HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-09-06; Traffic and Mobility Commission; ; Draft Local Roadway Safety PlanMeeting Date: Sept. 6, 2022
To: Traffic and Mobility Commission
Staff Contact: Miriam Jim, Senior Engineer
Miriam.Jim@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-5796
John Kim, City Traffic Engineer
John.Kim@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-2757
Subject: Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan
Recommended Action
Provide feedback on the draft Local Roadway Safety Plan
Background
On Jan. 9, 2020, the city was notified by the California Department of Transportation, or
Caltrans, that the city had been selected for a grant in the amount of $72,000, with a 10%
($8,000) local match requirement, to prepare a Local Roadway Safety Plan, or LRSP.
On Oct. 26, 2020, the city issued a Request for Proposals for the development of the City’s
LRSP. The selected consultant, CR Associates started working on the project in Spring 2021.
On April 5, 2021, by 7-0 vote, the Traffic and Mobility Commission members appointed
Commissioner Fowler and Commissioner Penseyres to serve as part of the city’s LRSP
Stakeholder group.
On March 7, 2022, staff provided a progress update of the LRSP to the Traffic and Mobility
Commission. An overview of the citywide collision data analysis, stakeholder engagement effort
and preliminary safety improvement recommendations were presented at this meeting.
Discussion
Attached to this staff report in draft form as Exhibit 1, the LRSP is a data-driven traffic safety
plan that uses a systematic approach to address unique roadway safety matters in the city. The
plan was developed using the process outlined by the California Department of Transportation
to provide a framework for the city and stakeholders to systematically identify, analyze and
prioritize roadway safety improvements to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on local
roadways. Completion of an LRSP would also qualify the city to apply for and receive Highway
Safety Improvement Program, or HSIP, grant funds in the future.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 1
Development of the LRSP includes an analysis of citywide collision data to identify locations,
patterns and roadway safety trends in the city and recommend safety improvements that
integrate the “four E’s” approach, which are engineering, enforcement, education, and
emergency responses.
This report provides an overview of the key findings from the draft LRSP including the citywide
collision data analysis, stakeholder engagement, safety improvement recommendations and
improvement implementation strategies.
California Office of Traffic Safety Rankings
The California Office of Traffic Safety, or OTS, provides comparisons of traffic safety statistics
among cities with similar-sized populations. City of Carlsbad falls within Group B, which includes
59 cities with population sizes between 100,001 – 250,000. Table 1 below displays the 2018
OTS rankings for Carlsbad and the other four Group B cities in San Diego County. Year 2018 OTS
data was the latest when the collision data analysis was conducted. Areas that may be
noteworthy in Carlsbad include collisions involving bicyclists and collision involving drivers that
have been drinking under the age of 21.
Table 1: OTS ranking for Group B cities in San Diego County
Type of Collisions Carlsbad Oceanside Vista Escondido El Cajon
Total Fatal and Injury 47/59 36/59 56/59 9/59 4/59
Alcohol Involved 40/59 17/59 34/59 8/59 13/59
Has Been Drinking Driver < 21 8/59 5/59 35/59 3/59 26/59
Has Been Drinking Driver 21 –
34 38/59 13/59 33/59 8/59 29/59
Motorcycles 33/59 3/59 20/59 6/59 2/59
Pedestrians 26/59 40/59 44/59 12/59 2/59
Pedestrians < 15 30/59 46/59 51/59 18/59 2/59
Pedestrians 65+ 37/59 52/59 46/59 18/59 3/59
Bicyclists 5/59 22/59 52/59 23/59 8/59
Bicyclists < 15 30/59 41/59 36/59 29/59 21/59
Composite 39/59 10/59 42/59 10/59 13/59
Speed Related 36/59 7/59 58/59 15/59 9/59
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 56/59 12/59 45/59 26/59 7/59
Hit and Run 36/59 31/59 46/59 25/59 5/59
Notes:
XX/XX: city’s ranking/total number of Group B cities
Number 1 in the rankings is the highest or worst, while 59 is the lowest or best
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 2
Citywide Collision Data Analysis Overview
The purpose of the citywide collision data analysis is to identify patterns, trends and locations in
the collision data to help determine emphasis areas that would benefit from safety
improvements. The analysis was conducted for all reported collisions that have occurred on
local roadways within city’s right-of-way, excluding freeway facilities and private roadways,
during the time period from January 2015 through December 20191. As part of this analysis,
transportation datasets, including number of travel lanes, traffic signal locations, posted speed
limits, and traffic volumes were utilized to populate roadway characteristics in tandem with the
collision records.
A total of 3,075 collision records were obtained from the City’s Crossroads database and were
initially screened to remove duplicate and records with insufficient locational information. The
initial screening resulted in a final database of 3,030 records for further review. Note, the
removed records did not include collisions resulting in a severe or fatal injury.
Figure 1 shows a collision tree for the 3,030 collision records from the five-year period (2015-
2019). Out of these collision records, 1,683 collisions resulted in injuries or fatalities. These
collisions were further analyzed in detail by travel mode, collision type, cause, and location. As
shown in Figure 1, pedestrian and bicycle collisions accounted for 18.5% and 19.3%,
intersection and mid-block collisions, respectively, of injury collisions recorded, however the
percentage rose to 34.2% and 41.8%, for intersection and mid-block collisions, respectively,
among collisions that resulted in severe injuries or fatalities.
1 Collision data from 2020 was excluded from this analysis because traffic and travel patterns were an anomaly as a
direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic state-mandated stay-at-home orders beginning in March 2020 through
June 2021. Staff plans to analyze 2020-2022 data separately.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 3
Figure 1: Citywide Collision Tree (2015-2019)
The following sections provide a summary of key findings from the citywide collision data
analysis by travel modes: pedestrians, bicycles and vehicles. Collision types, causes, severity,
and location are discussed for each of the three travel modes.
Pedestrian Collisions
During the five-year study period, 129 pedestrian-involved collisions were reported, most
frequently at intersection locations (62%). Among these intersection collisions, most were
reported at signalized intersections, followed by side-street stop-controlled intersections, with
the remaining reported at uncontrolled, all-way-stop-controlled intersections and roundabout
locations. Severe injury and fatal collisions accounted for 19% of pedestrian-involved collisions,
the highest rate of all three travel modes.
Figure 2 is a map showing where the reported pedestrian-involved collisions occurred. A high
number of the intersection collisions occurred in the Village and Barrio area while mid-block
collisions spread throughout the city. The following intersections and corridors experienced
highest number of pedestrian-involved collisions in the five-year study period (2015-2019).
Intersections:
• Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt Street – Traffic signal (4 collisions)
• Carlsbad Boulevard and Hemlock Avenue – Side-street stop-controlled (4
collisions)
• Carlsbad Village Drive and Harding Street – Traffic signal (3 collisions)
• Grand Avenue and Roosevelt Street – Traffic signal (3 collisions)
• Carlsbad Boulevard and Oak Avenue – Side-street stop-controlled (2 collisions)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 4
Roadway corridors:
• El Camino Real (3 collisions)
• Palomar Airport Road (3 collisions)
• Carlsbad Boulevard (3 collisions)
• Carlsbad Village Drive (3 collisions)
• Grand Avenue (2 collisions)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 5
Figure 3: Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Location (2015 – 2019)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 6
Bicycle Collisions
During the five-year study period, 180 bicycle collisions were reported, most frequently at mid-
block locations (59%), including the 2 fatalities and 12 of the 16 severe injury collisions. Drivers
were more commonly at-fault when bicycle collisions occurring at signalized intersections (61%
of bicycle-involved intersection collisions) while bicyclists were more commonly at-fault at mid-
block locations (72% of bicycle-involved mid-block collisions). These mid-block collisions largely
did not involve motor vehicles but involved other bicycles and fixed objects.
Figure 4 is a map showing where the reported bicycle-involved collisions occurred. A high
proportion of the intersection collisions occurred in the Village and Barrio area while mid-block
collisions are spread out within the city. The following intersection and roadway segments
experienced highest number of bicycle-involved collisions in the five-year study period.
Intersection:
• Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive (4 collisions)
• Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street (2 collisions)
• Carlsbad Boulevard & Oak Avenue (2 collisions)
• Carlsbad Boulevard & Shore Drive (2 collisions)
• Carlsbad Boulevard & Poinsettia Lane (2 collisions)
• La Costa Avenue & Piraeus Street (2 collisions)
• Rancho Santa Fe & Avenida Soledad (2 collisions)
• Poinsettia Lane & Cassia Road (2 collisions)
• Carlsbad Village Drive & Celinda Drive (2 collisions)
Roadway segments:
• Carlsbad Boulevard from Solamar Drive to Island Way (7 collisions)
• Carlsbad Boulevard from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road (5 Collisions)
• Carlsbad Boulevard from Avenida Encinas to La Costa Avenue (5 collisions)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 7
Figure 4: Bicycle-Involved Collisions by Location (2015 – 2019)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 8
Vehicular Collisions
During the 5-year study period, 1,374 vehicular collisions (collisions involving vehicles only)
were reported. These vehicular collisions were closely split between intersections (53%) and
mid-block (47%) locations. Approximately 60% of the severe injury/fatal collisions were
reported at mid-block locations, and largely concentrated along Carlsbad Boulevard (14
collisions), followed by Palomar Airport Road (4 collisions) and Rancho Santa Fe Road (4
collisions).
Among all vehicular collisions that occurred at an intersection, signalized locations accounted
for 78% of all injury collisions and 59% of severe injury/fatal collisions.
Rear-end and broadside collisions were the most frequent crash types for all injuries,
accounting for 37% and 29% of vehicular collisions, respectively. The leading crash type for
severe injury/fatal collisions was Hit Object, assigned to 21 of the 66 collisions. Hit Object
collisions resulting in a severe injury or fatal conditions were due to unsafe speeds (8 collisions),
driving under the influence (6 collisions), improper turning (6 collisions), and other improper
driving (1 collision).
Unsafe Speed was the most frequent collision cause reported for all vehicle locations (489
collisions), and the leading cause for mid-block collisions (317 collisions). Unsafe Speed was also
the most frequent collision cause reported for severe/fatal injuries, accounting for 22 collisions,
including 14 at mid-block locations. Failure to obey Traffic Signals and Signs was the second
leading cause, reported for 240 collisions with 233 reported at signalized intersection locations
including all eight severe injuries attributed to this cause.
Approximately 13% of the 133 Driving Under the Influence collisions resulted in a severe/fatal
injury, the highest rate of any cause. Driving Under Influence of Alcohol was the second most
frequent cause reported for collisions resulting in a severe injury/fatal situation, accounting for
13 severe injury and 4 vehicular fatalities (one at a signalized intersection and 3 at midblock
locations). Top five vehicular collision causes are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Leading Causes for Vehicular Collisions (2015 – 2019)
Cause Total No. of
Collisions
Severe
Injury/
Fatal
Intersection
Mid-block
Unsafe Speed 489 22 172 317
Failure to obey Traffic
Signals and Signs 240 8 233 7
Auto R/W Violation 151 5 107 44
Improper Turning 139 15 44 95
Driving Under Influence 133 18 64 69
Figure 5 is a map showing where the reported vehicular collisions occurred. Vehicular collisions
were more frequently reported on major arterials where volumes and speeds are generally
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 9
higher, like Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. The following intersection and roadway
segments experienced the highest number of vehicle-only collisions in the five-year study
period:
Intersections:
• El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road (17 collisions)
• Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road (16 collisions)
• El Camino Real and Alga Road (14 collisions)
Roadway segments:
• Palomar Airport Road from El Camino Real to Loker Avenue/Innovation Way (17
collisions)
• Palomar Airport Road from El Fuerte Street to Melrose Drive (17 Collisions)
• El Camino Real from Costa Del Mar Road to La Costa Avenue (16 collisions)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 10
Figure 5: Vehicular Collisions by Location (2015 – 2019)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 11
High Frequency Locations
The top 10 high collision frequency locations with all modes combined are summarized for
intersections in Table 4 and segments in Table 5.
