 630 50
Future Volume (veh/h) 140 10 45 40 9 130 144 1579 306 108 630 50
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 152 11 49 43 10 141 157 1716 333 117 685 54
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 46 0 190 43 6 190 552 1248 242 67 1403 111
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.82 0.82
Sat Flow, veh/h 0 0 1585 0 48 1585 720 1522 295 205 1711 135
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 163 0 49 53 0 141 157 0 2049 117 0 739
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1585 48 0 1585 720 0 1817 205 0 1846
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 12.9 6.5 0.0 108.8 14.2 0.0 18.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.0 0.0 4.2 18.0 0.0 12.9 24.6 0.0 108.8 123.0 0.0 18.0
Prop In Lane 0.93 1.00 0.81 1.00 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 46 0 190 49 0 190 552 0 1490 67 0 1514
V/C Ratio(X) 3.51 0.00 0.26 1.08 0.00 0.74 0.28 0.00 1.38 1.74 0.00 0.49
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 46 0 190 49 0 190 552 0 1490 67 0 1514
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.58 0.00 0.58
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 75.0 0.0 59.9 72.9 0.0 63.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 73.0 0.0 4.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1183.4 0.0 0.7 151.1 0.0 14.3 0.1 0.0 169.2 364.4 0.0 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 17.0 0.0 1.7 4.0 0.0 6.0 0.3 0.0 70.0 9.4 0.0 4.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 1258.4 0.0 60.6 224.0 0.0 78.1 1.9 0.0 169.2 437.4 0.0 4.7
LnGrp LOS F A E F AEAAFFAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 212 194 2206 856
Approach Delay, s/veh 981.5 118.0 157.3 63.8
Approach LOS F F F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 127.5 22.5 127.5 22.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 123.0 18.0 123.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 110.8 20.0 125.0 20.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 182.4
HCM 6th LOS F
Attachment 5 – Existing Plus
Reassignment Plus Buildout – 4 Lane
Roadway Intersection LOS Worksheets
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: College Blvd & Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 212 208 85 168 136 191 125 517 210 4 316 1596
Future Volume (veh/h) 212 208 85 168 136 191 125 517 210 4 316 1596
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 286 281 115 227 184 22 169 699 284 427 2157
Peak Hour Factor 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222 22
Cap, veh/h 354 331 132 251 321 247 192 837 340 390 1601
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.45
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2479 990 1781 1870 1438 1781 2465 1002 1781 3554
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 286 199 197 227 184 22 169 504 479 427 2157
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1692 1781 1870 1438 1781 1777 1690 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 13.0 17.5 18.2 20.1 14.5 1.3 15.0 43.3 43.3 35.0 72.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.0 17.5 18.2 20.1 14.5 1.3 15.0 43.3 43.3 35.0 72.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 354 237 226 251 321 247 192 603 574 390 1601
V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.84 0.87 0.91 0.57 0.09 0.88 0.84 0.84 1.10 1.35
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 756 414 394 355 374 288 356 603 574 390 1601
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 70.3 67.7 68.0 67.7 60.8 22.4 73.2 57.5 57.5 62.5 43.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 3.1 4.0 20.2 0.6 0.1 4.9 12.2 12.8 73.9 160.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.7 8.0 8.0 10.6 7.0 0.8 7.2 21.8 20.8 23.4 65.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.0 70.7 72.0 87.9 61.4 22.5 78.1 69.7 70.3 136.4 204.3
LnGrp LOS E E E F E C E E E F F
Approach Vol, veh/h 682 433 1152 3594
Approach Delay, s/veh 71.6 73.3 71.2 167.2
Approach LOS E E E F
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.7 61.0 29.2 28.1 23.9 78.8 23.1 34.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.7 6.7 6.7 * 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 * 6.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 35 31.2 31.9 * 37 32.0 34.2 35.0 * 32
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 37.0 45.3 22.1 20.2 17.0 74.1 15.0 16.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 130.3
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: College Blvd & Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 832
Future Volume (veh/h) 832
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1010
Peak Hour Factor 0.74
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 876
Arrive On Green 0.45
Sat Flow, veh/h 1583
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1010
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1583
Q Serve(g_s), s 55.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 55.5
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 876
V/C Ratio(X) 1.15
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 876
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 82.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 38.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 101.1
LnGrp LOS F
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 80 2272 454 118 822 53 164 252 111 310 767
Future Volume (veh/h) 7 80 2272 454 118 822 53 164 252 111 310 767
Initial Q (Qb), veh 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 2342 390 122 847 -74 169 260 90 320 791
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, %22222222222
Cap, veh/h 102 2349 826 544 2559 1452 212 319 108 677 825
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.46 0.46 0.31 0.72 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.20 0.27
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1584 1781 3554 1585 3456 2607 881 3456 3070
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 2342 390 122 847 -74 169 175 175 320 458
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1584 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1712 1728 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 68.6 22.8 7.7 13.1 0.0 7.2 14.4 15.0 12.3 38.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 68.6 22.8 7.7 13.1 0.0 7.2 14.4 15.0 12.3 38.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 102 2349 826 544 2559 1452 212 217 209 677 477
V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 1.00 0.47 0.22 0.33 -0.05 0.80 0.81 0.84 0.47 0.96
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 179 2349 826 544 2559 1452 212 415 399 677 481
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 69.9 40.4 31.0 38.9 7.7 0.0 69.5 64.1 64.4 53.5 54.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.5 17.9 1.9 0.1 0.3 0.0 17.6 2.7 3.4 0.2 30.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 30.5 8.5 3.3 4.4 0.0 3.7 6.5 6.6 5.3 20.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 75.4 58.3 33.0 38.9 8.0 0.0 87.1 66.8 67.7 53.6 84.4
LnGrp LOS E E C D A A F E E D F
Approach Vol, veh/h 2814 895 519 1237
Approach Delay, s/veh 55.3 12.9 73.7 76.4
Approach LOS EBEE
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.8 114.4 35.4 24.3 52.1 75.0 13.4 46.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.2 6.0 * 6 * 6 6.0 * 6 * 4.2 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 15 64.7 * 15 * 35 10.8 * 69 * 9.2 * 41
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 15.1 14.3 17.0 9.7 70.6 9.2 40.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.4 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131
Future Volume (veh/h) 131
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 126
Peak Hour Factor 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 131
Arrive On Green 0.27
Sat Flow, veh/h 489
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 459
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1782
Q Serve(g_s), s 38.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 38.1
Prop In Lane 0.27
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 479
V/C Ratio(X) 0.96
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 482
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 30.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 20.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 84.4
LnGrp LOS F
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 15 2552 142 1 13 889 19 53 2 44 14
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 15 2552 142 1 13 889 19 53 2 44 14
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 16 2686 147 14 936 18 56 2 32 15
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2222222
Cap, veh/h 23 3021 163 21 2137 952 123 12 53 160
Arrive On Green 0.01 0.61 0.61 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4959 267 1781 3554 1584 812 117 513 1123
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 16 1830 1003 14 936 18 90 0 0 18
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1822 1781 1777 1584 1442 0 0 1396
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 68.2 71.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 68.2 71.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 1.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.36 0.83
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 23 2074 1110 21 2137 952 188 0 0 189
V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.88 0.90 0.67 0.44 0.02 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 59 2074 1110 48 2137 952 418 0 0 413
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 73.7 24.8 25.5 72.9 0.0 0.0 64.4 0.0 0.0 61.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.3 1.5 3.4 12.3 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 24.8 28.4 0.6 0.2 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 77.0 26.3 28.8 85.3 0.6 0.0 65.1 0.0 0.0 61.0
LnGrp LOS E C C F AAEAAE
Approach Vol, veh/h 2849 968 90
Approach Delay, s/veh 27.5 1.8 65.1
Approach LOS C A E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.9 96.2 20.3 6.8 97.4 20.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 * 4.7 5.0 6.0 * 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 * 90 * 39 4.0 91.2 * 39
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 2.0 11.0 3.2 73.7 3.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.3 0.3 0.0 14.1 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 24
Future Volume (veh/h) 3 24
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2
Cap, veh/h 28 162
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10
Sat Flow, veh/h 273 1567
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1567
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.1
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 162
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.01
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 408
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 60.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 60.3
LnGrp LOS A E
Approach Vol, veh/h 19
Approach Delay, s/veh 61.0
Approach LOS E
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 7
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 199 1988 409 76 48 390 475 80 249 3 893
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 199 1988 409 76 48 390 475 80 249 3 893
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 205 2049 0 49 402 485 82 257 0 921
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2222222
Cap, veh/h 227 2249 63 1780 552 123 643 0 668
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.44 0.00 0.04 0.35 0.35 0.04 0.18 0.00 0.19
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 1781 5106 1585 3456 3647 0 3456
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 205 2049 0 49 402 485 82 257 0 921
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1585 1728 1777 0 1728
Q Serve(g_s), s 17.0 56.3 0.0 4.1 8.4 43.1 3.5 9.6 0.0 29.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 17.0 56.3 0.0 4.1 8.4 43.1 3.5 9.6 0.0 29.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 227 2249 63 1780 552 123 643 0 668
V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.91 0.78 0.23 0.88 0.67 0.40 0.00 1.38
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 262 2249 107 1780 552 170 948 0 668
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.67 0.67 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.60
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.5 39.2 0.0 71.8 34.6 45.9 71.4 54.3 0.0 60.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.3 4.2 0.0 7.4 0.3 17.7 2.3 0.1 0.0 176.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.8 22.9 0.0 2.0 3.4 19.0 1.6 4.2 0.0 28.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 84.9 43.4 0.0 79.2 34.8 63.6 73.7 54.4 0.0 236.5
LnGrp LOS F D E C E E D A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 2254 A 936 339
Approach Delay, s/veh 47.2 52.1 59.1
Approach LOS D D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.1 58.3 34.0 33.6 10.3 72.1 11.9 55.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 6.5 * 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 22.1 36.4 29.0 40.0 9.0 49.5 7.4 * 62
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.0 45.1 31.0 11.6 6.1 58.3 5.5 45.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 82.5
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 8
Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 617 450
Future Volume (veh/h) 617 450
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 636 396
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2
Cap, veh/h 691 430
Arrive On Green 0.33 0.33
Sat Flow, veh/h 2103 1309
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 537 495
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1635
Q Serve(g_s), s 43.7 43.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 43.7 43.7
Prop In Lane 0.80
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 584 537
V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.92
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 730 671
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.60 0.60
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.5 48.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.9 9.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 20.1 18.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.3 58.0
LnGrp LOS E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1953
Approach Delay, s/veh 142.0
Approach LOS F
Timer - Assigned Phs
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: College Blvd & Sunny Creek 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 160 11 370 100 12 34 290 596 37 9 1490 560
Future Volume (veh/h) 160 11 370 100 12 34 290 596 37 9 1490 560
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 174 12 402 109 13 37 315 648 40 10 1620 609
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 388 421 357 304 421 357 204 2354 1050 533 2354 1050
Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.66 0.66 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1355 1870 1585 972 1870 1585 172 3554 1585 755 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 174 12 402 109 13 37 315 648 40 10 1620 609
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1355 1870 1585 972 1870 1585 172 1777 1585 755 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.2 0.4 18.0 7.9 0.4 1.5 53.0 6.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.6 0.4 18.0 8.3 0.4 1.5 53.0 6.0 0.7 6.1 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 388 421 357 304 421 357 204 2354 1050 533 2354 1050
V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.03 1.13 0.36 0.03 0.10 1.55 0.28 0.04 0.02 0.69 0.58
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 388 421 357 304 421 357 204 2354 1050 533 2354 1050
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.29 0.29 0.29
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.0 24.2 31.0 27.4 24.2 24.6 25.2 5.6 4.7 0.3 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.0 86.8 0.7 0.0 0.1 263.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.0 0.2 15.2 1.8 0.2 0.6 18.7 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.8 24.2 117.8 28.1 24.2 24.7 288.8 5.8 4.7 0.4 0.5 0.7
LnGrp LOS C C F C C C F AAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 588 159 1003 2239
Approach Delay, s/veh 89.5 27.0 94.6 0.5
Approach LOS F C F A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 57.5 22.5 57.5 22.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 53.0 18.0 53.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 55.0 20.0 8.1 10.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 22.0 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 38.4
HCM 6th LOS D
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: College Blvd & Driveway 1 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 16 100 290 7 120 75 661 54 125 1669 160
Future Volume (veh/h) 40 16 100 290 7 120 75 661 54 125 1669 160
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 17 109 315 8 130 82 718 59 136 1814 174
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 330 57 366 342 24 394 226 2082 171 397 2055 194
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1251 218 1400 1265 93 1506 218 3325 273 694 3282 310
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 0 126 315 0 138 82 384 393 136 969 1019
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1251 0 1618 1265 0 1599 218 1777 1821 694 1777 1815
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 5.0 15.9 0.0 5.6 27.3 14.7 14.8 6.7 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.9 0.0 5.0 20.9 0.0 5.6 27.3 14.7 14.8 21.5 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 330 0 423 342 0 418 226 1113 1141 397 1113 1136
V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.00 0.30 0.92 0.00 0.33 0.36 0.34 0.35 0.34 0.87 0.90
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 330 0 423 342 0 418 226 1113 1141 397 1113 1136
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.38 0.38 0.38
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.1 0.0 23.7 33.6 0.0 23.9 22.7 17.7 17.7 3.2 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.4 29.7 0.0 0.5 4.3 0.8 0.8 0.9 3.9 4.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 1.9 8.9 0.0 2.1 1.8 7.0 7.2 0.2 1.2 1.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.3 0.0 24.1 63.4 0.0 24.4 27.0 18.5 18.5 4.1 3.9 4.8
LnGrp LOS C A C E A C C BBAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 169 453 859 2124
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.9 51.5 19.3 4.3
Approach LOS C D B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 54.6 25.4 54.6 25.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.1 20.9 50.1 20.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.3 9.9 23.5 22.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.0 0.6 18.2 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.8
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: College Blvd & Driveway 2 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 11
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 16 100 290 7 120 75 692 54 125 1564 160
Future Volume (veh/h) 40 16 100 290 7 120 75 692 54 125 1564 160
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 17 109 315 8 130 82 752 59 136 1700 174
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 330 57 366 342 24 394 140 2091 164 511 2041 206
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.63 0.63
Sat Flow, veh/h 1251 218 1400 1265 93 1506 244 3338 262 673 3259 329
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 0 126 315 0 138 82 400 411 136 915 959
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1251 0 1618 1265 0 1599 244 1777 1823 673 1777 1811
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 5.0 15.9 0.0 5.6 16.5 0.0 0.0 7.6 31.8 33.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.9 0.0 5.0 20.9 0.0 5.6 50.1 0.0 0.0 7.6 31.8 33.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 330 0 423 342 0 418 140 1113 1142 511 1113 1134
V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.00 0.30 0.92 0.00 0.33 0.59 0.36 0.36 0.27 0.82 0.85
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 330 0 423 342 0 418 140 1113 1142 511 1113 1134
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.09 0.09 0.09
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.1 0.0 23.7 33.6 0.0 23.9 20.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 11.5 11.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.4 29.7 0.0 0.5 15.9 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 1.9 8.9 0.0 2.1 1.9 0.3 0.3 0.8 8.8 9.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.3 0.0 24.1 63.4 0.0 24.4 35.9 0.9 0.8 7.1 12.2 12.6
LnGrp LOS C A C E A C D AAABB
Approach Vol, veh/h 169 453 893 2010
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.9 51.5 4.1 12.1
Approach LOS C D A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 54.6 25.4 54.6 25.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.1 20.9 50.1 20.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 52.1 9.9 35.6 22.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.6 10.8 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.7
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: College Blvd & Cannon Rd/Bobcat Driveway 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 714 35 55 74 36 35 105 1453 91 27 659 263
Future Volume (veh/h) 714 35 55 74 36 35 105 1453 91 27 659 263
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 744 36 60 80 38 -29 114 1579 99 28 716 82
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 785 95 85 396 63 54 376 1875 117 41 708 1686
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.05 0.05 0.22 0.03 0.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.38 0.38
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 3397 212 1781 1870 2779
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 744 36 60 80 38 -29 114 822 856 28 716 82
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1832 1781 1870 1389
Q Serve(g_s), s 31.8 2.9 5.6 5.5 3.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 2.3 56.8 0.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 31.8 2.9 5.6 5.5 3.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 2.3 56.8 0.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 785 95 85 396 63 54 376 981 1011 41 708 1686
V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.38 0.71 0.20 0.60 -0.54 0.30 0.84 0.85 0.68 1.01 0.05
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 806 496 443 396 224 190 376 981 1011 416 708 1686
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.1 68.6 69.8 47.5 71.5 0.0 36.1 0.0 0.0 72.7 46.6 5.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.5 2.5 10.2 0.2 8.8 0.0 0.1 5.0 5.2 7.3 36.6 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.6 1.4 2.5 2.5 1.6 0.0 2.6 1.4 1.5 1.1 32.4 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.6 71.0 80.0 47.8 80.2 0.0 36.1 5.0 5.2 80.0 83.2 5.4
LnGrp LOS E E F D F A D A A F F A
Approach Vol, veh/h 840 89 1792 826
Approach Delay, s/veh 76.6 77.2 7.1 75.3
Approach LOS EEAE
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.1 89.5 37.8 12.5 38.3 61.3 40.8 9.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.7 * 6.7 4.5 4.5 6.7 4.5 * 6.7 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 35 * 40 13.3 41.9 17.8 56.8 * 35 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 2.0 7.5 7.6 8.4 58.8 33.8 5.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 15.3 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 41.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 54 995 168 50 1655 321 477 696 154 51 312
Future Volume (veh/h) 6 54 995 168 50 1655 321 477 696 154 51 312
Initial Q (Qb), veh 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 1070 132 54 1780 293 513 748 160 55 335
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, %22222222222
Cap, veh/h 243 2489 922 70 1336 639 326 824 176 94 655
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.49 0.49 0.04 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 3456 2912 623 3456 3034
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 1070 132 54 1780 293 513 456 452 55 195
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 1728 1777 1757 1728 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 17.0 4.7 3.8 47.0 11.2 11.8 31.0 31.0 2.0 12.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 17.0 4.7 3.8 47.0 11.2 11.8 31.0 31.0 2.0 12.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.35 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 243 2489 922 70 1336 639 326 503 497 94 384
V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.43 0.14 0.78 1.33 0.46 1.57 0.91 0.91 0.58 0.51
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 243 2489 922 134 1336 639 326 603 596 232 554
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.38 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.2 20.8 11.9 59.5 39.0 14.2 56.6 43.2 43.2 60.1 43.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 151.5 0.9 272.0 14.5 14.6 2.1 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 6.2 1.6 1.7 47.0 3.7 17.3 15.0 14.9 0.9 5.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.4 20.8 11.9 62.2 190.5 15.1 328.6 57.7 57.9 62.2 43.6
LnGrp LOS D C B E F B F E E E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1260 2127 1421 448
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.2 163.1 155.6 45.9
Approach LOS C F F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 53.0 7.6 41.4 9.1 66.9 16.0 33.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 * 4.2 * 6 * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.8 * 47 * 8.4 * 42 * 9.4 44.4 * 12 * 39
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 49.0 4.0 33.0 5.8 19.0 13.8 14.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 4.7 0.0 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 117.0
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71
Future Volume (veh/h) 71
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58
Peak Hour Factor 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 112
Arrive On Green 0.22
Sat Flow, veh/h 520
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 198
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 12.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.3
Prop In Lane 0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 383
V/C Ratio(X) 0.52
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 554
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 43.7
LnGrp LOS D
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 1088 45 19 1692 44 321 16 41 31 3 40
Future Volume (veh/h) 45 1088 45 19 1692 44 321 16 41 31 3 40
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 1122 43 20 1744 30 331 16 40 32 3 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 57 2624 101 57 1876 837 401 17 42 491 44 474
