The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-04-04; Traffic and Mobility Commission; ; Multimodal Level of Service UpdateItem 4 Meeting Date: April 4, 2022 To: Traffic and Mobility Commission Staff Contact: Nathan Schmidt, Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager Nathan.schmidt@carlsbadca.gov, 760‐602‐2734 Subject: Multimodal Level of Service Update District: Citywide Recommended Actions Receive report and provide feedback. Executive Summary This report provides an overview of the City of Carlsbad’s multimodal level of service (MMLOS) methodology and the proposed updates which were developed in collaboration with the Traffic & Mobility Commission ad‐hoc committee. This report is intended to inform the Traffic and Mobility Commission of the proposed methodology updates and obtain feedback prior to conducting the MMLOS analysis as part of the annual Growth Management Plan (GMP) monitoring report which will be presented to the T&MC later this spring. Discussion Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) The MMLOS method to measure service to pedestrian and bicycle modes was originally developed as part of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and is provided in Exhibit 1. This approach (the development of the MMLOS tool) is unique to the City of Carlsbad, but is similar to methodologies used by other jurisdictions. The Carlsbad MMLOS approach reports a letter grade (A thru F) that reflects the quality of service provided to a user of the specified mode of travel. This is based on the attributes of the associated pedestrian, bicycle or transit facility. Each attribute contributes to a point system that, when the total points for all attributes are added together, corresponds to a MMLOS letter grade. The MMLOS tool, used to monitor the LOS for individual streets based on minimum operating standards defined by street type, was finalized in July 2018 with some modifications made. The MMLOS thresholds are presented in Table 1 below. The detailed MMLOS scoring sheets for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel modes are provided in Exhibit 2. April 4, 2022 Item #4 2 Table 1: Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) Thresholds Point Score LOS 90 ‐ 100 A 80 ‐ 89 B 70 ‐ 79 C 60 ‐69 D 41 ‐ 59 E 0 – 40 F Source: City of Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Tool The Carlsbad MMLOS tool provides a cost‐effective and locally validated method of determining deficiencies in the non‐automobile transportation network based on easily obtained quantitative information. Analyses can be performed by both City staff and developer consultants to ultimately ensure compliance with the Growth Management Program (GMP) monitoring efforts. Print outs of the Carlsbad MMLOS tool and corresponding data entry sheets for pedestrian and bicycle travel modes are provided in Exhibit 2. MMLOS Update and Ad‐Hoc Committee Review An overview of the MMLOS methodology was presented to the T&MC at the June 2020 meeting. During this review, the T&MC recommended to establish an ad‐hoc planning committee to guide the future updates of the MMLOS methodology. Since this time the ad‐hoc committee has convened several meetings with staff, which have led to the proposed recommended updates as summarized in Exhibit 3. The proposed updates are identified in the second column of the tables provided in Exhibit 3 and are intended to improve the tools ability to adequately assess how well the applicable roadways serve the needs of all users. Additional criteria which were proposed by the ad‐hoc committee but not recommended for inclusion in the MMLOS methodology are provided within the bottom grey rows of each table. It should be noted that while many of these criteria are worthwhile suggestions, they were removed for various reasons such as inability to uniformly apply the criteria to city streets, extensive data collection efforts which would limit the ability to use the tool on citywide Growth Management Plan monitoring efforts, inability to require development projects to construct such improvements, or inconsistency with city engineering design standards. Pedestrian MMLOS Methodology The Pedestrian MMLOS scoring criteria was established so that a facility can meet the LOS D standard if it can adequately serve people who walk and disabled users. Additionally, five criteria were identified that support the City of Carlsbad’s Climate Action Plan goals. A facility segment must fulfill a majority of these criteria to be assigned a score commensurate with LOS D. The scoring criteria include, but are not limited to the following: April 4, 2022 Item #4 3  Design consistent with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Design (MUTCD)  Sidewalk width, condition, and ramps and landing consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)  Street light locations and consistency with the City of Carlsbad standards for street light spacing  Speed limit and number of through lanes  Sidewalk buffer width from traffic  Providing a minimum unobstructed width of 4 feet  Presence of a landscaped buffer  Safety and speed control at crossings along the segment  Presence of street tress.  Presence of high visibility crosswalks and directional curb ramps Bicycle MMLOS Methodology The Bicycle LOS scoring criteria was established so that a facility can meet the LOS D standard if it meets the expectations laid out in the Sustainable Mobility Plan. Similar to Pedestrian LOS, three criteria were identified that support the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). A facility segment must fulfill a majority of these criteria in order to be assigned a score of LOS D. The scoring criteria include:  Roadway pavement conditions and presence of obstructions  Design of bikeway consistent with the MUTCD  Presence of on street parking and parking type  Speed limit  Bicycle facility designation and consistency with the Sustainable Mobility Plan for the study segment and intersecting segments  Presence of bicycle detection  Appropriate bicycle facilities widths and clearance widths between vehicle parking (door zone buffers) Transit MMLOS Methodology The Transit LOS scoring criteria was established so that a transit stop can meet the LOS D standard if it provides reasonable amenities and transit frequency. A stop must provide a majority of the listed transit stop amenities in order to be consistent with the CAP. The scoring criteria include as follows:  Presence of transit stop amenities  ADA compliant sidewalk connections to the stop  Presence of crosswalks and mid‐block crossing facilities to improve access to transit stops  Transit frequency and number and quality of routes serving the stop  Proximity to bike amenities such as bike parking and/or repair facilities April 4, 2022 Item #4 4 Availability of transportation demand management measures such as rideshare and/or the use of non‐auto modes Next Steps Staff will present the findings of the Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report including the MMLOS results for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel modes based on the updated methodologies at a future Traffic and Mobility Commission meeting. In addition, staff will initiate a task to update and revise the MMLOS methodology as needed. Staff will gather stakeholder feedback on the multi‐modal level of service (MMLOS) tool including review by the Traffic and Mobility Commission. Based on the feedback received, staff will update the MMLOS methodology accordingly and apply the updated MMLOS tool to City streets as part of the next fiscal year’s annual monitoring process. Exhibits 1.Carlsbad General Plan Mobility Element 2.Carlsbad MMLOS Tool with Input Worksheets 3.Summary of MMLOS methodology updates with a comparison of existing versus