Table 4: High Collision Frequency Intersections
Intersection
Total No.
of
Collisions
No. of Severe
injuries/fatalities Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
1
El Camino Real and
Palomar Airport Road
(Signalized)
18 1 17 1 -
2
Melrose Drive and
Palomar Airport Road
(Signalized)
16 - 16 - -
3
Carlsbad Boulevard
and State Street
(Roundabout)
15 - 12 1 2
4 El Camino Real and
Alga Road (Signalized) 14 1 14 - -
5
College Boulevard and
Palomar Airport Road
(Signalized)
12 - 12 - -
6
El Camino Real and La
Costa Avenue
(Signalized)
12 - 11 - 1
7
Rancho Santa Fe Road
and La Costa Avenue
(Signalized)
12 - 12 - -
8
El Camino Real and
Carlsbad Village Drive
(Signalized)
11 - 11 - -
9
El Camino Real and
Cannon Road
(Signalized)
10 1 10 - -
10
Melrose Drive and
Lionshead Avenue
(Signalized)
10 - 10 - -
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 12
Table 5: High Collision Frequency Segments
Segment
Total No.
of
Collisions
No. of
Severe
injuries/
fatalities
Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
1
Carlsbad Boulevard
from Tamarack Avenue
to Cannon Road
21 4 13 3 5
2
Palomar Airport Road
from El Camino Real to
Loker Ave/Innovation
Way
20 3 17 1 2
3
El Camino Real from
Costa Del Mar Rd to La
Costa Ave
18 - 16 - 2
4
Palomar Airport Rd
from El Fuerte St and
Melrose Dr
17 - 17 - -
5
Carlsbad Blvd from
Solamar Dr to Island
Way
15 5 7 1 7
6 Carlsbad Blvd from
Cannon Rd to Cerezo Dr 13 - 12 - 1
7
Carlsbad Village Dr from
Harding St to I-5 SB
Ramps
13 - 7 3 3
8
Palomar Airport Rd
from Paseo Del Norte to
Armada Dr
13 - 11 2 -
9
La Costa Ave from
Saxony Rd to El Camino
Real
12 - 9 1 3
10
Paseo Del Norte from
Car Country Dr to
Palomar Airport Rd
10
8 2 2
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 13
Stakeholder Engagement
The LRSP development effort includes involvement of a range of stakeholders with different
backgrounds and local knowledge, which is critical to the success of the LRSP. The city’s LRSP
stakeholder group comprises members from various city departments as well as outside
agencies and civic groups as listed below.
• Public Works Branch, Transportation Department, Traffic Division
• Public Works Branch, Transportation Department, Streets Division
• Police Department
• Fire Department
• Traffic and Mobility Commission
• Carlsbad Unified School District
• Encinitas Unified School District
• San Dieguito Union High School District
• San Marcos Unified School District
• North County Transit District
• Caltrans
• Walk + Bike Carlsbad
A total of four stakeholder group meetings were conducted on a virtual platform, in October
and December of 2021 and March and June of 2022.
One topic that came up from the stakeholder group surrounded safety and the recent increase
in the number of electric bikes on local roadways, especially young riders commuting to and
from schools and on high speed and volume roadways. The five-year collision data analysis,
unfortunately, was not able to reflect or identify this safety matter because the type of bicycle
involved in collisions typically was not identified in the collision reports. However, the LRSP has
developed specific safety recommendations to address the those matters discussed by the
stakeholder group. It should be noted that, the Police Department has started identifying E-
bikes in collision reports in 2022.
Safety Improvement Recommendations
Based on the findings from the collision data analysis and along with input from the project
safety partners, Table 6 summarizes the focus areas identified for pedestrian, bicycle and
vehicular traffic.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 14
Table 6: Focus Areas for Safety Improvement Recommendations
Type Focus Areas
Pedestrian Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks
Pedestrians failing to yield to drivers while crossing outside of
crosswalks
Bicycle
Drivers failing to yield to bicyclists while the driver is making right-turns
Bicycle at-fault collisions due to unsafe speeds (primarily non-motor
vehicle collisions)
Increases in E-bike use: people of varying bicycle skill levels are
travelling further and faster than ever before
Vehicular
Leading violations
o Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions
o Failure to stop at limit line
o Driving under the influence (including youth DUI)
Leading crash types
o Broadside collisions (intersections and driveway locations)
o Rear end collisions (mid-block approaching intersections)
Programmatic and Infrastructure recommendations for the identified focus area are described
in Section 3.0 of the draft LRSP. Programmatic recommendations mainly focus on Education,
Enforcement and Emergency response strategies. These recommendations are listed below.
Since the development of the LRSP, the city and other safety partners have taken steps on
initiating some of these programs such as Safe Route to School, Bicycle Education Courses and
E-Bike Collision Coding.
• Safe Route to School
• Bicycle Education Courses
• Youth Driving Under the Influence
• Targeted Driving Under the Influence Enforcement
• Targeted Speed Enforcement
• E-Bike Collision Coding
For infrastructure safety improvements, Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, or LRSM,
recommends proven countermeasures to address improving roadway safety with the goal to
reduce a certain type of collisions. For each countermeasure, a Crash Reduction Factor, or CRF,
is given to help local agencies identify the expected safety impacts of installing such
countermeasure to reduce crashes.
Specific countermeasures were recommended for citywide implementation to address focus
areas that have been identified. Specific countermeasures are also recommended for high-
collision areas. Both citywide and location-specific recommendations are summarized in Section
3.2 of the draft LRSP. Tables 7 and 8 below provide a summary of the citywide and location-
specific countermeasure recommendations.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 15
Table 7 Citywide Safety Improvement Recommendations Summary
Recommended
Countermeasure Focus Area Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks Drivers failing to yield to bicyclists while driver is making right-turn Driver failure to stop at the limit line Broadside collisions (intersections) Rear end collisions (approaches to intersections) Retroreflective backplate
Borders
Overhead-mounted through
signal head
Improve signal timing
Install pedestrian crossing: high
visibility crosswalk
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk
Rat lights (red light indicator)
Green conflict paint in bike lanes
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 16
Table 8 Location-specific Safety Improvement Recommendations Summary
Location Recommended Countermeasures
Intersection
Roosevelt St & Carlsbad Village
Dr
• Curb extension
• Advance stop-bar before crosswalk
Harding St & Carlsbad Village
Dr
• High visibility crosswalk
• Curb extension
• Advance stop-bar before crosswalk
Roosevelt St & Grand Ave
• Curb extension
• Advance stop-bar before crosswalk
• Install Leading Pedestrian Interval
El Camino Real & Palomar
Airport Rd
• Retro-reflective backplate borders
• Additional overhead-mounted signal heads
• High visibility crosswalk
• Advance stop-bar before crosswalk
Melrose Dr & Palomar Airport
Rd
• Retro-reflective backplate borders
• Additional overhead-mounted signal heads
• High visibility crosswalk
• Advance stop-bar before crosswalk
Carlsbad Blvd & State St • Add intersection lighting
El Camino Real & Alga Rd • Retro-reflective backplate borders
• Additional overhead-mounted signal heads
Palomar Airport Rd & Loker
Ave/Innovation Way
• Retro-reflective backplate borders
• Additional overhead-mounted signal heads
Carlsbad Blvd & Cerezo Dr
• Install flashing beacons as advance warning
• Green conflict bike lane
• Speed reduction markings
• Maintain sight distance – clear vegetation
Segment
Paseo Del Norte, from Palomar
Airport Rd to Camino Del
Parque/Sea Gate Rd
• Road diet and add buffer to bike lanes
• Install new pedestrian crossing with rectangular
rapid flashing beacons and pedestrian refuge island
Carlsbad Blvd, from Carlsbad
Village Dr to Cannon Rd • Road diet and add buffer to bike lanes
Carlsbad Blvd, from Tierra Del
Oro to La Costa Ave • Install Class I path along west side of roadway
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 17
Prioritization and Implementation
Implementation of the safety improvements recommended in the LRSP can be accomplished
through several avenues including development of projects through the city Capital
Improvement Program, or CIP, and city annual maintenance programs as well as through
competitive funding sources that are available.
A key grant program that is designed to address traffic safety needs is the HSIP. This program
uses a Benefit-Cost Ratio, or BCR, to prioritize projects for funding. The BCR calculation provides
a score that accounts for crash severity cost; CRF for each countermeasure selected; crash
frequency; and the benefit for the years of service life for these countermeasures. The higher
the BCR score, the more competitive a project would be for HSIP funding. Future CIP and
annual maintenance programs can also take advantage of the BCR scores to prioritize
recommended safety improvements in the city.
Next Steps
Upon receiving input from the Traffic and Mobility Commission, the project team will finalize
the LRSP report. Staff will then present the final LRSP and key findings to City Council late 2022.
Exhibit
Exhibit 1 – Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 18
Prepared For Prepared By
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
CR Associates
3900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92103
CITY OF CARLSBAD
AUGUST 2022
DRAFT
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Exhibit 1
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 19
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 LRSP Development Process ........................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Safety Partners ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 LRSP Vision and Goals ................................................................................................................ 3
2.0 Data Summary .............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Collision Database ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Data Findings ............................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Strategic Highway Safety Plan Challenge Areas ..................................................................... 25
2.4 Topics to Address ...................................................................................................................... 25
3.0 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 26
3.1 Programmatic ............................................................................................................................ 26
3.2 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 27
4.0 Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 37
4.1 Benefit/Cost Ratios .................................................................................................................. 37
4.2 Funding Sources ....................................................................................................................... 39
4.3 Implementation with Maintenance .......................................................................................... 41
4.4 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 41
Appendix A - Descriptive Statistics Analysis ........................................................................................ 42
Appendix B - Intersection & Segment Analysis .................................................................................... 43
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 20
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page ii
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Citywide Crash Tree (2015 – 2019) ................................................................................. 7
Figure 2-2 Collisions by Year and Mode (2015 – 2021) ................................................................... 8
Figure 2-3 Collisions by Year and Level of Injury Severity (2015 – 2021) ....................................... 8
Figure 2-4 Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location ........................................... 10
Figure 2-5 Pedestrian Involved Collisions (2015 – 2019) ............................................................. 11
Figure 2-6 Pedestrian Collision Party at-Fault by Roadway Location............................................. 12
Figure 2-7 Pedestrian Collision Violation Code Comparison .......................................................... 13
Figure 2-8 Bicycle Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location .................................................. 14
Figure 2-9 Bicycle Involved Collisions (2015 – 2019) ................................................................... 15
Figure 2-10 Bicycle Collision Party at-Fault by Roadway Location ................................................... 16
Figure 2-11 Bicycle Collisions by Motor Vehicle Involvement (2015 – 2019) ................................ 17
Figure 2-12 Bicycle Collisions Without a Motor Vehicle by Object Involved With............................ 18
Figure 2-13 Bicycle Collision Violation Code Comparison ................................................................ 18
Figure 2-14 Vehicular Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location .............................................. 19
Figure 2-15 Vehicle-Only Collisions (2015 – 2019) .......................................................................... 20
Figure 2-16 Vehicle-Only Collision Heat Map (2015 – 2019) .......................................................... 21
Figure 2-17 Vehicular Collision Violation Code Comparison ............................................................ 23
Figure 2-18 Vehicular Collisions by Level of Sobriety ....................................................................... 24
Figure 3-1 Countermeasure Locations ............................................................................................ 32
List of Tables
Table 2-1 California OTS Crash Ranking Comparison for 2018 ...................................................... 9
Table 2-2 Driver at-Fault Pedestrian Intersection Collisions by Driver Movement ...................... 13
Table 2-3 Vehicular Intersection Collision Frequency (2015 – 2019) ......................................... 22
Table 2-4 Vehicular Collision Crash Type by Roadway Location ................................................... 22
Table 2-5 Vehicular Collision Crash Type by Injury Severity .......................................................... 23
Table 3-1 Citywide Countermeasure Summary ............................................................................. 30
Table 3-2 Countermeasure Summary by Location ........................................................................ 31
Table 4-1 Benefit Cost Ratio Summary .......................................................................................... 38
Table 4-2 Monitoring Data Topics ................................................................................................... 41
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 21
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
The State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) administers the Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP) Program as part of the statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). LRSPs
provide local agencies an opportunity to understand and address unique safety needs in their
jurisdictions while contributing to the success of the SHSP. Additionally, all agencies are now
required to have a LRSP to be eligible for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds.