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.52 0.52 0.03 0.53 0.53 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5046 193 1781 3554 1585 1165 56 141 1460 146 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 757 408 20 1744 30 387 0 0 35 0 8
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1835 1781 1777 1585 1362 0 0 1606 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 17.2 17.2 1.4 56.9 1.1 33.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 17.2 17.2 1.4 56.9 1.1 35.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.10 0.91 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 57 1770 954 57 1876 837 460 0 0 535 0 474
V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.43 0.43 0.35 0.93 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.02
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 57 1770 954 71 1876 837 483 0 0 556 0 498
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.1 18.5 18.5 59.2 27.3 14.2 43.9 0.0 0.0 31.4 0.0 30.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 48.2 0.7 1.2 0.1 1.1 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 6.3 7.0 0.6 21.5 0.4 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 108.3 19.2 19.8 59.4 28.4 14.2 55.2 0.0 0.0 31.4 0.0 30.9
LnGrp LOS F B B E C BEAACAC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1211 1794 387 43
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.8 28.5 55.2 31.3
Approach LOS C C E C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 72.0 42.0 10.0 71.0 42.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 * 4.7 6.0 * 6 * 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 66.0 * 39 5.0 * 65 * 39
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 58.9 37.0 3.4 19.2 3.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.0 0.4 0.0 6.2 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 2 487 602 97 9 44 1306 1001 326 711 23 349
Future Volume (veh/h) 2 487 602 97 9 44 1306 1001 326 711 23 349
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 513 634 0 46 1375 1035 343 748 2 367
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2222222
Cap, veh/h 391 2524 59 1532 476 138 874 2 138
Arrive On Green 0.44 0.99 0.00 0.03 0.30 0.30 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.04
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 1781 5106 1585 3456 3636 10 3456
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 513 634 0 46 1375 1035 343 366 384 367
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1585 1728 1777 1869 1728
Q Serve(g_s), s 27.5 0.2 0.0 3.2 32.2 37.5 5.0 24.6 24.6 5.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 27.5 0.2 0.0 3.2 32.2 37.5 5.0 24.6 24.6 5.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 391 2524 59 1532 476 138 427 449 138
V/C Ratio(X) 1.31 0.25 0.77 0.90 2.18 2.48 0.86 0.86 2.66
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 391 2524 322 1532 476 138 569 598 138
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.92 0.92 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.0 0.4 0.0 59.9 41.9 43.7 60.0 45.4 45.4 60.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 156.0 0.2 0.0 7.7 8.7 536.4 687.8 7.7 7.4 764.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 24.9 0.1 0.0 1.5 14.0 84.8 15.3 11.3 11.9 16.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 191.0 0.6 0.0 67.7 50.6 580.1 747.8 53.1 52.8 824.7
LnGrp LOS F A E D F F D D F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1147 A 2456 1093
Approach Delay, s/veh 85.7 274.1 271.0
Approach LOS F F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 33.5 43.5 11.5 36.5 9.2 67.8 10.0 38.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 6.5 * 6.5 5.0 6.0 5.0 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 38 5.0 * 40 22.6 34.9 5.0 40.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.5 39.5 7.0 26.6 5.2 2.2 7.0 11.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 257.6
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 175 134
Future Volume (veh/h) 175 134
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 184 117
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2
Cap, veh/h 537 324
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25
Sat Flow, veh/h 2127 1284
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 152 149
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1634
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.8 9.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.8 9.4
Prop In Lane 0.79
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 448 412
V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.36
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 569 523
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.98 0.98
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.2 38.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 3.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.4 38.6
LnGrp LOS D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 668
Approach Delay, s/veh 470.4
Approach LOS F
Timer - Assigned Phs
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: College Blvd & Sunny Creek 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 500 6 170 58 6 9 500 1603 96 42 430 170
Future Volume (veh/h) 500 6 170 58 6 9 500 1603 96 42 430 170
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 543 7 185 63 7 10 543 1742 104 46 467 185
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 548 611 518 482 611 518 528 1966 877 127 1966 877
Arrive On Green 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.55 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1396 1870 1585 1191 1870 1585 780 3554 1585 250 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 543 7 185 63 7 10 543 1742 104 46 467 185
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1396 1870 1585 1191 1870 1585 780 1777 1585 250 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 24.3 0.2 6.7 2.8 0.2 0.3 41.5 32.2 2.4 9.3 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.5 0.2 6.7 3.0 0.2 0.3 41.5 32.2 2.4 41.5 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 548 611 518 482 611 518 528 1966 877 127 1966 877
V/C Ratio(X) 0.99 0.01 0.36 0.13 0.01 0.02 1.03 0.89 0.12 0.36 0.24 0.21
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 548 611 518 482 611 518 528 1966 877 127 1966 877
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.97 0.97 0.97
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.4 17.1 19.2 18.1 17.1 17.1 20.5 14.7 8.0 17.6 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 35.8 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.6 0.0 7.6 0.3 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.2 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.1 0.1 11.9 9.6 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.1 17.1 19.7 18.2 17.1 17.1 40.6 15.3 8.0 25.2 0.3 0.5
LnGrp LOS EBBBBBFBACAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 735 80 2389 698
Approach Delay, s/veh 51.7 18.0 20.7 2.0
Approach LOS D B C A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.0 29.0 46.0 29.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 41.5 24.5 41.5 24.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 43.5 26.5 43.5 5.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.2
HCM 6th LOS C
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: College Blvd & Driveway 1 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 140 10 45 40 9 30 144 1659 309 108 557 50
Future Volume (veh/h) 140 10 45 40 9 30 144 1659 309 108 557 50
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 152 11 49 43 10 33 157 1803 336 117 605 54
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 286 48 216 270 62 204 604 2159 390 231 2370 211
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.72 0.72
Sat Flow, veh/h 1364 299 1332 1343 382 1261 775 3006 543 188 3300 294
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 152 0 60 43 0 43 157 1042 1097 117 325 334
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1364 0 1631 1343 0 1643 775 1777 1773 188 1777 1817
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.1 0.0 2.4 2.2 0.0 1.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 34.9 4.7 4.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.8 0.0 2.4 4.6 0.0 1.7 6.6 0.0 0.0 34.9 4.7 4.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.82 1.00 0.77 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 286 0 264 270 0 266 604 1276 1273 231 1276 1305
V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.00 0.23 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.26 0.82 0.86 0.51 0.25 0.26
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 393 0 391 375 0 394 604 1276 1273 231 1276 1305
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.96 0.96 0.96
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.3 0.0 27.3 29.3 0.0 27.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 7.9 3.6 3.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.2 1.6 7.4 0.5 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 0.0 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.0 1.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.8 0.0 27.8 29.6 0.0 27.3 0.5 1.2 1.6 15.3 4.1 4.1
LnGrp LOS C A C C A C AAABAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 212 86 2296 776
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.4 28.5 1.3 5.8
Approach LOS C C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 58.4 16.6 58.4 16.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 48.0 18.0 48.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 11.8 36.9 6.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 26.5 0.4 5.5 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.0
HCM 6th LOS A
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: College Blvd & Driveway 2 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM - 4 Lane Roadway 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 140 10 45 40 9 130 144 1379 306 108 630 50
Future Volume (veh/h) 140 10 45 40 9 130 144 1379 306 108 630 50
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 152 11 49 43 10 141 157 1499 333 117 685 54
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 278 68 303 362 24 340 501 1896 409 201 2177 171
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.65 0.65 0.65
Sat Flow, veh/h 1236 299 1332 1343 106 1495 720 2907 627 254 3337 263
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 152 0 60 43 0 151 157 899 933 117 364 375
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1236 0 1631 1343 0 1601 720 1777 1757 254 1777 1823
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.0 0.0 2.2 2.0 0.0 6.0 5.8 15.4 17.9 31.0 6.7 6.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.0 0.0 2.2 4.2 0.0 6.0 12.6 15.4 17.9 48.9 6.7 6.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.82 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 278 0 371 362 0 365 501 1159 1146 201 1159 1189
V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.00 0.16 0.12 0.00 0.41 0.31 0.78 0.81 0.58 0.31 0.31
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 293 0 391 379 0 384 501 1159 1146 201 1159 1189
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.55 0.55 0.55
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.1 0.0 23.2 24.9 0.0 24.7 3.8 2.7 2.9 23.6 5.7 5.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.9 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.6 2.1 2.6 6.6 0.4 0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 2.3 0.4 2.1 2.4 2.2 1.7 1.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.0 0.0 23.4 25.1 0.0 25.4 4.4 4.8 5.5 30.3 6.1 6.1
LnGrp LOS C A C C A C A A A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 212 194 1989 856
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.3 25.4 5.1 9.4
Approach LOS C C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 53.4 21.6 53.4 21.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 48.0 18.0 48.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.9 17.0 50.9 8.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 17.3 0.1 0.0 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.1
HCM 6th LOS A
Attachment 6 – Mitigation for Existing
Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout – 4
Lane Roadway Intersection LOS
Worksheets
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: College Blvd & Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 212 208 85 168 136 191 125 517 210 4 316 1596
Future Volume (veh/h) 212 208 85 168 136 191 125 517 210 4 316 1596
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000 00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 286 281 115 227 184 22 169 699 284 427 2157
Peak Hour Factor 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222 22
Cap, veh/h 354 331 132 251 321 247 192 1206 538 390 1601
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.45
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 2479 990 1781 1870 1438 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 286 199 197 227 184 22 169 699 284 427 2157
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1692 1781 1870 1438 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 13.0 17.5 18.2 20.1 14.5 1.3 15.0 28.0 16.6 35.0 72.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.0 17.5 18.2 20.1 14.5 1.3 15.0 28.0 16.6 35.0 72.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 354 237 226 251 321 247 192 1206 538 390 1601
V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.84 0.87 0.91 0.57 0.09 0.88 0.58 0.53 1.10 1.35
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 756 414 394 355 374 288 356 1206 538 390 1601
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 70.3 67.7 68.0 67.7 60.8 22.4 73.2 51.6 22.0 62.5 43.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 3.1 4.0 20.2 0.6 0.1 4.9 1.9 3.5 73.9 160.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.7 8.0 8.0 10.6 7.0 0.8 7.2 13.1 7.2 23.4 65.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.0 70.7 72.0 87.9 61.4 22.5 78.1 53.6 25.5 136.4 204.3
LnGrp LOS E E E F E C E D C F F
Approach Vol, veh/h 682 433 1152 3594
Approach Delay, s/veh 71.6 73.3 50.2 167.2
Approach LOS E E D F
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.7 61.0 29.2 28.1 23.9 78.8 23.1 34.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.7 6.7 6.7 * 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 * 6.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 35 31.2 31.9 * 37 32.0 34.2 35.0 * 32
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 37.0 30.0 22.1 20.2 17.0 74.1 15.0 16.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 126.2
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: College Blvd & Cannon Rd/Bobcat Blvd 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 4
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 832
Future Volume (veh/h) 832
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1010
Peak Hour Factor 0.74
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 876
Arrive On Green 0.45
Sat Flow, veh/h 1583
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1010
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1583
Q Serve(g_s), s 55.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 55.5
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 876
V/C Ratio(X) 1.15
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 876
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 82.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 38.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 101.1
LnGrp LOS F
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 7
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 7 80 2272 454 118 822 53 164 252 111 310 767
Future Volume (veh/h) 7 80 2272 454 118 822 53 164 252 111 310 767
Initial Q (Qb), veh 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 2342 390 122 847 -74 169 260 90 320 791
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, %22222222222
Cap, veh/h 222 2386 839 144 2100 819 215 549 186 365 860
Arrive On Green 0.12 0.47 0.47 0.08 0.41 0.00 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.24
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1584 1781 5106 1585 3456 2607 881 3456 3554
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 2342 390 122 847 -74 169 175 175 320 791
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1584 1781 1702 1585 1728 1777 1712 1728 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 67.7 9.8 10.1 17.6 0.0 7.2 13.0 13.5 13.7 32.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 67.7 9.8 10.1 17.6 0.0 7.2 13.0 13.5 13.7 32.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 222 2386 839 144 2100 819 215 374 360 365 860
V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.98 0.47 0.85 0.40 -0.09 0.79 0.47 0.49 0.88 0.92
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 222 2386 839 166 2100 819 304 415 399 410 938
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.3 39.3 11.1 68.1 31.2 0.0 69.4 51.9 52.1 66.1 55.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 14.6 1.9 25.3 0.6 0.0 5.4 0.3 0.4 16.2 12.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 29.5 4.5 5.5 7.0 0.0 3.3 5.7 5.7 6.7 15.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.6 53.9 12.9 93.4 31.7 0.0 74.7 52.2 52.4 82.4 68.1
LnGrp LOS E D B F C A E D D F E
Approach Vol, veh/h 2814 895 519 1237
Approach Delay, s/veh 48.4 42.7 59.6 69.6
Approach LOS D D E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.7 67.7 20.0 37.6 16.3 76.1 15.3 42.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 * 4.2 * 6 * 4.2 6.0 * 6 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.1 * 62 * 18 * 35 * 14 62.8 * 13 * 40
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.3 19.6 15.7 15.5 12.1 69.7 9.2 34.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.5 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 53.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 8
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131
Future Volume (veh/h) 131
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 126
Peak Hour Factor 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 383
Arrive On Green 0.24
Sat Flow, veh/h 1583
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 126
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1583
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.8
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 383
V/C Ratio(X) 0.33
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 418
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.0
LnGrp LOS D
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 11
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 15 2552 142 1 13 889 19 53 2 44 14
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 15 2552 142 1 13 889 19 53 2 44 14
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 16 2686 147 14 936 18 56 2 32 15
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2222222
Cap, veh/h 33 3015 162 21 2137 952 123 12 53 160
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.61 0.61 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4959 267 1781 3554 1584 812 117 513 1123
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 16 1830 1003 14 936 18 90 0 0 18
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1822 1781 1777 1584 1442 0 0 1396
Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 68.4 71.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 68.4 71.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 1.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.36 0.83
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 33 2070 1108 21 2137 952 188 0 0 189
V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.88 0.90 0.67 0.44 0.02 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 59 2070 1108 48 2137 952 418 0 0 413
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 72.9 24.9 25.6 72.9 0.0 0.0 64.4 0.0 0.0 61.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.6 1.3 12.7 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 24.6 27.9 0.6 0.2 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.3 25.5 27.0 85.6 0.7 0.0 65.1 0.0 0.0 61.0
LnGrp LOS E C C F AAEAAE
Approach Vol, veh/h 2849 968 90
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.3 1.9 65.1
Approach LOS C A E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.8 96.2 20.3 6.8 97.2 20.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 * 4.7 5.0 6.0 * 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 90.2 * 39 4.0 91.2 * 39
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 2.0 11.0 3.2 73.9 3.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.3 0.3 0.0 14.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 12
Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 24
Future Volume (veh/h) 3 24
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2
Cap, veh/h 28 162
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10
Sat Flow, veh/h 273 1567
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1567
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.1
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 162
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.01
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 408
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 60.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 60.3
LnGrp LOS A E
Approach Vol, veh/h 19
Approach Delay, s/veh 61.0
Approach LOS E
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 03/05/2020
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 79 121 1988 409 76 48 467 398 157 172 3 893
Future Volume (veh/h) 79 121 1988 409 76 48 467 398 157 172 3 893
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 125 2049 0 49 481 405 162 177 0 921
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2222222
Cap, veh/h 543 2307 63 1651 902 206 720 0 804
Arrive On Green 0.31 0.90 0.00 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.06 0.20 0.00 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1585 1781 5106 2790 3456 3647 0 5023
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 125 2049 0 49 481 405 162 177 0 921
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1585 1781 1702 1395 1728 1777 0 1674
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 29.4 0.0 4.1 10.6 11.3 6.9 6.3 0.0 24.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 29.4 0.0 4.1 10.6 11.3 6.9 6.3 0.0 24.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 543 2307 63 1651 902 206 720 0 804
V/C Ratio(X)0.23 0.89 0.78 0.29 0.45 0.79 0.25 0.00 1.15
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 543 2307 119 1651 902 226 948 0 804
HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.68
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.7 5.4 0.0 71.8 37.9 17.2 69.6 50.2 0.0 63.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 4.5 0.0 7.4 0.4 1.6 13.5 0.1 0.0 76.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 3.4 0.0 2.0 4.3 3.7 3.4 2.7 0.0 15.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.8 9.9 0.0 79.2 38.4 18.9 83.1 50.2 0.0 139.0
LnGrp LOS D A E D B F D A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 2174 A 935 339
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.9 32.1 65.9
Approach LOS B C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.6 54.5 29.0 36.9 10.3 73.8 15.4 50.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 5.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 6.5 * 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 * 49 24.0 40.0 10.0 53.5 9.8 * 54
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 13.3 26.0 8.3 6.1 31.4 8.9 41.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 10.2 0.0 2.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 03/05/2020
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 617 350
Future Volume (veh/h) 617 350
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 636 293
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2
Cap, veh/h 692 319
Arrive On Green 0.29 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 2363 1088
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 478 451
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1674
Q Serve(g_s), s 39.1 39.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 39.1 39.1
Prop In Lane 0.65
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 521 491
V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.92
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 642 605
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.68 0.68
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.3 51.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.8 11.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 18.4 17.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.1 62.7
LnGrp LOS E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1850
Approach Delay, s/veh 100.5
Approach LOS F
Timer - Assigned Phs
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: College Blvd & Sunny Creek 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 17
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 160 11 270 100 12 34 58 596 37 9 1490 560
Future Volume (veh/h) 160 11 270 100 12 34 58 596 37 9 1490 560
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 174 12 293 109 13 37 63 648 40 10 1620 609
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 365 390 331 309 390 331 207 2413 1076 548 2413 1076
Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.68 0.68 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1355 1870 1585 1074 1870 1585 172 3554 1585 755 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 174 12 293 109 13 37 63 648 40 10 1620 609
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1355 1870 1585 1074 1870 1585 172 1777 1585 755 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.4 0.4 14.4 7.2 0.4 1.5 14.9 5.7 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.8 0.4 14.4 7.6 0.4 1.5 14.9 5.7 0.7 5.8 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 365 390 331 309 390 331 207 2413 1076 548 2413 1076
V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.03 0.89 0.35 0.03 0.11 0.30 0.27 0.04 0.02 0.67 0.57
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 387 421 357 326 421 357 207 2413 1076 548 2413 1076
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.29 0.29 0.29
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.2 25.2 30.7 28.2 25.2 25.7 6.5 5.0 4.2 0.3 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.0 21.5 0.7 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 0.2 7.3 1.9 0.2 0.6 0.5 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.1 25.2 52.3 28.9 25.3 25.8 9.8 5.3 4.3 0.3 0.4 0.6
LnGrp LOS CCDCCCAAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 479 159 751 2239
Approach Delay, s/veh 43.5 27.9 5.6 0.5