proposed or revised measures April 4, 2022 Item #4 3-11 Mobility3 General Plan TABLE 3–1: CARLSBAD LIVABLE STREETS GUIDE STREET TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES ACCOMMODATED MODES SUBJECT TO MMLOS STANDARD (Y/N) STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES Freeways Y • High-speed facilities designed to accommodate vehicles and buses moving through the city and region • Bicycles and pedestrians are prohibitedY Arterial Streets Y •These are the primary vehicle routes through the city for both local and regional vehicle trips. •Designed to safely move all modes of travel while efficiently moving vehicles and buses throughout the city. • Traffic signals shall be coordinated to optimize vehicle movements •Bicycle lanes shall be provided and can be further enhanced or complemented by other facilities or off-street pathways •Pedestrian facilities to be provided consistent with ADA requirements •Mid-block crossings should not be provided •On-street parking should be prohibited along these corridors •Vertical traffic calming techniques (such as speed tables, humps, etc.) should not be considered •Special considerations can be considered on arterials within proximity to schools to enhance Safe Routes to Schools for pedestrians and bicyclists. N N Y Identity Streets N •These streets provide the primary access to and from the heart of the city - the Village •Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists •Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle movement •No pedestrian shall cross more than five vehicular travel and/or turn lanes •In addition to ADA compliant ramps and sidewalks, sidewalks should support the adja- cent land uses as follows: –Adjacent to retail uses, modified/new sidewalks should generally be a minimum of 10 feet (12 feet preferred) in width where feasible and taking into consideration the traffic volumes of the adjacent roadway, and allow for the land use to utilize the sidewalk with outdoor seating and other activities –Adjacent to residential uses, modified/new sidewalks should be a minimum of six feet in width Elsewhere, modified/new sidewalks should be a minimum of eight feet in width •Where feasible, bicycle lanes should be provided •Vehicle speeds should complement the adjacent land uses •Bicycle parking should be provided in retail areas •Bike racks should be readily provided within the public right-of-way and encouraged on private property •Traffic calming devices, such as curb extensions (bulbouts) or enhanced pedestrian crossings should be considered and evaluated for implementation •Street furniture shall be oriented toward the businesses •Mid-block pedestrian crossings could be provided at appropriate locations (e.g. where sight distance is adequate and speeds are appropriate) •On-street vehicle parking should be provided. In areas with high parking demand, in- novative parking management techniques should be implemented / considered •Pedestrians should typically be “buffered” from vehicle traffic using landscaping or parked vehicles Y Y N Exhibit 1 - General Plan Mobility Element April 4, 2022 Item #4 3-12 City of Carlsbad Mobility3 TABLE 3–1: CARLSBAD LIVABLE STREETS GUIDE STREET TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES ACCOMMODATED MODES SUBJECT TO MMLOS STANDARD (Y/N) STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES Village Streets N •Primary purpose is to move people throughout the Village; providing access to busi- nesses, residences, transit and recreation within the Village area. •Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. •Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle movement •Promote pedestrian and bicycle connectivity through short block lengths •Bicycle lanes should be provided •Bicycle boulevards can be considered •Pedestrians should be accommodated on sidewalks adjacent to the travel way (mini- mum 5’ wide sidewalk) •Mid-block pedestrian crossings and traffic calming devices should be considered, but only at locations with high pedestrian activity levels or major destinations/attractions •On-street parking may be provided Y Y N Arterial Connector Streets Y •Primary purpose is to connect people to different areas and land uses of the city by con- necting to/from arterial streets •Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists and efficiently moving vehicles between arterial streets. •Bicycle lanes should be provided •Pedestrians should be accommodated on sidewalks adjacent to the travel way (mini- mum 5’ wide sidewalk) •Mid-block pedestrian crossings and traffic calming devices should be considered, but only at locations with high pedestrian activity levels or major destinations/attractions •On-street parking may be provided Y Y N Neighborhood Connector Street N •Primary purpose is to connect people to different neighborhoods and land uses of the city •Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. •Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle movement •Bicycle lanes should be provided •Bicycle boulevards can be considered •Pedestrians should be accommodated on sidewalks adjacent to the travel way (mini- mum 5’ wide sidewalk) •Mid-block pedestrian crossings and traffic calming devices should be considered, but only at locations with high pedestrian activity levels or major destinations/attractions •On-street parking may be provided Y Y N April 4, 2022 Item #4 3-13 Mobility3 General Plan TABLE 3–1: CARLSBAD LIVABLE STREETS GUIDE STREET TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES ACCOMMODATED MODES SUBJECT TO MMLOS STANDARD (Y/N) STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES Employment/Transit Connector Streets N • Primary purpose is to connect people to and from the employment areas of the city, as well as important destinations and major transit facilities. •Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists and efficiently moving buses to employment, transit stations and major destinations. •Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle movement • Direct connections to bus stops should be provided •Enhanced bus stops should be considered that include shelters, benches, and lighting •Bicycle lanes and sidewalks should be provided •Pedestrian crossing distances should be minimized •On-street parking may be provided Y Y Y Coastal Streets N •Primary purpose is to move people along the city’s ocean waterfront and connect people to the beach, recreation, businesses and residences in close proximity to the waterfront. The street serves as a destination for people who seek to drive, walk and bicycle along the ocean waterfront. •Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. •Vehicle speeds shall be managed to support uses along the coast •Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian crossings should be provided, including: –High visibility crosswalks –Enhanced pedestrian notifications (e.g. responsive push-button devices) –Enhanced bicycle detection –Bicycle lanes shall be provided and can be further enhanced or complemented by other facilities (such as bicycle lane buffers or off-street pathways) •Pedestrian facilities should be a minimum of five feet and shall strive for six to eight feet in width and shall conform to ADA requirements •Pedestrian crossing distances should be minimized •Trail facilities should be encouraged •Opportunities for mid-block pedestrian crossings should be investigated •On-street parking should be provided •Transit facility and operation improvements should be encouraged Y Y N April 4, 2022 Item #4 3-14 City of Carlsbad Mobility3 TABLE 3–1: CARLSBAD LIVABLE STREETS GUIDE STREET TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES ACCOMMODATED MODES SUBJECT TO MMLOS STANDARD (Y/N) STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES School Streets