LRSPs establish a framework to systematically analyze and identify areas where transportation
safety can be improved and recommend specific safety improvements. The process facilitates
development of local partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a prioritized list of multimodal mobility improvements and actions that will contribute to improved roadway safety.
In 2020, the City of Carlsbad was awarded grant funding from the State of California to prepare an
LRSP. The City embarked on development of this LRSP in 2021 to improve transportation safety for
all road users, with a specific focus on pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers.
The LRSP is aligned with the goals and policies set forth in the City of Carlsbad General Plan Mobility
Element (2015), which emphasizes multimodal safety in the policies and planned programs,
strategies, and transportation networks. The LRSP is one of many tools being used to implement the
guidance established in the Mobility Element.
Mobility Element policy language excerpts that this LRSP helps address includes the following:
3-G.1 “Keep Carlsbad moving with livable streets that provide a safe, balanced, cost-
effective, multimodal transportation system (vehicles, pedestrians, bikes, transit),
accommodating the mobility needs of all community members, including children, the elderly
and the disabled.”
3-P.17 “Consider innovative design and program solutions to improve the mobility, efficiency,
connectivity, and safety of the transportation system…”
1.2 LRSP Development Process
This document provides a review of five years of collision records and recommends a series of
programmatic recommendations and infrastructure safety improvements. The analysis provides a
“snapshot in time” of collisions and trends and is intended to be updated as new data becomes
available. Collision data was compared across roadway environments citywide, resulting in the
identification of intersections and segments with relatively higher collision frequencies and rates.
Locations with higher collision frequencies were then reviewed to identify site-specific trends and recommend improvements. No locations were identified as hazardous or requiring immediate
attention.
Key project phases and associated components undertaken throughout the LRSP development are
provided below. Combined, these deliverables resulted in the LRSP document.
Data Collection
o Data Processing o Collision Dashboard
Collision Analysis
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 22
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 2
o Descriptive statistics analysis o Intersection and segment analysis o Collision matrix
Recommendations o Programmatic
o Citywide infrastructure o Site-specific infrastructure
Implementation o Cost estimates
o Benefit/cost ratios o Implementation considerations
1.3 Safety Partners
Identifying multimodal issues and safety countermeasures included consideration of topics related
to engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services. Thus, this effort involved the
collaboration of various City departments, as well as external stakeholders, to discuss issues and
potential solutions. Representative from the following organizations and departments participated in
the development of the LRSP:
City of Carlsbad, Public Works Branch, Transportation Department, Traffic & Mobility Division
City of Carlsbad, Public Works Branch, Transportation Department, Streets Division
City of Carlsbad Police Department
City of Carlsbad Fire Department
City of Carlsbad Traffic and Mobility Commission
Caltrans
Carlsbad Unified School District
Encinitas Unified School District
San Marcos Unified School District
San Dieguito Union High School District
North County Transit District
Walk + Bike Carlsbad / San Diego County Bike Coalition
The role of stakeholders was to represent their unique perspective as it relates to transportation
safety, help identify pressing safety topics, shape the vision of the LRSP, and strategize on safety
recommendations. Four stakeholder meetings were held over the course of the project. The
meetings were organized around the following topics:
Meeting 1 – Stakeholder role, LRSP background information, initial collision analysis
findings, stakeholder safety priorities
Meeting 2 – Project vision and goals, proposed focus areas, programmatic recommendations
Meeting 3 – Infrastructure recommendations
Meeting 4 – HSIP Grant Cycle 11, benefit/cost ratio results, final document outline
From the stakeholder’s perspective, the most pressing transportation safety issue facing Carlsbad
today is the rapid, exponential growth in electric bikes (E-bikes). Stakeholders referenced 2020 as
the year E-bike increases started to become most evident. People of varying bicycle skill levels are
travelling further and faster than ever before. With this increase in activity comes potential increases
in conflicts and new needs.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 23
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 3
However, collision data reporting was identified as one issue related to E-bike safety. The collision
data utilized in this analysis and regularly presented to the Traffic and Mobility Commission did not
previously distinguish between electric and non-electric bicycles. This information is critical to understanding potential trends in collision causes and locations associated with E-bikes. The
Carlsbad Police Department was very responsive to this data need, initiating new bicycle collision
reporting procedures and training for officers. The response will ensure the E-bike distinction is
available in future data. This is one example of the value in stakeholder collaboration.
Additionally, in March 2022, the City of Carlsbad amended Title 10, Chapter 10.56 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, adding sections to regulate bicycles, electric bicycles, electric personal assistive
mobility devices, electronically motorized boards, low-speed vehicles, motorized scooters, share
mobility devices and other similar vehicles. The ordinance establishes definitions for E-bikes and the
other regulated mobility devices and prohibitions on where they can be used. It also requires riders
to use due care, reduce speed when necessary for safety, follow all rules of the road and dismount
their regulated mobility device on trails less than 5 feet in width when within 50 feet of a pedestrian
or equine (horseback rider).
1.4 LRSP Vision and Goals
The LRSP vision statement is an idealized description of future success. It is what this project strives
to accomplish. A series of goals supplement the vision, identifying more specific desired outcomes.
Actions identify steps that the City can undertake to work towards the goals and overall vision.
Vision Statement
A multimodal transportation system that is safe and efficient for all people.
Goal #1 – Data
Maintain accurate and informative collision data.
Actions:
Continue to regularly update the City's Crossroads collision database.
Coordinate with law enforcement to ensure collisions involving electric bikes are
distinguishable from those involving standard bikes.
Ensure data can capture emerging transportation trends.
Goal #2 – Engage
Regularly engage with partner agencies, stakeholders, advocacy groups, and the public to inform transportation safety needs.
Actions:
Hold Traffic and Mobility Commission meetings as a forum to discuss transportation issues.
Coordinate with the Carlsbad Police Department regarding enforcement issues.
Coordinate with the Carlsbad Fire Department to make traffic safety a component of the
Community Risk Reduction program.
Coordinate with the school districts to understand transportation issues surrounding schools
and safety education opportunities.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 24
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 4
Coordinate with organizations such as the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition and League of
American Bicyclists to offer state of the practice educational opportunities.
Coordinate with the judicial system to explore the potential for a bicycle ticket diversion program to allow cited people to avoid court appearances and fines if they successfully
complete a bike safety class.
Goal #3 – Analyze
Analyze safety data to identify potential issues and locations where safety could be enhanced.
Actions:
Identify citywide safety issues that may be addressed through programmatic means (ex., education or enforcement).
Identify intersections and segments with the greatest collision frequency for each travel
mode (pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle).
Review high collision frequency locations to identify trends in crash types or violations.
Goal #4 – Recommend
Use safety analysis findings to identify safety enhancements.
Actions:
Maintain a prioritized set of safety projects.
Evaluate the need for educational and enforcement programs to address safety issues.
Goal #5 – Implement
Pursue funding to implement safety recommendations.
Actions:
Continue to allocate CIP funding towards prioritized projects that enhance multimodal
transportation safety.
Stay current with available grant sources and application periods to pursue funding for
competitive projects.
Goal #6 – Monitor
Conduct pre- and post-project assessments to understand the effectiveness of safety
enhancements.
Actions:
Analyze collision frequency before and after project implementation.
Conduct multimodal counts before and after project implementation.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 25
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 5
2.0 Data Summary
2.1 Collision Database
A citywide collision dataset was obtained from the City of Carlsbad’s Crossroads database for the
five-year period from January 2015 through December 2019. Prior to database construction and
analysis, the accuracy of the data was reviewed. The review process resulted in a database of 3,030
records.
The 3,030 collision records were further reviewed to identify and separate records resulting in an
injury from those that resulted in property damage only (PDO). A total of 1,683 injury collision records
were obtained for the five-year study period, including 108 severe injury or fatal collisions.
The 1,683 spatially referenced injury collision records were assigned to one of two location
categories: intersection or mid-block. Location assignment was based on the intersection offset
distance indicated in each record’s attributes. Collision points within 50 feet of an intersection node
were categorized as intersection collisions. All remaining collisions were categorized as midblock
collisions. This approach takes into consideration the influence intersection characteristics may have
on records within this distance. The 50 feet offset distance is within the threshold identified by
Caltrans’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which permits collisions up to 250 feet from
an intersection to be used in the determination of benefit/cost ratios for intersection
countermeasures.
Other City maintained transportation datasets, including travel lanes, traffic signals, posted speed
limits, and traffic volumes were utilized in tandem with aerial imagery to populate roadway
characteristics and infrastructure data for the 1,683 spatially referenced collision records. SANDAG’s
Transportation Forecast Information Center (TFIC) Series 14 Base Year 2016 data was also
referenced for additional traffic volume estimates. The type of traffic control and size of intersection (based on number of through-lanes in the approaching roadways) were collected and attributed to
the location of each intersection collision. Posted speed limit, number of travel lanes, median
presence, and average daily traffic volumes attributed for each midblock collision.
COVID-19
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic greatly influenced daily life in Carlsbad
and throughout the world. Significant measures were undertaken to prevent transmission of the
disease beginning in March 2020. Social or physical distancing was one of the measures intended to
slow the spread of the disease, resulting in the closure of many schools, workplaces, recreational
and entertainment venues, and shopping centers.
The closures eliminated daily work and school commutes for many, altering travel behaviors and reducing vehicular activity. For example, estimated daily trips in San Diego County went from 12.2
million in February 2020 (pre-COVID-19 conditions) to 6.9 million in July 2020 (COVID-19
conditions)1. Therefore, 2020 collision data was excluded from the full collision analysis to avoid
irregular travel patterns. However, in response to input received from stakeholders involved in
development of this LRSP, year 2020 and 2021 collision data was obtained from University of
California, Berkeley’s Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and incorporated into some
sections of this report.
1 “Daily Travel during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.” Daily Travel during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency | Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2022. https://www.bts.gov/daily-travel.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 26
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 6
2.2 Data Findings
Two deliverables were produced to review the collision data:
A Descriptive Statistics Analysis was developed to identify citywide trends amongst collision
records, including an examination of collision causes, violations, movements, and roadway
characteristics for each travel mode (pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers).
The Intersection and Segment Analysis identifies collision rates and frequencies at individual
locations across Carlsbad. A supplemental focus was placed on the locations with the highest collision frequencies.
The Descriptive Statistics Analysis and Intersection and Segment Analysis reports are included as
Appendix A and B, respectively. The remainder of this chapter summarizes findings from the two
analyses.
Citywide Crash Tree
Figure 2-1 provides a crash tree overview of the 1,683 injury collisions, depicting the location type
and mode, as well as number of severe injury or fatal collisions for each travel mode. The crash tree
illustrates a nearly even split between intersection (52%) and mid-block (48%) collisions, however, a larger share of severe injury and fatal collisions were reported at mid-block locations (62%).