Approach LOS D C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 58.8 21.2 58.8 21.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 53.0 18.0 53.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.9 16.4 7.8 9.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.2 0.3 22.0 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.4
HCM 6th LOS A
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: College Blvd & Driveway 1 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 19
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 16 100 290 7 120 75 661 54 125 1669 160
Future Volume (veh/h) 40 16 100 290 7 120 75 661 54 125 1669 160
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 17 109 315 8 130 82 718 59 136 1814 174
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 330 57 366 342 24 394 226 2082 171 397 2055 194
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1251 218 1400 1265 93 1506 218 3325 273 694 3282 310
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 0 126 315 0 138 82 384 393 136 969 1019
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1251 0 1618 1265 0 1599 218 1777 1821 694 1777 1815
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 5.0 15.9 0.0 5.6 27.3 14.7 14.8 6.7 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.9 0.0 5.0 20.9 0.0 5.6 27.3 14.7 14.8 21.5 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 330 0 423 342 0 418 226 1113 1141 397 1113 1136
V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.00 0.30 0.92 0.00 0.33 0.36 0.34 0.35 0.34 0.87 0.90
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 330 0 423 342 0 418 226 1113 1141 397 1113 1136
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.38 0.38 0.38
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.1 0.0 23.7 33.6 0.0 23.9 22.7 17.7 17.7 3.2 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.4 29.7 0.0 0.5 4.2 0.8 0.8 0.9 3.9 4.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 1.9 8.9 0.0 2.1 1.8 7.0 7.2 0.2 1.2 1.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.3 0.0 24.1 63.4 0.0 24.4 26.9 18.5 18.5 4.1 3.9 4.8
LnGrp LOS C A C E A C C BBAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 169 453 859 2124
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.9 51.5 19.3 4.3
Approach LOS C D B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 54.6 25.4 54.6 25.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.1 20.9 50.1 20.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.3 9.9 23.5 22.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.0 0.6 18.2 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.8
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: College Blvd & Driveway 2 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout AM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 21
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 16 100 290 7 120 75 692 54 125 1564 160
Future Volume (veh/h) 40 16 100 290 7 120 75 692 54 125 1564 160
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 17 109 315 8 130 82 752 59 136 1700 174
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 330 57 366 342 24 394 140 2091 164 511 2041 206
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.63 0.63
Sat Flow, veh/h 1251 218 1400 1265 93 1506 244 3338 262 673 3259 329
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 0 126 315 0 138 82 400 411 136 915 959
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1251 0 1618 1265 0 1599 244 1777 1823 673 1777 1811
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 0.0 5.0 15.9 0.0 5.6 16.5 0.0 0.0 7.6 31.8 33.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.9 0.0 5.0 20.9 0.0 5.6 50.1 0.0 0.0 7.6 31.8 33.6
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.14 1.00 0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 330 0 423 342 0 418 140 1113 1142 511 1113 1134
V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.00 0.30 0.92 0.00 0.33 0.59 0.36 0.36 0.27 0.82 0.85
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 330 0 423 342 0 418 140 1113 1142 511 1113 1134
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.09 0.09 0.09
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.1 0.0 23.7 33.6 0.0 23.9 20.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 11.5 11.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.4 29.7 0.0 0.5 15.9 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 1.9 8.9 0.0 2.1 1.9 0.3 0.3 0.8 8.8 9.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.3 0.0 24.1 63.4 0.0 24.4 35.9 0.9 0.8 7.1 12.2 12.6
LnGrp LOS C A C E A C D AAABB
Approach Vol, veh/h 169 453 893 2010
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.9 51.5 4.1 12.1
Approach LOS C D A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 54.6 25.4 54.6 25.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.1 20.9 50.1 20.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 52.1 9.9 35.6 22.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.6 10.8 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.7
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: College Blvd & Cannon Rd/Bobcat Driveway 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 714 35 55 74 36 35 105 1453 91 27 659 263
Future Volume (veh/h) 714 35 55 74 36 35 105 1453 91 27 659 263
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 744 36 60 80 38 -29 114 1579 99 28 716 82
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 785 95 85 396 63 54 376 1962 875 41 1346 958
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.05 0.05 0.22 0.03 0.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.38 0.38
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1579
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 744 36 60 80 38 -29 114 1579 99 28 716 82
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1579
Q Serve(g_s), s 31.8 2.9 5.6 5.5 3.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 2.3 23.5 0.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 31.8 2.9 5.6 5.5 3.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 2.3 23.5 0.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 785 95 85 396 63 54 376 1962 875 41 1346 958
V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.38 0.71 0.20 0.60 -0.54 0.30 0.80 0.11 0.68 0.53 0.09
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 806 496 443 396 224 190 376 1962 875 416 1346 958
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 57.1 68.6 69.8 47.5 71.5 0.0 36.1 0.0 0.0 72.7 36.3 5.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.5 2.5 10.2 0.2 8.8 0.0 0.1 2.1 0.1 7.3 1.5 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.6 1.4 2.5 2.5 1.6 0.0 2.6 0.6 0.0 1.1 10.2 0.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 76.6 71.0 80.0 47.8 80.2 0.0 36.1 2.1 0.1 80.0 37.8 5.7
LnGrp LOS E E F D F A D A A F D A
Approach Vol, veh/h 840 89 1792 826
Approach Delay, s/veh 76.6 77.2 4.2 36.0
Approach LOS E E A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.1 89.5 37.8 12.5 38.3 61.3 40.8 9.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6.7 * 6.7 4.5 4.5 6.7 4.5 * 6.7 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 35 * 40 13.3 41.9 17.8 56.8 * 35 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 2.0 7.5 7.6 8.4 25.5 33.8 5.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 15.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 5.0 0.3 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 5
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 54 995 168 50 1655 321 477 696 154 51 312
Future Volume (veh/h) 6 54 995 168 50 1655 321 477 696 154 51 312
Initial Q (Qb), veh 00000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58 1070 132 54 1780 293 513 748 160 55 335
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, %22222222222
Cap, veh/h 342 2490 961 70 1634 550 409 824 176 94 681
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.49 0.49 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.12 0.28 0.28 0.03 0.19
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5106 1585 1781 5106 1585 3456 2912 623 3456 3554
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58 1070 132 54 1780 293 513 456 452 55 335
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1585 1781 1702 1585 1728 1777 1757 1728 1777
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 17.0 4.5 3.8 40.0 12.8 14.8 31.0 31.0 2.0 10.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 17.0 4.5 3.8 40.0 12.8 14.8 31.0 31.0 2.0 10.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.35 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 342 2490 961 70 1634 550 409 503 497 94 681
V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.43 0.14 0.78 1.09 0.53 1.25 0.91 0.91 0.58 0.49
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 342 2490 961 134 1634 550 409 601 595 318 1109
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.38 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.2 20.8 10.6 59.5 42.5 18.9 55.1 43.2 43.3 60.1 45.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.7 44.8 1.4 132.9 14.6 14.7 2.1 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 6.2 1.4 1.7 22.5 4.5 13.8 15.0 14.9 0.9 4.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.2 20.8 10.6 62.2 87.3 20.3 188.0 57.8 58.0 62.2 45.3
LnGrp LOS D C B E F C F E E E D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1260 2127 1421 448
Approach Delay, s/veh 20.7 77.4 104.9 43.8
Approach LOS C E F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.0 46.0 7.6 41.4 9.1 66.9 19.0 30.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 6 * 4.2 * 6 * 4.2 6.0 * 4.2 * 6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.8 * 40 * 12 * 42 * 9.4 41.4 * 15 * 39
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 42.0 4.0 33.0 5.8 19.0 16.8 12.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 4.6 0.0 1.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 68.4
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: Cannon Rd & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 6
Movement SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71
Future Volume (veh/h) 71
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00
Work Zone On Approach
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 58
Peak Hour Factor 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2
Cap, veh/h 304
Arrive On Green 0.19
Sat Flow, veh/h 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 58
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5
Prop In Lane 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 304
V/C Ratio(X) 0.19
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 495
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.7
LnGrp LOS B
Approach Vol, veh/h
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Timer - Assigned Phs
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
3: Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 45 1088 45 19 1692 44 321 16 41 31 3 40
Future Volume (veh/h) 45 1088 45 19 1692 44 321 16 41 31 3 40
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 1122 43 20 1744 30 331 16 40 32 3 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 57 2624 101 57 1876 837 401 17 42 491 44 474
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.52 0.52 0.03 0.53 0.53 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5046 193 1781 3554 1585 1165 56 141 1460 146 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 757 408 20 1744 30 387 0 0 35 0 8
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1835 1781 1777 1585 1362 0 0 1606 0 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 17.2 17.2 1.4 56.9 1.1 33.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 17.2 17.2 1.4 56.9 1.1 35.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.10 0.91 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 57 1770 954 57 1876 837 460 0 0 535 0 474
V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.43 0.43 0.35 0.93 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.02
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 57 1770 954 71 1876 837 483 0 0 556 0 498
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I)0.87 0.87 0.87 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.1 18.5 18.5 59.2 27.3 14.2 43.9 0.0 0.0 31.4 0.0 30.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 47.8 0.7 1.2 0.1 1.1 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 6.3 7.0 0.6 21.5 0.4 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 107.9 19.2 19.7 59.4 28.4 14.2 55.2 0.0 0.0 31.4 0.0 30.9
LnGrp LOS F B B E C BEAACAC
Approach Vol, veh/h 1211 1794 387 43
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.7 28.5 55.2 31.3
Approach LOS C C E C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 72.0 42.0 10.0 71.0 42.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 * 4.7 6.0 * 6 *4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 66.0 * 39 5.0 * 65 * 39
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.2 58.9 37.0 3.4 19.2 3.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.0 0.4 0.0 6.2 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 03/05/2020
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 1
Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 122 327 642 97 9 44 1506 801 446 591 23 349
Future Volume (veh/h) 122 327 642 97 9 44 1506 801 446 591 23 349
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 344 676 0 46 1585 843 469 622 2 367
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, %2 2 2 2222222
Cap, veh/h 393 2534 59 2157 1178 672 729 2 415
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.50 0.00 0.03 0.42 0.42 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.04
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1585 1781 5106 2790 3456 3633 12 3456
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 344 676 0 46 1585 843 469 304 320 367
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1585 1781 1702 1395 1728 1777 1868 1728
Q Serve(g_s), s 14.7 11.5 0.0 3.8 39.0 25.8 19.0 24.8 24.8 15.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.7 11.5 0.0 3.8 39.0 25.8 19.0 24.8 24.8 15.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 393 2534 59 2157 1178 672 356 375 415
V/C Ratio(X)0.88 0.27 0.78 0.73 0.72 0.70 0.85 0.85 0.89
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 541 2534 121 2157 1178 672 480 504 449
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33
Upstream Filter(I)0.73 0.73 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 65.4 21.9 0.0 71.9 36.3 17.0 56.3 57.8 57.8 71.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.9 0.0 0.0 7.8 2.3 3.7 2.7 8.5 8.1 16.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.7 4.4 0.0 1.8 15.8 8.3 8.3 11.7 12.2 8.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 72.3 22.0 0.0 79.8 38.6 20.7 59.0 66.3 66.0 87.5
LnGrp LOS E C E D C E E E F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1020 A 2474 1093
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.9 33.3 63.1
Approach LOS D C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.1 67.4 23.0 36.6 10.0 80.4 35.7 23.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 * 4 5.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 6.5 * 6.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.5 * 46 19.5 40.5 10.2 57.3 22.0 * 38
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.7 41.0 17.9 26.8 5.8 13.5 21.0 13.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 3.7 0.1 1.7 0.0 2.7 0.1 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 46.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
4: College Blvd & El Camino Real 03/05/2020
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 2
Movement SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 175 93
Future Volume (veh/h) 175 93
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 184 74
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2
Cap, veh/h 290 112
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.04
Sat Flow, veh/h 2498 967
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 129 129
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1687
Q Serve(g_s), s 10.7 11.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.7 11.3
Prop In Lane 0.57
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 206 196
V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.66
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 450 427
HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33
Upstream Filter(I) 0.98 0.98
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 68.9 69.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 1.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.1 5.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.1 70.6
LnGrp LOS E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 625
Approach Delay, s/veh 80.4
Approach LOS F
Timer - Assigned Phs
Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
5: College Blvd & Sunny Creek 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 500 6 129 58 6 9 100 1603 96 42 430 170
Future Volume (veh/h) 500 6 129 58 6 9 100 1603 96 42 430 170
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 543 7 140 63 7 10 109 1742 104 46 467 185
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 548 611 518 498 611 518 528 1966 877 141 1966 877
Arrive On Green 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.74 0.74 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1396 1870 1585 1241 1870 1585 780 3554 1585 250 3554 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 543 7 140 63 7 10 109 1742 104 46 467 185
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1396 1870 1585 1241 1870 1585 780 1777 1585 250 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 24.3 0.2 4.9 2.7 0.2 0.3 3.4 27.9 1.4 13.6 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 24.5 0.2 4.9 2.9 0.2 0.3 3.4 27.9 1.4 41.5 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 548 611 518 498 611 518 528 1966 877 141 1966 877
V/C Ratio(X) 0.99 0.01 0.27 0.13 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.89 0.12 0.33 0.24 0.21
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 548 611 518 498 611 518 528 1966 877 141 1966 877
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.97 0.97 0.97
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.4 17.1 18.6 18.0 17.1 17.1 4.9 8.1 4.6 14.0 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 35.8 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 5.8 0.3 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 15.2 0.1 1.7 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.4 4.2 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.1 17.1 18.9 18.2 17.1 17.1 5.0 8.7 4.6 19.9 0.3 0.5
LnGrp LOS EBBBBBAAABAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 690 80 1955 698
Approach Delay, s/veh 53.7 17.9 8.3 1.6
Approach LOS D B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 46.0 29.0 46.0 29.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 41.5 24.5 41.5 24.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 29.9 26.5 43.5 4.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.3
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
6: College Blvd & Driveway 1 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 15
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 140 10 45 40 9 30 144 1659 309 108 557 50
Future Volume (veh/h) 140 10 45 40 9 30 144 1659 309 108 557 50
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 152 11 49 43 10 33 157 1803 336 117 605 54
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 286 48 216 270 62 204 653 2159 390 231 2370 211
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1364 299 1332 1343 382 1261 775 3006 543 188 3300 294
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 152 0 60 43 0 43 157 1042 1097 117 325 334
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1364 0 1631 1343 0 1643 775 1777 1773 188 1777 1817
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.1 0.0 2.4 2.2 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.8 0.0 2.4 4.6 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.82 1.00 0.77 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 286 0 264 270 0 266 653 1276 1273 231 1276 1305
V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.00 0.23 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.24 0.82 0.86 0.51 0.25 0.26
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 393 0 391 375 0 394 653 1276 1273 231 1276 1305
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.96 0.96 0.96
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.3 0.0 27.3 29.3 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.2 1.6 7.4 0.5 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 0.0 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.8 0.0 27.8 29.6 0.0 27.3 0.2 1.2 1.6 7.4 0.5 0.5
LnGrp LOS C A C C A C AAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 212 86 2296 776
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.4 28.5 1.3 1.5
Approach LOS C C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 58.4 16.6 58.4 16.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 48.0 18.0 48.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 11.8 2.0 6.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 29.3 0.4 11.0 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 4.0
HCM 6th LOS A
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
7: College Blvd & Driveway 2 12/17/2019
Existing Plus Reassignment Plus Buildout PM + Mitigation 09/23/2019 Synchro 10 Report
Page 17
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 140 10 45 40 9 130 144 1379 306 108 630 50
Future Volume (veh/h) 140 10 45 40 9 130 144 1379 306 108 630 50
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 152 11 49 43 10 141 157 1499 333 117 685 54
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222
Cap, veh/h 278 68 303 362 24 340 501 1896 409 262 2177 171
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.65 0.65 0.65
Sat Flow, veh/h 1236 299 1332 1343 106 1495 720 2907 627 254 3337 263
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 152 0 60 43 0 151 157 899 933 117 364 375
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1236 0 1631 1343 0 1601 720 1777 1757 254 1777 1823
Q Serve(g_s), s 9.0 0.0 2.2 2.0 0.0 6.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 22.3 6.7 6.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.0 0.0 2.2 4.2 0.0 6.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 22.3 6.7 6.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.82 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.36 1.00 0.14
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 278 0 371 362 0 365 501 1159 1146 262 1159 1189
V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.00 0.16 0.12 0.00 0.41 0.31 0.78 0.81 0.45 0.31 0.31
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 293 0 391 379 0 384 501 1159 1146 262 1159 1189
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.91 0.91 0.91
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.1 0.0 23.2 24.9 0.0 24.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 8.4 5.7 5.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.9 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.6 2.1 2.6 5.0 0.6 0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 2.3 0.1 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.8 1.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.0 0.0 23.4 25.1 0.0 25.4 1.3 2.1 2.6 13.4 6.3 6.3
LnGrp LOS C A C C A C AAABAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 212 194 1989 856
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.3 25.4 2.3 7.3
Approach LOS C C A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2468
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 53.4 21.6 53.4 21.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 48.0 18.0 48.0 18.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.1 17.0 24.3 8.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 19.9 0.1 7.8 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.8
HCM 6th LOS A
Appendix B – City of Carlsbad Facility
Service Volume Table
Segment Level of Service Analysis
Facility Service Volume Table
ARTERIAL STREETS
ABCDELOS Standard Capacity
City Limits to Marron Road 6/35/D Without ** ** ** ** 1400 1 1400
Marron Road to Carlsbad Village Drive 6/35/D Without ** 140 2070 2520 ##2520 2520
Carlsbad Village Drive to Tamarack Avenue 6/55/D Without 1930 2850 2900 ## ##2900 2900
Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road 1 6/55/D Without ** ** 2400 2800 ##2800 2800
2/55/D ‐ NB Without ** 1060 1860 ## ##1860 1860
3/55/D ‐ SB Without ** 2150 2900 ## ##2900 2900
College Boulevard to Palomar Airport Road 6/55/D Without 270 2750 2940 ## ##2940 2940
Palomar Airport Road to Camino Vida Roble 6/55/D Without ** ** 1330 2510 2580 2510 2580
2/55/D ‐ NB Without ** 970 2020 2100 ##2100 2100
3/55/D ‐ SB Without ** 1470 2820 2900 ##2900 2900
Poinsettia Lane to Aviara Parkway‐Alga Road 6/55/D Without ** ** 2100 2820 2900 2820 2900
3/55/D ‐ NB Without ** 1390 2580 ## ##2580 2580
2/55/D ‐ SB Without ** 800 1920 ## ##1920 1920
La Costa Avenue to Leucadia Boulevard 6/55/D Without ** ** 1880 2820 2880 2820 2880
City Limits to Carlsbad Village Drive 4/45/D Without ** ** 930 1680 1770 1680 1770
Carlsbad Village Drive to Cannon Road 4/45/D Without ** ** 1040 1760 1800 1760 1800
El Camino Real to Aston Avenue 4/50/D Without ** ** 390 1440 1810 1440 1810
2/50/D ‐ NB Without 880 1680 ## ## ##1680 1680
2/50/D ‐ SB Without 80 970 1040 ## ##1040 1040
Without ** ** ** 1130 1630 1130 1630
With ** ** 800 1620 1740 1620 1740
4/55/D ‐ NB Without ** ** 1710 2740 2830 2740 2830
3/55/D ‐ SB Without ** ** ** 930 1630 930 1630
Palomar Airport Road to Poinsettia Lane 6/55/D Without ** 490 2720 2880 ##2880 2880
Poinsettia Lane to Rancho Santa Fe Road 6/55/D Without ** ** 1400 2100 ##2100 2100
City Limits to Camino Junipero 6/55/D Without ** 2520 3160 ## ##3160 3160
Camino Junipero to La Costa Avenue 6/55/D Without ** 1400 2660 2700 ##2700 2700
La Costa Avenue to Calle Barcelona 6/50/D Without ** 460 2410 2480 ##2480 2480
Calle Barcelona to Olivenhain Road 6/50/D Without ** 540 2810 3040 ##3040 3040
ABCDELOS Standard Capacity
Avenida Encinas to Paseo del Norte 4/35/D Without ** ** ** 730 1320 730 1320
Paseo del Norte to Car Country 4/50/D Without ** 390 1630 1770 1800 1770 1800
Car Country to Legoland Drive 4/50/D Without ** 1170 1660 1700 ##1700 1700
Legoland Drive to Faraday Avenue 4/50/D Without ** 270 1280 1320 ##1320 1320
Faraday Avenue to El Camino Real 4/50/D Without ** ** 1280 1620 ##1620 1620
El Camino Real to College Boulevard 4/50/D Without ** ** 280 1310 1690 1310 1690
Van Allen Way to El Camino Real 4/40/D Without ** ** 220 1400 1680 1400 1680
El Camino Real to Melrose Drive 4/50/D Without ** ** 1370 1640 ##1640 1640
Carlsbad Boulevard to Avenida Encinas 2/35/U Without ** 520 760 ## ##760 760
3/35/D ‐ EB Without ** ** ** ** 250 1 250
2/35/D ‐ WB Without ** ** ** ** 650 1 650
3/45/D ‐ EB Without ** ** 1640 2660 2740 2660 2740