N •Primary purpose is to connect people to schools from nearby residential neighbor- hoods. •Designed to safely move all modes of travel with an emphasis on providing safe pedes- trian and bicycle access for students traveling to and from nearby schools. •Vehicle speeds shall be managed to support school uses (typically 25 MPH) •Enhanced bicycle and pedestrian crossings should be provided, including: –High visibility crosswalks –Enhanced pedestrian notifications (e.g. responsive push-button devices) –Enhanced bicycle detection –Bicycle lanes shall be provided and can be further enhanced or complemented by other facilities or off-street pathways •Pedestrian facilities should be a minimum of six feet and shall strive for eight feet in width and shall conform to ADA requirements •Pedestrian crossing distances should be minimized •Opportunities for mid-block pedestrian crossings should be investigated •Traffic calming devices that improve service levels and safety for pedestrians and bicy- clists should be considered Y Y N Industrial Streets Y •Primary purpose is to connect people to businesses within the city’s industrial parks. •Designed to safely move all modes of travel while efficiently moving vehicles and buses from arterial streets and employment/transit connector streets to businesses. •Traffic calming devices are generally discouraged given the propensity for larger trucks and heavy vehicles in this area •On-street parking may be provided as long as it does not interfere with the turning radii of heavy vehicles. N N Y Local/Neighborhood Street N •Primary purpose is to connect people to and through residential neighborhoods and local areas of the city. •Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists. •Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle movement •Pedestrians should be accommodated on a sidewalk or soft surface trail (such as de- composed granite) unless those facilities are inconsistent with the existing desirable neighborhood character •Bicycles can be accommodated with a bicycle lane or route if vehicle volumes and/or speeds necessitate; otherwise bicycles can share the street •Bicycle boulevards can be considered •Traffic calming measures should be considered when supported by the neighborhood or when warranted for safety reasons •On-street parking should be considered Y Y N April 4, 2022 Item #4 3-15 Mobility3 General Plan Multi-Modal Levels of Service Traditionally, transportation systems have been designed to achieve a level of service from the perspective of the driver, not pedestrians or bicyclists. However, cities throughout the country are now designing their transportation systems to achieve levels of service for all travel modes. Some cities, such as Fort Collins, CO, San Francisco, CA, Gainesville, FL, Charlotte, NC, and others, have been doing this for more than a decade; and in 2010, national guidelines were developed by the Transportation Research Board to encourage other cities to establish levels of service for all travel modes. The California Complete Streets Act (2008) requires cities in California to plan for a balanced, multi-modal transportation system that meets the needs of all travel modes. This Mobility Element establishes a multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) methodology for Carlsbad that determines the vehicle level of service by the Highway Capacity Manual and evaluates the service levels for pedestri- ans, bicyclists and transit users. The city’s MMLOS methodology will provide a qualitative “grade” assigned to specified travel modes (see Table 3-1), ranging from a level of service (LOS) A to LOS F. LOS A reflects a high service standard for a travel mode (e.g. outstanding characteristics and experience for that mode) and LOS F would reflect a poor service standard for a travel mode (e.g. congestion for vehicles, no bicycle, pedes- trian, or transit facilities, etc.). Thresholds are identified to balance supply and demand to create a sustainable system of public right-of-way, keeping in mind TABLE 3–1: CARLSBAD LIVABLE STREETS GUIDE STREET TYPOLOGY AND ACCOMMODATED MODES ACCOMMODATED MODES SUBJECT TO MMLOS STANDARD (Y/N) STREET TYPOLOGY DESCRIPTION AND PREFERRED ATTRIBUTES Bicycle/Pedestrian Pathway Y •Primary purpose is to provide safe bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the com- munity by connecting people to residences, businesses and recreation uses. •For bicycles and pedestrians only – no vehicular access is permitted •Serves commuters and recreational usersY Streets within ½ Mile of a Transit Center N •Primary purpose is to connect people to/from the city’s transit centers. •Designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists and efficiently moving vehicles and buses to/from transit centers. •Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle movement •Provides access to the Breeze/COASTER system via enhanced bicycle/pedestrian connec- tivity or via shuttle service from the stations to the ultimate destination •Could include enhanced transit systems, such as signal priority for transit, dedicated ROW for transit, or queue bypass lanes. •Mid-block pedestrian crossings and traffic calming devices should be considered in these areas •Parking should be provided and managed using innovative parking techniques Y Y Y April 4, 2022 Item #4 Point Score LOS 90‐100 A 80‐89 B 70‐79 C 60‐69 D 50‐59 E 0‐49 F IMPORTANT: This tool requires macros to be enabled in Excel. MMLOS TOOL TOOL INSTRUCTIONS PURPOSE Similar to many cities throughout the United States, the City of Carlsbad desires to evaluate transportation services of roadways from a multi‐modal perspective. As a result, the Mobility Element of the City's General Plan presents a multi‐modal level of service (MMLOS) methodology that identifies attributes of a location and identifies a qualitative LOS grade based on the attributes of the pedestrian, bicycle or transit facility. Fehr & Peers has taken the Carlsbad MMLOS approach and has developed this tool, which provides a user‐ friendly platform to evaluate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit level of service. This tool can be used by developers as they prepare a transportation impact study for their proposed land use development, as well as by City staff for their infrastructure projects in Carlsbad. MMLOS POINT SYSTEM & RATING MMLOS Point System Each travel mode (i.e. pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facility) receives its own LOS score and corresponding letter grade as shown in the table below. The City strives to maintain LOS D or better for each mode of travel. However, as stated in the Mobility Element, there is no required minimum level of service for some travel modes on some types of streets, since the intent is to provide a balanced mobility system which may not always provide an optimum level of service for all travel modes on a facility. Please refer to Table 3‐1 in the Mobility Element (also shown to the right) to verify whether or not the MMLOS standard is applicable for a particular mode along a certain street typology. Exhibit 2 : Carlsbad MMLOS Tool April 4, 2022 Item #4 MMLOS Scoping Requirements: All pedestrian facilities/access points located along all frontages and to the nearest intersections in both directions, to include all sidewalks, crosswalks, signalized pedestrian crossings, and ADA‐compliant facilities. 1. Refer to the latest Mobility Element for additional background on the City's livable streets approach to provide a balanced mobility system that identifies the travel modes for which levels should be enhanced and maintained per the MMLOS standard (LOS D or better). 