When comparing collision severity between modes:
Pedestrians made up approximately 9% of intersection collisions yet accounted for almost a
quarter (24%) of severe injury/fatal collisions. Similarly, pedestrians accounted for 6% of
mid-block collisions but 21% of severe injury/fatal collisions.
Bicyclists accounted for 13% yet 21% of severe injury/fatal collisions at mid-block locations.
Collisions by Year
Figure 2-2 displays collisions by mode for each of the five study years plus the two supplemental COVID data years. During the five-year study period (2015 – 2019) collisions for bikes, vehicles, and
all modes combined peaked in 2016. The yearly comparison does not yield any discernable patterns,
with collisions for each mode increasing and decreasing throughout the five-year period.
Pedestrian collisions ranged from 23 collisions in 2018 to 31 collisions in 2019
Bicycle collisions ranged from 24 collisions in 2019 to 47 collisions in 2016
Vehicular collisions ranged from 246 collisions in 2017 to 319 collisions in 2016
The supplemental 2020 and 2021 data years included the lowest pedestrian collision frequencies,
yet the highest bicycle collision frequencies. The high bicycle collision frequency is consistent with
stakeholder descriptions of increased E-bike and bicycle activity. Vehicular collisions and total
collisions for all modes combined during 2020 and 2021 were similar to the analyzed five-year
(2015-2019) data.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 27
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 7
Figure 2-1 Citywide Crash Tree (2015 – 2019)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 28
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 8
Figure 2-2 Collisions by Year and Mode (2015 – 2021)
Figure 2-3 shows collisions by year and level of injury severity. Combined, severe injury and fatal
collisions ranged between 5% of all collisions in 2015 to 8% in 2019. The severe injury/fatal collision
rate continued at 8% for the two supplemental data years.
Figure 2-3 Collisions by Year and Level of Injury Severity (2015 – 2021)
24 26 25 23 31 8 19344739362451 62
276
319
246 266 267 266
301
334
392
310 325 322 325
382
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle-Only Total
168
219
161 173 163 164
199
148 151
127 132 133 136 153
14 18 18 15 22 19 26
4 4 4 5 4 6 4
0
50
100
150
200
250
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Supplemental Data
Supplemental Data
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 29
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 9
California Office of Traffic Safety Rankings
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) provides comparisons of traffic safety statistics among
cities with similar sized populations. This data can help build an understanding of which areas cities
are doing well in or may need improvement. The most recent year of OTS data during this LRSP’s
composition was 2018.
With an estimated 2018 population of 113,365, the City of Carlsbad falls within Group B, which
includes 59 cities with population sizes between 100,001 – 250,000. Additional cities in San Diego
County categorized in Group B include Oceanside, Vista, Escondido, and El Cajon.
Table 2-1 displays the OTS rankings for Carlsbad and the other Group B cities in San Diego County. The rankings depict two numbers: the first number is the city’s ranking in that category, while the
second number is the total number of cities within that Group. Number 1 in the rankings is the
highest or worst, while 59 would be the lowest or best for Group B.
By comparison, areas that may be noteworthy in Carlsbad include collisions involving bicyclists and
collisions involving drivers that have been drinking under the age of 21. Bicycle collisions may be
addressed through a combination of engineering, education, and enforcement related measures.
Underage drinking drivers could be addressed through enforcement and education programs.
Table 2-1 California OTS Crash Ranking Comparison for 20182
Type of Crash Carlsbad Oceanside Vista Escondido El Cajon
Total Fatal and Injury 47/59 36/59 56/59 9/59 4/59
Alcohol Involved 40/59 17/59 34/59 8/59 13/59
Has Been Drinking Driver < 21 8/59 5/59 35/59 3/59 26/59
Has Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 38/59 13/59 33/59 8/59 29/59
Motorcycles 33/59 3/59 20/59 6/59 2/59
Pedestrians 26/59 40/59 44/59 12/59 2/59
Pedestrians < 15 30/59 46/59 51/59 18/59 2/59
Pedestrians 65+ 37/59 52/59 46/59 18/59 3/59
Bicyclists 5/59 22/59 52/59 23/59 8/59
Bicyclists < 15 30/59 41/59 36/59 29/59 21/59
Composite 39/59 10/59 42/59 10/59 13/59
Speed Related 36/59 7/59 58/59 15/59 9/59
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 56/59 12/59 45/59 26/59 7/59
Hit and Run 36/59 31/59 46/59 25/59 5/59
Source: California Office of Traffic Safety (2021)
2 OTS provides the following description as to how the rankings are determined:
“Crash rankings are based on the Empirical Bayesian Ranking Method, which adds weights to different statistical categories including observed crash counts, population and vehicle miles traveled. The crash counts reflect the aggregated impacts of all influential factors containing even the unrecognized or unmeasurable ones (e.g. level of enforcement), and the population and vehicle miles traveled represent the important traffic exposure factors that affect crash occurrence. The weights are assigned to the three components in a way that maximizes the precision of estimated Bayesian crash counts.”
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 30
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 10
Pedestrian Collisions
A total of 129 pedestrian-involved collisions were reported during the five-year study period (2015 –
2019). Understanding trends amongst the roadway locations (intersection or mid-block) and types of
intersection control (signalized, all-way stop-controlled, etc.) where the pedestrian collisions are
occurring can inform potential needs. Figure 2-4 displays injury severity by roadway location for the
pedestrian collisions. 62% of the collisions were reported as occurring at an intersection (80/129),
including 43 records at signalized intersections and 28 at side-street stop-controlled intersections.
Six pedestrian collisions resulted in a fatality, split evenly among signalized intersections, stop-
controlled intersections, and mid-block locations. Severe injury/fatal collisions combined were
concentrated at mid-block locations (14/24), accounted for 19% of pedestrian-involved collisions, the highest of all three travel modes.
Figure 2-4 Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Figure 2-5 displays pedestrian collisions across Carlsbad, differentiating between those that
occurred at intersection and mid-block locations. The greatest collision concentrations are visible
within the Village and coastal areas where relatively high levels of pedestrian activity are common.
As shown, two or more pedestrian collisions were reported at ten different intersections, including
two locations with three collisions and two locations with four collisions.
15
1
8
2
8
23
3
15
1 2
27
3 3
12
2 2 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 31
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 11
Figure 2-5 Pedestrian Involved Collisions (2015 – 2019)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 32
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 12
Examining the collision roadway locations by party at-fault further informs potential needs. Figure 2-6
displays the party at-fault by roadway location. Drivers were largely reported as the party at-fault for
collisions occurring at intersections (71% or 55 of the 77 records where fault was assigned), with the greatest share occurring at signalized intersections (80% or 32 of the 40 records where fault was
assigned). The following signalized intersections experienced multiple pedestrian-involved collisions
where the driver was reported as at-fault:
Carlsbad Village Drive & Roosevelt Street (4 collisions)
Carlsbad Village Drive & Harding Street (3 collisions)
Grand Avenue & Roosevelt Street (3 collisions)
The following side-street stop-controlled intersections experienced multiple pedestrian-involved
collisions where the driver was reported as at-fault:
Carlsbad Boulevard & Hemlock Avenue (4 collisions)
Carlsbad Boulevard & Oak Avenue (2 collisions)
Pedestrians were the leading party at-fault at mid-block locations (60% or 28 of the 46 records
where fault was assigned). Three of the 28 pedestrian at-fault mid-block collisions were reported on
Paseo Del Norte ranging from 860 to 1,000 feet south of Palomar Airport Road. Corridors with
multiple pedestrian at-fault mid-block collisions include:
El Camino Real (4 collisions)
Palomar Airport Road (3 collisions)
Carlsbad Boulevard (3 collisions)
Carlsbad Village Drive (3 collisions)
Grand Avenue (2 collisions)
Figure 2-6 Pedestrian Collision Party at-Fault by Roadway Location
32
3
17
3
17
1
8
1
11
1 1
28
3 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Driver Bicyclist Pedestrian No Fault Assigned
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 33
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 13
Table 2-2 displays the driver movement for the 55 pedestrian-involved collisions reported at
intersections where the driver was the party at-fault. Drivers Making Left-Turn was the most
frequently reported movement, largely concentrated at signalized intersections. Four of the 14 Making Left-Turn movements at signalized intersections were reported at the intersection of
Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt Street.
Table 2-2 Driver at-Fault Pedestrian Intersection Collisions by Driver Movement
Driver Movement
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-Controlled
Intersection
Uncontrolled
Intersection Total
Making Left-Turn 14 2 3 - 19
Making Right-Turn 9 4 - - 13
Proceeding Straight 3 9 - 1 13
Not Stated 3 1 - 1 5
Backing 2 - - 1 3
Slowing/Stopping 1 - - - 1
Other - 1 - - 1
Total 17 17 3 3 55
Violation codes are assigned by the reporting officer, indicating which California Vehicle Code was
violated that resulted in the collision. This information helps demonstrate which actions are resulting
in collisions and can be used to develop citywide or site-specific safety countermeasures. Figure 2-7
compares violation codes for severe injury and fatal collisions to the violations assigned to all
pedestrian injury collisions.
The violation code with the highest number of collisions assigned (32) was 21950(a), the driver
failing to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway. The most frequent violation
code among severe and fatal injury collisions (11) was 21954(a), pedestrians failing to yield the
right-of-way vehicles outside a crosswalk.
Figure 2-7 Pedestrian Collision Violation Code Comparison
21950(a) -Driver failed to yield; 30%
21954(a) -Ped failed to yield;
25%
22350 -Unsafe speed; 5%21950(b) -Pedestrian hazard; 5%
22107 -Unsafedriver movement;
4%
22106 -
Unsafe driver
start; 3%
21453(a) -
Driver failed to stop; 2%
Other/Not
Stated; 26%
All Injury Collisions
21950(a) -Driver
failed to yield; 8%
21954(a) -Ped failed to yield; 46%21950(b) -Pedestrian
hazard; 13%
22107 -
Unsafe driver
movement; 8%
22106 -Unsafe
driver start; 4%
Other/Not
Stated; 21%
Severe/Fatal Injury Collisions
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 34
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 14
Bicycle Collisions
A total of 180 bicycle-involved collisions were reported during the study period (2015 – 2019).
Figure 2-8 displays bicycle collision injury severity by roadway location. Combined, 10% (18
collisions) of the 180 bicycle-involved collisions resulted in a severe injury or fatal collision, the
second highest severe injury/fatal rate of the three travel modes.
Over half of bicycle-involved collisions (59% or 106 of the 180 records) were reported at mid-block
locations, including the only two fatalities and 12 of the 16 severe injury collisions. The remining four
severe injury collisions were reported at side-street stop-controlled intersections (three collisions)
and signalized intersections (one collision). Of the 106 mid-block bicycle collisions, 90 collisions
occurred along roadways with bike lanes and two along roadways with bike routes.
Intersection collisions were closely split between signalized and side-street stop-controlled
intersections, accounting for 19% and 17% of all bicycle-involved collisions, respectively. Bicycle
facility presence was not reviewed at intersection locations due to the absence of facilities within the
intersection.
Figure 2-8 Bicycle Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Figure 2-9 displays bicycle collisions across Carlsbad, differentiating between those that occurred at
intersection and mid-block locations. Nine intersections experienced two or more bicycle collisions.
Five of the multi-collision locations are intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard where relatively high
bicycle activity is common.
11
1
11
1922
2
17
2 4
73
1 3
12
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 35
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 15
Figure 2-9 Bicycle Involved Collisions (2015 – 2019)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 36
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 16
Figure 2-10 displays the party at-fault by roadway location. Drivers were more commonly at-fault
during collisions occurring at signalized intersection locations (61% or 20 of the 33 signalized
intersection collisions where fault was assigned). Bicyclists were more commonly at-fault during mid-block collisions (72% or 59 of the 82 mid-block collisions where fault was assigned).