4/45/D ‐ WB Without ** ** 2250 3570 3680 3570 3680
Armada to Aviara Parkway 6/55/D Without ** 650 2760 2940 ##2940 2940
Aviara Parkway to Camino Vida Roble 6/55/D Without 440 2720 2900 ## ##2900 2900
Camino Vida Roble to El Camino Real 6/55/D Without ** 790 2140 ## ##2140 2140
El Camino Real to El Fuerte 6/55/D Without ** 1290 2830 2900 ##2900 2900
El Fuerte to Melrose Drive 6/55/D Without ** 1230 2860 2940 ##2940 2940
Melrose Drive to City Limits 6/55/D Without ** 340 2590 2900 ##2900 2900
Avenida Encinas to Paseo del Norte 4/35/D Without ** ** ** 180 1190 180 1190
Paseo del Norte to Aviara Parkway 4/50/D Without ** ** 1330 1770 1840 1770 1840
La Costa Avenue Piraeus Street to El Camino Real 4/55/D Without ** 1450 1700 ## ##1700 1700
** Indicates LOS cannot be achieved during peak hour.(e.g., signal spacing is too close to achieve smooth traffic flows even at low volumes).
## Indicates the capacity jumps to LOS F because intersection capacities have been reached. (i.e., travel speeds quickly degrade to LOS F).
1 ‐ Service volumes for individual segments are provided in Segment Service Volume Table
TSM ‐ Transportation System Management
Aston Avenue to Palomar Airport Road
N/S Streets Limits
Peak Direction LOS Thresholds
Roadway
Classification
TSM
Improvement
Aviara Parkway Palomar Aiport Road to Poinsettia Lane 1 4/45/D
Paseo del Norte to Armada
Cannon Road
Faraday Avenue
Roadway
Classification
City Limits to Palomar Airport Road
Thresholds
Thresholds
Peak Direction LOS Thresholds
Poinsettia Lane
El Camino Real
Cannon Road to College Boulevard
Camino Vida Roble to Poinsettia Lane
Aviara Parkway‐Alga Road to La Costa Avenue
College Boulevard
Melrose Drive
Rancho Santa Fe Road
E/W Streets Limits
Palomar Airport Road
Avenida Encinas to Paseo del Norte
Appendix C – Existing (2019) Traffic
Count Data
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID:19-04378-001 Day:
City:Carlsbad Date:
AM 191 284 0 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 64 71 0 0 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1200 0 000
0 000
400 00000
316 0 27 2 TEV 2940 0 2301 0 000
000 0 PHF 0.74 0.96
1358 0 496 2 0220
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 1572 71 0 PM
NOON 0000NOON
AM 0 399 388 0 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
567
Cars (PM)HT (PM)
Cannon Rd & College Blvd
Tuesday
10/01/2019
CONTROL WESTBOUND07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
Cars (NOON)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
HT (NOON)
0 COUNT PERIODSHT (AM)PEAK HOURSCars (AM)
NONE
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
704
98
0
Signalized
College BlvdEASTBOUNDCannon Rd
1642
0
Cannon Rd
SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
NORTHBOUND
0
0 College Blvd07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
594 0 1636
NOONAM PM
0 0
0 2 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
3 0 0 53 0 0
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0
0
0
7
0
3 010300N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0
0
0
1351
0
313 19128303963880N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0
0
0
491
0
26 6371015627100
0
0
5
0
1 1001000NOONPMAMNOONAMPMNOONAMPMNOONPMAM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID:19-04378-002 Day:
City:Carlsbad Date:
AM 111 667 974 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 61 222 319 0 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0220 1 1015 0 420
2 1555 0 492
706 0140058
80054 1 TEV 5903 0 5317 0 000
2202 0 630 3 PHF 0.97 0.93
454 0 168 1 0220
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 477 696 74 PM
NOON 0000NOON
AM 0 164 203 71 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
430
Cars (PM)HT (PM)
Cannon Rd & El Camino Real
Tuesday
10/01/2019
CONTROL WESTBOUND07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
Cars (NOON)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
HT (NOON)
3247 COUNT PERIODSHT (AM)PEAK HOURSCars (AM)
NONE
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
703
1765
0
Signalized
El Camino RealEASTBOUNDCannon Rd
1179
0
Cannon Rd
SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
NORTHBOUND
1023
0 El Camino Real07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
774 0 2099
NOONAM PM
0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
2
16
4
0
16
1 116001N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A56
476
416
454
2186
79 11066696816420370N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A40
1540
1008
168
613
54 61220312477696730
15
7
0
17
0 027001NOONPMAMNOONAMPMNOONAMPMNOONPMAM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID:19-04378-003 Day:
City:Carlsbad Date:
AM 243140 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 403210 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 0.5 0.5 0 1 39 0 9
2 2276 0 856
100 0114013
15045 1 TEV 4247 0 3761 0 501
3086 0 911 3 PHF 0.95 0.97
142 0 45 0 0010
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 321 10 31 PM
NOON 0000NOON
AM 053228AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
62
Cars (PM)HT (PM)
Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr & El Camino Real
Tuesday
10/01/2019
CONTROL WESTBOUND07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
Cars (NOON)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
HT (NOON)
3129 COUNT PERIODSHT (AM)PEAK HOURSCars (AM)
NONE
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
26
94
0
Signalized
El Camino RealEASTBOUNDJackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr
158
0
Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr
SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
NORTHBOUND
968
0 El Camino Real07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
934 0 2637
NOONAM PM
1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0
0 0 1 3 0 0
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0
22
0
0
23
0 000000N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A13
834
9
142
3063
15 2431453228N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A14
2258
39
45
887
45 393213189310
18
0
0
24
0 100310NOONPMAMNOONAMPMNOONAMPMNOONPMAM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID:19-04378-004 Day:
City:Carlsbad Date:
AM 69 22 43 0 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 23 22 22 0 PM
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0220 1 49015
3 1785 0 669
102 0144048
22030 1 TEV 4228 0 3540 0 9076
2478 0 824 3 PHF 0.97 0.95
634 0 135 1 0220
AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 532 40 23 PM
NOON 0000NOON
AM 0 139 9 3 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
201
Cars (PM)HT (PM)
College Blvd & El Camino Real
Tuesday
10/01/2019
CONTROL WESTBOUND07:00 AM - 08:00 AM
Cars (NOON)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
HT (NOON)
2600 COUNT PERIODSHT (AM)PEAK HOURSCars (AM)
NONE
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
46
119
0
Signalized
El Camino RealEASTBOUNDCollege Blvd
704
0
College Blvd
SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM
NORTHBOUND
878
0 El Camino Real07:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NONE
878 0 2342
NOONAM PM
0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 3
1 0 0 0 0 2
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0
16
1
6
16
0 100410N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A48
653
14
628
2462
22 68224313583N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A44
1769
49
133
802
30 23222253040230
16
0
2
22
0 000200NOONPMAMNOONAMPMNOONAMPMNOONPMAM
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA19_4201_002
NB SB EB WB
22,777 20,548 00
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 32 9 41 410 227 637
00:15 22 7 29 333 266 599
00:30 11 10 21 292 251 543
00:45 10 75 3 29 13 104 333 1368 297 1041 630 2409
01:00 15 12 27 311 274 585
01:15 10 7 17 304 355 659
01:30 19 8 27 313 361 674
01:45 11 55 6 33 17 88 334 1262 269 1259 603 2521
02:00 7 7 14 402 244 646
02:15 5 9 14 437 264 701
02:30 9 9 18 528 335 863
02:45 7 28 12 37 19 65 519 1886 440 1283 959 3169
03:00 4 6 10 520 291 811
03:15 4 10 14 559 288 847
03:30 11 23 34 544 290 834
03:45 8 27 39 78 47 105 637 2260 316 1185 953 3445
04:00 12 36 48 732 244 976
04:15 10 46 56 719 283 1002
04:30 13 82 95 730 226 956
04:45 25 60 115 279 140 339 786 2967 306 1059 1092 4026
05:00 14 89 103 801 250 1051
05:15 24 115 139 812 263 1075
05:30 21 204 225 674 237 911
05:45 38 97 378 786 416 883 716 3003 199 949 915 3952
06:00 67 206 273 559 192 751
06:15 66 331 397 448 194 642
06:30 86 411 497 357 182 539
06:45 213 432 619 1567 832 1999 363 1727 161 729 524 2456
07:00 379 675 1054 320 123 443
07:15 295 710 1005 292 114 406
07:30 191 810 1001 234 105 339
07:45 219 1084 817 3012 1036 4096 265 1111 95 437 360 1548
08:00 166 764 930 165 94 259
08:15 211 631 842 176 118 294
08:30 205 506 711 196 109 305
08:45 221 803 562 2463 783 3266 158 695 86 407 244 1102
09:00 225 413 638 120 76 196
09:15 186 405 591 106 81 187
09:30 207 338 545 108 71 179
09:45 202 820 312 1468 514 2288 83 417 62 290 145 707
10:00 214 241 455 85 41 126
10:15 227 264 491 77 34 111
10:30 263 231 494 96 23 119
10:45 225 929 241 977 466 1906 69 327 28 126 97 453
11:00 272 221 493 93 21 114
11:15 264 208 472 53 22 75
11:30 258 272 530 55 23 78
11:45 297 1091 264 965 561 2056 52 253 23 89 75 342
TOTALS 5501 11694 17195 17276 8854 26130
SPLIT %32.0% 68.0%39.7%66.1% 33.9%60.3%
NB SB EB WB
22,777 20,548 00
AM Peak Hour 11:45 07:15 07:00 16:30 14:30 16:30
AM Pk Volume 1332 3101 4096 3129 1354 4174
Pk Hr Factor 0.812 0.949 0.972 0.963 0.769 0.956
7 ‐ 9 Volume 1887 5475 007362 5970 2008 007978
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:15 07:00 16:30 16:15 16:30
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 1084 3101 0 0 4096 3129 1065 0 0 4174
Pk Hr Factor 0.715 0.949 0.000 0.000 0.972 0.963 0.870 0.000 0.000 0.956
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
43,325
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
El Camino Real Bet. Tamarack Ave & Jackspar Dr
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
43,325
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
16:45
17:00
17:15
Tuesday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
5/7/2019
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA19_4201_002
NB SB EB WB
20,586 20,225 00
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 37 12 49 320 233 553
00:15 12 12 24 280 246 526
00:30 19 9 28 261 294 555
00:45 14 82 7 40 21 122 265 1126 285 1058 550 2184
01:00 9 10 19 321 287 608
01:15 9 5 14 269 258 527
01:30 12 6 18 284 344 628
01:45 11 41 4 25 15 66 328 1202 313 1202 641 2404
02:00 9 5 14 353 268 621
02:15 12 8 20 386 279 665
02:30 3 11 14 526 337 863
02:45 9 33 12 36 21 69 522 1787 404 1288 926 3075
03:00 5 7 12 422 291 713
03:15 5 9 14 476 311 787
03:30 14 28 42 536 272 808
03:45 11 35 48 92 59 127 590 2024 283 1157 873 3181
04:00 7 33 40 599 268 867
04:15 10 56 66 686 256 942
04:30 16 79 95 662 252 914
04:45 20 53 128 296 148 349 669 2616 275 1051 944 3667
05:00 20 86 106 709 245 954
05:15 25 131 156 689 241 930
05:30 30 243 273 616 273 889
05:45 44 119 370 830 414 949 572 2586 211 970 783 3556
06:00 63 214 277 492 216 708
06:15 73 287 360 420 186 606
06:30 101 396 497 359 173 532
06:45 163 400 603 1500 766 1900 304 1575 168 743 472 2318
07:00 217 560 777 249 131 380
07:15 184 737 921 246 117 363
07:30 192 745 937 199 97 296
07:45 262 855 788 2830 1050 3685 182 876 119 464 301 1340
08:00 332 657 989 169 97 266
08:15 209 587 796 162 138 300
08:30 195 576 771 143 130 273
08:45 193 929 523 2343 716 3272 137 611 90 455 227 1066
09:00 189 374 563 161 101 262
09:15 217 337 554 122 72 194
09:30 215 316 531 82 70 152
09:45 186 807 315 1342 501 2149 76 441 79 322 155 763
10:00 192 283 475 84 36 120
10:15 193 257 450 72 29 101
10:30 199 229 428 75 35 110
10:45 257 841 275 1044 532 1885 58 289 33 133 91 422
11:00 221 218 439 68 22 90
11:15 259 210 469 40 16 56
11:30 274 241 515 40 14 54
11:45 308 1062 269 938 577 2000 48 196 14 66 62 262
TOTALS 5257 11316 16573 15329 8909 24238
SPLIT %31.7% 68.3%40.6%63.2% 36.8%59.4%
NB SB EB WB
20,586 20,225 00
AM Peak Hour 11:30 07:15 07:15 16:30 14:30 16:15
AM Pk Volume 1182 2927 3897 2729 1343 3754
Pk Hr Factor 0.923 0.929 0.928 0.962 0.831 0.984
7 ‐ 9 Volume 1784 5173 006957 5202 2021 007223
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:45 07:15 07:15 16:30 16:00 16:15
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 998 2927 0 0 3897 2729 1051 0 0 3754
Pk Hr Factor 0.752 0.929 0.000 0.000 0.928 0.962 0.955 0.000 0.000 0.984
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
El Camino Real Bet. Tamarack Ave & Jackspar Dr
Wednesday
5/8/2019
DAILY TOTALS Total
40,811
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
SPLIT %
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
DAILY TOTALS Total
40,811
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
TOTALS
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA19_4201_003
NB SB EB WB
23,944 22,183 00
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 31 10 0 0 41 443 238 0 0 681
00:15 22 7 0 0 29 367 279 0 0 646
00:30 17 13 0 0 30 330 272 0 0 602
00:45 10 80 5 35 0 0 15 115 328 1468 303 1092 0 0 631 2560
01:00 15 10 0 0 25 361 294 0 0 655
01:15 12 9 0 0 21 300 393 0 0 693
01:30 20 6 0 0 26 357 423 0 0 780
01:45 13 60 7 32 0 0 20 92 356 1374 332 1442 0 0 688 2816
02:00 10 6 0 0 16 443 266 0 0 709
02:15 5 8 0 0 13 452 336 0 0 788
02:30 10 10 0 0 20 594 388 0 0 982
02:45 10 35 12 36 0 0 22 71 578 2067 545 1535 0 0 1123 3602
03:00 6 6 0 0 12 560 365 0 0 925
03:15 2 9 0 0 11 576 350 0 0 926
03:30 14 23 0 0 37 688 331 0 0 1019
03:45 9 31 39 77 0 0 48 108 681 2505 354 1400 0 0 1035 3905
04:00 15 35 0 0 50 795 298 0 0 1093
04:15 12 50 0 0 62 728 321 0 0 1049
04:30 12 89 0 0 101 854 279 0 0 1133
04:45 30 69 120 294 0 0 150 363 810 3187 361 1259 0 0 1171 4446
05:00 17 90 0 0 107 799 314 0 0 1113
05:15 24 108 0 0 132 766 301 0 0 1067
05:30 27 220 0 0 247 752 280 0 0 1032
05:45 50 118 354 772 0 0 404 890 637 2954 256 1151 0 0 893 4105
06:00 68 199 0 0 267 553 233 0 0 786
06:15 64 324 0 0 388 461 245 0 0 706
06:30 105 415 0 0 520 380 217 0 0 597
06:45 230 467 604 1542 0 0 834 2009 354 1748 184 879 0 0 538 2627
07:00 401 673 0 0 1074 311 135 0 0 446
07:15 309 706 0 0 1015 287 123 0 0 410
07:30 195 810 0 0 1005 243 122 0 0 365
07:45 208 1113 831 3020 0 0 1039 4133 240 1081 121 501 0 0 361 1582
08:00 191 771 0 0 962 163 98 0 0 261
08:15 216 656 0 0 872 190 139 0 0 329
08:30 234 545 0 0 779 192 117 0 0 309
08:45 216 857 567 2539 0 0 783 3396 150 695 94 448 0 0 244 1143
09:00 216 413 0 0 629 124 83 0 0 207
09:15 184 420 0 0 604 99 89 0 0 188
09:30 227 351 0 0 578 107 76 0 0 183
09:45 220 847 344 1528 0 0 564 2375 91 421 66 314 0 0 157 735
10:00 230 257 0 0 487 76 46 0 0 122
10:15 254 292 0 0 546 73 30 0 0 103
10:30 260 267 0 0 527 98 26 0 0 124
10:45 253 997 239 1055 0 0 492 2052 62 309 30 132 0 0 92 441
11:00 290 224 0 0 514 84 24 0 0 108
11:15 311 239 0 0 550 50 22 0 0 72
11:30 283 270 0 0 553 50 25 0 0 75
11:45 344 1228 271 1004 0 0 615 2232 49 233 25 96 0 0 74 329
TOTALS 5902 11934 17836 18042 10249 28291
SPLIT %33.1% 66.9%38.7%63.8% 36.2%61.3%
NB SB EB WB
23,944 22,183 00
AM Peak Hour 11:45 07:15 07:00 16:30 14:30 16:30
AM Pk Volume 1484 3118 4133 3229 1648 4484
Pk Hr Factor 0.837 0.938 0.962 0.945 0.756 0.957
7 ‐ 9 Volume 1970 5559 007529 6141 2410 008551
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:15 07:00 16:30 16:15 16:30
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 1113 3118 0 0 4133 3229 1275 0 0 4484
Pk Hr Factor 0.694 0.938 0.000 0.000 0.962 0.945 0.883 0.000 0.000 0.957
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
46,127
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
El Camino Real Bet. Jackspar Dr & College Blvd
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
46,127
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
16:45
17:00
17:15
Tuesday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
5/7/2019
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA19_4201_003
NB SB EB WB
24,088 21,410 00
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 33 12 0 0 45 395 281 0 0 676
00:15 14 14 0 0 28 303 267 0 0 570
00:30 22 10 0 0 32 320 333 0 0 653
00:45 19 88 7 43 0 0 26 131 278 1296 308 1189 0 0 586 2485
01:00 10 10 0 0 20 398 306 0 0 704
01:15 9 5 0 0 14 323 277 0 0 600
01:30 12 7 0 0 19 371 352 0 0 723
01:45 14 45 4 26 0 0 18 71 384 1476 342 1277 0 0 726 2753
02:00 9 5 0 0 14 446 285 0 0 731
02:15 15 8 0 0 23 415 302 0 0 717
02:30 8 10 0 0 18 695 364 0 0 1059
02:45 8 40 11 34 0 0 19 74 606 2162 455 1406 0 0 1061 3568
03:00 4 7 0 0 11 510 319 0 0 829
03:15 6 8 0 0 14 577 331 0 0 908
03:30 13 26 0 0 39 670 297 0 0 967
03:45 10 33 50 91 0 0 60 124 692 2449 298 1245 0 0 990 3694
04:00 9 32 0 0 41 774 301 0 0 1075
04:15 12 61 0 0 73 687 257 0 0 944
04:30 19 77 0 0 96 854 258 0 0 1112
04:45 21 61 133 303 0 0 154 364 754 3069 286 1102 0 0 1040 4171
05:00 23 91 0 0 114 854 277 0 0 1131
05:15 29 131 0 0 160 741 258 0 0 999
05:30 28 245 0 0 273 675 279 0 0 954
05:45 54 134 379 846 0 0 433 980 649 2919 222 1036 0 0 871 3955
06:00 64 219 0 0 283 546 241 0 0 787
06:15 83 292 0 0 375 461 222 0 0 683
06:30 119 397 0 0 516 441 167 0 0 608
06:45 176 442 607 1515 0 0 783 1957 311 1759 191 821 0 0 502 2580
07:00 275 576 0 0 851 294 144 0 0 438
07:15 189 775 0 0 964 283 117 0 0 400
07:30 225 789 0 0 1014 244 104 0 0 348
07:45 286 975 821 2961 0 0 1107 3936 209 1030 125 490 0 0 334 1520
08:00 376 689 0 0 1065 212 99 0 0 311
08:15 230 629 0 0 859 204 130 0 0 334
08:30 211 592 0 0 803 175 136 0 0 311
08:45 257 1074 553 2463 0 0 810 3537 158 749 89 454 0 0 247 1203
09:00 189 395 0 0 584 200 112 0 0 312
09:15 237 376 0 0 613 158 78 0 0 236
09:30 235 328 0 0 563 96 65 0 0 161
09:45 227 888 362 1461 0 0 589 2349 96 550 75 330 0 0 171 880
10:00 223 288 0 0 511 95 36 0 0 131
10:15 235 281 0 0 516 74 33 0 0 107
10:30 262 258 0 0 520 90 35 0 0 125
10:45 269 989 285 1112 0 0 554 2101 68 327 31 135 0 0 99 462
11:00 282 242 0 0 524 66 20 0 0 86
11:15 303 226 0 0 529 44 17 0 0 61
11:30 371 245 0 0 616 49 15 0 0 64
11:45 364 1320 289 1002 0 0 653 2322 54 213 16 68 0 0 70 281
TOTALS 6089 11857 17946 17999 9553 27552
SPLIT %33.9% 66.1%39.4%65.3% 34.7%60.6%
NB SB EB WB
24,088 21,410 00
AM Peak Hour 11:15 07:15 07:15 16:30 14:30 16:30
AM Pk Volume 1433 3074 4150 3203 1469 4282
Pk Hr Factor 0.907 0.936 0.937 0.938 0.807 0.947
7 ‐ 9 Volume 2049 5424 007473 5988 2138 008126
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:15 07:15 16:30 16:00 16:30
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 1117 3074 0 0 4150 3203 1102 0 0 4282
Pk Hr Factor 0.743 0.936 0.000 0.000 0.937 0.938 0.915 0.000 0.000 0.947
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
El Camino Real Bet. Jackspar Dr & College Blvd
Wednesday
5/8/2019
DAILY TOTALS Total
45,498
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
SPLIT %
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
DAILY TOTALS Total
45,498
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
TOTALS
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA19_4201_009
NB SB EB WB
11,078 11,180 00
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 23 9 32 164 136 300
00:15 14 5 19 158 115 273
00:30 5 8 13 133 152 285
00:45 4 46 2 24 6 70 133 588 166 569 299 1157
01:00 8 3 11 121 157 278
01:15 4 1 5 181 148 329
01:30 10 2 12 151 161 312
01:45 5 27 3 9 8 36 153 606 139 605 292 1211
02:00 5 2 7 151 145 296
02:15 3 4 7 193 153 346
02:30 6 5 11 229 220 449
02:45 4 18 7 18 11 36 198 771 174 692 372 1463
03:00 3 2 5 205 141 346
03:15 5 5 10 275 189 464
03:30 4 13 17 292 161 453
03:45 5 17 16 36 21 53 308 1080 173 664 481 1744
04:00 9 22 31 305 123 428
04:15 6 32 38 399 120 519
04:30 5 53 58 334 135 469
04:45 9 29 65 172 74 201 364 1402 142 520 506 1922
05:00 12 48 60 397 146 543
05:15 15 78 93 416 142 558
05:30 19 141 160 378 121 499
05:45 30 76 213 480 243 556 352 1543 117 526 469 2069
06:00 41 148 189 264 125 389
06:15 37 247 284 250 105 355
06:30 47 317 364 167 88 255
06:45 93 218 396 1108 489 1326 174 855 92 410 266 1265
07:00 105 439 544 149 81 230
07:15 164 417 581 145 60 205
07:30 164 367 531 106 90 196
07:45 193 626 361 1584 554 2210 129 529 66 297 195 826
08:00 125 340 465 93 66 159
08:15 110 298 408 95 60 155
08:30 96 273 369 96 53 149
08:45 100 431 244 1155 344 1586 73 357 45 224 118 581
09:00 106 187 293 59 51 110
09:15 92 206 298 86 44 130
09:30 99 192 291 70 44 114
09:45 107 404 173 758 280 1162 60 275 43 182 103 457
10:00 92 121 213 59 29 88
10:15 99 118 217 48 18 66
10:30 107 131 238 40 18 58
10:45 102 400 129 499 231 899 37 184 23 88 60 272
11:00 111 113 224 39 23 62
11:15 109 114 223 35 17 52
11:30 115 154 269 31 13 44
11:45 131 466 118 499 249 965 25 130 8 61 33 191
TOTALS 2758 6342 9100 8320 4838 13158
SPLIT %30.3% 69.7%40.9%63.2% 36.8%59.1%
NB SB EB WB
11,078 11,180 00
AM Peak Hour 07:15 06:45 07:00 16:45 14:30 16:45
AM Pk Volume 646 1619 2210 1555 724 2106
Pk Hr Factor 0.837 0.922 0.951 0.934 0.823 0.944
7 ‐ 9 Volume 1057 2739 003796 2945 1046 003991
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:15 07:00 07:00 16:45 16:30 16:45
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 646 1584 0 0 2210 1555 565 0 0 2106
Pk Hr Factor 0.837 0.902 0.000 0.000 0.951 0.934 0.967 0.000 0.000 0.944
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
5/7/2019
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
16:45
17:00
17:15
Tuesday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
College Blvd Bet. Carlsbad Village Dr & Cannon Rd
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
22,258
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
22,258
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA19_4201_009
NB SB EB WB
11,510 11,291 00
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 22 10 32 175 136 311
00:15 7 5 12 136 153 289
00:30 11 4 15 126 144 270
00:45 5 45 4 23 9 68 122 559 156 589 278 1148
01:00 5 9 14 152 162 314
01:15 8 3 11 148 148 296
01:30 9 5 14 189 184 373
01:45 6 28 1 18 7 46 190 679 129 623 319 1302
02:00 5 2 7 195 134 329
02:15 6 5 11 199 164 363
02:30 2 5 7 230 202 432
02:45 1 14 10 22 11 36 362 986 170 670 532 1656
03:00 6 3 9 252 179 431
03:15 3 8 11 255 177 432
03:30 6 10 16 273 138 411
03:45 6 21 23 44 29 65 316 1096 172 666 488 1762
04:00 2 14 16 316 134 450
04:15 6 35 41 383 148 531
04:30 10 54 64 362 143 505
04:45 10 28 71 174 81 202 387 1448 151 576 538 2024
05:00 13 51 64 379 128 507
05:15 15 74 89 410 130 540
05:30 21 143 164 399 135 534
05:45 23 72 227 495 250 567 357 1545 132 525 489 2070
06:00 41 136 177 296 130 426
06:15 38 236 274 255 110 365
06:30 52 331 383 195 104 299
06:45 88 219 336 1039 424 1258 163 909 90 434 253 1343
07:00 88 340 428 130 95 225
07:15 87 339 426 120 63 183
07:30 133 360 493 102 89 191
07:45 224 532 374 1413 598 1945 108 460 64 311 172 771
08:00 168 422 590 112 73 185
08:15 174 353 527 80 81 161
08:30 112 241 353 94 74 168
08:45 109 563 252 1268 361 1831 80 366 66 294 146 660
09:00 94 204 298 117 45 162
09:15 94 180 274 94 50 144
09:30 100 164 264 64 41 105
09:45 96 384 174 722 270 1106 63 338 35 171 98 509
10:00 98 156 254 55 21 76
10:15 104 146 250 37 31 68
10:30 100 127 227 48 30 78
10:45 121 423 126 555 247 978 38 178 31 113 69 291
11:00 128 124 252 46 10 56
11:15 104 113 217 23 13 36
11:30 134 127 261 30 13 43
11:45 128 494 139 503 267 997 24 123 7 43 31 166
TOTALS 2823 6276 9099 8687 5015 13702
SPLIT %31.0% 69.0%39.9%63.4% 36.6%60.1%
NB SB EB WB
11,510 11,291 00
AM Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 16:45 14:30 16:45
AM Pk Volume 699 1509 2208 1575 728 2119
Pk Hr Factor 0.780 0.894 0.923 0.960 0.901 0.981
7 ‐ 9 Volume 1095 2681 003776 2993 1101 004094
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 16:45 16:00 16:45
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 699 1509 0 0 2208 1575 576 0 0 2119
Pk Hr Factor 0.780 0.894 0.000 0.000 0.923 0.960 0.954 0.000 0.000 0.981
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
22,801
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:00
12:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
College Blvd Bet. Carlsbad Village Dr & Cannon Rd
Wednesday
5/8/2019
DAILY TOTALS Total
22,801
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA19_4201_010
NB SB EB WB
6,419 6,671 00
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 5 2 7 112 143 255
00:15 3 2 5 103 116 219
00:30 2 8 10 114 118 232
00:45 3 13 6 18 9 31 116 445 126 503 242 948
01:00 4 1 5 108 113 221
01:15 2 4 6 110 99 209
01:30 4 4 8 107 99 206
01:45 3 13 4 13 7 26 97 422 100 411 197 833
02:00 4 2 6 94 110 204
02:15 1 4 5 94 118 212
02:30 2 3 5 130 150 280
02:45 4 11 5 14 9 25 107 425 153 531 260 956
03:00 2 3 5 100 130 230
03:15 2 2 4 98 115 213
03:30 2 3 5 102 109 211
03:45 3 9 7 15 10 24 103 403 97 451 200 854
04:00 2 3 5 147 143 290
04:15 6 16 22 113 119 232
04:30 12 11 23 185 144 329
04:45 11 31 25 55 36 86 135 580 152 558 287 1138
05:00 26 23 49 167 204 371
05:15 25 19 44 145 185 330
05:30 35 40 75 122 157 279
05:45 51 137 80 162 131 299 105 539 115 661 220 1200
06:00 37 49 86 82 135 217
06:15 35 57 92 76 102 178
06:30 56 73 129 70 92 162
06:45 104 232 107 286 211 518 42 270 73 402 115 672
07:00 79 82 161 37 40 77
07:15 99 106 205 30 47 77
07:30 162 131 293 26 37 63
07:45 204 544 166 485 370 1029 33 126 38 162 71 288
08:00 236 141 377 39 45 84
08:15 165 137 302 41 36 77
08:30 165 134 299 30 28 58
08:45 163 729 117 529 280 1258 28 138 23 132 51 270
09:00 139 108 247 25 28 53
09:15 126 103 229 20 17 37
09:30 109 73 182 18 11 29
09:45 104 478 79 363 183 841 21 84 13 69 34 153
10:00 81 87 168 13 9 22
10:15 77 95 172 5 7 12
10:30 85 74 159 8 14 22
10:45 80 323 95 351 175 674 9 35 10 40 19 75
11:00 86 87 173 21 11 32
11:15 94 97 191 10 7 17
11:30 100 102 202 7 10 17
11:45 108 388 143 429 251 817 6 44 3 31 9 75
TOTALS 2908 2720 5628 3511 3951 7462
SPLIT %51.7% 48.3%43.0%47.1% 52.9%57.0%
NB SB EB WB
6,419 6,671 00
AM Peak Hour 07:45 07:45 07:45 16:30 16:45 16:30
AM Pk Volume 770 578 1348 632 698 1317
Pk Hr Factor 0.816 0.870 0.894 0.854 0.855 0.887
7 ‐ 9 Volume 1273 1014 002287 1119 1219 002338
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:45 07:45 07:45 16:30 16:45 16:30
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 770 578 0 0 1348 632 698 0 0 1317
Pk Hr Factor 0.816 0.870 0.000 0.000 0.894 0.854 0.855 0.000 0.000 0.887
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
5/8/2019
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
16:45
17:00
17:15
Wednesday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
College Blvd Bet. El Camino Real & Aston Ave
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
13,090
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
13,090
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA19_4201_010
NB SB EB WB
6,258 6,682 00
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 6 7 13 110 135 245
00:15 1 2 3 112 121 233
00:30 3 7 10 104 122 226
00:45 3 13 3 19 6 32 116 442 113 491 229 933
01:00 3 0 3 121 120 241
01:15 3 0 3 116 131 247