2. A glossary sheet is available as an additional tab. Typical terms are defined within this glossary. Helpful maps can be seen by clicking on this icon. Clear all button. Roadway Info Section: Fill out the extents and general characteristics of the study roadway segment being evaluated for MMLOS operations. This section only needs to be filled out once and will be applied to all the other tabs. Transit_Detail: Produces the point allocation across all the transit‐related criteria. This output produces these results automatically as the user answers each criteria in the Transit Tab. Transit Tab: Answer the following transit‐related questions using their respective pull down menus. Please note that transit amenities section requires toggling the amenities provided within the study segment. HELPFUL HINTS Pedestrian LOS: The Carlsbad MMLOS method evaluates the quality of the pedestrian system (e.g. number of vehicle lanes that need to be crossed and the speed of adjacent traffic) and the friendliness of the infrastructure at intersections (e.g. pedestrian countdown heads, dedicated pedestrian phases (e.g. a scramble phase), curb extensions, refuge median). In addition, the connectivity and contiguity of the pedestrian system along street sections (particularly ADA‐compliant connectivity/contiguity) is a critical component of pedestrian facilities. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Ped Tab: Answer the following pedestrian‐related questions using their respective pull down menus. Please note that some criteria require manual data input. Bike Tab: Answer the following bicycle‐related questions using their respective pull down menus. Please note that some criteria require manual data input. Roadway Direction Section: Use the pull down menu to set the roadway segment direction being evaluated. This section only needs to be filled out once and will be applied to all the other tabs. Score & LOS Section: The MMLOS point score and corresponding LOS rating for each travel mode auto‐ calculates as each criteria is answered. Ped_Detail: Produces the point allocation across all the pedestrian‐related criteria. This output produces these results automatically as the user answers each criteria in the Ped Tab. Bike_Detail: Produces the point allocation across all the bicycle‐related criteria. This output produces these results automatically as the user answers each criteria in the Bike Tab. CRITERIA NOTES April 4, 2022 Item #4 MMLOS Scoping Requirements: All bicycle facilities located along all frontages and to the nearest intersections in both directions, to include all off‐street and on‐street bicycle paths, lanes and routes. Signing and Striping Design Guidelines: Until the City develops design guidelines, use the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans Highway Design Manual Chapter 1000, and AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012) Striped Continuously Through: Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes or driveways Examples of Traffic Calming Features: Speed humps, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, textured pavement, traffic circles, roundabouts, chicanes, re‐aligned intersections, neckdowns, center island narrowings, chokers, median barriers, etc. Examples of Apparent Sight Distance Issues: Physical obstructions Active Building Frontage Examples: Pedestrian attracting frontages, such as active storefronts and recreational spaces Examples of Trip Hazards: Uneven or raised concrete sidewalks and curbs BICYCLE FACILITIES Bicycle LOS: The Carlsbad MMLOS method evaluates the quality of the bicycle system (e.g. bicycle route, bicycle lanes, or bicycle pathway; presence of bicycle buffers from the vehicle travel way), the amenities of the system (e.g. presence of bicycle parking), and the friendliness of the infrastructure (e.g. bicycle detection at intersections, pavement conditions, presence of vehicle parking). In addition, the connectivity and contiguity of the bicycle system along street sections is a critical component of bicycle facilities. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Requirements: Below are links to helpful resources in determining whether or not the sidewalks, ramps, and/or landings are ADA compliant. • https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/Guidance2010ADAstandards.htm • https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm • http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/camutcd/camutcd2014rev1.html California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) Standards: Below is a link to the latest CA MUTCD. Please review the appropriate chapters to determine whether or not crosswalks appropriately. Essential Features (indicated with "*"): The first five criteria are essential features. For the sidewalk width input, a minimum 4 feet must be entered in order to meet ADA unobstructed width requirements. April 4, 2022 Item #4 TRANSIT FACILITIES Transit LOS: The Carlsbad MMLOS method evaluates the transit vehicle right‐of‐way (e.g. dedicated or shared, signal priority), hours and frequency of service (e.g. weekday/weekend hours, peak period highway); performance (e.g. on‐time or late); amenities and safety (e.g. lighting, covered stop, bench, on‐ board bike/surfboard storage); and connectivity (e.g. to other transit routes, employment areas, schools, visitor attractions, and other major destinations). MMLOS Scoping Requirements: For each frontage, pedestrian access to the nearest transit stop, up to ¼ mile, to include all transit stations/centers, transit bus stops, and ADA‐compliant access to such facilities. FLEX Service Area: NCTD's FLEX service offers rides by reservation in specific parts of North County. Travel anywhere in the zone by reservation (at least 30 minutes in advance), Monday‐Friday 4:50 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. The FLEX service area no longer includes Carlsbad and no timetable has been identified to reinstate FLEX or a similar public transit service. The MMLOS tool still accommodates this service in the event it is reinstated in the future. April 4, 2022 Item #4 Active Building Frontages Storefront windows and entrances, patio seating and other ground floor building features attractive and accessible to pedestrians. American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements Ensure that facilities comply with standards for accessible design. Average Daily Traffic (ADT)The vehicle count on a given street segment within a 24‐hour period, typically on a weekday. Bicycle Master Plan City of Carlsbad planning document detailing the city’s goals and policies for the future development of bicycle facilities and programs. Bikeway A generic term for any road, street, path, or way which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. Bulbout Extends the corner sidewalk at an intersection, which reduces the crossing distance for pedestrians and typically installed as a traffic calming measure. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) Provides standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices in California. The 2014 CA MUTCD is the latest edition of the publication. Climate Action Plan (CAP) Designed to reduce Carlsbad’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and streamline environmental review of future development projects in the city in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Chokers Curb extensions at midblock locations that narrow a street by widening the sidewalk or planting strip. They are good for areas with substantial speed problems and no on‐ street parking shortage. Countdown Heads A feature of pedestrian signals indicating the amount of seconds left for pedestrians to cross the street during the current signal phase. Cross‐Slope An important cross‐sectional design element that refers to a slope that is perpendicular to the direction of travel. Cycle Track An exclusive bike facility that combines the user experience of a separated path with the on‐street infrastructure of a conventional bike lane. Headways The time between transit vehicles on the same route. Landing A level area at the top or bottom of a ramp allowing people with mobility impairments to move completely off the ramp and onto the sidewalk or street. Landscape Buffer The planting strip located between a sidewalk and street. Mobility Element The section of the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan directly pertaining to transportation. Mobility Hub Provides an integrated suite of mobility services, amenities, and technologies to bridge the distance between high‐frequency transit and an individual’s origin or destination. Multi‐Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) Evaluates the safety and quality of access and mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. Pedestrian Refuge Also known as a refuge island or pedestrian island. A small section of pavement or sidewalk surrounded by asphalt or other road materials, where pedestrians can stop before finishing crossing a road. Pedestrian Scale Lighting A lighting source that provides lighting for public pathways and gathering areas, which increase the perception of safety for pedestrians. Pedestrian Signal Phasing A form of intersection traffic signal phasing allowing pedestrians adequate time to cross the street. Permanent Speed Control Devices Also known as radar speed signs or speed feedback signs; traffic‐calming devices that display actual speed against the posted speed limit and alert drivers traveling at excessive speeds to slow down. Glossary April 4, 2022 Item #4 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) A flashing warning beacon system installed at crosswalks that increases the visibility of pedestrians crossing the road and creates a safer pedestrian crossing environment. Ridesharing The sharing of vehicle trips so that more than one person travels in a car, also known as carpooling. Right‐Turn Median Island A refuge area for pedestrians located between through travel lanes and channelized right‐turn lanes at an intersection. Street Typology Each street in the City of Carlsbad is classified as a specific type of street based on characteristics that include the location, adjacent land uses, and the desired use of that facility. Subsidized To support with a subsidy or form of financial assistance. Through Lanes Travel lanes on a roadway carrying traffic straight through an intersection or street segment. Transit Priority Measures or techniques designed to minimize delays to transit (buses) at intersections and along congested roadways ensuring a faster commute time for passengers. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) The application of strategies and policies to reduce single‐occupancy vehicle travel demand and yield a more efficient use of transportation resources. April 4, 2022 Item #4 ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total) PEDESTRIAN Roadway Direction * Do pedestrian crossings appear consistent with the CA MUTCD? * Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet (Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'): * Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g., cross‐slope and trip hazards)? * Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA requirements? * Do the street light locations appear adequate? Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph): Number of Through Lanes: Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge? (Include turn lanes in count) Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian facility and vehicle travel way: Does on‐street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way? Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings? Are there any permanent speed control devices installed? Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median island)? Do crosswalks appear to be high visibility? Are there intersection enhancements provided for pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown heads)? Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at street crossings? Is there pedestrian scale lighting? Do active building frontages appear to be present on 80% of street curb line? Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards businesses or attractions? Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more than 50% of the sidewalk length? Arterial Connector 7,000 *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). 0 | F SCORE | LOS 0 | F SCORE | LOS X April 4, 2022 Item #4 00 Points Points Assigned Points Assigned * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 5' if unspecified) 10 0 0 Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified)50 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk segments meet ADA requirements (cross‐slope and trip hazards) 10 0 0 Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10 0 0 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 0 0 On‐street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 50 0 Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 50 0 Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 0 0 Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 0 0 Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 0 0 No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings 50 0 Permanent speed control devices installed on segments posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 50 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 0 0 Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the CA MUTCD)50 0 Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median island) 10 0 0 Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian‐friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown heads, signage, etc.) 10 0 0 RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 0 0 * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light locations appear adequate 10 0 0 Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational spaces) 50 0 Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk length 50 0 Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0 Pedestrian scale lighting 5 0 0 00 FF No No Other Elements Accessibility and functionality Total Score: All Essential Feature Criteria Met? Pedestrian LOS: Street characteristics Crossing characteristics Criteria Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria April 4, 2022 Item #4 ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total) BICYCLE Roadway Direction *Do the roadway pavement conditions appear to be good (e.g., no pot holes)? *Does bike facility on roadway appear to be free of obstructions (e.g., drainage grates)? *Does the bicycle facility appear to meet MUTCD signing and striping design guidelines? Is on‐street parking provided? Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph): Does the bikeway on the study segment and side streets meet and/or exceed the Bicycle Master Plan? Is there enhanced bicycle detection or video detection provided at intersections? Any bicycle racks are provided along segment? Bicycle Facility Provided: Arterial Connector 7,000 0 | F SCORE | LOS 0 | F SCORE | LOS X *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). April 4, 2022 Item #4 00 Points Points Assigned Points Assigned Speed limit is ≤ 25 mph 25 0 0 Speed limit is 30 mph 15 0 0 Speed limit is 35 mph 10 0 0 Street with ADT < 3,000 15 0 0 Street with ADT between 3,000 and 6,000 10 0 0 Class I facility (off‐street path), Class IV (cycle track), or multiuse path 25 0 0 Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on‐street bicycle lanes)15 0 0 Bike lane buffer (2' min) is provided 5 0 0 Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only) 5 0 0 Additional traffic calming/speed management features have been applied to Class III facility (i.e. a bike boulevard)10 0 0 Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 25 0 0 Bike lane (including buffer) is at least 8' wide from face of curb 10 0 0 Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet design guidelines D 10 0 0 Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes) 10 0 0 Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates) 5 0 0 Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master Plan along segment 50 0 Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes or driveways 50 0 No on‐street parking and speed limit is 25 or 30 mph 5 0 0 Back‐in angled parking 5 0 0 Parallel parking with door‐side buffered bike lane 5 0 0 Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at intersections 50 0 Bicycle racks are provided along segment 5 0 0 00 FF Total Score: Bike LOS: Connectivity/ Contiguity Adjacent Vehicle Parking Other Elements Facility Bicycle MMLOS Criteria Criteria Street Characteristics Bikeway Design April 4, 2022 Item #4 ROADWAY INFO Roadway Name From To Street Typology from Mobility Element _ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume (2‐way total) TRANSIT Roadway Direction * Transit stop amenities available: Do the sidewalks or path to the transit stop appear to be ADA compliant? Do multiple transit routes stop on the study segment? Do any of the routes provide a direct link to a COASTER station or mobility hub? Do any of the routes provide a single transfer to reach a COASTER station or mobility hub? * Closest distance to existing transit stop:<= 1/4 mile walk to bus/rail <= 1/4 mile walk to bus/rail What type of transit priority is present? Headways between 6:30‐8:30 am and 4‐6 pm on weekdays: Is there commute shuttle service provided during the morning and afternoon commute periods? On weekends, are the headways no more than 1 hour headways between 9 am‐5 pm? Is there bike parking available at the bus stop? Is the bus stop within 1/4 mile of a bike repair shop? * Is area governed by an adopted TDM ordinance that will promote ridesharing and/or the use of non‐auto modes? * Are On Demand rideshare services available? * Is the study segment within FLEX service area? Industrials 7,000 Covered Bus Stop Bench Well-lit Stops Trash Cans Stop located within a block of commercial users Covered Bus Stop Bench Well-lit Stops Trash Cans Stop located within a block of commercial users 0 | F SCORE | LOS 0 | F SCORE | LOS X *Indicates an essential feature that strongly supports and promotes the goals identifed in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! April 4, 2022 Item #4 Project: Segment: Scenario: By: 00 Points Points Assigned Points Assigned No greater than 1/4 mile walk to the nearest transit stop 50 (rail/bus) 30 (bus)50 50 No greater than 1/2 mile walk to the nearest transit stop 30 (rail/bus) 20 (bus)00 No greater than 1 mile bicycle ride to the nearest transit stop 50 0 ADA compliant sidewalk or path to transit stops in both directions 15 0 0 Multiple transit routes stop on segment 10 0 0 Route provides a direct link to a COASTER station or mobility hub 15 0 0 Route provides for a single transfer to reach a COASTER station or mobility hub 50 0 Dedicated right of way 5 0 0 Transit priority during peak hours 5 0 0 Headways of 15 minutes between 6:30‐8:30 am and 4‐6 pm on weekdays 15 0 0 Headways of 30 minutes between 6:30‐8:30 am and 4‐6 pm on weekdays 50 0 Headways of 1 hour between 6:30‐8:30 am and 4‐6 pm on weekdays 20 0 Commute shuttle service provided during the morning and afternoon commute periods 10 0 0 No more than 1 hour headways between 9 am and 5 pm on weekends 50 0 Covered bus stops 5 0 0 Bench 10 0 0 Well‐lit stop that provides a sense of security 5 0 0 Trash cans 2 0 0 Bus stop located within a block of commercial services 5 0 0 Bike parking available at the bus stop 5 0 0 Bus stop within 1/4 mile of a bike repair shop 5 0 0 Area governed by an adopted TDM ordinance that will promote ridesharing and/or the use of non‐auto modes 60 0 0 On demand rideshare services available 60 0 0 Segment within FLEX service area 60 0 0 50 50 EE Transit Stop Located Within 1/2 Mile Walk from Subject Site or Roadway Segment Connectivity Transit priority Service Bicycle Accommodations No Transit Stop Located Within 1/2 Mile Walk from Subject Site or Roadway Segment Amenities Available Mobility Services Total Score: Transit LOS: 1/0/1900 From To Transit & Ridesharing MMLOS Criteria Criteria Access April 4, 2022 Item #4 Exhibit 3Existing MMLOS CriteriaProposed Revised MMLOS CriteriaProposed Revised MMLOS Scoring RequirementsAre crosswalks marked per CA MUTCD standards?Are pedestrian crossings consistent with the CA‐MUTCD?If not, segment capped at LOS EMinimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet (Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4'):Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width in Feet (Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement is 4')If a sidewalk gap exists (sidewalk width shall be input as 0'), Maximum LOS is capped at LOS EDo sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.g., cross‐slope and trip hazards)?Do sidewalks meet ADA Requirements (e.g. cross‐slope and trip hazards?)If not, segment capped at LOS E Do ramps and landings appear to meet ADA requirements?Do ramps and landings meet ADA requirements?If not, segment capped at LOS EDo the street light locations appear adequate?Are the street lighting locations consistent with City of Carlsbad standards for street light spacing?If not, segment capped at LOS EN/A Are the pedestrian crossings: 1) controlled (i.e., by a stop sign, signal or roundabout) or enhanced with an RRFB or PHB, if warranted, and 2) provided at 600 ft spacing in at least one direction from a pedestrian access point to the development (or at the next adjacent public street intersection if intersection spacing exceeds 600 ft)?MMLOS shall be capped at LOS E if 1) Roadway is less than 35 mph and crossing spacing is not met or (2) roadway is equal to or more than 35 mph and does not have crossing spacing and/or the crossings are not controlledN/ADo all signalized intersections include high‐visibility (marked) crosswalks on all legs?If not, segment capped at LOS DSpeed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph):Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph):No ChangeNumber of Through Lanes:Number of Through Lanes:No ChangeAre there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge? (Include turn lanes in count)Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge? (Include turn lanes in count)No ChangeWidth (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian facility and vehicle travel way:Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian facility and vehicle travel way:No ChangeDoes on‐street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way?Does on‐street parking or a bike lane provide 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way?No ChangeAny apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings?Any apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings?No ChangeAre there any permanent speed control devices installed?Are there any permanent speed control devices installed?No ChangeAre there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median island)?Are there traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (e.g., bulbouts, chokers, right‐turn median island)?No ChangeDo crosswalks appear to be high visibility?Delete (Now an essential feature)DeleteAre there intersection enhancements provided for pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown heads)?Are there intersection enhancements provided for pedestrians (e.g., pedestrian signal phasing, countdown heads)?No ChangeAre there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at street crossings?Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at street crossings?No ChangeIs there pedestrian scale lighting?Is there pedestrian scale lighting?No ChangeDo active building frontages appear to be present on 80% of street curb line?Are active building frontages present on 80% of street curb line?No ChangeDoes the street furniture appear to be oriented towards businesses or attractions?Is the street furniture oriented towards businesses or attractions?No ChangeDo the street trees appear to provide shade over more than 50% of the sidewalk length?Do the street trees provide shade over more than 50% of the sidewalk length?No ChangeN/AAre directional pedestrian ramps provided?New criteriaN/AIf it is more than 600 feet from a pedestrian access point to the nearest pedestrian crossing, has a warrant study for a mid‐block crossing been conducted?If not, segment capped at LOS DN/ADo all unsignalized intersections on streets with 10,000+ ADT, 35 mph+ speed limit, limited sight distance, 3+ lanes, and/or direct access to schools or transit stops include high‐visibility crosswalks on all legs?If not, segment capped at LOS DEssential Features that strongly supports and promotes the goals identified in the Climate Action Plan (CAP)Standard FeaturesCriteria Applicable to Local Mobility Analysis Projects OnlyPedestrian MMLOSCriteria considered by the MMLOS Ad‐Hoc Committee but not recommended for inclusion in the MMLOS methodologyApril 4, 2022Item #4 Exhibit 3Existing MMLOS CriteriaProposed Revised MMLOS CriteriaProposed Revised MMLOS Scoring RequirementsDo the roadway pavement conditions appear to be good (e.g., no pot holes)?Are roadway pavement conditions good? (E.g. no pot holes or longitudinal cracks?)LOS capped at LOS E if criteria not metDoes bike facility on roadway appear to be free of obstructions (e.g., drainage grates)? Do all bicycle facilities provide a minimum of 3' clearance from obstructions (e.g. drainage grates, depressed or exposed metal utility covers, or steeply sloped draings)?LOS capped at LOS E if criteria not metDoes the bicycle facility appear to meet MUTCD signing and striping design guidelines? Does the bicycle facility meet MUTCD signing and striping design guidelines?LOS capped at LOS E if criteria not metN/AIf Class II Bicycle lanes, are lanes a minimum width of 5 ft.?LOS capped at LOS E if criteria not metN/ADo all Class‐II bicycle lanes provide bicyclists with straight‐through right of way or clear delination of conflict zones at intersections?‐N/AAre the street lighting locations consistent with City of Carlsbad standards for street light spacing?‐N/AIs there a painted buffer between all vehicle and Class II bicycle lanes with CA MUTCD‐recommended striping.‐N/AOn streets with parallel parking provide a minimum 2’ door‐side buffer at Class‐II bike lanes or sharrows signage and sharrows/BMUFL installed?‐Is on‐street parking provided?Is on‐street parking provided?No changeSpeed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph):Speed limit (miles per hour ‐ mph):No changeDoes the bikeway on the study segment and side streets meet and/or exceed the Bicycle Master Plan?Does the bikeway on the study segment and side streets meet and/or exceed the Sustainable Mobility Plan?‐Bicycle Facility Provided:Class‐II Bike Facility Provided‐Is there enhanced bicycle detection or video detection provided at intersections? Delete‐Any bicycle racks are provided along segment?Delete‐N/AAre the bicycle crossings at intersections: 1) controlled (i.e., by a stop sign, signal or roundabout) or enhanced with an RRFB or PHB, if warranted, and 2) provided at 600 ft spacing in at least one direction from the development (or at the next adjacent public street intersection if intersection spacing exceeds 600 ft)?‐N/AIf adjacent to parked vehicles, is a minimum buffer of 3 ft. provided between the bike and and parking?LOS capped at LOS E if criteria not metN/AIs bicycle detection present at all traffic signals, and has it been verified in a field study to be functioning?‐N/AHave traffic signal clearance times for bicyclists consistent with the CA MUTCD been established at all signalized intersections?‐N/AAre bicycle racks provided along segment?‐N/AOn high speed streets (above 35 mph pace speed), bike LOS would be capped at the following scores based on the type of bike facility protection: LOS C if 6 ft+ bike lane with 3 ft left side buffer, no parking and all intersections are controlled; LOS D if 6 ft+ bike lane (no buffer and not adjacent to curb and gutter); LOS E for Bike lanes that are 5’ and adjacent to curb and gutter. LOS F for Bike lanes that are 5' and adjacent to parked cars without a 3 ft minimum buffer.‐Bicycle MMLOSEssential Features that strongly supports and promotes the goals identified in the Climate Action Plan (CAP)Standard FeaturesCriteria considered by the MMLOS Ad‐Hoc Committee but not recommended for inclusion in the MMLOS methodologyApril 4, 2022Item #4 Exhibit 3Existing MMLOS CriteriaProposed Revised MMLOS CriteriaProposed Revised MMLOS Scoring RequirementsTransit stop amenities available:Are all of the following transit stop amenities available: Sign, bench, trash receptacle, ADA accessible pad, shelter, well‐lit, free or subsidized passes for affordable residential unitsIf not, capped at LOS EN/AAre all sidewalks and paths to transit stops complete and ADA compliant?If not, capped at LOS EDo multiple transit routes stop on the study segment?Do multiple transit routes stop on the study segment?No changeDo any of the routes provide a direct link to a COASTER station or mobility hub? Do any of the routes provide a direct link to a COASTER station or mobility hub?No changeDo any of the routes provide a single transfer to reach a COASTER station or mobility hub?Do any of the routes provide a single transfer to reach a COASTER station or mobility hub?No changeIs there commute shuttle service provided during the morning and afternoon commute periods?Is there a commuter shutter service provided during the morning and afternoon commute periodsNo changeIs there bike parking available at the bus stop?Is there secure bike parking available at the bus stop?‐Is the bus stop within 1/4 mile of a bike repair shop?Is the bus stop within 1/4 of a bike repair shop or publicly accessible bike repair station?‐Closest distance to existing transit stop:Closest distance to existing transit stop:No changeWhat type of transit priority is present?What type of transit priority is present?No changeHeadways between 6:30‐8:30 am and 4‐6 pm on weekdays:Headways between 6:30‐8:30 am and 4‐6 pm on weekdays:No changeOn weekends, are the headways no more than 1 hour headways between 9 am‐5 pm? On weekends, are the headways no more than 1 hour headways between 9 am‐5 pm?No changeIs area governed by an adopted TDM ordinance that will promote ridesharing and/or the use of non‐auto modes?Is area governed by an adopted TDM ordinance that will promote ridesharing and/or the use of non‐auto modes?No changeAre On Demand rideshare services available?Are On Demand rideshare services available?No changeIs the study segment within FLEX service area?Is the study segment within FLEX service area?No changeN/AClosest distance to existing transit stop:If > 1/4 mile, then capped at LOS D without a TDM planN/AAre transit service headways >30 minutes between 6:30‐8:30 am and 4‐6 pm on weekdays:If yes, then capped at LOS D without TDM programN/AIf it is more than 400 feet from a pedestrian access point to the nearest pedestrian crossing, has a warrant study for a mid‐block crossing been conducted?It not, segment capped at LOS EN/AFor developments with a residential component, are transit service headways >60 minutes between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm on weekends:If yes, the capped at LOS E without a TDM plan that includes access to vehicle‐based alternative transportationN/AAre the pedestrian crossings providing access to the bus stop on the opposite side of the street: 1) controlled (i.e., by a stop sign, signal or roundabout) or enhanced with an RRFB or PHB, if warranted, and 2) provided at 400 ft spacing in at least one direction (or at the next adjacent public street intersection if intersection spacing exceeds 400 ft)?Segment capped at LOS E if (1) roadway is less than 35 mph and crossing spacing is not met or (2) roadway is equal to or more than 35 mph and does not have crossing spacing and/or the crossings are not controlledN/AAre transit service headways >1 hour on weekends between 9 am ‐ 5pm?