Of the 14 severe injury/fatal collisions that occurred at mid-block locations, seven were reported as
bicyclist at-fault, five as driver at-fault, and no fault assigned for the remaining two. Five of those
seven bicyclist at-fault collisions occurred along Carlsbad Boulevard, due to unsafe speeds, unsafe
turning movements, or following too closely.
The most frequent driver movements reported for the 69 total driver at-fault collisions include:
Making right-turn (17 collisions)
Making left-turn (8 collisions)
Proceeding straight (5 collisions)
Other (ex., backing, entering traffic, U-turn, other) (6 collisions)
The most frequent bicyclist movements reported for the 93 total bicyclist at-fault collisions include:
Proceeding straight (66 collisions)
Changing lanes (8 collisions)
Making left-turn (5 collisions)
Other (ex., right-turn, merging, wrong way, slowing/stopping, other) (14 collisions)
Figure 2-10 Bicycle Collision Party at-Fault by Roadway Location
Of the 180 bicycle collisions, 65 did not involve a motor vehicle (36%). Bicycle-involved collisions can
involve a bicyclist and motorist(s), multiple bicyclists, or a single bicyclist. Figure 2-11 distinguishes
between collisions that involved a driver and those that did not. In the Village area, collisions largely
involved a motor vehicle, whereas bike-only collisions were more common along Carlsbad Boulevard
south of Tamarack Avenue. It should be noted, while a vehicle was not reported as involved in the
actual collisions for the 65 records, a vehicle may have influenced the collision.
20
1
14
1
33
13
2
14
2 3
59
1 3
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Driver Bicyclist No Fault Assigned
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 37
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 17
Figure 2-11 Bicycle Collisions by Motor Vehicle Involvement (2015 – 2019)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 38
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 18
Figure 2-12 identifies additional objects involved in bicycle collisions for the 65 collisions where a
motor vehicle was not present. The leading object category for non-motor vehicle involved bicycle
collisions was reported as “non-collisions” or overturned bicyclists, accounting for 17 of the 65 collisions.
Thirty-two of the 65 collisions resulted from the bicyclist travelling at an unsafe speed, including 10
of the 17 non-collision records. Other leading causes include “unknown” (11 records), improper
turning (7 records), and other improper driving (4 records).
Figure 2-12 Bicycle Collisions Without a Motor Vehicle by Object Involved With
Figure 2-13 compares violation codes for severe injury and fatal collisions to all injury collisions.
Consistent with the collision causes, the most frequent violation code reported for bicycle-involved
collisions was 22107, failing to turn properly (39 collisions). Unsafe speed was the second leading
violation code, with 38 collisions reported, and leading code for severe injury/fatal collisions.
Figure 2-13 Bicycle Collision Violation Code Comparison
8
11
13
16 17
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Parked Vehicle Fixed Object Other Object Bicycle Non-Collision
21801(a) -Failure to yield; 7%
21453(a) -Driver
failed to stop; 4%
21658(a) -
Unsafe lane
change; 4%
21650.1 -Bicycle wrong way; 3%
22106 -Unsafe driver start; 3%
21703 -
Following too
closely; 3%
Other/Not Stated; 33%
22107 -Unsafe
driver
movement; 22%
22350 -
Unsafe
speed; 21%
All Injury Collisions
21801(a) -Failure
to yield; 5%21453(a) -Driver
failed to stop; 6%
21658(a) -Unsafe lane
change; 11%
21703 -Following
too closely;
6%
Other/Not Stated; 39%
22107 -
Unsafe driver
movement; 11%
22350 -Unsafe speed; 22%
Severe/Fatal Injury Collisions
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 39
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 19
Vehicular Collisions
A total of 1,374 vehicle-involved injury collisions were reported during the five-year study period,
excluding collisions involving pedestrians and bicycles. Figure 2-14 displays vehicular collision injury
severity by roadway location. Collisions were closely split between intersections (53%) and mid-block
locations (47%).
Approximately 60% of the severe injury/fatal collisions were reported at mid-block locations, and
largely concentrated along Carlsbad Boulevard (14 collisions), followed by Palomar Airport Road (4
collisions) and Rancho Santa Fe Road (4 collisions).
Among the 724 intersection collisions, signalized locations accounted for 78% of all injury collisions and 59% of severe injury/fatal collisions.
Figure 2-14 Vehicular Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Figure 2-15 displays the 1,374 vehicle-only collisions across Carlsbad, differentiating between those
reported at intersection and mid-block locations. Figure 2-16 presents the collisions in a heat map to
more clearly depict where relatively greater concentrations are present. Collisions are more
concentrated along the roadways and intersections carrying relatively greater volumes of vehicular
traffic, such as Carlsbad Boulevard, El Camino Real, Carlsbad Village Drive, Cannon Road, Palomar
Airport Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Drive.
345
9
67
5 6
376
204
3
48
8 2
235
14 1 7 2 29
2 1 10
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 40
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 20
Figure 2-15 Vehicle-Only Collisions (2015 – 2019)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 41
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 21
Figure 2-16 Vehicle-Only Collision Heat Map (2015 – 2019)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 42
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 22
Table 2-3 identifies the ten intersections with the greatest vehicle collision frequency. These
locations are also the ten intersections with the greatest collision frequency for all modes combined.
These ten intersections account for approximately 15% of all intersection collisions citywide.
Nine of the ten high collision frequency intersections are signalized, the exception being the
roundabout controlled Carlsbad Boulevard/State Street intersection. The roundabout intersection
experienced the third most total collisions, including one pedestrian and two bicycle collisions,
however no severe or fatal injury collisions. This aligns with one of the intended benefits of
roundabouts, to reduce injury severity.
Table 2-3 Vehicular Intersection Collision Frequency (2015 – 2019)
Location Vehicle Pedestrian Bike All Modes Severe/ Fatal
El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) 17 1 - 18 1
Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) 16 - - 16 -
El Camino Real & Alga Road (signalized) 14 - - 14 1
Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street (roundabout) 12 1 2 15 -
College Boulevard & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) 12 - - 12 -
Rancho Santa Fe Road & La Costa Avenue (signalized) 12 - - 12 -
El Camino Real & La Costa Avenue (signalized) 11 - 1 12 -
El Camino Real & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) 11 - - 11 -
El Camino Real & Cannon Road (signalized) 10 - - 10 1
Melrose Drive & Lionshead Avenue (signalized) 10 - - 10 -
Table 2-4 displays crash type by roadway location. Rear-End collisions were the most common
vehicular crash type overall (37%), and the leading crash type at mid-block locations (50%).
Broadside collisions were the most frequent crash type at all intersection locations combined, and
the leading crash type at all intersection control types individually other than roundabouts.
Table 2-4 Vehicular Collision Crash Type by Roadway Location
Crash Type Signalized Intersection
All-Way
Stop-
Controlled Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-
Controlled Intersection Roundabout Uncontrolled Intersection Mid-Block Total
Rear-End 148 3 30 - 1 328 510
Broadside 266 6 56 1 5 68 402
Hit Object 24 1 8 3 1 105 142
Sideswipe 31 - 8 1 1 73 114
Head-On 62 1 11 4 3 23 104
Other/Not Stated 20 2 5 1 0 27 55
Overturned 14 - 4 3 - 26 47
Total 565 13 122 13 11 650 1,374
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 43
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 23
Table 2-5 presents crash types by injury severity. The leading crash type for severe injury/fatal
collisions was Hit Object, assigned to 21 of the 66 collisions. Hit Object collisions resulting in a severe injury or fatality were due to unsafe speeds (8 collisions), driving under the influence (6
collisions), improper turning (6 collisions) and other improper driving (1 collision). Hit Object
collisions were most common at mid-block locations (16 of the 21 collisions). No locations
experienced multiple severe injury/fatal Hit Object collisions.
Broadside collisions were the second most frequent crash type for severe injury/fatal collisions,
reported for 18 records. No locations experienced multiple severe injury/fatal Broadside collisions.
Nine percent of Overturned collisions resulted in a severe injury or fatality, the highest rate of any
crash type, followed by Hit Object collisions at 7%.
Table 2-5 Vehicular Collision Crash Type by Injury Severity
Crash Type
Complaint of
Pain
Other Visible
Injury Severe Injury Fatal Total
Rear-End 371 129 8 2 510
Broadside 233 151 15 3 402
Hit Object 49 72 15 6 142
Sideswipe 69 40 4 1 114
Head-On 49 51 4 - 104
Other/Not Stated 23 28 3 1 55
Overturned 14 29 4 - 47
Total 808 500 53 13 1,374
The top ten violation codes reported for vehicular collisions account for approximately 84% of all
vehicular-injury collisions. Figure 2-17 compares the violation codes for the severe injury and fatal
collisions to the leading 10 violations (26 or more collisions) assigned to all vehicular collisions.
Figure 2-17 Vehicular Collision Violation Code Comparison
22350 -Unsafe speed; 36%
21453(a) -Driver failed to stop; 16%
22107 -Unsafe
driver movement; 9%
23152(a) -
DUI; 7%
21703 -
Following too
closely; 4%
21801(a) -
Failure to yield; 3%
21453(c) -Failure to stop
red arrow; 3%
21804(a) -Failure to yield when entering
traffic; 2%
21802(a) -
Failure to yield stop sign; 2%21658(a) -Unsafe lane
change; 2%
Other/Not Stated; 16%
All Injury Collisions
22350 -Unsafe speed; 32%
21453(a) -
Driver failed to
stop; 11%
22107 -Unsafedriver movement; 15%
23152(a) -DUI; 17%
21801(a) -Failure to
yield; 1%
21453(c) -Failure to stop red
arrow; 1%
21804(a) -
Failure to yield
when entering traffic; 3%
21658(a) -Unsafe lane
change; 2%
Other/Not Stated; 18%
Severe/Fatal Injury Collisions
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 44
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 24
Violation 22350, unsafe speed for prevailing conditions, was the most frequent code cited for all
vehicular collisions (488 collisions) and most frequent for severe injury/fatal collisions (21
collisions).
Violation code 22107, failing to turn safely, and violation 23152(a), driving under the influence of
alcohol, represent higher shares of severe injury/fatal collisions (15% and 17%, respectively) than
they do for all injury collisions (9% and 7%, respectively).
Combined, violation codes 22350, 22107, and 23152(a) account for 64% of all severe/fatal injury
collisions.
Figure 2-18 presents level of sobriety/impairment for vehicular-only collisions. The influence of
impairments such as alcohol, drugs, fatigue, or physical was reported for 145 collisions (11%),
including 14 severe or fatal injury collisions (21%). Of those 145 impaired driving collisions, 20
involved drivers under the legal drinking age (<21) – age was not reported for 41 of the collisions.
Figure 2-18 Vehicular Collisions by Level of Sobriety
3 10 18 21 11
114 65
1132
0
150
300
450
600
750
900
1050
1200
Other Physical
Impairment
Sleepy -
Fatigued
Under Drug
Influence
Had Been
Drinking - Not
Under
Influence
Had BeenDrinking -
Impairment
Unknown
Had BeenDrinking -Under
Influence
ImpairmentNot Known Not Stated /Had Not BeenDrinking
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 45
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 25
2.3 Strategic Highway Safety Plan Challenge Areas
The California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is a statewide traffic safety plan that provides a
framework and strategies for reducing fatalities, severe injuries, and total crashes. The SHSP
development is led by stakeholders representing California’s 5 Es of traffic safety: Education,
Enforcement, Engineering, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies.