01:30 2 2 4 122 113 235
01:45 2 10 0 2 2 12 121 480 94 458 215 938
02:00 4 4 8 78 108 186
02:15 1 5 6 80 107 187
02:30 7 2 9 120 111 231
02:45 1 13 3 14 4 27 99 377 147 473 246 850
03:00 1 4 5 101 109 210
03:15 4 2 6 78 113 191
03:30 2 2 4 124 110 234
03:45 4 11 7 15 11 26 126 429 101 433 227 862
04:00 6 8 14 129 147 276
04:15 8 10 18 108 118 226
04:30 11 9 20 156 131 287
04:45 15 40 17 44 32 84 135 528 149 545 284 1073
05:00 24 17 41 191 199 390
05:15 25 31 56 116 186 302
05:30 38 38 76 117 170 287
05:45 39 126 71 157 110 283 89 513 139 694 228 1207
06:00 35 42 77 73 137 210
06:15 39 56 95 69 110 179
06:30 58 84 142 49 98 147
06:45 108 240 97 279 205 519 36 227 74 419 110 646
07:00 115 99 214 32 54 86
07:15 136 113 249 37 59 96
07:30 169 134 303 33 47 80
07:45 160 580 147 493 307 1073 42 144 37 197 79 341
08:00 169 142 311 29 36 65
08:15 151 134 285 39 43 82
08:30 138 127 265 22 23 45
08:45 162 620 162 565 324 1185 24 114 15 117 39 231
09:00 150 124 274 20 24 44
09:15 108 79 187 23 22 45
09:30 100 72 172 25 11 36
09:45 96 454 103 378 199 832 16 84 11 68 27 152
10:00 87 83 170 16 10 26
10:15 94 80 174 14 12 26
10:30 66 71 137 12 14 26
10:45 111 358 73 307 184 665 8 50 15 51 23 101
11:00 69 89 158 16 12 28
11:15 94 94 188 12 9 21
11:30 91 130 221 7 8 15
11:45 111 365 115 428 226 793 5 40 6 35 11 75
TOTALS 2830 2701 5531 3428 3981 7409
SPLIT %51.2% 48.8%42.7%46.3% 53.7%57.3%
NB SB EB WB
6,258 6,682 00
AM Peak Hour 07:30 08:00 07:30 16:30 16:45 16:30
AM Pk Volume 649 565 1206 598 704 1263
Pk Hr Factor 0.960 0.872 0.969 0.783 0.884 0.810
7 ‐ 9 Volume 1200 1058 002258 1041 1239 002280
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:30 08:00 07:30 16:30 16:45 16:30
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 649 565 0 0 1206 598 704 0 0 1263
Pk Hr Factor 0.960 0.872 0.000 0.000 0.969 0.783 0.884 0.000 0.000 0.810
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
12,940
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:00
12:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
College Blvd Bet. El Camino Real & Aston Ave
Thursday
5/9/2019
DAILY TOTALS Total
12,940
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA19_4201_022
NB SB EB WB
00 7,652 8,353
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 14 4 18 97 105 202
00:15 12 4 16 96 121 217
00:30 8 4 12 102 104 206
00:45 8 42 6 18 14 60 77 372 120 450 197 822
01:00 6 1 7 112 98 210
01:15 2 3 5 97 121 218
01:30 4 0 4 88 166 254
01:45 3 15 1 5 4 20 104 401 113 498 217 899
02:00 4 0 4 128 92 220
02:15 4 2 6 100 115 215
02:30 1 2 3 136 126 262
02:45 2 11 4 8 6 19 135 499 177 510 312 1009
03:00 2 3 5 211 113 324
03:15 2 3 5 152 125 277
03:30 2 3 5 222 88 310
03:45 4 10 13 22 17 32 189 774 113 439 302 1213
04:00 0 10 10 216 108 324
04:15 2 7 9 211 107 318
04:30 3 27 30 254 114 368
04:45 8 13 27 71 35 84 235 916 121 450 356 1366
05:00 6 35 41 321 130 451
05:15 6 37 43 266 101 367
05:30 7 56 63 323 95 418
05:45 15 34 84 212 99 246 238 1148 91 417 329 1565
06:00 14 106 120 231 100 331
06:15 22 198 220 184 92 276
06:30 39 273 312 141 71 212
06:45 38 113 329 906 367 1019 96 652 48 311 144 963
07:00 57 248 305 124 48 172
07:15 51 237 288 89 54 143
07:30 73 262 335 98 54 152
07:45 116 297 308 1055 424 1352 85 396 37 193 122 589
08:00 129 267 396 88 41 129
08:15 77 275 352 76 41 117
08:30 71 199 270 75 36 111
08:45 64 341 189 930 253 1271 69 308 47 165 116 473
09:00 80 158 238 61 74 135
09:15 57 144 201 67 49 116
09:30 71 119 190 41 32 73
09:45 68 276 135 556 203 832 61 230 17 172 78 402
10:00 68 133 201 38 16 54
10:15 57 114 171 32 16 48
10:30 63 100 163 31 9 40
10:45 73 261 119 466 192 727 28 129 16 57 44 186
11:00 82 110 192 26 13 39
11:15 63 109 172 19 7 26
11:30 92 101 193 13 6 19
11:45 107 344 91 411 198 755 12 70 5 31 17 101
TOTALS 1757 4660 6417 5895 3693 9588
SPLIT %27.4% 72.6%40.1%61.5% 38.5%59.9%
NB SB EB WB
00 7,652 8,353
AM Peak Hour 11:45 07:30 07:30 17:00 14:30 16:45
AM Pk Volume 402 1112 1507 1148 541 1592
Pk Hr Factor 0.939 0.903 0.889 0.889 0.764 0.882
7 ‐ 9 Volume 00638 1985 2623 002064 867 2931
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:30 07:30 17:00 16:15 16:45
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 0 0 395 1112 1507 0 0 1148 472 1592
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.766 0.903 0.889 0.000 0.000 0.889 0.908 0.882
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
5/8/2019
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
16:45
17:00
17:15
Wednesday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
Cannon Rd Bet. Faraday Ave & El Camino Real
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
16,005
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
16,005
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA19_4201_022
NB SB EB WB
00 7,375 8,099
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 10 5 15 98 92 190
00:15 11 4 15 98 89 187
00:30 4 7 11 94 104 198
00:45 6 31 5 21 11 52 83 373 112 397 195 770
01:00 5 2 7 115 107 222
01:15 6 1 7 101 116 217
01:30 2 0 2 99 145 244
01:45 4 17 0 3 4 20 111 426 119 487 230 913
02:00 3 1 4 116 102 218
02:15 2 5 7 134 91 225
02:30 4 2 6 131 138 269
02:45 1 10 3 11 4 21 124 505 130 461 254 966
03:00 2 3 5 168 111 279
03:15 2 5 7 167 113 280
03:30 1 4 5 177 88 265
03:45 3 8 12 24 15 32 183 695 105 417 288 1112
04:00 4 8 12 221 79 300
04:15 3 5 8 199 109 308
04:30 2 24 26 271 114 385
04:45 7 16 41 78 48 94 227 918 113 415 340 1333
05:00 4 30 34 290 108 398
05:15 8 43 51 304 123 427
05:30 11 73 84 266 76 342
05:45 9 32 77 223 86 255 217 1077 80 387 297 1464
06:00 14 136 150 204 79 283
06:15 27 163 190 142 75 217
06:30 30 277 307 149 59 208
06:45 52 123 311 887 363 1010 111 606 53 266 164 872
07:00 117 291 408 110 51 161
07:15 59 300 359 84 53 137
07:30 73 314 387 84 44 128
07:45 67 316 329 1234 396 1550 82 360 48 196 130 556
08:00 73 250 323 94 34 128
08:15 68 195 263 96 40 136
08:30 82 232 314 69 26 95
08:45 61 284 205 882 266 1166 52 311 29 129 81 440
09:00 61 147 208 61 27 88
09:15 50 151 201 74 29 103
09:30 63 141 204 52 26 78
09:45 54 228 129 568 183 796 44 231 21 103 65 334
10:00 70 116 186 37 14 51
10:15 75 97 172 29 16 45
10:30 78 121 199 24 11 35
10:45 72 295 85 419 157 714 31 121 6 47 37 168
11:00 73 85 158 20 17 37
11:15 69 118 187 13 11 24
11:30 91 107 198 23 6 29
11:45 85 318 93 403 178 721 18 74 7 41 25 115
TOTALS 1678 4753 6431 5697 3346 9043
SPLIT %26.1% 73.9%41.6%63.0% 37.0%58.4%
NB SB EB WB
00 7,375 8,099
AM Peak Hour 11:45 07:00 07:00 16:30 14:30 16:30
AM Pk Volume 375 1234 1550 1092 492 1550
Pk Hr Factor 0.957 0.938 0.950 0.898 0.891 0.907
7 ‐ 9 Volume 00600 2116 2716 001995 802 2797
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:00 07:00 16:30 16:30 16:30
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 0 0 316 1234 1550 0 0 1092 458 1550
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.675 0.938 0.950 0.000 0.000 0.898 0.931 0.907
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
15,474
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:00
12:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Cannon Rd Bet. Faraday Ave & El Camino Real
Thursday
5/9/2019
DAILY TOTALS Total
15,474
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA19_4201_023
NB SB EB WB
00 11,873 12,015
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 0 0 28 5 33 0 0 173 129 302
00:15 0 0 14 5 19 0 0 147 120 267
00:30 0 0 6 10 16 0 0 136 159 295
00:45 0 0 5 53 2 22 7 75 0 0 152 608 161 569 313 1177
01:00 0 0 10 4 14 0 0 122 160 282
01:15 0 0 6 1 70 0 148 267 415
01:30 0 0 10 1 11 0 0 146 201 347
01:45 0 0 6 32 3 9 9 41 0 0 159 575 150 778 309 1353
02:00 0 0 6 3 9 0 0 172 149 321
02:15 0 0 2 4 6 0 0 211 145 356
02:30 0 0 5 6 11 0 0 302 228 530
02:45 0 0 5 18 7 20 12 38 0 0 286 971 311 833 597 1804
03:00 0 0 2 4 6 0 0 248 205 453
03:15 0 0 6 5 11 0 0 241 245 486
03:30 0 0 4 11 15 0 0 285 185 470
03:45 0 0 4 16 20 40 24 56 0 0 306 1080 196 831 502 1911
04:00 0 0 7 26 33 0 0 356 136 492
04:15 0 0 4 36 40 0 0 399 128 527
04:30 0 0 5 49 54 0 0 389 166 555
04:45 0 0 7 23 78 189 85 212 0 0 395 1539 137 567 532 2106
05:00 0 0 11 56 67 0 0 426 141 567
05:15 0 0 11 91 102 0 0 432 154 586
05:30 0 0 12 141 153 0 0 444 116 560
05:45 0 0 21 55 219 507 240 562 0 0 371 1673 131 542 502 2215
06:00 0 0 37 172 209 0 0 306 105 411
06:15 0 0 34 248 282 0 0 227 102 329
06:30 0 0 51 327 378 0 0 200 92 292
06:45 0 0 154 276 403 1150 557 1426 0 0 192 925 93 392 285 1317
07:00 0 0 324 359 683 0 0 172 68 240
07:15 0 0 164 472 636 0 0 167 57 224
07:30 0 0 86 442 528 0 0 138 72 210
07:45 0 0 133 707 385 1658 518 2365 0 0 133 610 71 268 204 878
08:00 0 0 93 346 439 0 0 103 51 154
08:15 0 0 100 319 419 0 0 113 81 194
08:30 0 0 119 260 379 0 0 110 63 173
08:45 0 0 113 425 294 1219 407 1644 0 0 82 408 32 227 114 635
09:00 0 0 96 232 328 0 0 75 38 113
09:15 0 0 77 214 291 0 0 90 48 138
09:30 0 0 102 214 316 0 0 67 34 101
09:45 0 0 90 365 175 835 265 1200 0 0 64 296 40 160 104 456
10:00 0 0 97 128 225 0 0 63 28 91
10:15 0 0 88 135 223 0 0 47 14 61
10:30 0 0 112 136 248 0 0 40 17 57
10:45 0 0 98 395 135 534 233 929 0 0 45 195 14 73 59 268
11:00 0 0 115 129 244 0 0 47 23 70
11:15 0 0 112 129 241 0 0 33 14 47
11:30 0 0 117 148 265 0 0 33 10 43
11:45 0 0 144 488 132 538 276 1026 0 0 27 140 7 54 34 194
TOTALS 2853 6721 9574 9020 5294 14314
SPLIT %29.8% 70.2%40.1%63.0% 37.0%59.9%
NB SB EB WB
00 11,873 12,015
AM Peak Hour 06:45 06:45 06:45 16:45 14:30 16:45
AM Pk Volume 728 1676 2404 1697 989 2245
Pk Hr Factor 0.562 0.888 0.880 0.956 0.795 0.958
7 ‐ 9 Volume 001132 2877 4009 003212 1109 4321
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:00 07:00 16:45 16:30 16:45
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 0 0 707 1658 2365 0 0 1697 598 2245
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.546 0.878 0.866 0.000 0.000 0.956 0.901 0.958
VOLUME
Prepared by NDS/ATD
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
5/7/2019
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
16:45
17:00
17:15
Tuesday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
Cannon Rd Bet. El Camino Real & College Blvd
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
23,888
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
23,888
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA19_4201_023
NB SB EB WB
00 12,449 12,228
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 0 0 24 7 31 0 0 182 159 341
00:15 0 0 9 7 16 0 0 134 163 297
00:30 0 0 9 4 13 0 0 143 155 298
00:45 0 0 8 50 2 20 10 70 0 0 124 583 141 618 265 1201
01:00 0 0 7 7 14 0 0 162 162 324
01:15 0 0 6 4 10 0 0 163 158 321
01:30 0 0 9 2 11 0 0 157 264 421
01:45 0 0 5 27 0 13 5 40 0 0 184 666 185 769 369 1435
02:00 0 0 4 2 6 0 0 218 147 365
02:15 0 0 5 5 10 0 0 204 156 360
02:30 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 299 241 540
02:45 0 0 1 10 11 20 12 30 0 0 342 1063 254 798 596 1861
03:00 0 0 5 5 10 0 0 259 182 441
03:15 0 0 3 5 8 0 0 308 179 487
03:30 0 0 6 9 15 0 0 316 151 467
03:45 0 0 4 18 22 41 26 59 0 0 336 1219 183 695 519 1914
04:00 0 0 4 19 23 0 0 360 153 513
04:15 0 0 4 36 40 0 0 400 164 564
04:30 0 0 10 53 63 0 0 405 157 562
04:45 0 0 8 26 77 185 85 211 0 0 396 1561 182 656 578 2217
05:00 0 0 12 66 78 0 0 424 138 562
05:15 0 0 8 75 83 0 0 465 143 608
05:30 0 0 15 155 170 0 0 427 136 563
05:45 0 0 15 50 235 531 250 581 0 0 368 1684 138 555 506 2239
06:00 0 0 28 161 189 0 0 323 149 472
06:15 0 0 41 244 285 0 0 303 120 423
06:30 0 0 60 322 382 0 0 237 116 353
06:45 0 0 77 206 374 1101 451 1307 0 0 186 1049 80 465 266 1514
07:00 0 0 95 370 465 0 0 185 71 256
07:15 0 0 74 346 420 0 0 149 67 216
07:30 0 0 95 356 451 0 0 132 73 205
07:45 0 0 196 460 386 1458 582 1918 0 0 115 581 64 275 179 856
08:00 0 0 342 351 693 0 0 116 63 179
08:15 0 0 178 411 589 0 0 106 78 184
08:30 0 0 97 330 427 0 0 122 82 204
08:45 0 0 97 714 295 1387 392 2101 0 0 94 438 70 293 164 731
09:00 0 0 119 223 342 0 0 102 117 219
09:15 0 0 122 215 337 0 0 88 63 151
09:30 0 0 106 186 292 0 0 50 44 94
09:45 0 0 83 430 201 825 284 1255 0 0 73 313 36 260 109 573
10:00 0 0 98 174 272 0 0 62 17 79
10:15 0 0 107 144 251 0 0 44 17 61
10:30 0 0 89 135 224 0 0 59 25 84
10:45 0 0 122 416 146 599 268 1015 0 0 40 205 26 85 66 290
11:00 0 0 124 141 265 0 0 51 16 67
11:15 0 0 133 120 253 0 0 25 11 36
11:30 0 0 132 125 257 0 0 31 7 38
11:45 0 0 156 545 150 536 306 1081 0 0 28 135 9 43 37 178
TOTALS 2952 6716 9668 9497 5512 15009
SPLIT %30.5% 69.5%39.2%63.3% 36.7%60.8%
NB SB EB WB
00 12,449 12,228
AM Peak Hour 07:45 07:30 07:30 16:45 14:30 16:45
AM Pk Volume 813 1504 2315 1712 856 2311
Pk Hr Factor 0.594 0.915 0.835 0.920 0.843 0.950
7 ‐ 9 Volume 001174 2845 4019 003245 1211 4456
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:45 07:30 07:30 16:45 16:00 16:45
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 0 0 813 1504 2315 0 0 1712 656 2311
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.594 0.915 0.835 0.000 0.000 0.920 0.901 0.950
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
DAILY TOTALS Total
24,677
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
TOTALS
SPLIT %
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:00
12:15
Prepared by NDS/ATD
VOLUME
Cannon Rd Bet. El Camino Real & College Blvd
Wednesday
5/8/2019
DAILY TOTALS Total
24,677
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA19_4377_001
NB SB EB WB
00 21,133 19,996
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 6 16 22 237 332 569
00:15 17 9 26 275 287 562
00:30 7 12 19 267 292 559
00:45 11 41 12 49 23 90 311 1090 245 1156 556 2246
01:00 6 16 22 266 304 570
01:15 7 9 16 303 263 566
01:30 7 9 16 303 310 613
01:45 5 25 8 42 13 67 293 1165 368 1245 661 2410
02:00 4 9 13 264 325 589
02:15 7 7 14 264 358 622
02:30 10 12 22 304 470 774
02:45 9 30 5 33 14 63 457 1289 418 1571 875 2860
03:00 11 3 14 312 476 788
03:15 11 7 18 263 455 718
03:30 28 6 34 314 556 870
03:45 38 88 4 20 42 108 309 1198 582 2069 891 3267
04:00 21 7 28 254 636 890
04:15 44 8 52 277 512 789
04:30 84 17 101 256 478 734
04:45 140 289 23 55 163 344 276 1063 599 2225 875 3288
05:00 91 17 108 258 647 905
05:15 149 21 170 240 690 930
05:30 258 29 287 226 624 850
05:45 320 818 34 101 354 919 222 946 621 2582 843 3528
06:00 239 48 287 210 611 821
06:15 289 73 362 212 439 651
06:30 421 100 521 186 394 580
06:45 551 1500 230 451 781 1951 197 805 305 1749 502 2554
07:00 637 389 1026 145 230 375
07:15 811 178 989 138 219 357
07:30 886 176 1062 106 175 281
07:45 818 3152 201 944 1019 4096 96 485 170 794 266 1279
08:00 757 160 917 102 125 227
08:15 781 172 953 105 137 242
08:30 635 194 829 68 138 206
08:45 631 2804 190 716 821 3520 78 353 143 543 221 896
09:00 469 206 675 108 154 262
09:15 364 182 546 81 125 206
09:30 325 240 565 72 96 168
09:45 333 1491 237 865 570 2356 62 323 58 433 120 756
10:00 294 190 484 37 79 116
10:15 257 213 470 36 51 87
10:30 239 195 434 23 70 93
10:45 227 1017 211 809 438 1826 30 126 35 235 65 361
11:00 222 222 444 11 65 76
11:15 209 287 496 9 54 63
11:30 268 267 535 15 42 57
11:45 284 983 343 1119 627 2102 17 52 29 190 46 242
TOTALS 12238 5204 17442 8895 14792 23687
SPLIT %70.2% 29.8%42.4%37.6% 62.4%57.6%
NB SB EB WB
00 21,133 19,996
AM Peak Hour 07:15 11:45 07:00 14:45 17:00 16:45
AM Pk Volume 3272 1254 4096 1346 2582 3560
Pk Hr Factor 0.923 0.914 0.964 0.736 0.936 0.957
7 ‐ 9 Volume 005956 1660 7616 002009 4807 6816
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:15 07:00 07:00 16:15 17:00 16:45
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 0 0 3272 944 4096 0 0 1067 2582 3560
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.923 0.607 0.964 0.000 0.000 0.963 0.936 0.957
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
41,129
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
El Camino Real Bet. Cannon Rd & Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
41,129
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
16:45
17:00
17:15
Tuesday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
10/1/2019
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
VOLUME
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA19_4377_001
NB SB EB WB
00 20,335 19,917
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 12 31 43 233 294 527
00:15 4 18 22 291 291 582
00:30 8 18 26 256 261 517
00:45 9 33 11 78 20 111 318 1098 256 1102 574 2200
01:00 8 13 21 301 282 583
01:15 4 15 19 257 303 560
01:30 5 16 21 340 263 603
01:45 4 21 5 49 9 70 277 1175 325 1173 602 2348
02:00 8 3 11 117 367 484
02:15 8 9 17 244 397 641
02:30 12 6 18 300 424 724
02:45 7 35 4 22 11 57 365 1026 354 1542 719 2568
03:00 9 9 18 305 431 736
03:15 20 3 23 257 402 659
03:30 26 5 31 283 491 774
03:45 47 102 7 24 54 126 301 1146 519 1843 820 2989
04:00 22 9 31 267 608 875
04:15 42 10 52 247 642 889
04:30 88 13 101 234 630 864
04:45 124 276 23 55 147 331 312 1060 648 2528 960 3588
05:00 93 14 107 239 682 921
05:15 160 24 184 260 685 945
05:30 234 28 262 251 583 834
05:45 362 849 40 106 402 955 210 960 518 2468 728 3428
06:00 206 60 266 173 480 653
06:15 287 71 358 197 440 637
06:30 395 109 504 188 395 583
06:45 597 1485 210 450 807 1935 170 728 333 1648 503 2376
07:00 616 386 1002 134 268 402
07:15 725 175 900 133 227 360
07:30 836 178 1014 100 216 316
07:45 863 3040 159 898 1022 3938 88 455 162 873 250 1328
08:00 723 186 909 88 154 242
08:15 631 208 839 105 149 254
08:30 627 174 801 84 159 243
08:45 621 2602 219 787 840 3389 100 377 138 600 238 977
09:00 445 211 656 72 163 235
09:15 368 168 536 74 138 212
09:30 339 195 534 56 94 150
09:45 337 1489 193 767 530 2256 51 253 87 482 138 735
10:00 250 198 448 38 91 129
10:15 269 222 491 29 64 93
10:30 222 211 433 19 77 96
10:45 280 1021 228 859 508 1880 23 109 44 276 67 385
11:00 211 248 459 26 74 100
11:15 215 255 470 15 41 56
11:30 236 285 521 16 41 57
11:45 264 926 311 1099 575 2025 12 69 32 188 44 257
TOTALS 11879 5194 17073 8456 14723 23179
SPLIT %69.6% 30.4%42.4%36.5% 63.5%57.6%
NB SB EB WB
00 20,335 19,917
AM Peak Hour 07:15 11:30 07:00 14:30 16:30 16:30
AM Pk Volume 3147 1181 3938 1227 2645 3690
Pk Hr Factor 0.912 0.949 0.963 0.840 0.965 0.961
7 ‐ 9 Volume 005642 1685 7327 002020 4996 7016
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:15 07:00 07:00 16:45 16:30 16:30
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 0 0 3147 898 3938 0 0 1062 2645 3690
Pk Hr Factor 0.000 0.000 0.912 0.582 0.963 0.000 0.000 0.851 0.965 0.961
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
VOLUME
El Camino Real Bet. Cannon Rd & Jackspar Dr/Rancho Carlsbad Dr
Wednesday
10/2/2019
DAILY TOTALS Total
40,252
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
SPLIT %
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
DAILY TOTALS Total
40,252
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
TOTALS
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA19_4377_002
NB SB EB WB
1,437 1,001 00
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 1 0 1 17 9 26
00:15 0 0 024 12 36
00:30 0 0 012 18 30
00:45 0 1 0 0 1 15 68 19 58 34 126
01:00 5 0 521 11 32
01:15 0 0 018 13 31
01:30 0 0 022 16 38
01:45 1 6 0 1 6 23 84 24 64 47 148
02:00 0 0 0 29 14 43
02:15 0 0 0 18 17 35
02:30 1 0 1 23 15 38
02:45 0 1 0 0 1 23 93 17 63 40 156
03:00 1 0 1 38 17 55
03:15 1 0 1 28 11 39
03:30 0 0 0 29 9 38
03:45 0222 24 291241047 39171
04:00 0 2 2 56 9 65
04:15 0 1 1 36 11 47
04:30 0 2 2 60 10 70
04:45 1127 38 952471141 106288
05:00 0 3 3 121 9 130
05:15 1 5 6 111 18 129
05:30 3 7 10 96 13 109
05:45 0 4 14 29 14 33 69 397 12 52 81 449
06:00 4 17 21 42 7 49
06:15 2 14 16 24 11 35
06:30 5 20 25 31 7 38
06:45 6 171869 2486 151128 33 23145
07:00 12 18 30 13 4 17
07:15 5 44 49 15 7 22
07:30 7 55 62 3 3 6
07:45 12 36 57 174 69 210 6 37 3 17 9 54
08:00 7 42 49 3 1 4
08:15 10 38 48 5 4 9
08:30 7 23 30 4 4 8
08:45 11 35 36 139 47 174 2 14 2 11 4 25
09:00 9 27 36 4 1 5
09:15 6 22 28 1 2 3
09:30 13 13 26 4 1 5
09:45 10 38 18 80 28 118 2 11 2 6 4 17
10:00 10 13 23 2 2 4
10:15 5 15 20 0 3 3
10:30 6 11 17 1 0 1
10:45 627847 1474 3605 311
11:00 11 10 21 6 1 7
11:15 14 15 29 1 1 2
11:30 18 16 34 1 1 2
11:45 24671253 36120 1914 213
TOTALS 235 600 835 1202 401 1603
SPLIT %28.1% 71.9%34.2%75.0% 25.0%65.8%
NB SB EB WB
1,437 1,001 00
AM Peak Hour 11:30 07:15 07:15 16:45 13:30 16:45
AM Pk Volume 83 198 229 423 71 474
Pk Hr Factor 0.865 0.868 0.830 0.874 0.740 0.912
7 ‐ 9 Volume 71 313 00384 644 93 00737
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:00 07:15 07:15 16:45 17:00 16:45
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 36 198 0 0 229 423 52 0 0 474
Pk Hr Factor 0.750 0.868 0.000 0.000 0.830 0.874 0.722 0.000 0.000 0.912
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
20:45
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
2,438
DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
Jackspar Dr Bet. Camino Hills Dr & Longfellow Rd
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
2,438
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
16:45
17:00
17:15
Tuesday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
10/1/2019
14:45
15:00
DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
VOLUME
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
Day:City:Carlsbad
Date:Project #:CA19_4377_002
NB SB EB WB
1,282 989 0 0
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 2 0 2 36 12 48
00:15 1 0 113 21 34
00:30 0 0 018 12 30
00:45 0 3 0 0 3 17 84 27 72 44 156
01:00 5 0 519 27 46
01:15 0 0 017 15 32
01:30 0 0 017 15 32
01:45 0 5 0 0 5 24 77 17 74 41 151
02:00 0 0 0 18 12 30
02:15 1 0 1 15 20 35
02:30 1 0 1 23 10 33
02:45 1 3 0 1 3 22 78 16 58 38 136
03:00 0 0 0 41 13 54
03:15 0 0 0 20 10 30
03:30 0 0 0 33 11 44
03:45 0 2 2 2 2 20 114 14 48 34 162
04:00 0 2 2 59 10 69
04:15 0 3 3 47 8 55
04:30 0 0 0 57 4 61
04:45 0 2 7 2 7 62 225 10 32 72 257
05:00 0 3 3 94 11 105
05:15 1 3 4 83 12 95
05:30 2 9 11 75 8 83
05:45 1 4 12 27 13 31 35 287 9 40 44 327
06:00 5 18 23 39 13 52
06:15 1 19 20 20 10 30
06:30 1 12 13 17 9 26
06:45 1 8 22 71 23 79 26 102 2 34 28 136
07:00 9 17 26 21 5 26
07:15 7 48 55 15 5 20
07:30 7 44 51 6 0 6
07:45 7 30 59 168 66 198 3 45 0 10 3 55
08:00 11 34 45 4 4 8
08:15 7 37 44 3 5 8
08:30 8 37 45 4 4 8
08:45 6 32 32 140 38 172 3 14 5 18 8 32
09:00 7 22 29 4 6 10
09:15 9 21 30 2 4 6
09:30 9 13 22 4 1 5
09:45 8331874 26107 616213 829
10:00 20 10 30 0 2 2
10:15 12 9 21 4 2 6
10:30 8 9 17 1 1 2
10:45 12521745 2997 0505 010
11:00 11 9 20 7 0 7
11:15 7 9 16 0 1 1
11:30 21 20 41 0 0 0
11:45 19581250 31108 0701 08
TOTALS 228 584 812 1054 405 1459
SPLIT %28.1% 71.9%35.8%72.2% 27.8%64.2%
NB SB EB WB
1,282 989 0 0
AM Peak Hour 11:30 07:15 07:15 16:45 12:15 16:45
AM Pk Volume 89 185 217 314 87 355
Pk Hr Factor 0.618 0.784 0.822 0.835 0.806 0.845
7 ‐ 9 Volume 62 308 00370 512 72 00584
7 ‐ 9 Peak Hour 07:45 07:15 07:15 16:45 16:45 16:45
7 ‐ 9 Pk Volume 33 185 0 0 217 314 41 0 0 355
Pk Hr Factor 0.750 0.784 0.000 0.000 0.822 0.835 0.854 0.000 0.000 0.845
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
VOLUME
Jackspar Dr Bet. Camino Hills Dr & Longfellow Rd
Wednesday
10/2/2019
DAILY TOTALS Total
2,271
TOTAL PM Period TOTAL
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
SPLIT %
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
DAILY TOTALS Total
2,271
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
TOTALS
Pk Hr Factor
4 ‐ 6 Volume
4 ‐ 6 Peak Hour
4 ‐ 6 Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
DAILY TOTALS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. CS-286
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.40,
SECTIONS 3.40.090, 3.40.110, 3.40.140, AND 3.40.161 OF THE
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO PROCEDURES FOR
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REIMBURSEMENT FEE FOR
FUNDING THE REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS OF THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS
EXHIBIT 9
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad City Council concurs that it 1s necessary to amend Chapter
3.40, Sections 3.40.090, 3.40.110, 3.40.140, and 3.40.161 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
related to the procedures for the establishment of a reimbursement fee for funding the
reimbursement of certain costs of the construction of eligible improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: That Chapter 3.40 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read as
follows:
Chapter 3.40 CARLSBAD REIMBURSEMENT FEE
3.40.010 Short Title
3.40.020 Purpose
3.40.030 Definitions
3,40.040 Request for Establishment of a Reimbursement Fee
3.40.050 Deposits
3.40.060 Improvements Eligible for Reimbursement
3.40.070 Eligible Costs
3.40.080 Construction of Eligible Improvements
3.40.090 Reimbursement Fee Study
3.40.100 Notice of Public Hearing
3.40.110 Public Hearing and Establishment of Reimbursement Fee
3.40.120 Adjustment of the Reimbursement Fee to Reflect Actual Costs
3.40.130 Adjustment of Reimbursement Fee for Specific Projects
3.40.140 Imposition of a Reimbursement Fee
3.40.150 Payment of the Reimbursement Fee
3.40.160 Establishment of Funds and Use of Reimbursement Fees
3.40.161 Use of Chapter 3.40 in Combination with Use of Bond Financing Prohibited
')
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION 2: That Section 3.40.090 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
3.40.090 Reimbursement Fee Study. The City Engineer will, following receipt of the
documents required to be provided to the City Engineer pursuant to Section 3.40.040 •
hereto, in the exercise of his or her independent professional judgment, prepare or cause
to be prepared a Reimbursement Fee Study for th.e requested Reimbursement Fee that will
include the following:
A.A legal description or list of the Assessor's Parcel Numbers of each parcel
within the applicable LFMZ, including the properties owned or being developed by the
Requesting Party, upon which the City Engineer determines that a portion of the eligible
costs of Eligible Improvements and Eligible Incidental Costs should be fairly allocated, the
name of the owner thereof, street address thereof each such parcel, if any, and the acreage
thereof;
B.A detailed plat showing the precise locations of all of the Eligible
Improvements for which the Requesting Party has requested reimbursement shown
in relation to the parcels identified pursuant to paragraph A above;
C.A list of each of the Eligible Improvements and the estimated cost of the
construction of the Eligible Improvements and each of the estimated Eligible Incidental Costs,
as determined by the City Engineer to be reasonable and customary for such Eligible
Improvements and Eligible Incidental Costs;
D.A determination whether any portion of the cost of the construction of any
Eligible Improvements and related Eligible Incidental Costs may be subject to reimbursement
from any existing City impact fee program. If and to the extent that any portion of such costs
is subject to reimbursement from such impact fee program, such amount shall be deducted
from estimated cost of the construction of such Eligible Improvements and the related Eligible
Incidental Costs.