‐N/AIf a meaningful rideshare program is required, do all boarding areas meet the minimum requirements of a transit stop, and is the capacity sufficient to simultaneously serve during peak commute times the greater of 10% of the residents/employees or the cumulative percentage of mode shifting resident/employees among all transit‐related VMT and TDM mitigation measures‐Transit MMLOSEssential Features that strongly supports and promotes the goals identified in the Climate Action Plan (CAP)Standard FeaturesCriteria Applicable to Local Mobility Analysis projects onlyCriteria considered by the MMLOS Ad‐Hoc Committee but not recommended for inclusion in the MMLOS methodologyApril 4, 2022Item #4 1 Traffic and Mobility Commission, Commissioner Correspondence From: Commissioner Steve Linke Meeting Date: April 4, 2022 Subject: Multimodal Level of Service Update (Item #4) Below are four general questions followed by a little background information that I would like to provide to staff, the rest of the commission, and the public, so that anybody who is interested has time to review it prior to Monday’s meeting. General questions 1. The Growth Management Plan (GMP) ordinance requires annual monitoring of all facilities defined in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP), which, since 2015, includes pedestrian, bicycle, and transit level of service on prioritized streets citywide. Under what authority has the city not assessed these for the last 6+ years? 2. How are the GMP/CFIP requirements for maintaining minimum level of service (LOS) performance standards going to be enforced for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities that are found to be deficient (LOS “E” or “F”) during the first annual monitoring this Spring? 3. The staff report indicates that some of the new MMLOS rules proposed by the ad hoc committee were not included due to the “inability to require development projects to construct such improvements.” Presumably, this is related to the claim that a nexus cannot be made. For example, even if a development project is relying heavily on claims that its residents will use transit to mitigate its traffic impacts, the development allegedly cannot be conditioned to fund the striping of a high-visibility crosswalk across a major arterial road to improve access to a bus stop on the other side of the street. Please describe who makes the nexus and proportional funding decisions for development projects and the protocol used to make those decisions. 4. In collaboration with staff, the ad hoc committee developed a set of minimum standards to achieve a passing grade of LOS “D.” However, the staff report refers to facilities only needing to fulfill a “majority” of certain critiera. Are all of the criteria in Exhibit E with the designation “If not, segment capped to LOS E” going to be required—or only a majority of them? Background Carlsbad operates under a GMP ordinance, which was intended to prevent additional development, unless eleven different public facilities meet minimum performance standards within 25 different zones throughout the city. The minimum performance standards are established in a separate document called the CFIP. One of the eleven public facilities is our circulation (street) system. Other examples include libraries, parks, fire, water, and sewer service. The GMP requires that all eleven public facilities be monitored every year (i.e., assessed whether they are meeting their minimum CFIP performance standards). If the annual monitoring report reveals a performance standard deficiency, then the GMP calls for a development moratorium in the affected 2 zone(s) until there is a planning and funding commitment to an improvement project that will allow the facilities to meet their minimum standard. The GMP also requires that all proposed developments assess whether they will induce a performance standard failure of any of the eleven public facilities. Similar to the consequences of annual monitoring, if the development would cause a deficiency, they are supposed to be conditioned to make a commitment to fund an improvement project that will allow the facility to meet its minimum standard. Prior to 2015, the street system performance standard in the CFIP only included vehicle level of service (LOS), which is measured like schools grades on a scale of “A” to “F.” In 2015, the City adopted a General Plan update that re-prioritized each street to specific modes of travel (vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and/or transit). The point system under review here determines the LOS letter grades for the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of travel, and the overall system is called multimodal level of service (MMLOS). The CFIP update that accompanied the General Plan update in 2015 defined LOS “D” as the minimum performance standard for each mode of travel on the prioritized streets. Vehicle LOS is very straight-forward. It is based on the volume of vehicles and the ability of a specific street segment/intersection to handle them. As vehicle volume increases over time, the LOS degrades, and street improvements are necessary to increase capacity. In contrast, LOS for the other modes is based on amenities or quality (e.g., sidewalk width, buffers for bike lanes, bus stop benches, safety lighting, etc.)—not volumes of users. Therefore, the need for improvement projects to achieve the minimum performance standards does not develop over time as the city develops. Rather, it is established immediately upon the first annual monitoring after adoption of the MMLOS system. In other words, all LOS “E” or worse MMLOS grades throughout the city would immediately require a development moratorium until planning and funding commitments are made to cure all of them. Staff has suggested recently that it was never the intent to include the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of travel in the GMP process, but I had extensive discussions with staff back in 2014 when the MMLOS scheme was being developed, and that was the intent. It was also the intent to require developers to make MMLOS-based improvements. All of this is also supported by the language in the 2015 General Plan and CFIP updates, as well as the associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR). One of many examples can be found in General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.4: Implement the city’s MMLOS methodology and maintain LOS D or better for each mode of travel for which the MMLOS standard is applicable, as identified in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1. Another is in the 2015 General Plan update EIR: The proposed General Plan requires a LOS D or better…for the prioritized travel mode. However, a paradox is created when considering the fact that zone-wide (perhaps city-wide) moratoria would be created by deficiencies that are not immediately corrected after the first monitoring, and the further fact that staff also has claimed that developers cannot be conditioned to make improvements for pre-existing deficiencies.