The SHSP identifies safety “Challenge Areas” to focus resources. The 2020 – 2024 SHSP includes a
total of 16 Challenge Areas which were categorized into High Priority Areas and Focus Areas. Greater resources are focused on High Priority Areas, as they are identified as having the greatest potential
to significantly decrease statewide fatalities and severe injuries.
High Priority Areas
Active Transportation: Pedestrians &
Bicyclists
Impaired Driving
Intersections
Lane Departures
Speed Management/Aggressive Driving
Focus Areas
Aging Drivers (≥65 years in age)
Commercial Vehicles
Distracted Driving
Driver Licensing
Emergency Response
Emerging Technologies
Motorcyclists
Occupant Protection
Work Zones
Young Drivers (ages 15 – 20)
Based on the analysis findings and OTS data, High Priority Areas most relevant to Carlsbad include
Active Transportation: Pedestrians & Bicyclists, Impaired Driving, Intersections, and Speed Management/Aggressive Driving.
2.4 Focus Areas
The Descriptive Statistics Analysis and Intersection & Segment Analysis information previously
summarized in this Chapter, along with input from the project safety partners, informed the
identification of the following focus areas:
Pedestrian o Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks o Pedestrians failing to yield to drivers while crossing outside of crosswalks
Bicycle o Drivers failing to yield to bicyclists while the driver is making right-turns
o Bicycle at-fault collisions due to unsafe speeds (primarily non-motor vehicle
collisions)
o Increases in E-bike use: people of varying bicycle skill levels are travelling further and
faster than ever before
Vehicular o Leading violations
Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions
Failure to stop at limit line
Driving under the influence (including youth DUI) o Leading crash types
Broadside collisions (intersections and driveway locations)
Rear end collisions (mid-block approaching intersections)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 46
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 26
3.0 Recommendations
This chapter summarizes the programmatic and infrastructure recommendations.
3.1 Programmatic
Programs can be initiated to address a variety of safety topics or needs. This section describes
educational, enforcement, and emergency response topics for the City to consider undertaking.
Education
Safe Routes to School
Safe Routes to School programs seek to make conditions safer and more comfortable for students to
walk and bike to school, and to encourage more walking and biking. The programs can come in
various sizes (school specific, district wide) and address any number of topics (e.g., safe walking
behaviors, identifying infrastructure enhancements, encouragement programs). The City of Carlsbad
Sustainable Mobility Plan (SMP) identifies Safe Routes to School as one of four recommended
mobility programs.
The City of Carlsbad and Carlsbad Unified School District identified the following Safe Routes to
School strategies in the SMP:
SchoolPool Carpools
Parent Surveys
Walk Audits
Conceptual Improvement Maps
Suggested Routes to School Maps
Student Shortest Path Assessment
Student Address Pairing
Bicycle Education Courses
The San Diego County Bike Coalition provides over a dozen free classes, bike skills trainings, and
workshops intended to inform bicyclists and roadway users of all skill levels of safe bicycling
behaviors. Bicycle education courses are:
Smart Cycling - This course is designed to get adults and children (must be accompanied by
an adult) comfortable on the road and ready to commute or make short trips over two days,
including a 3-hour classroom portion and a 6-hour road portion. Attendants should learn
proper bike & helmet fit, safety tips for riding in traffic, techniques for navigating hazardous
roads, emergency maneuvers, using public transit with a bike, their legal rights and
responsibilities, as well as instructions on fixing a flat and bicycle adjustments.
Bike Rodeos - These are bicycle skills events targeting children and teens. They are taught on
a school playground or parking lot, which provides them with the opportunity to practice and develop skills that will help them become better bicyclists and avoid typical crashes. Its
objective is to teach young riders the importance of seeing, being seen, and always
remaining under control when riding a bicycle. Bicycle skills stations give students the
opportunity to practice a variety of specific bike handling skills and procedures for operating
a bike legally and more safely on the street.
City Cycling – This program is intended to prepare people for commute or recreational rides.
Topics covered include general bike safety, legal rights and responsibilities, emergency
maneuver skills, and basic maintenance tips.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 47
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 27
City Cycling for Ebikers – This course touches upon the similar topics as the City Cycling
course from the perspective of E-bike users. The three-hour course includes three sections:
lecture, skills drills, and road riding.
Youth Driving Under the Influence
Educating the youth of the dangers of driving under the influences is a proactive approach towards
traffic safety. The California Highway Patrol offers the Every 15 Minutes program to high school
juniors and seniors. The program is intended to challenge students to “think about drinking, driving,
personal safety, the responsibility of making mature decisions and the impact their decisions have
on family, friends, their community, and many others.” The California Office of Traffic Safety makes
funding available to the California Highway Patrol for mini-grants to implement the Every 15 Minutes
program.
Enforcement and Emergency Response
Targeted Driving Under the Influence Enforcement
The City of Carlsbad Police Department should continue conducting driving under the influence
checkpoints to deter impaired driving and promote public safety. As new collision datasets are made
available, City departments should consider coordinating to identify priority locations for the
checkpoints based on DUI collision history. For example, the 2015 -2019 collision data reviewed
through this LRSP identified the Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street roundabout as a location with
relatively high share of impaired driver collisions (9 of 15 collisions involved DUI).
Targeted Speed Enforcement
Similar to targeted DUI enforcement, targeted speed enforcement is intended to deter speeding in
locations with a history of collisions resulting from drivers travelling at unsafe speeds. Internal City
coordination can help in determine locations where unsafe speeds are of most concern.
E-Bike Collision Coding
As stated in Section 1.3, the rise in E-bike use has also resulted in new safety concerns and the need
for collision reporting that distinguishes between electric and non-electric bicycles. The Carlsbad Police Department implemented procedures to address this data gap. As the new collision data
becomes available, the Police Department and other relevant City departments should consider
evaluating the reporting modification outputs to determine if additional data refinements would be
beneficial.
3.2 Infrastructure
Infrastructure countermeasures include those intended for systemic or citywide application and site-
specific recommendations. This section identifies the various types of countermeasures
recommended, followed by citywide recommendations, and finally site-specific recommendations.
Recommended Countermeasure Types
Consistent with HSIP grant application requirements, countermeasures were largely drawn from
Caltrans’s Local Roadway Safety Manual (2022) (LRSM). The countermeasure ID, title, and Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) are provided for each countermeasure, as stated in the LRSM. A description
of the intended application within the context of Carlsbad is also provided for the broader
countermeasures.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 48
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 28
S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and
number (CRF 15% - all crash types). This countermeasure is recommended to address broadside and
rear end collisions by improving intersection/signal visibility. Two specific enhancements for consideration include:
Back-plates with retroreflective borders – Apply retroreflective tape or borders to signal back-
plates to increase signal visibility.
Overhead-mounted through signal heads – Provide one (1) overheard-mounted signal head
per through lane at intersections with ≥ 45mph approaches. See applicable Caltrans
guidance in MUTCD table below.
Source: 2014 CA MUTCD, Revision 5 (March 27, 2020)
S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) (CRF 15% - all crash
types). Reviewing signalized intersection citywide to ensure appropriate timing, phasing, and controls
are in place can produce multimodal safety benefits.
S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (CRF 30% - all crash types). Advance warning
device used to alert drivers they are approaching a signal and need to prepare to slow down. This is
application is intended to help reduce rear end collisions and also prevent vehicles from failing to
stop at the limit line.
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing (CRF 25% - pedestrian and bicycle crash types). Enhancements
for consideration include:
High visibility crosswalks – Upgrade existing marked crosswalks to high visibility crosswalk to
improve crosswalk visibility and help define where vehicles are intended to stop.
Curb extensions – Shorten the crossing distance, improve pedestrian visibility, and facilitate
slower vehicle turning speeds.
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (CRF 15% - pedestrian and bicycle crash types).
Enhance pedestrian safety by providing an additional buffer. Stop bars also help define where
vehicles are intended to stop.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 49
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 29
S21PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) (CRF 60% -
pedestrian and bicycle crash types). This enables people crossing at signalized crosswalks to enter
the intersection 3 – 7 seconds in advance of drivers, helping them to establish their presence and improve their visibility to drivers.
NS01, Add Intersection lighting (CRF 40% - night-time crashes). Lighting improves night-time visibility
for all travel modes.
R14, Road Diet (reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) (CRF 30% - all crash
types). Proposed in locations with high pedestrian and bicycle collisions. Repurpose travel lane
space to provide buffers for bicycle facilities, reduce pedestrian exposure, and eliminate “multiple
threat” at uncontrolled crossings.
R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs (CRF 30% - all crash types). Radar speed
feedback signs inform drivers of their speed when exceeding the posted speed limit. Note, this
application may not be HSIP eligible as the LRSM intends for use at horizontal curves.
R34PB, Install sidewalk/pathway (CRF 80% - pedestrian and bicycle crash types). Intended to
implement the planned Class I Multi-Use Paths.
R35PB, Install pedestrian crossing with enhanced safety features (CRF 35% - pedestrian and bicycle
crash types). Installation of a mid-block pedestrian crossing with high visibility crosswalks, advance
yield markings, pedestrian refuge, and/or curb extensions.
R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) (CRF 35% - pedestrian and bicycle crash
types). Installation at uncontrolled locations to improve driver awareness of crossing pedestrians.
The following additional countermeasures were recommended that are not from the LRSM and are
therefore not HSIP eligible:
Green conflict paint in bike lane – Intended to improve driver awareness of the bicycle facility
and to anticipate bicyclists. The paint is recommended for application within bike lanes
where a right-turn only lane forces vehicles to cross over the bike lane. Green conflict paint
should also be considered for intersection approaches.
Enhance sight distance – Landscaping modifications at Carlsbad Boulevard and Cerezo Drive
may improve sight distance for vehicles making a right-turn from westbound Cerezo Drive
onto northbound Carlsbad Boulevard and for northbound bicyclists.
Speed reduction markings – Transverse stripes spaced at gradually decreasing distances
increase drivers’ perception of speed.
Rat Boxes/Lights (Red Light Indicator) – A tool used to assist police officers in identifying
when roadway users fail to obey traffic signals. Reporting officers must visually confirm a
traffic signal is red to issue a citation. These small devices are attached to traffic signals.
When the traffic signal turns red, a small light on the rat box illuminates. A law enforcement
officer must be physically located in the vicinity of the traffic signal and rat box – typically on
the side street or past the intersection – to observe the line where the vehicles are supposed
to stop. The rat box gives greater flexibility in where the law enforcement officer can position
themselves when observing traffic signal compliance. Note, these are not red-light cameras
(no photo/video is taken, and an officer must be present to observe and issue a citation).
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 50
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 30
Citywide Recommendations
Table 3-1 identifies the citywide recommendations and corresponding safety topics the
recommendation addresses.