E.A report identifying the burden which the development of each parcel,
including the parcels owned or being developed by the Requesting Party, identified
pursuant to paragraph A above in accordance with its zoning and general plan designation
and other existing land use entitlements, if any, will impose upon the Eligible
Improvements and the extent to which the development of each such parcel will contribute
to the need for or burden upon such Eligible lrnprovements;
F.An explanation of how there is a reasonable relationship between the
Reimbursement Fee's use and the types of Projects on which the Reimbursement Fee may
be imposed;
G.A detailed description of the method of Reimbursement Fee allocation;
H. A reimbursement schedule to include a list of all LFMZ Properties
determined by the City Engineer to be subject to the proposed Reimbursement Fee with
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
current Assessor's parcel number, owner's name, property's street address, and the
acreage of such parcels and the proposed Reimbursement Fee applicable to each such
LFMZ Property.
Upon completion of a Reimbursement Fee Study the City Engineer shall mail a copy
of such study to the Requesting Party and the owner of each property determined by the
City Engineer to be subject to the proposed Reimbursement Fee as set forth in such
Reimbursement Fee Study, together with the notice of the date, time and place of a
property owner informational meeting at which the City Engineer or his or her designee
shall be available to answer questions regarding the Reimbursement Fee Study. Such
notice shall be given at no less than ten days before the date of such meeting. Such meeting
shall be scheduled to occur not less than 20 days prior to the public hearing required to be
held pursuant to Section 3.40.110 hereto.
SECTION 3: That Section 3.40.110 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
3.40.110 Public Hearing and Establishment of Reimbursement Fee. The City Council shall
hold a public hearing to determine the types of Projects that shall be subject to the
Reimbursement Fee and the Reimbursement Fee that shall be imposed on each Project.
This Re_imbursement Fee shall only be established if the City Council can make the following
findings:
A.The purpose and use of the Reimbursement Fee.
B.Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the
Reimbursement Fee and the type of Project on which the Reimbursement Fee is imposed.
C.Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
Eligible Improvement and the type of Project on which the Reimbursement Fee is imposed.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council shall adopt a resolution
approving, conditionally approving or denying the establishment of the Reimbursement
Fee. If the City Council approves the establishment of the Reimbursement Fee, the
resolution shall attach as an exhibit thereto a copy of the reimbursement plan as adopted
by the City Council and shall set forth the method of Reimbursement Fee allocation as
approved by the City Council.
If the establishment of a Reimbursement Fee is approved, such resolution shall
establish the term that such Reimbursement Fee shall be in effect and may be collected
from LFMZ Properties subject to such fee. The term of a Reimbursement Fee shall be
consistent with the term, if any, for a reimbursement agreement specified in the LFMP
related to the LFMZ subject to the Reimbursement Fee, the terms for reimbursement
agreements or fees specified or contemplated in legislation or policies pertaining to such
reimbursement agreements or fees, including but not limited to the ordinances and policies
L(
'
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of the City, or the terms for reimbursement agreements previously established by the City,
in such order of priority; provided, however, except as provided in Section 3.40.140, no
Reimbursement Fee shall have a term longer than 20 years from the first day of the
calendar year following the date of adoption of the resolution of the City Council
establishing such Reimbursement Fee.
If the Reimbursement Fee is to be subject to escalation, the resolution shall state
the rate of escalation applicable to the Reimbursement Fee.
SECTION 4: That Section 3.40.140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
3.40.140 Imposition of a Reimbursement Fee. Notwithstanding any provisions of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, no permit shall be issued for any Project subject to a
Reimbursement Fee established pursuant to this Chapter except upon the condition that
the Reimbursement Fee applicable to such Project shall be paid in accordance with the
provisions of this Chapter. The obligation for the payment of a Reimbursement Fee for any
Project shall attach at the time the initial grading permit for such Project is issued. Such
obligation shall continue to apply to such Project for a period not to exceed ten (10) years
beyond the term of such Reimbursement Fee established pursuant to Section 3.40.110.
SECTION 5: That Section 3.40.161 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended to read
as follows:
3.40.161 Use of Chapter 3.40 in Combination with Use of Bond Financing Prohibited.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Chapter, this Chapter may not be used to
impose a Reimbursement Fee on certain LFMZ Properties to provide for the reimbursement of
the costs of construction of Eligible Improvements allocable to such LFMZ. Properties in
combination with the levy of special taxes pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act
of 1982, as amended, or special assessments pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of
1913 against other LFMZ Properties to secure the payment of special tax bonds or limited
obligation improvement bonds, as applicable, issued to fund the costs of construction of such
Eligible Improvements allocable to such other LFMZ Properties.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty days after its
adoption; and the city clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause the full text
of the ordinance or a summary of the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to be published
at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days
after its adoption.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council on the 22nd day of September, 2015, and thereafter,
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 6th day of October, 2015, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
Hall, Blackburn, Schumacher, Wood, Packard.
None.
10
11
ABSENT: None.
12 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
13
14 lZ��£u�
15 CELIA A. BRR,CityAttorney
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MAn1iALL, Mayor
ATTEST:
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE NO. CS-286
Section 36933 (c) of the Government Code provides that a summary of an
Ordinance may be published in lieu of the fu II text, providing the summary is published
and a certified copy of the full text is posted in the Office of the City Clerk at least five
days prior to the Council Meeting at which the Ordinance is adopted.
Section 36933 (c) also requires that, within 15 days of the adoption of the
Ordinance, a summary be published, showing the vote for and against the Ordinance,
and a certified copy of the Ordinance be posted in the Office of the City Clerk.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 36933 (c) of the Government Code, I do
hereby certify as follows:
(Seal)
1.) That the adoption of Ordinance No. CS-286 is to be considered at the
City Council Meeting to be held on the 6th day of October, 2015.
2.) That a certified copy of the full text of Ordinance No. CS-286 was posted in
the City Clerk's Office on the 23th day of September, 2015.
3.) That a summary of the Ordinance was published in the Union
Tribune, on the 26th day of September, 2015.
Dated: Septem
Certification of Posting and Publication of Ordinance No. CS-286
Page 2
4.) That Ordinance No. CS-286 was adopted on the 6th day of October,
2015
5.) That a certified copy of the full text of Ordinance No. CS-286, showing the
names of those who voted in favor and against the Ordinance was posted
in the City Clerk's Office on the 8th day of October, 2015.
6.) That a summary of the Ordinance, showing the names of those who
voted in favor of and against the Ordinance was published in the
Union Tribune, on the 13th day of October, 2015.
Dated: October 8, 2015
{Seal)
City of Carlsbad
Growth Management Program
Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan
September 16, 1986
Amended January 9, 1990
Amended April 22, 1997
Amended September 22, 2015
Amended August 22, 2017
EXHIBIT 10
SECTION VII. FINANCING OPTIONS AND POLICIES
When the Work Plan for the Growth Management Ordinance was adopted by the City Council on July 1, 1986, a detail�d financing plan and analysis was not requested for the facilities a�d improvements which were to be addressed in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan. It was understood that detailed financing plans would be required as part of the preparation of the Local Facility Management Plans. However, this section does address available cost estimates and funding sources for those citywide facilities under the City's control. The table titled �Future Public Faciliti�s List� at the end of this section shows these facilities. Those citywide facilities to be installed or financed through the operations of the various special distr�cts are referenced in the district's appropriate master plans.
The capital facilities n�cessary to support the City of Carlsbad generally fall into two categories --those provided by developers as a condition of development approvals, and those provided by the City through a system of fees, taxes, or other financing sources. The Growth Management Ordinance further defines this division by listing the projects that qualify for funding from one of the usual City sources.
It is the City's responsibility to pl�n for the construction and maintenance of City projects and to finance these projects in the best possible way. The following describes some of the financing options available to the City.
A.Cash/Pay-as-you-io financing. The City has used thismethod of financing to pay for most capitalimprovements constructed to date.
In concept, the City charges the development communitya series of fees which provide the source of income topay for capital projects. When enough cash has beenassembled, the City constructs the next capital projectin order of priority. This method forces the City todelay construction of various projects until funds havebeen collected. These fees include:
1.Public Facilities Fee2.Park-In-Lieu P.ees3.Planned Local Drainage Fees4.Traffic Impact Feess.Bridge and Thoroughfare Benefit District Fee6.Sewer Fees7.Water Fees
Special Districts collect their own various fees.
-67-
B. Reimbursement A�reements. In certain instances, adeveloper may ask the City to move a project forward intime and to construct a facility befo�e funds have beencollected, When this occurs, the City could adopt thepolicy of having the interested developer constructthe project based on a reimbursement agreement. TheCity would pay the developer back for the portion ofthe project that was to be funded by City resourcesover a period of time. Payments would commence at thetime the City had originally scheduled construction.Moving the project forward in time is for the benefitof the developer. Therefore, the City's repayment wouldbe limited to the cost of the public portion of theproject and no interest would accrue to the developer.The use of this method of project financing does noteliminate the developer's obligation to pay City fees,The developer must still pay all City fees associatedwith a development,
c.Credit for Cit? Fees. When it is in the publicinterest to construct certain public facilities earlierthan would be possible under a pay-as-you-go program,the City can consider giving a developer credit forfees that would otherwise be paid, up to the cost of thepublic improvement� These credits would reduce theamount of fees payable in future years from a certaindevelopment.
Fee credits must be used carefully to avoid eliminationof income from capital fees necessary to finance otherprojects. Two alternatives exist for fee credits:
Full fee credit immediately: Under this option, the developer who builds a public improvement would be eligible to deduct 100% of the cost of the improvement from fees payable. Once the fee cr edit is exhausted, the developer begins paying fees as normally assessed by the City. Under this op tion the developer gets immediate credit for the total cost of a project.
Partial fee credit -credit over time: In this option, the developer who builds a public improvement receives a credit for the cost of a public improvement. However, the use of that credit is spread over a series ofyears. This allows the City to continue toreceive at least a portion of fees
-68-
designated for capital projects while giving the developer credit for the construction of public improvements that would have ot herwise been paid for by the City. No interest would accrue to the developer as a part of this arrangement.
D.Debt Pinancini. A range of debt financing alternativesare available to the City. If it is in the publicinterest to push a project ahead and to construct an improvement before funds are on hand, debt financingmay be the answer. If the project is being pushedforward for the convenience or benefit of a developer,that developer should bear the co st of issuance and interest over the life of the debt issue. The actualmechanics of a debt issue and how to determine thedeveloper's responsibility to support costs is yet tobe defined.
Some of the debt financing vehicles available are shown below:
Assessment Districts:
Under Council Policy No. 33, the City may assist a developer in the construction of various public improvements that may be financed through the use of assessment districts if there is significant public benefits from the improvement. In cases where a City contribution would be necessary to a district, the City may ask a developer to pay the City contribution. The developer could then be reimbursed at a later date (i.e., in the year that the capital project had been originally scheduled for construction) or through a system of credits as described earlier.
Special Benefit Districts:
State law allows the formation of a variety of special benefit districts. These districts may be used to fund the c�nstruction of parks, libraries, police or fire facilities, and street lighting systems to name a few. These districts may be formed by a vote of the property owners who then assess themselves for the cost of improvements.
The developer and/or land owner bears the burden of debt service payments. City participation in a district of this type is possible to the extent of public improvements that would have otherwise been the responsibility of the City. However, the movement of capital improvements forward-in-time would require some concession from the developer in offsetting interest,
-69-
debt issue, or other additional costs,
Revenue Bonds:
The City may elect to issue revenue bonds to finance improvements related to utility functions or other City services that generate a fee for service, although other City functions could support the use of revenue bonds. If public improvements are being installed ahead of schedule to accommodate a developer, the City would expect the developer to offset many of the costs of such an issue as described above,
Tax Increment Bonds:
Public improvements in the City's redevelopment area can be financed through the use of tax increment bonds, The Redevelopment Agency has developed a plan for the construction of public improvements using this method of financing. A developer asking for public improvements to be constructed ahead of schedule must consider the agency's ability and willingness to defer other projects.
Certificates of Participation:
Certain public facilities such as buildings can be financed through Certificates of Participation. This is in effect a lease agreement between the City and another agency. A developer wishing to push 'projects forward might consider constructing facilities such as a library or fire station using this financing tool, The developer may be asked to bear certain costs or to accept credit in lieu of payment for certain improvements.
General Obligation Bonds:
The City has the ability to issue General Obligation Bonds to fund the construction of public improvements, This can only be done with the approval of 2/3 of the voters in an election. It is unlikely that the City will have the ability to use this method of funding public projects which benefit specific developments.
-70-
In the course of developing the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the following financing policies were identified:
1.Recognize that those projects identified in the PublicFacilities Pee Calculation are the ultimateresponsibility of the City to fund, however, thepriority for funding projects is at the discretion of the City Council.
2.Recognize that the Capital Improvements Program willplay a significant role in helping to establishcompliance with the adopted preformance standards.Priority for the funding of projects should go to infillareas or areas of the city where existing deficienciesexist.
3.Agree to consider assisting developers with creditsagainst future fees, reimbursement agreements, formingassessment districts, etc. only when it is clearly inthe public interest to do so or to rectify publicfacility deficiencies and not to induce growth byprematurely upgrading public facilities.
4.Recognize that all credit or reimbursement arrangementswill be made based on the City's plans for timing ofcertain public facilities. For example, if a developerwanted to put in an improvement that the City had not planned for 5 years and was not necessary to rectify anexisting deficiency, the City would not considerbeginning to provide credits or reimbursement until the5th year, if at all.
5.Recognize that public facility improvements made upfront or ahead of City plans by developers must providethe funds necessary to cover annual op erating costs forthe facility until the time the City had previouslyplanned to provide the facility.
6.With the recent reduction in residential densities andoverall restriction on residential development,recognize that it may be necessary to sta rt chargingfee� to commercial and industrial land uses in caseswhere they are not presently assessed. For example,commercial and industrial developments do not pay schoolor park fees although they will increasingly impactthese f4cilities. With the reduction in residentialland uses and density, it may be necessary to chargecommercial and industrial to make up the deficit.
7.At a future date, consider directing staff to conduct afinancial analysis of the Public Facilities Fee to determineits adequacy in terms of cash flow and method of calculationin light of the overall Growth Management Program.
-71-
PROJECT
GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
*City Hall*FIRE STATION #3*FIRE STATION #5*FIRE STATION #6*LIBRARY*Public Safety ctr
PARKS
Alga Norte*Calavera HillsCannon Lake*Leo Carrillo*Macario CanyonNE QuadrantNon-Determined Sites*Senior Citizen Center
C I T Y 0 F C A R L S B A D
FUTURE PUBLIC FACILITIES LIST
DESCRIPTION
Relocation -Calavera Hills Public Safety Center Rancho Santa Fe Additional 84,600 sq. ft.
Special Use Areas Additional 10.7 acres *SW Quadrant
DRAINAGE PROJECTS **-----------------DISTRICT 1 Drainage Fee/Gross Acre = $0 DISTRICT 2 II $ 0 DISTRICT 3 II $ 3,808 DISTRICT 4 II $ 1,686 DISTRICT 5 $ 2,658 DISTRICT 6 $ 200 DISTRICT 7 $ 2,273 DISTRICT 8 $ 0 DISTRICT 9 $ 2,878 DISTRICT 10 $ 1,196 DISTRICT 11 $ 1,630 DISTRICT 12 $ 4,445 DISTRICT 13 $ 2,858
FUND
PFF
II
II
II
II
II
PFF
PLD
II
II
II
COST ES'!.(OOO's)
4,000 425 1,950 590 10,593 3,400
$20,958
3,531 2,270 650 2,000 14,000 4,225 4,225 1,679 368 4,225
$37,173
$30,387 -------------------------------------------------------------------------*Part or all of these projects are in the adopted five yearcapital Improvement Program. See the 1986-91 CIP for details.
** SOURCE: Master Drainage Plan for the City of Carlsbad, June 1980 Costs have been adjust�d to 1986 dollars per the Pipeline/Concrete Index (24.6%).
-72-
II
II
II
" II
It
II
II
It
II
II
II
" " " " " It
C I T Y 0 F C A R L S B A D
FUTURE PUBLIC FACILITIES LIST
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FUND
SEWER PROJECTS **
*ENCINA TREAT. PLANT Phases IV & V (Carlsbad's share) Sewer *CALAVERA HILLS PLANT 11
UPGRADE TRUNK LINES*Area l -BUENA VISTA II *Area 2 -NORTHWEST CITY 11 Area 3 -CALA VERA HILLS 11 Area 4 -NORTH AGU AHEDIONDA 11 *Area 5 -SOUTH AGU AHEDIONDA 11 Area 6 -PALOMAR AIRPORT 11 Area 7 -NORTH BATIQUITOS 11 UPGRADE PUMP STATION Area l -BUENA VISTA Area 2 -NORTHWEST CITY Area 3 -CALAVERA HILLS *Area 4 -NORTH AGU AHEDIONDAArea 5 -SOUTH AGU AHEDIONDAArea 6 -PALOMAR AIRPORTArea 7 -NORTH BATIQUITOSJOINT FACILITIES
NOTE:
Area l -BUENA VISTA Area 2 -NORTHWEST CITY Area 3 -CALAVERA HILLS Area 4 -NORTH AGU AHEDIONDA Area 5 -SOUTH AGU AHEDIONDA Area 6 -PALOMAR AIRPORT Area 7 -N.ORTH BATIQUITOS
G R A N D T O T A L
COST EST. (000's)
13,070 5, 2.;o
25 810 0 590 970 0
0
0 435 0 765 1,750
0
0
350 2,190 0
0 3,230 135
0
$29,560
$171,896 =========
SAN MARCOS (WATER/SEWER) -Existing facilities are adequate to buildout.
LEUCADIA ( SEWER)
OLIVENHAIN WATER
COSTA REAL WATER
-Specific projects and costs are detailed in the Districts Master Plan.
II
II
*Part or all of these projects are in the adopted five yearcapital Improvement Program. See the 1986-91 CIP for details.
** SOURCE: City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan, April 1985.
-73-
.-.. ,_ ___________ _
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
PROJECT
CIRCULATION
FWY INTERCHANGE FWY INTERCHANGE FWY INTERCHANGE *CANNON ROADCANNON ROAD BRIDGE CARLSBAD BLVD EL CAMINO REAL FARADAY JEFFERSON STR MISCELLANEOUS PALOMAR AIRPORT RD *PALOMAR AIRPORT RDPALOMAR AIRPORT RD*PALOMAR AIRPORT ROPALOMAR AIRPORT ROPOINSETTIATAMARACK*TAMARACK*TRAFFIC SIGNALSALGA ROAD ALGA ROAD *EL CAMINO REAL*EL CAMINO REAL*EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REALEL FUERTE STREET*LA COSTA AVENUELA COSTA AVENUELA COSTA AVENUE*LA COSTA AVENUE*LA COSTA AVENUEOLIVENHAIN ROADOLIVENHAIN ROADOLIVENHAIN ROADOLIVENHAIN ROADOLIVENHAIN ROADOLIVENHAIN ROADRANCHO SANTA FE. RDRANCHO SANTA FE RD
C I T Y 0 F C A R L S B A D
FUTURE PUBLIC FACILITIES LIST
DESCRIPTION
@ Poinsettia Lane @ Palomar Airport Rd @ La Costa Avenue I-5 to Faraday East of ECR Median, Tamarack to Elm Medians Cannon to Koll Property I-5 to Marron
Railroad bridge widening College to Paseo del Norte West of ECR, median half East of ECR, Airport Intersection with Carlsbad Blvd Railroad Bridge Widening I-5 to Carlsbad BlvdAdams to Highland61 IntersectionsE/B right, W/B right turn lanes a2 thru lanes W/0 ECR to E/0 AlicaN/B left turn lane at La CostaS/B thru lane N & s of La CostaS/B thru lane, Alga to La CostaS/B left turn lane at LevanteN & S/B left,N/B right lanes at AW/B right turn lane at I-5Upgrade signal at RSFIntersection at RSFE/B left turn lane at ECR2 thru lanes, I-5 to ECR4 lanes from Leucadia Blvd to ECRUpgrade signal at ECR2 thru lanes at ECRWiden to 4 lanes, ECR to RSF5 turn lanes at ECRRight turn lane at ECR2 turn lanes at Melrose3 turn lanes at c. Alvaro/Olive.nh
FUND
BTD "
II
PFF II
II
II
" TIF
" " " "
II
II
*Part or all of these projects are in the adopted five yearCapital Improvement Program. See the 1986-91 CIP for details.
-74-
COST EST. (OOO's)
5,740 5,870 6,261 3,128 378 1,140 1,500 2,750 1,500 1,000 3,000 2,000 378 450 3,000 900 1,875. 175 4,860 58 771 29 146 578 29 87 29 125 58 29 1,929 3,500 63 146 90 73 29 58 87
$53,818
II
" II
II
" " ti
II
II
II
II
" II
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 1 of 15
Policy No. __ 33"----
Date Issued 12/17/02 Effective Date 12/17/02 Cancellation Date None Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
BACKGROUND
The City Council often receives requests from property owners to use special districts to fund public improvements. These "Special Districts" include Assessment Districts formed pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Streets and Highways Code Section 10000 and following) (the "1913 Act"), with Improvement Bonds issued pursuant to the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Streets and Highways Code Section 8500 and following) (the "1915 Act"), Community Facilities Districts formed pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Government Code Section 53311 and following) (the "Mello-Roos Act"), and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts (Government Code Section 66484 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 20.08.140). The City Council has found it necessary to determine circumstances under which the City Council will approve Special District formation and financing as a guide to those who would seek to request it.
The ability of a property owner or developer to obtain financing of public improvements from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds 'provides substantial economic benefits to such owner or developer. These benefits include the financing of such improvements at interest rates substantially lower than conventional financing interest rates, if such conventional financing is available, and/or the ability to obtain financing without providing equity compensation to the lender. For this consideration, the City Council has determined that tax-exempt financing should only be used if the public interest would be served thereby in addition to the benefit conferred on the properties within the proposed Special District.
The Mello-Roos Act requires that a public agency initiating proceedings to form a Community Facilities District after January 1, 1994 must first consider and adopt local goals and policies concerning the use of the Mello-Roos Act. This policy shall act as such a statement of local goals and policies pursuant to this statutory requirement and as a consolidation and replacement of the existing Policy 33 and Policy 38 and shall also provide guidance in the approval of Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts. Thus, the existing
Policies No. 33 and 38 have been repealed.
PURPOSE
The primary purpose for the City Council's approval of Special District financing is to complete the links in the City's traffic circulation system. The City Council in that regard will not favor a proposed Special District that contemplates the construction of a portion of an arterial street unless it is extended in a
logical way to connect with and improve the City's existing traffic circulation system. The City may require that proponents of a Special District expand the area to be included within a proposed Special District as may be necessary to complete linkages in the City's traffic circulation system. Other improvements may be considered by the City Council on a case-by-case basis. This policy does not address the funding of public services.
/ '"'
EXHIBIT 11
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 2 of 15
Policy No. __ 3 __ 3 ____ _
Datelssued 12/17/02 Effective Date 12/17/02 Cancellation Date None Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
The underlying principals behind this policy are:
•To protect the public interest;•To ensure fairness in the application of the assessments, special taxes, or fees to current and
future property owners;•To ensure full disclosure to current and future property owners of the Special District;•To ensure the creditworthiness of any Special District debt;•To protect the City's credit rating and financial position;•To ensure that the applicants for Special District proceedings, other than City-initiatedproceedings, pay all costs associated with the formation of any Special District;•To establish one policy regarding the requirements that must be met before the City Council willconsider approving the financing of public improvements using Special Districts;•To provide City staff, the residents of the City, and owners and developers of property locatedwithin the City with guidance in the application for and consideration of the establishment of Special Districts; and•To incorporate the requirements of new legislation pertaining to the use of Special Districts.
It is not the intent of this policy to relieve any developer of responsibilities for the construction of public improvements or satisfaction of other conditions of development related to the subdividing. of property, the processing of tentative or final maps, or master plan developments. This policy does not supersede any law, but the intent is to further restrict or clarify its use.
POLICY
Statement:
I.FINDING OF PUBLIC INTERESTThe City may allow the financing of public improvements under the provisions of this policy if, inthe City's opinion, the public interest would be served thereby in addition to the benefit conferredon the properties within the proposed Special District.
Each applicant for the establishment of a Special District must comply with the applicable requirements contained herein unless the City Council expressly grants an exception to such policy
or policies as they apply to a specific application.
7
CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements Page 3 of 15Policy No. 33 -----Date Issued 12/17/02 Effective Date 12/17/02 Cancellation Date None Supersedes No. 6/23/98 Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File Facilities Allowed: 2.AUTHORIZED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTSImprovements proposed to be financed through a Special District must be public improvements thatwill be owned, operated, or maintained by the City or other public agency or public utility. The CityCouncil shall have the final determination as to the eligibility of any improvements for financing, aswell as the prioritization of financing of such improvements. Such improvements generally include,but are not limited to:A.Streets and Highways: Arterial streets, highways, major bridges, and freeway interchangesidentified on the traffic circulation element of the Carlsbad General Plan. If the primarypurpose of completing a circulation link is met, and overriding public interest is shown, thenpublic facilities increasing traffic capacity for a circulation element may be considered. Rightof-way must be dedicated, offered for dedication, or acquired prior to formation of the SpecialDistrict. Right-of-way withirt the boundaries of the Special District is generally not authorizedto be financed through a Special District except under special circumstances as recommendedby the City Engineer.B.Other Public Improvements: If appurtenant to the types of street and highway improvementsdescribed in (A) above, the following additional improvements may be considered:1)Sewer lines or other sewer facilities: Sewer lines must be located within the rights-of-wayof the arterial streets when the City Engineer determines it is necessary that they be solocated.2)Water lines and other water facilities: Water lines must be located within the rights-of-wayof the arterial streets when the City Engineer determines it is necessary that they be solocated.3)Drainage facilities.4)Landscape and irrigation facilities.5)Reclaimed water facilities in rights-of-way.6)Grading for eligible public streets.7)Environmental mitigation required for the improvements being financed through theSpecial District.8)Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, if located on land or easements owned or dedicated to theCity and accepted as part of the Citywide trail system.9)Such other improvements as may be authorized by law and which the City Councildetermines are consistent with the policies herein.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 4 of 15
Policy No. _______ 33 ____ _
Date Issued 12/17/02
Effective Date 12/17/02 . Cancellation Date None Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
Such improvements may be limited by the type of Special·District utilized or at the discretion of
City Council. Any improvements already included in an existing fee program are not eligible to be financed by a Special District. Generally, other facilities may be considered if initiated by City Council or the owners of existing developed property. All improvements must be located in public rights-of-way dedicated or otherwise granted to the City or other public agency.
3.INCIDENTAL COSTSEligible Incidental Costs that may be financed from the proceeds of bonds issued for a SpecialDistrict or the assessments, special taxes, or fees levied within a Special District shall be limited tothose incidental costs directly related to the improvements financed from the proceeds of suchbonds or revenues. These incidental costs are eligible to the extent that such costs have beenincluded in the calculation of the assessment, special tax, or fees. "Administrative Procedures forReimbursable Public Works Projects," as issued from time to time by the City Engineer, areprovided and detail eligible incidental costs for public works construction projects.
Ineligible Incidental Costs. Costs considered ineligible to be financed from the proceeds of SpecialDistrict bonds or the assessments, special taxes, or fees levied within a Special District include, butare not limited to, the following:
A.Development impact fees.B.Administrative or overhead expenses, financial consultant, or legal fees incurred by anapplicant for the formation of a Special District. This limitation does not apply to amountsadvanced by the applicant to the City pursuant to the provisions of this policy to pay for preformation costs incurred by the City. (See "Pre-Formation Costs, Deposits, andReimbursements.")C.Land-use planning and subdivision costs and environmental review costs related to such landuse planning and subdivision.D.Environmental impact studies, unless directly related to the project and done separately for theproject.E.Endowments for mitigation land.F.Construction loan interest.
G.Costs incurred prior to the City Council's acceptance of a request to begin work on theformation of a Special District, a reimbursement, or acquisition agreement, or the adoption of aresolution of intention to form the Special District, whichever comes first.H.Subdivision financial analysis.
I.Attorney's fees incurred by the property owners or their agents, except as recommended by the
City Attorney related to condemnation proceedings.
.-.,
''
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 5 of 15
Policy No. _.....;3::;..:3a....-__
Date Issued 12/17 /02 Effective Date 12/17/02 Cancellation Date None Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
J.On-site right-of-way and easements.
K.Other overhead expenses incurred by the applicant.
4.STAGE OF THE IMPROVEMENTSAny public improvements proposed to be financed through a Special District must meet all designand construction requirements and standards as may be established by the City and in accordancewith current State laws. A public improvement proposed to be acquired from the proceeds of bonds,assessments, fees, or special taxes shall not be paid for out of Special District funds until allcomponents, including appurtenant improvements, of such improvement are completed, bonds aresold if applicable, and such improvement has been opened to the public or could be opened to the
public but for the fact that such opening has been withheld or delayed solely by the City.
An "improvement" shall be generally defined as a particular street with independent usage,including all appurtenant improvements such as sewer, drainage, and utility improvementsappurtenant to the street. The City Engineer shall have the authority and discretion to establish oneor more separate improvements consistent with the definition thereof for any Special District. Eachimprovement established by the City Engineer for any Special District and all components,including any appurtenant improvements, included within each such improvement must bedescribed in the acquisition and financing agreement for such Special District. Any deviation of thedescription of an improvement shall be approved.by the City Engineer.
The City Engineer may authorize the partial release of funds of up to ninety percent (90%) of the
cost of any such improvement to pay for the acquisition of such improvement when suchimprovement, including all components thereof, can, in the opinion of the City Engineer, be openedby the City for use by the public. Ten percent (10%) of the cost of any improvement shall not bepaid for until final acceptance of such improvement by the City and the City Engineer or his or herdesignee has certified the final cost of such improvement.
Prior to formation, any required environmental review and an environmental certification fordevelopment within the proposed Special District and the improvements proposed to be financed bythe Special District must be completed, land use entitlement approvals for such development mustbe obtained, and right-of-way for all improvements proposed to be financed by the Special Districtmust be dedicated or an irrevocable offer to dedicate must be received by the City.
Prior to the sale of bonds, if applicable, design of substantially all improvements to be financedfrom the proceeds of such bonds must be completed (100%) and bids for construction received.
The City may enter into acquisition agreements prior to the formation of the Special District. Anyacquisition under such agreement shall be conditional upon formation of the Special District and, if
JO
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 6 of 15
Policy No. ___ 3 __ 3 __ _
Date Issued 12/17/02 Effective Date 12/17/02 Cancellation Date None Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment ·Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
applicable, issuance of bonds for such Special District. Except as provided below, the purchase price of any improvement shall not exceed the estimated costs for such improvement per the
acquisition agreement, the engineer's report, or Community Facilities District report, as applicable, for the Special District when such Special District was formed. Any costs above this amount will be eligible for inclusion in the purchase price for an improvement only if there are eligible funds remaining upon completion of all of the improvements to be financed by a Special District. For Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts, or Community Facilities Districts that do not or cannot issue debt, construction to be completed by the developers will be reimbursed through fees or special taxes, if and when collected.
Property Own.er Requirements:
5.CONCURRENCE OF PROPERTY OWNERSWhere a Special District is initiated by the property owners, the application for the consideration ofthe establishment of a Special District shall have the concurrence of the affected area's propertyowners representing not less than 65%, by area, of the land proposed to be assessed, taxed, orsubject to the payment of fees. The application for consideration shall include an acceptance of thispolicy and, when applicable, a waiver of the property owners' rights under the Majority Protest Act.The City Council is in no way required to proceed with the formation of a Special District if theCity Council finds that the creation of the Special District, the financing of the improvements by aSpecial District, or the construction of the improvements will not be in the best interest of the City.
6.FINANCIAL CAP ABILITY AND ST ABILITY OF THE PROPONENTSAny application for the establishment of a Special District shall contain such information and besubmitted in such form as the Finance Director may require. In addition to such information as theFinance Director may require, each application must contain:
A.Proof of authorization to submit the application on behalf of the owner of the property forwhich the application is submitted if the applicant is not the owner of such property.
B.Evidence satisfactory to the Finance Director that the applicant represents or has the consent of
the owners of not less than 65%, by area, of the property proposed to be subject to the levy of
the fees, assessments, or special taxes.C.A business plan for the development of the property within the proposed Special District andsuch additional financial information as the Finance Director may deem necessary toadequately review the financial feasibility of the Special District. The applicant mustdemonstrate to the satisfaction of the Finance Director the ability of the owner(s) of theproperty proposed to be developed to pay the fees, assessments or special taxes for the Special
I,
Page 7 of 15 CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Policy No. -�3�3 __ _
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Date Issued 12/17/02
Effective Date 12/17/02 Cancellation Date None Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
District and any other assessment, special taxes and ad valorem taxes on such property until full build-out of the property.
7.PRE-FORMATION COSTS, DEPOSITS, AND REIMBURSEMENTSExcept for those applications for Special Districts where the City is the applicant, all City andconsultant costs incurred in the evaluation of applications and the proceedings to form a SpecialDistrict and issue bonds, if applicable, will be paid by the applicant by advance deposit with the
City of monies sufficient to pay all such costs.
Each application for the formation of a Special District shall be accompanied by an initial deposit in an amount to be determined by the Finance Director to be adequate to fund the evaluation of the application and begin the proceedings to form the Special District and issue bonds, if applicable. If additional funds are required to pay pre-formation costs, the Finance Director may make written demand upon the applicant for such additional funds and the applicant shall deposit such additional funds with the City within five (5) working days of the date of receipt of such demand. Upon the depletion of the funds deposited by applicant for pre-formation costs, all proceedings shall be suspended until receipt by the City of such additional funds as the Finance Director may demand.
The deposits shall be used by the City to pay for costs and expenses incurred by the City incident to the evaluation of the application and proceedings for the formation of the Special District and the issuance of bonds (if applicable) including, but not limited to, legal, special tax or assessment consulting, engineering, appraisal, market absorption, financial advisor, administrative and staff costs and expenses, required notifications, printing, and publication costs.
The City shall refund any unexpended portion of the deposits upon the occurrence of one of the following events:
A.The formation of the Special District and the issuance of the bonds, if applicable;
B.The formation of the Special District or the issuance of the bonds is not approved by the City
Council; or
C.The proceedings for the formation of the Special District and the issuance of bonds are
abandoned at the written request of the applicant.
Except as otherwise provided herein, the applicant shall be entitled, at the option of the City, to reimbursement of or credit against special taxes or assessment installments for all amounts deposited, if such amounts are recovered in the Special District. Any such reimbursement shall be payable solely from the proceeds of the bonds, special taxes, or fees as applicable.
I'/L
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 8 of 15
Policy No. _....::3=3 __ _ Date Issued 12/ 17 /02 Effective Date 12/17 /02 Cancellation Date None Supersedes No. 6/23/98 Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division He.ads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
8.STAGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTDevelopment projects shall be at the stage of land use entitlements and design where all criteria ofthe policy can be adequately assessed. All property to be included in a Special District shall havealready received environmental review and approval of all land use entitlements such as zoning,master plans, specific plans, or Local Facilities Management Plans and regulatory permits. The CityCouncil may approve a Special District that includes some land without such approvals if theimprovements to be financed are consistent with the General Plan and if the City Council finds theimprovements are required in the public interest.
9.DEVELOPMENT RIGHTSApproval of a Special District and construction of the public improvements does not, in and ofitself, vest any rights to the then existing land use approvals for the property to be assessed or taxedfor such improvements or to any particular level, type, or intensity of development or use.Applicants for a Special District must include an express acknowledgement of this policy and shallexpressly waive on their behalf and on behalf of their successors and assigns any cause of action atlaw or in equity including, but not limited to, taking or damaging of property, for reassessment ofproperty or denial of any right protected by USC Section 1983 which might be applicable to theproperties to be assessed.
Formation Process:
10.CREATION OF THE SPECIAL DISTRICT REVIEW COMMITTEEIt is the intention of the City Council that proponents of a Special District have an early opportunityto have the proposal reviewed by City staff for compliance with this policy. In that regard, the CityCouncil hereby directs the creation of the Special District Review Committee. The Committee shallconsist of the City Manager, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Planning Director,City Engineer, Administrative Services Director (Chairperson), Finance Director. and Public WorksDirector. The Committee shall meet to review a proposal for a Special District for the purpose ofdetermining whether or not the requirements of this policy have been satisfied.
Committee review shall take place prior to the presentation of a Special District proposal to CityCouncil. Whenever any such proposal is presented to the City Council, it shall be accompanied by areport containing the findings and recommendations of the Committee made in regard to suchproposal. The Committee may require the proponents to furnish any additional informationnecessary to the evaluation of the proposed Special District. The Committee may require all or anypart of the deposits provided for in this policy to be made prior to commencing their review of theproposed Special District.
CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
' General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements Page 9 of 15 Policy No. ____ 33 ____ _ Date Issued 12/17/02 Effective Date 12/17/02 Cancellation Date None Supersedes No. 6/23/98 Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File 11.SELECTION OF CONSULTANTSThe City shall select all consultants, such as, but not limited to, the assessment engineer or specialtax consultant, bond counsel, financial consultant, and if required, underwriter and appraiser.12.FEASIBILITY STUDYIf the City Council determines it necessary, a financial feasibility study may be required by aconsultant selected by the City to be accomplished at the expense of the proponents of the SpecialDistrict to ascertain whether or not the proposed Special District is financially feasible and whetheror not the proposed bonds will find market acceptance.Assessment /Special Tax Considerations: 13.APPORTIONMENT METHODOLOGY/ REQUIREMENTSThe City or the special tax consultant or assessment engineer, as applicable, selected by the Cityshall determine the special tax formula or method of assessment spread. The prime emphasis in theestablishment of the special tax formula will be fairness to the future property owner who will bepaying the taxes over the years. The methodology for spreading assessments shall be ba�ed uponthe benefit to the properties assessed. The methodology utilized shall adhere to the followingrequirements:A.The annual assessment or special tax shall be sufficient to include an amount necessary to payfor the expenses incurred by such Special District in the levy and collection of the assessment,special tax, or fee and the administration of the bonds and the Special District.B.For special taxes:1)The maximum projected annual special tax revenues must equal 110% of the projectedannual gross debt service of any bonds of the Community Facilities District.2)The special tax formula shall include provisions to protect against changes in densityresulting in the generation of insufficient special tax revenue to pay annual debt service andadministrative expenses. As a condition of approval of the downsizing of the developmentby the applicant or the applicant's successor-in-interest, the City Council may require theprepayment of a portion of the special tax obligation as may be necessary in thedetermination of the City to ensure that adequate debt service coverage exists with respect toany outstanding bonds. Alternatively, the City Council may require security in a form andamount deemed necessary by the City to provide for the payment of debt service on thebonds.3)A partial and/or total prepayment option shall be included in any rate and method ofapportionment of special taxes to pay for public improvements.,., I ,' .'
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements Page 10 of 15
Policy No. ---=33=-----
Date Issued 12/17/02
Effective Date 12/17 /02 Cancellation Date None Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
4)The applicable special tax to pay for public improvements levied against any parcel used forprivate residential purposes must be discharged prior to the sale of the individual lot.5)The rate and method of apportionment of a special tax to pay for public improvements shallspecify a fiscal year or number of years beyond which the special tax may not be levied onany parcel.C.All developed and undeveloped property within any Special District that is not otherwisestatutorily exempt from the levy of the assessment, fee, or special taxes shall bear its appropriateshare of the Special District's aggregate obligation from the date of formation of the Special
District consistent with the other goals and policies set forth herein.D.The City Council will not approve a Special District unless all assessments, fees, or specialtaxes apportioned to publicly owned parcels within the District have been paid or discharged tothe City's satisfaction.
14.DISCHARGE OF ASSESSMENT OR SPECIAL TAX OBLIGATIONIt is the City's desire that any assessment or special tax obligation be discharged prior to the sale ofindividual lots. Under this policy, property owners ofresidential land within a Community FacilitiesDistrict must discharge the special tax obligation applicable to the property prior to the sale ofindividual lots. For commercial/industrial property within a CFD and any property within anassessment district, the City Council may approve a pass-through of the obligation to a prospectivepurchaser at the City's sole discretion.
15.MAXIMUM AGGREGATE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTSIf the City Council approves a pass-through of the assessment or special tax obligation, it is thepolicy of the City that the total of the following taxes, assessments, and special taxes appearing onthe property tax bill shall not exceed 1.8% of such initial sales price of any residential dwelling unit
to such residential homeowner:
A.Ad valorem property taxes.
B.Voter-approved ad valorem property taxes in excess of I% of the assessed value of the subject
property.C.The maximum annual special taxes levied by all Community Facilities Districts underconsideration and any other Community Facilities Districts or other public agency charges onthe tax roll.
D.The annual assessment installments, including administrative surcharge, for any existing or
proposed assessment district, whether such assessment installments are utilized to pay debtservice on bonds issued for such assessment district or to pay for maintenance or services.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 11 of 15
Policy No. -�33�-
Date Issued 12/17/02
Effective Date 12/17/02
Cancellation Date None Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City" Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads,
Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
While there is no specific limit on the rate of assessment or taxation of commercial or industrial
property, the City Council reserves the right to limit the rate of such taxation or assessment to ensure the economic feasibility of such property.
The applicant for the establishment of any Special District shall be required to enter into an agreement with the City or the Special District requiring the prepayment by the applicant of that portion of the obligation applicable to any parcel used for residential purposes in order to reduce the annual maximum obligation to the standards described above.
16.DISCLOSURE TO PROPERTY PURCHASERSProperty owners for all Special Districts will be required to provide for full and complete disclosureof such Special District applicable to the property to prospective purchasers. The disclosure mustinclude all of the following in addition to such other provisions as may be required by State law, theMunicipal Code of the City, or as the applicant may deem necessary:
A.Provide full disclosure of the proposed Special District and all other assessment and special taxfinancing applicable to the property (whether imposed by the City or any other public agency),including the maximum annual payment, monthly payments, principal, average interest rate,duration of payments, list of facilities to be funded, and the tax formula or method of spread in
easily understood terms.B.List the amount of the assessment or special tax payments in all sales brochures, all advertisingand all purchase documents adjacent to the sales price of the property and in the same size type.C.Where an assessment or special tax is authorized to be passed through, give prospectivepurchasers an option to have the obligation lien discharged prior to the close of escrow or toassume the obligation by a pass-through as a part of the sales price of the property.D.Specify in all disclosure documents the name, title, telephone number, and address of a
representative of the City as provided to the applicant who may be contacted by any prospectivepurchaser of property within a Special District for further information regarding the SpecialDistrict and the lien.
The disclosure program will be subject to City Council approval. The City Council's goal is to
provide complete and concise disclosure to any subsequent property purchaser.
Requirements of Debt Issuance:
17.TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF BONDSThe following Section is only applicable to assessment districts and Community Facilities Districts.
Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts are unable to issue debt. Bonds shall be issued in accordance
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 12 of 15
Policy No. -----=33=----
Date Issued 12/17/02 Effective Date 12/17/02 Cancellation Date None Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
with the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 for assessment districts and Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code, commencing with Section 53311 for Community Facilities Districts unless the City Council determines otherwise.
Bonds issued under this policy may be sold through competitive or negotiated sale as determined by City Council. The City Council will consider recommendations from staff and/or the City's
financial consultant in selecting a method of sale.
The terms and conditions of any bonds issued by the City for any Special District including without limitation the sizing, timing, term, interest rates, discount, redemption features, flow of funds, investment provisions, and foreclosure covenants shall be established by the City. Each bond issue shall be structured to adequately protect bond owners and to avoid negatively impacting the bonding capacity or creditworthiness of the City. Unless otherwise approved by the City Council, the following shall serve as minimum bond requirements:
A.A reserve fund or other security recommended by City staff, the City's financial advisor,and/or underwriter shall be established for each bond issue in an amount recommended by the
City's financial advisor and/or underwriter.
B.Interest shall be capitalized for a bond issue only so long as necessary to place the charges on
the assessment roll. Interest may be capitalized for a longer term (not to exceed an aggregate of 18 months) on an exception basis at the sole discretion of the Finance Director, taking intoconsideration the value-to-lien ratio, the expected timing of initial residential occupancies,expected absorption and build-out of the project, the expected construction and completionschedule for the public improvements to be funded from the proceeds of the bond issue in
question, the size of the bond issue, the development pro forma and the equity position of theapplicant, and such other factors as the Finance Director may deem relevant.
C.In instances where multiple series of bonds are to be issued, the City shall determine whatimprovements shall be financed from the proce.eds of each series of bonds.D.Neither the faith, credit, nor taxing power of the City shall be pledged to the payment of thebonds. The sole source of revenue for the payment of the bonds shall be the assessments or special taxes, capitalized interest, if any, and monies on deposit in the reserve fund established
for such bonds.
18.REQUIRED VALUE-TO-LIEN RATIO I APPRAISALProject property value-to-lien ratio, i.e., the full cash value of the properties subject to the levy ofthe assessments or special taxes, including the value of the improvements to be financed, comparedto the aggregate amount of the lien to be created, plus any prior or anticipated fixed assessment liensand/or special tax liens, must be 4:1. A project may be approved with a ratio between 4:1 and a
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public hnprovements
Page 13 of 15
Policy No. _ ___;:;_;33=---
Date Issued 12/17/02
Effective Date 12/17/02 Cancellation Date None Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
minimum of 3: 1 if the ratio is recommended by the underwriter and/or financial advisor to the City and if the City Council finds the reduced ratio to be within acceptable parameters. The required value-to-lien ratio shall be determined with respect to all taxable property within the Special District in the aggregate and with respect to each discrete development area as defined by the Finance Director.