Table 3-1 Citywide Countermeasure Summary
Countermeasure Issue Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks Drivers failing to yield to bicyclists while driver is making right-turn Driver failure to stop at the limit line Broadside collisions (intersections) Rear end collisions (approaches to intersections) S02, Retroreflective backplate
Borders
S02, Overhead-mounted through
signal head
S03, Improve signal timing
S18PB, Install pedestrian
crossing: high visibility crosswalk
S20PB, Install advance stop bar
before crosswalk
Rat lights (red light indicator)
Green conflict paint in bike lanes
at right-turn only lanes
Location-specific Issues and Recommended Countermeasures
Table 3-2 summarizes the site-specific countermeasures recommended. Figure 3-1 displays the
recommendation locations, with the ID corresponding to the ID in Table 3-2. The table is followed by
descriptions of the issues, relevant planned improvements identified in the City of Carlsbad Capital
Projects Dashboard and Sustainable Mobility Plan, and the recommended countermeasures.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 51
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 31
Table 3-2 Countermeasure Summary by Location
S02, Retroreflective backplate borders S02. Overhead-mounted through signal head S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning S18PB, High visibility crosswalk S18PB, Curb extensions S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk S21, Modify signal phasing to implement LPI NS01 Add intersection lighting R14, Road diet and add buffers to bike lane R26, Install dynamic/ variable speed warning signs R34PB, Install sidewalk/ pathway R35PB, Pedestrian refuge R37PB, Install rectangular rapid flashing beacon Green conflict paint in bike lane (non-LRSM) Speed reduction markings (non-LRSM Enhance sight distance – clear vegetation (non-LRSM) Intersections
1. Roosevelt Street & Carlsbad Village Drive
Extend onto
Roosevelt St
(all corners)
All
approaches
2. Harding Street & Carlsbad Village Drive All legs Extend onto Harding St
(all corners)
All
approaches
3. Roosevelt Street & Grand Avenue All corners All approaches All legs
4. El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road All signal
heads All signals N, W legs SB, EB
approaches
5. Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road All signal
heads
NB, EB,
WB signals E, W legs EB, WB
approaches
6. Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street
7. El Camino Real & Alga Road All signal
heads
EB, WB
signals
8. Loker Avenue/Innovation Way & Palomar
Airport Road All signal
heads
EB, WB
signals All legs All
approaches
9. Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive NB
approach NB
approach West side
Segments
10. Paseo Del Norte, from Palomar Airport
Road to Camino Del Parque/Sea Gate Rd
11. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Carlsbad
Village Drive to Cannon Road
12. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Tierra Del Oro
to La Costa Avenue (southern City limit)
Class I
Path along
west side
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 52
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 32
Figure 3-1 Countermeasure Locations
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 53
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 33
1. Roosevelt Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Issue: Pedestrian collisions where the driver is at-fault while making left-turns
Planned (SMP): Priority intersection for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Recommended:
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing: curb extensions extending onto Roosevelt Street at all
corners
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (all approaches)
2. Harding Street & Carlsbad Village Drive
Issue: Pedestrian collisions where the driver is at-fault while making left- and right-turns
Planned (SMP): Priority intersection for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Recommended:
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing: o High visibility crosswalk (all legs) o Curb extensions extending onto Harding Street at all corners
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (all approaches)
3. Roosevelt Street & Grand Avenue
Issue: Pedestrian collisions where the driver is at-fault while making left- and right-turns
Planned (SMP): Priority intersection for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Recommended:
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing: curb extensions (all corners)
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (all approaches)
S21PB, Modify signal phasing to implement lead pedestrian interval (all legs)
4. El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road
Issue: Broadside collisions due to failing to stop at the limit line while proceeding straight
Planned (CIP): Project # 6077: The project will extend left turn lanes at four locations along El
Camino Real.
Recommended:
S02, Improve signal hardware
o Retroreflective backplate borders (all signal heads) o Additional overhead-mounted through signal head (one signal head per through lane
on all signals)
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing: high visibility crosswalk (north and west legs)
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (southbound and eastbound approaches)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 54
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 34
5. Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road Issues:
Broadside collisions due to failing to stop at the limit line
Collisions at night due to unsafe speeds and DUI
Planned (CIP): Project # 6034: Widen southbound Melrose Drive to provide an additional right-turn
lane to westbound Palomar Airport Road.
Planned (SMP): Priority intersection for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Recommended:
S02, Improve signal hardware o Retroreflective backplate borders (all signal heads) o Additional overhead-mounted through signal head (one signal head per through lane
on northbound, eastbound, and westbound signals)
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing: high visibility crosswalk (east and west legs)
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (eastbound and westbound approaches)
6. Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street
Issues:
Collisions due to driving under the influence (9 of 15 collisions)
Collisions at night (14 of 15 collisions during dusk, dawn, or night)
Planned (CIP): Project # 4016: Install phase 1 decorative lighting solutions along Grand Avenue and
State Street in the Village.
Planned (SMP): Priority corridor for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Recommended:
NS01, Add intersection lighting
Targeted DUI enforcement (non-LRSM)
7. El Camino Real & Alga Road
Issue: Rear end collisions due to unsafe speed in the north- and southbound directions
Planned (CIP): Project # 201944: Modify the right turn lane configuration from northbound El Camino
Real to eastbound Alga Road.
Recommended:
S02, Improve signal hardware o Retroreflective backplate borders (all signal heads)
o Additional overhead-mounted through signal head (one signal head per through lane
on eastbound and westbound signals)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 55
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 35
8. Loker Avenue/Innovation Way & Palomar Airport Road Issue: Rear end collisions due to unsafe speeds and following too closely approaching the
intersection.
Planned: N/A
Recommended:
S02, Improve signal hardware o Retroreflective backplate borders (all signal heads) o Additional overhead-mounted through signal head (one signal head per through lane
on eastbound and westbound signals)
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing: high visibility crosswalk (all legs)
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (all approaches)
9. Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive
Issues:
Bicycle collisions where the driver is at-fault while making right-turns
Rear end collisions in northbound direction due to unsafe speeds
Planned (SMP):
Priority intersections for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Multi-use path
Recommended:
S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (install on northbound approach near
Manzano Drive where northbound Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road merge)
Install green conflict paint in northbound bike lane intersection approach and departure
(non-LRSM)
Install speed reduction markings on northbound Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport
Road before the merge (non-LRSM)
Enhance sight distance by clearing the vegetation along the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard
for westbound drivers on Cerezo Drive (non-LRSM)
10. Paseo Del Norte, from Palomar Airport Road to Camino Del Parque/Sea Gate Road
Issue: Mid-block pedestrian collisions near Tip Top Meats and Motel 6
Planned (SMP):
Priority corridor for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Buffered bike lanes
Recommended:
R14, Road diet and add buffers to bike lanes
R35PB, Install pedestrian crossing with pedestrian refuge and curb extensions (near Motel 6
and Tip Top Meats)
R37PB, Install rectangular rapid flashing beacon (near Motel 6 and Tip Top Meats)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 56
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 36
11. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Carlsbad Village Drive to Cannon Road Issue: Pedestrian collisions due to driver failing to yield while pedestrians are crossing in crosswalks
Planned (CIP):
Project # 6068: Install pedestrian scale lighting along both sides of Carlsbad Village Drive to
match the lighting in the Village. The lights will be 13' concrete/marblelite poles with black
metal toppers.
Project # 6097: The project will construct pedestrian enhancements at six uncontrolled
crosswalk locations on Carlsbad Boulevard. Improvements include curb extensions, in-
pavement flashing lights, green bike lane treatments and street lighting.
Project # 201907: Construct raised, landscaped median. Work includes concrete curb,
landscaping, irrigation and colored, stamped concrete.
Project # 6058: Construct an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant pedestrian path
through the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard (west side). The
project will require the removal of the existing “pork chop” islands, installation of new
concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk and pedestrian ramps. Relocation of traffic signal equipment
including signal poles, controller cabinet and electric service cabinet will be necessary. Due
to the age/deterioration of existing traffic conduit, the traffic signal will be completely re-
wired.
Planned (SMP):
Priority intersections for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Buffered bike lane along Carlsbad Boulevard
Recommended: R14, Road diet and add buffers to bike lane. Excess right-of-way along west side of
Carlsbad Boulevard may be repurposed to provide additional on-street parking and/or widen the
existing bike lane.
12. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Tierra Del Oro to La Costa Avenue (southern City limit)
Issue: High frequency of bike collisions throughout the corridor, specifically in southbound direction
where on-street parking is present
Planned (CIP): Project # 6031: (Nearby Improvements) The project will conduct an investigative study
of future roadway realignment alternatives, infrastructure needs, land uses, commercial land
development options, public park and coastal access opportunities, and related long term coastal
planning issues, constraints, and processes. The second phase study of a multi-year project such as
this would not require permits or environmental review at this time. Extent: Manzano Drive to La
Costa Avenue.
Planned (SMP):
Priority corridor for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Multi-use path
Recommended: R34PB, Install sidewalk/pathway (Class I Bike Path) along west side of Carlsbad
Boulevard
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 57
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 37
4.0 Implementation
This chapter provides information to aid in the pursuit of recommendation implementation.
Benefit/cost ratio analysis results, potential funding sources, and opportunities to implement
improvements with maintenance projects are covered along with topics to consider monitoring post-
implementation.
4.1 Benefit/Cost Ratios
This LRSP document helps the City of Carlsbad maintain eligibility for HSIP funding from Caltrans.
The majority of HSIP funds are awarded based on the project’s effectiveness, determined using a
benefit to cost ratio (BCR). HSIP Cycle 11 requires minimum BCR score of 3.5 to apply, however,
funded projects have historically scored higher. For example, the BCR cutoff score for funded projects in Cycle 10 was 12.0 and 7.5 in Cycle 9.
Table 4-13 presents BCR results for the HSIP-eligible countermeasure recommendations previously
identified in Table 3-2.
As shown, five projects exceed the 12.0 BCR cutoff score from Cycle 10. Those projects, in order of
BCR score, include:
9. Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive (63.81)
11. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Carlsbad Village Drive to Cannon Road (18.03)
10. Paseo Del Norte, from Palomar Airport Road to Camino Del Parque/Sea Gate Rd (17.77)
6. Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street (15.80)
4. El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road (14.35)
HSIP applications permit the bundling of locations and countermeasure types with the following
limitations:
Countermeasures must generally be from the same roadway category (Signalized
Intersection, Non-Signalized Intersection, or Roadway Segment)4
A maximum of three countermeasures can be factored into the BCR calculation
Considering this, it is recommended that projects 9 and 4 be combined into a single project using
the following three countermeasures, which would yield a BCR of 18.71:
S02, Improve signal hardware retroreflective backplate borders and additional overhead-
mounted through signal heads
S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing: high visibility crosswalk
3 Project 12, the Class I Bike Path along the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard from Tierra Del Oro to La Costa Avenue was divided into four
segments considering the length of the project and relatively high cost. Additionally, cost estimates were prepared unit costs which may not capture location specific nuances that could greatly change assumptions. This is particularly relevant to project 12 due to the length and potential project related challenges (e.g., environmental habitats, utilities, coastal area, right-of-way). Therefore, two different unit cost assumptions were used in the cost estimate and BCR development for project 12 and reflected in Table 4-1.
4 Exceptions can apply for “Corridor Projects”
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 58
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 38
Table 4-1 Benefit Cost Ratio Summary
S02, Retroreflective backplate borders S02. Overhead-mounted through signal head S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning S18PB, High visibility crosswalk S18PB, Curb extensions S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk S21, Modify signal phasing to implement LPI NS01 Add intersection lighting R14, Road diet and add buffers to bike lane R26, Install dynamic/ variable speed warning signs R34PB, Install sidewalk/ pathway R35PB, Pedestrian refuge R37PB, Install rectangular rapid flashing beacon BCR
Intersections
1. Roosevelt Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Extend onto
Roosevelt St
(all corners)
All
approaches 0.56
2. Harding Street & Carlsbad Village Drive All legs Extend onto
Harding St
(all corners)
All
approaches 0.73
3. Roosevelt Street & Grand Avenue All corners All
approaches All legs 0.29
4. El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road All signal heads All signals N, W legs SB, EB approaches 14.35
5. Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road All signal
heads
NB, EB,
WB
signals E, W legs EB, WB
approaches 2.91
6. Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street 15.80
7. El Camino Real & Alga Road All signal
heads
EB, WB
signals 4.41
8. Loker Avenue/Innovation Way & Palomar
Airport Road All signal
heads
EB, WB
signals All legs All
approaches 3.06
9. Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive NB
approach 63.81
Segments
10. Paseo Del Norte, from Palomar Airport
Road to Camino Del Parque/Sea Gate Rd 17.77
11. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Carlsbad
Village Drive to Cannon Road 18.03
12a. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Tierra Del
Oro to Solemar Drive
Class I
Path
0.30 ($9M)
0.94 ($2.7M)
12b. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Solemar
Drive to Poinsettia Lane
Class I
Path
1.70 ($9M)
5.15 ($2.7M)
12c. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Poinsettia
Lane to Avenida Encinas
Class I
Path
0.70 ($9M)
2.11 ($2.7M)
12d. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Avenida
Encinas to La Costa Avenue
Class I
Path
1.54 ($9M)
4.62 ($2.7M)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 59
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 39
4.2 Funding Sources
This LRSP documents positions the City of Carlsbad to be eligible to submit HSIP applications. A wide
range of additional funding sources are also available at the regional, state, and federal levels that
could be used to fund safety projects. A sample of potential funding sources is summarized in the
remainder of this subsection, including funding program descriptions and eligible projects.