In addition, the City Council may, it its sole discretion, accept a form or forms of credit enhancement such as a letter of credit, bond insurance, or the escrow of bond proceeds to offset a
deficiency in the required value-to-lien ratio as it applies to the taxable property within the Special District in the aggregate or with respect to any development area.
Tue appraisal shall be undertaken by, done under the direction of, and addressed to the City. The value of the property proposed to be assessed shall be performed by a certified real estate appraiser (MAI) selected and retained by the City or the City's financial advisor.
19.MARKET ABSORPTION STUDYThe City may require a market absorption study for any Special District proposed to include newdevelopment. In any case, the City shall retain, at the applicant's sole expense but subject toreimbursement as provided for herein, a consultant to prepare a report to verify or establish theprojected market absorption for and the projected sales prices of the properties proposed to beincluded within the Special District. If a market absorption study is conducted, the appraiser shall
utilize the conclusions of the market absorption study in conducting the appraisal of the propertieswithin the proposed Special District or shall justify, to the satisfaction of the City Manager, whysuch conclusions were not utilized in conducting such appraisal.
20.PRIORITIZATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTSThe City reserves the right to establish priorities for payment or reimbursement.
21.RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COST OF FORECLOSUREThe City Council may require the proponents of the Special District to enter into an agreement withthe City to be responsible for the cost of any judicial foreclosures that the City determines arenecessary in regard to the Special District bonds. The City may, at its option, retain an attorney toprosecute the foreclosures in a timely manner in the name of the City, and the proponent shall agreeto be responsible for all costs of such foreclosures. If the City Council approves a pass-through of the obligation to the purchaser of an individual lot, the proponents shall be relieved of their
obligation under such agreement for such lot.
CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements Page 14 of 15 Policy No. -�33�-Date Issued 12/17/02 Effective Date 12/17/02 Cancellation Date None Supersedes No. 6/23/98 Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File 22.SURPLUS FUNDSIt is the City Council's policy that, in the event that there are surplus funds generated through thecreation of the Special District and the sale of bonds, if applicable, these surplus funds shall be usedas follows:A.To complete any work related to the project that the City Council determines is equitable andreasonable as allowed by statutes.B.The City Council may direct staff to use a portion of this surplus to offset the annual levy ofassessments or special taxes to property owners in following years in a manner consistent withthe applicable statutes. Under this policy, an amount of up to 5% of the total bond issue sizenot to exceed $1 million may be used to offset the annual levy without further Council action.C.Unless otherwise directed by the City Council, any amount in excess of that used to offset theannual levy described in (B) above will be used to call bonds at an appropriate bond call date.PROCEDURE: 1.CONTACT FOR PROPONENT(S)Whether there is one or multiple proponents of a proposed Special District, an authorizedspokesperson shall be designated to act for the proponent(s) in their dealing with the City. Thespokesperson shall be responsible for collecting any fees for deposit with the City, providing anynecessary information to the City, and for communicating, as necessary, back to the otherproponent( s ).2.REQUEST TO BEGIN WORKAny request for the City to begin work on the feasibility or formation of a Special District shall. contain such information and be submitted in such form as the City Finance Director may require. In addition to the information required by Section 6 above, each application must contain data on the proposed Special District to include, but not be limited to: a description of the improvements and estimated cost of such improvements proposed to be funded by the Special District, written justification of how these facilities comply with this policy, a construction and phasing schedule of the improvements and the development project, and map(s) that identify the proposed boundary of the Special District. 3.INITIAL PRESENTATION TO THE SPECIAL DISTRICT REVIEW COMMITTEEIn the initial meeting of the Special District Review Committee, the City Engineer will provide anoverview of the proposed project and the requested public facilities to be financed. This overviewwill state whether or not the proposed public facilities generally adhere to this policy and describethe timing requirement of the public facilities in conjunction with the estimated build-out of thedevelopment project. The Finance Director shall present a brief summary of the financial stability) (.'
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
General Subject: Financing of Public Improvements
Page 15 of 15
Policy No. __ 3_3�--
Date Issued 12/17/02 Effective Date 12/17 /02 Cancellation Date None
Supersedes No. 6/23/98
Specific Subject: Policy for Use of Assessment Districts, Community Facilities Districts, and Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File
of the proponents as provided by the proponents, confirmation of the consent of 65% of the property owners by area, and an estimate of the pre-formation costs. Recommendation of the Special District Review Committee shall be communicated to the proponents of the Special District.
4. AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEEDUpon review of the proposed Special District and after considering the report of the Committee, theCity Council shall determine whether or not to authorize staff to proceed. It is the policy of the CityCouncil to limit projects to the criteria set forth in this policy. The City Council reserves to itselfthe authority to approve or disapprove any proposed Special District. Any exceptions to the criteriaof this policy will be approved only upon an express finding by the City Council that the proposedSpecial District is so effected with a public interest that the City should assist in providing tax-free
financing for the improvement in order to satisfy a public need. If the City Council authorizes theassessment of feasibility and proceeding with the formation of the Special District, City staff andthe proponents shall proceed to do that in accordance with State law and the requirements of thispolicy.
5.ASSESSMENT OF FEASIBILITY AND FORMATIONThe City Engineer and/or Finance Director shall obtain contracts with consultant(s) as required toreview the feasibility of the project and collect a pre-formation deposit as determined by the FinanceDirector. The feasibility of the project as prepared by staff or consultant shall be presented to theSpecial District Review Committee. Should the Special District Review Committee recommendagainst the proposed Special District, such recommendation along with the feasibility study will becommunicated to the proponents of the Special District. Should the Special District ReviewCommittee recommend that formation of the Special District should be recommended to CityCouncil, a preliminary schedule shall be determined along with requirements of the proponents tosubmit any additional information or deposit of funds. The recommendations of the Special DistrictReview Committee, preliminary schedule, and requirements of the proponents, as discussed, shallbe transmitted to the proponents.
If needed, additional meetings of the Special District Review Committee shall be held to determineif formation of the Special District should be recommended to City Council.
6.REQUEST FOR FORMATION
The report of feasibility and recommendation of formation of the proposed Special District by theSpecial District Review Committee shall be taken to City Council for consideration. If the CityCouncil approves proceeding with the formation of the Special District, City staff and theproponents shall proceed to do that in accordance with State law and the requirements of this policy.
END OF POLICY
California Debt Issuance Primer - Summary of Financial Instruments
INSTRUMENT ISSUER SECURITY LEGAL AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRICTIONS PROCEEDINGS
DIRECT BONDS
Assessment Bonds Multiple Entities Assessments on Improvement Bond State Constitution -Projects must (see reference table Property / Fees Act of 1911 and 1915 Proposition 218 and distinguish between D-1-2 for listing)(see reference Table Special Assessment, and identify parcels D-1-1 for list of lnves_tigation, · being assessed andstatutes) State Limitation and specific benefitsConstitutionMajority Protest Act received.Proposition 218.of 1931 for detailed requirements.
Typical Projects: Works of a "local nature". Improvements authorized by the Bond Acts of 1911 and 1915.
Project Examples: Streets, roads, parks,sewer, lighting, water, drains, transportation, water, gas, electric power.
Local Agency Multiple Entities Ad Valorem Tax Improvement Bond Article XVI, Section 2/3 majority
General Obligation (see reference Table Act of 1911 and 1915 18 and Article XIIIA approval of voters in
Bonds D-2-1 for listing (See Tables 0-H Section l(b) of the specified area (with of special districts and D-2-1 for California Constitut-some exceptions). authorized to issue listings). Article XVI, ion. Cities (GC general obligation Section 18 and 43600), Counties bonds)Article XIIIA Section (GC 29900), School 1 (b) of the California Districts (Ed Code Constitution. Cities, 15100) and Special Counties, School districts (see D-2-1 districts and Special for listings) each districts each have have specific specific requirements. requirements.
Typical Projects: Projects are classified by City, County, School District and Special District.
Project Examples: Schools, parks, highways bridges, airports. (See tables in Local Agency General Obligation Bonds section for a comprehensive description of projects financed categorized (by county, city and school district).
Mello-Roos Bonds Community Facilities Parcel Taxes Mello-Roos Facilities See "Mello-Roos" 2/3 majority voter District(CFD) Act of 1982. bond section for the approval of establishment of a landowners in CFO and approval district. Must be sold process. using competitive bid unless negotiated bid cost is proven lower.
Typical Projects: the CFO.
Project Examples: Local parks, recreation, open-space, schools, libraries, child care centers, water/power/gas facilities. Services such as police, fire, recreation, and park maintenance.
Pension Obligation Local Agencies General Fund Structured as Resolution of Must be bond
Bonds refunding bonds issuance, validation issuance refunding. issued pursuant to procedures. Cannot exceed the Local Agency Unfunded Accrued Refunding Law Actuarial Pension (GC Section 53580) Liability(UAAL). Article XVI, Section 18.Qualify forexception of"obligationsimposed by law" No2/3 majority needed.
Typical Projects: Refunding of UAAL.
Project Examples: Restricted to UAAL.
17 I.,'@
EXHIBIT 12
----------
I
California Debt Issuance Primer -Summary of Financial Instruments
INSTRUMENT ISSUER SECURITY LEGAL AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRICTIONS PROCEEDINGS ------------------------DIRECT BONDS
Sales Tax Bonds Special sales tax Sales and use tax Revenue Bond Revenue Bond Act California districts revenues Act of 1941. See of 1941. Constitution, Article Table D-6-1 for XVI Sec 1B for listing of statutory issuing, Community authorizations. Redevelopment Act of 1993 (AB1290) for restrictions.
Typical Projects: Transportation infrastructure.
Project Examples: Highway improvement, expansion, and maintenance. Public transit systems.
Tax Allocation/ Redevelopment Mostly tax increment California California Community Redevelopment Agencies, Chartered but may include tax Constitution Article Constitution Article Redevelopment Act Bonds Cities allocations, transient XVI Sec 16, Health XVI Sec 16, Health of 1993 (AB1290) for occupancy taxes, and Safety Code and Safety Code a complete listing of revenues or income Sections Sections restrictions. from projects, 33640,33204. 33640,33204. contributions from state or federal government.
Typical Projects: Activities that reduce or eliminate blight within a project area not expected to be improved by private or government action.
Project Examples: Buildings, housing, freeway interchange, sewer systems.
Public Enterprise Cities, Counties, Revenue from the Revenue Bond Revenue Bond Act of 1941. See Table D-Revenue Bonds Joint Powers enterprise Act of 1941. See 3-1 for specific codes relating to issuanceAuthorities Table D-3-1 for requirements.listing of statutory authorizations.
Typical Projects : Revenue producing enterprises. See "Public Enterprise Revenue Bond" section for examples. _Project Examples: Public buildings, stadiums, electric utilities, water and sewer treatment, airports, police stations, libraries, low-income housing, police and fire vehicles, computers.
Public Lease Joint Powers Lease Payments Instruments See Table D-4-1 for Maturity cannot be Revenue Bonds Authorities, structured as leases, codes addressing longer than useful Non Profits, not classified as approval procedures life of project. A Redevelopment debt for purposes for specific issuers. legally enforceable Agencies, Parking of debtlimit and lease must be Authorities, Public voter approval. See created. Works Departments Table D-4-1 for codes addressing authorization for �pecific issuers.
Typical Projects: Capital improvements to be leased by a public agency.
Project Examples: Stadiums, parking facilities, convention centers, school buildings, airports, entire water or sewer systems.
01r, 18
-----
California Debt Issuance Primer -Summary of Financial Instruments
INSTRUMENT ISSUER SECURITY LEGAL AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRICTIONS PROCEEDINGS ---------� -------------------
CONDUIT BONDS
Conduit Revenue CEDFA, CPCFA, Joint Revenue derived Various -See Table Various -See Table CD LAC Volume Cap,
Bonds -Economic Powers Authorities, from project D-8-1 for specific D-8-1 for specific CIDFAC Approval,
Development Industrial Develop-issuers.issuers. CPCFA Approval. ment Agencies
Typical Projects: Small manufacturing facilities, pollution control facilities, specific narrowly defined projects.
Project Examples: Manufacturing, assembly fabrication, renovation or processing plants for goods or agriculture. Hazardous waste disposal and processing facilities, waste collection/treatment facilities.
Conduit CEFA, Joint Powers Payments from California California No facilities for
Revenue Bonds Authorities, Charter Educational Facility Educational Facilities Educational Facilities religious worship.
-Educational Citiess Act -Education Code Act -Education Code
Facility Section 94100. Section 94100.
Typical Projects: Educational facilities.
Project Examples: Dormitories, administration buildings, dining halls, student unions, school libraries, research facilities, student loan programs. '
Conduit Revenue CHFFA, County Payments from California Health California Health TEFRA hearing
Bonds -Hospital Health Care Districts, Health Care Facility Care Facilities Care Facilities required.
and Health Care Charter Cities, Joint Financing Authority Financing Authority Powers Authorities Act -GC Section Act -GC Section 15430. 15430
Typical Projects: Construction, renovation, expansion of health care facilities.
Project Examples: Acute care hospitals, psychiatric care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, community clinics, outpatient hospitals.
Conduit Cities, Counties, Revenue derived See Code Sections See Code Sections CDLAC Volume Cap.
Revenue Bonds Joint Powers from project or described in Table described in Table Various rent and
-Multifamily Authorities, Housing lending program D-9-1.D-9-1.income limitations.
Housing Authorities, Redevelopment Agencies (Described in Table D-9-1)
Typical Projects: Financing and/or refinancing construction, renovation, rental housing developments for private developers.
Project Examples: Multi-family projects, including apartment buildings.
Marks-Roos Bonds Joint Powers General Fund or Marks-Roos Local Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985-Authorities revenue derived Bond Pooling Act of GC Section 6584. See "Marks-Roos" bond from participating 1985-GC Section section for complete discussion. local agency 6584. See "Marks-Roos" bond section for complete discussion.
Typical Projects: Assisting local agencies with financing needs. Capital improvement bonds, bond pooling and working capital or insurance programs.
Project Examples: Public buildings, stadiums, electric utilities, water and sewer treatment, airports, police stations, libraries, low-income housing, mass transit, telecommunications.
Single Family Cities, Counties, Revenue from Authorized through Authorized through CD LAC Volume Cap,
Mortgage Revenue Joint Powers project CA Health and Safety CA Health and Safety various rent and
Bonds Authorities, Housing Code. See table Code. For codes income limitations. Authorities D-7-1 for specific related to issuance issuers.procedure, see table D-7-1.
Typical Projects: Below market loan programs for low to moderate income families, acquisition, rehabilitation and improvement of single · family homes.
Project Examples: Purchase mortgage loans originated by one or more lenders participating in the program.
19 /f0'
~ ------------ -
I I
California Debt Issuance Primer -Summary of Financial Instruments
INSTRUMENT ISSUER SECURITY LEGAL AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE RESTRICTIONS PROCEEDINGS ------------------------------------�----LEASES
Certificates of Joint Powers Rent Instruments See Table 0-5-1 for May be used for land
Participation/ Authority, Non-structured as lease, codes addressing and depreciable
Financial Leases Profit Corporation, not classified as approval procedures property. Leasing Company, debt for purposes for specific issuers. Bank or Other Lessor of debt limit and voter approval. See Table 0-S-l for codes addressing authorization for specific issuers.
Typical Projects: Public buildings. Only land and depreciable property that a public agency has statutory authorization to lease.
Project Examples: Educational facilities; irrigation, water, sewer, police and fire facilities; transportation equipment.
SHORTTERM DEBT /OTHER
Commercial Paper State, Local Agencies General Fund Issuer must have Governing body Denominations of statutory authority adopts resolution $25 Million to issue notes in an authorizing the unlimited principal issuance. amount and sell in negotiated sale.
Typical Projects: Provide short term working capital.
Project Examples: Operating expenses or capital project start-up costs.
Tax and Revenue Public Agencies General Fund General and General and 15 month maturity,
Anticipation Notes individual entity individual entity 85% of estimated
(TRANS) authorizations authorizations uncollected taxes, detailed in GC detailed in GC income, revenue Sections 53820 thru Sections 53820 thru or other sources 53859.08. 53859.08: needed to repay notes.
Typical Projects: Fund cash flow deficits in a fiscal year.
Project Examples: Provide funds to cover operating expenses (salaries, miscellaneous expenses) for a school districts
Teeter Plan Counties Delinquent property California Revenue Teeter Plan Bond Law of 1994. GC Sections taxes, fines, and and Tax Code 54773 -54783. penalties Sections 4701-4717.
Types of Projects: County financing of local agency's delinquent property taxes fines and penalties.
Project Examples: County acts as "bank" to local agencies and loans on delinquent property taxes and penalties.
'Cl-� 20
------~-~
Exhibit 13
Page 1 of 4 Public Works
Transportation 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-434-2730 t
Council Chambers
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Monday, Mar. 2, 2020, 5:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Gocan called the Meeting to order at 5:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Gocan, Johnson, Hunter, Penseyres, Fowler and Perez.
Absent: Linke
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion by Vice-Chair Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Penseyres, to approve the minutes for Feb. 3,
2020, with minor corrections.
Motion carried 6/0/1 - (Absent: Linke)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
▫ Lela Panagides, a Carlsbad resident, representing the Calavera Hills Traffic Safety Group that are
committed to work on the traffic safety of the neighborhood. The group is requesting a public workshop
to be held in the next three months.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS:
1. POLICE MONTHLY REPORT – (Staff contact: Lieutenant Christie Calderwood, Police
Department) – Informational only
Lieutenant Calderwood reported on January and February Events on the Traffic Division.
Lieutenant Calderwood reported that City Council approved the resolution to fund two full time
police officers to conduct timed parking enforcement.
2. TRAFFIC CALMING PLANS FOR SEGOVIA WAY AND HARWICH DRIVE – (Staff Contact: John
Kim and Lindy Pham, Public Works).
Staff Recommendation: Approve staff recommendations
Associate Engineer Pham review the status of the traffic calming on Segovia Way and Harwich
Drive, including staff recommendations for each residential street.
▫ Vice-Chair Johnson inquired if there was a reason for a speed cushion at the end of Segovia
Way, closer to Estancia Street.
▫ Associate Engineer Pham explained that the residents observed cars speeding at the corner of
Segovia Way and Estancia Street.
▫ Commissioner Fowler inquired about the reason for speed cushion on Harwich Drive.
Exhibit 13
Page 2 of 4 Public Works
Transportation 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-434-2730 t
▫ Associate Engineer Pham explained that is considered a cut through to avoid the intersection
at Carlsbad Village Drive and College Boulevard.
▫ Julie Thompson, a Carlsbad resident, explained that she is not against the speed cushions but
she thinks that there are other safety issues to be addressed on her neighborhood. The
intersection of Segovia Way and Quebrada Circle has a crosswalk for the La Costa Hills
Elementary school kids and it becomes a safety hazard during school drop off/pick up hours.
She suggested the installation of speed signs/ speed flashing signs, also recommended getting
crossing guards at the intersection during drop off/pick up school hours.
▫ Sue Lightner, a Carlsbad resident, spoke in favor of the speed cushions on Segovia Way.
Motion by Commission Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Penseyres, to approve staff
recommendation of Traffic Calming Plans for Segovia Way and Harwich Drive.
Motion approved: 6/0/1 (Absent: Linke)
3. FOUR DEFICIENT STREET FACILITIES AFFECTING LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 15–
(Staff Contact: Paz Gomez, and Hossein Ajideh, Public Works) –
Staff’s Recommendation: Approve staff recommendations
Deputy City Manager Gomez made a presentation on the Four Deficient Street Facilities
Affecting Local Facilities Management Zone 15 which are:
1. Southbound ECR from Cannon Rd to College Blvd
2. Northbound ECR from College Blvd to Cannon Rd
3. Eastbound Cannon Rd from ECR to College Blvd
4. Westbound Cannon Rd from College Blvd to ECR
Engineering Manager Ajideh explained the criteria used to determine the Four Deficient Street
Facilities and spoke about the College Blvd extension project which is included in the staff
report.
▫ Commissioner Fowler inquired about the fact that Northbound ECR from College is not a three
through lane, therefore is not built out.
▫ Deputy City Manager Gomez explained that the studies show that even if there was a three
through lane it would not reach a Level of Service (LOS) required. It will have a relief for a
moment in time but will not solve the problem.
▫ Commissioner Hunter inquired if the extension of College Blvd would relieve the traffic on ECR.
In his opinion, if an exemption is granted no one will have to do anything about the LOS
required.
▫ Deputy City Manager Gomez said that the extension of College Boulevard is a solution but as of
right now the developers are not financially committed to extend College Blvd. She also
explained that “exempt” does not mean that staff will do nothing about the LOS. Exemption will
give the city another tool to ask the developers to come up with a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) and a Transportation System Management (TSM) to mitigate traffic impact.
▫ Commissioner Hunter said that staff should recommend City Council to approve the extension
of College Blvd. and get the City Council direction on how to fund the project.
▫ Assistant City Attorney Kemp explained that when staff say that a street is exempted is simply
saying that it cannot be improved anymore. When someone comes in to the city with a project,
staff will condition them to mitigate to the best possible, to employ TDM and TSM. The
extension of College Blvd might happen four to five years from now.
Exhibit 13
Page 3 of 4 Public Works
Transportation 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-434-2730 t
▫ Commissioner Hunter disagreed that nothing can be done right now.
▫ Chair Gocan inquired about the criteria used to identify these four streets to be deficient, built
out and exempt.
▫ Deputy City Manager Gomez explained that two criteria were used to determine the four
street facilities to be exempt. For the two facilities on ECR, it is Mobility Element Policy 3-P.9(c),
three through travel lanes, and for the two facilities on Cannon Rd, it is 3-P.9(a), right of way
acquisition infeasible.
▫ Deputy City Manager Gomez explained to the commissioners that the CIP projected for 2025
to construct a third lane on northbound ECR could be expedited and the commissioners could
make a recommendation to City Council.
Motion by Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Vice-Chair Johnson to not approve staff recommendation
to City Council determining that the Four Street Facilities are deficient, built out and exempt.
Motion did not pass: 3/3/1 (Absent: Linke).
Motion by Commissioner Penseyres, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to approve staff
recommendations to City Council determining that the Four Street Facilities are deficient, built out and
exempt, with the comment that the T&MC strongly recommended that City Council approve the
extension of College Blvd., and the addition of a third lane on Northbound ECR from College Blvd to
Cannon Road.
Motion did not pass: 3/3/1 (Absent: Linke)
Motion by Commissioner Hunter to postpone the discussion of item 3 to T&MC April 6, 2020 meeting.
Motion was not seconded.
Deputy City Manager Gomez explained that staff intends to present the item to City Council on March
24 and would include in the staff report that the two motions did not pass. City Council could decide to
continue the item or could decide and/or provide direction on March 24. Chair Gocan (or another
Commissioner if decided by the T&MC) would have an opportunity to comment on the meeting and
make recommendations as part of staff’s presentation.
Assistant City Attorney Kemp asked the commissioners why couldn’t you make the findings on this item?
What are those things that prevented you from supporting staff recommendation?
▫ Commissioner Hunter said that clearly there is a deficiency, but there are areas that are not built out
including the northbound ECR. Deputy City Manager Gomez explained that even after completion of the
unnumbered CIP, the street facility would not meet LOS standard, which is why it would be built out
then and exemption is requested.
▫ Vice-Chair Johnson agreed with Commissioner Hunter and she does not agree with the term
exemption and gives the appearance that the city is not making life easier when comes to traffic.
▫ Commissioner Perez agreed with Vice-Chair Johnson and Commissioner Hunter.
Motion by Vice-Chair Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Hunter to nominate Chair Gocan to go to City
Council on Mar. 24, and present the comments made by the T&MC on the northbound ECR widening
project and the College Blvd extension project.
Motion carried: 6/0/1 (Absent: Linke)
Exhibit 13
Page 4 of 4 Public Works
Transportation 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-434-2730 t
4. CARLSBAD SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN DRAFT– (Staff Contact: Nathan Schmidt, Public
Works)
Staff Recommendation: Information only
CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER COMMENTS:
City Traffic Engineer Report – Attachment A
TRAFFIC & MOBILITY COMMISSION COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Gocan adjourned the Traffic & Mobility Commission Meeting on Mar. 2, 2020, at 7:55 p.m.
___________________________ Eliane Paiva, Minutes Clerk