Regional Sources
Active Transportation Grant Program (SANDAG)
The goal of the ATGP is to encourage local jurisdictions to plan and build facilities that promote
multiple travel choices and build connectivity.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Capital projects
Non-capital projects: planning, education, encouragement, and awareness programs; and
bike parking
Smart Growth Incentive Program (SANDAG)
The SGIP provides funding for transportation-related infrastructure improvements that within Smart Growth Opportunity Areas as shown in SANDAG’s Smart Growth Concept Map. The goal is to fund
public infrastructure projects and planning activities that facilitate or support compact, mixed-use,
transit-oriented development and transportation choices.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Capital and planning projects
State Sources
Office of Traffic Safety Grant Program (California Office of Traffic Safety)
Funds to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes so all roadway users arrive at their destination safely.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Non-infrastructure programs
Safety education programs
Encouragement programs
SRTS programs
Local Streets and Roads Program (Caltrans)
Funding dedication for cities and counties to perform basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and
critical safety projects on the local streets and roads systems.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Safety projects
Complete streets components
Traffic control devices
Maintenance and rehabilitation
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 60
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 40
Local Partnership Program (California Transportation Commission)
This program serves to provide funding to districts, cities, counties, and regional transportation
agencies in which voters have approved or imposed fees or taxes dedicated solely to transportation improvements.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Aging infrastructure
Road conditions
Active transportation
Transit and rail
Health and safety benefits
Active Transportation Program (Caltrans)
Caltrans’s ATP was created to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, increase
the safety and mobility of non-motorized users, help achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals,
enhance public health, provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active
transportation users while ensuring disadvantages communities share in the benefits.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Capital projects: environmental, design, right-of-way, and construction phases of a capital
project.
Plans: community wide bicycle, pedestrian, safe routes to school, or active transportation
plan.
Non-infrastructure (NI) projects: education, encouragement, and enforcement activities
Sustainable Communities Planning Grants (Caltrans)
Funds intended to further the region’s RTP SCS, help achieve the State’s GHG reduction targets, and
directly benefit the multi-modal transportation system.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Safe Routes to School Plan
Bike/pedestrian trail or feasibility study
Regional Trails Program (California Parks Department)
Provides funds for recreational trails and trails-related projects.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Development and Rehabilitation of Trails, Trailside and Trailhead Facilities
Construction of new trails
Acquisition of easements and simple title to property for Recreational Trails
Urban Greening Program (California Natural Resources Agency)
Supports the development of green infrastructure projects that reduce GHG emissions and provide
multiple benefits, such as reducing commute VMT by constructing bicycle or pedestrian facilities that
provide safe routes for travel.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Non-motorized urban trails
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 61
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 41
4.3 Implementation with Maintenance
Regularly scheduled maintenance projects, such as road resurfacing and restriping present
opportunities to cost effectively incorporate safety enhancement projects. The following
recommended countermeasures are examples of projects that could be implemented with
maintenance projects:
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing: high visibility crosswalk
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk
R14, Road Diet (reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes)
Green conflict paint in bike lane (non-LRSM)
Speed reduction markings (non-LRSM)
Coordination between various City departments is required to leverage the maintenance projects and
achieve the cost savings.
4.4 Monitoring
Monitoring the effectiveness of infrastructure improvements helps to fortify City staff’s, elected
officials’,
and community members’ understanding of responses to investments and develops knowledge of
benefits within the local context. Monitoring can also aid in the pursuit of future grant funding
sources by helping to build the case of anticipated benefits with proven local data.
Table 4-3 identifies data to consider tracking before and after implementation.
Table 4-2 Monitoring Data Topics
Topic Rationale
Collisions Multimodal (pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle) collision data is the base for understanding safety benefits. Comparing similar years of data before
and after project implementation is one indicator of project benefits.
Count Data
Intersection counts, segment counts, and crossing data can help inform volume and exposure. Combined with collision data, count data can be
used to develop collision rates to help account for changes in activity
levels.
Infrastructure Modifications
Infrastructure modifications within the project vicinity may contribute to
changes in travel patterns, behavior, or safety. Documenting
infrastructure changes that occurred before, during and after implementation can help inform if changes were influential.
Development Projects
Like infrastructure modifications, new development projects may alter
travel patterns and behavior. These changes may not be fully captured through count data, yet they may contribute to changes in activity. Noting
these projects will help ensure they are considered when evaluating
benefits.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 62
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Appendix A - Descriptive Statistics Analysis
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 63
Prepared For: Prepared By:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
CR Associates
3900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92103
LOCAL ROADWAY
SAFETY PLAN
NOVEMBER 2021
DRAFT
Descriptive Statistics Report
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 64
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Collision Database ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Key Findings ................................................................................................................................. 2
2.0 Pedestrian Collisions .......................................................................................................................... 7
3.0 Bicycle Collisions ............................................................................................................................. 15
4.0 Vehicular Collisions ......................................................................................................................... 23
5.0 Systemic Collision Matrices ............................................................................................................ 31
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 - Citywide Crash Tree (2015 – 2019) ....................................................................................... 3
Figure 2.1 - Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location .................................................... 7
Figure 2.2 - Pedestrian Collision Party at-Fault by Roadway Location...................................................... 8
Figure 2.3 - Pedestrian Collision Violation Code Comparison ................................................................ 11
Figure 2.4 - Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity by Lighting ................................................................... 12
Figure 2.5 - Pedestrian Collisions by Time of Day ................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.6 - Pedestrian Collisions by Age & Gender ............................................................................... 13
Figure 3.1 - Bicycle Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location ........................................................ 15
Figure 3.2 - Bicycle Collision Party at-Fault by Roadway Location ......................................................... 16
Figure 3.3 - Bicycle Collision Violation Code Comparison ...................................................................... 20
Figure 3.4 - Bicycle Collisions by Time of Day ......................................................................................... 21
Figure 3.5 - Bicycle Collisions by Age & Gender ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 4.1 - Vehicular Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location .................................................... 23
Figure 4.2 - Vehicular Collision Violation Code Comparison .................................................................. 26
Figure 4.3 - Vehicle Collisions by Time of Day ......................................................................................... 29
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 65
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page ii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 - Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location ...................................................... 7
Table 2.2 - Pedestrian Collision Cause by Roadway Location ................................................................... 9
Table 2.3 - Pedestrian Collision Violation Code by Injury Severity ......................................................... 10
Table 2.4 - Pedestrian Action by Injury Severity ...................................................................................... 11
Table 2.5 - Driver at-Fault Pedestrian Intersection Collisions by Driver Movement ............................. 12
Table 3.1 - Bicycle Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location ......................................................... 15
Table 3.2 - Bicycle Collision Cause by Roadway Location ...................................................................... 17
Table 3.3 - Bicycle Collision Violation Code by Injury Severity ............................................................... 19
Table 3.4 - Bicycle-Vehicle Collisions by Movement ............................................................................... 20
Table 4.1 - Vehicular Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location ..................................................... 23
Table 4.2 - Vehicular Collision Crash Type by Roadway Location .......................................................... 24
Table 4.3 - Vehicular Collision Crash Type by Injury Severity ................................................................. 24
Table 4.4 - Vehicular Collision Cause by Roadway Location .................................................................. 25
Table 4.5 - Vehicular Collision Violation Code by Injury Severity ........................................................... 27
Table 4.6 - Severe/Fatal Vehicle Collisions by Movement ..................................................................... 29
Table 5.1 - Intersection Matrix for All Injury Collisions ........................................................................... 32
Table 5.2 - Mid-Block Matrix for All Injury Collisions ............................................................................... 34
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 66
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 1
1.0 Introduction
This document provides a review of collision records in support of the Carlsbad Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP). The project study area encompasses all city streets within the Carlsbad City
Limits, excluding freeway facilities. This review examines the collision records from a citywide
perspective to identify trends among the roadway location (intersection or mid-block), causes, users
and their behaviors.
The introductory chapter provides an overview of the collision database and key findings from the
analysis. Following this chapter, analysis results are separated by travel mode, including pedestrian,
bicycle, and vehicle. The report concludes with a set of systemic collision matrices, intended to help
identify combinations of behaviors and roadway characteristics where collisions are most frequent.
Collisions for each mode are reported by the categories provided within the record, as completed by
the reporting law enforcement officer, such as party-at-fault, cause, violation, and crash type. The
collision’s roadway location (intersection or mid-block) was used to further understand specific
issues to the location type. Consistent with the Caltrans’ LRSP guidelines, additional emphasis was
placed on collisions resulting in severe injuries or fatalities for each travel mode.
A subsequent report will be provided focusing on specific intersection and midblock collision
locations, including collision frequencies and rates. The findings presented in this document inform
the identification of noteworthy areas across the city and will be combined with the intersection and segment analysis results (in a separate report) to determine specific locations and topic areas to
focus recommendation – or countermeasure – development on.
1.1 Collision Database
A citywide collision dataset was obtained from the City of Carlsbad’s Crossroads database for the
most recent complete five-year period, January 2015 – December 2019. Prior to database
construction and analysis, the accuracy of the data was reviewed.
Collision Data Review
The initial dataset contained 3,075 collision records. One record was removed due to being
identified as a duplicate. Four records were removed due to occurring within private parking lots. An
additional 40 records were removed due to insufficient locational information (ex., single cross-
street, labelled as “Private Road”, or two streets that do not intersect). The 40 removed records with
insufficient locational information did not include any collisions resulting in a severe or fatal injury
(30 Property Damage Only, 2 Other Visible Injury, 8 Complaint of Pain). The review process resulted
in a final database of 3,030 records.
Database Construction
The 3,030 collision records were further reviewed to identify and separate records resulting in an
injury from those that resulted in property damage only (PDO). A total of 1,683 injury collision records
were obtained for the five-year study period, including 108 severe or fatal injury collisions.
The 1,683 spatially referenced injury collision records were assigned to one of two location
categories: intersection or mid-block. Location assignment was based on the intersection offset
distance indicated in each record’s attributes. Collision points within 50 feet of an intersection node
were categorized as intersection collisions. All remaining collisions were categorized as midblock
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 67
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 2
collisions. This approach takes into consideration the influence intersection characteristics may have
on records within this distance. The 50’ offset distance is within the threshold identified by Caltrans’
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which permits collisions up to 250’ from an intersection to be used in the determination of Benefit/Cost ratios for intersection countermeasures.
Figure 1.1 provides a crash tree overview of the 1,683 collisions, depicting the location type and
mode, as well as number of severe injury or fatal collisions for each mode.
Other City maintained transportation datasets, including travel lanes, traffic signals, posted speed
limits, and traffic volumes were utilized in tandem with aerial imagery to populate roadway
characteristics and infrastructure data within the 1,683 spatially referenced collision records.
SANDAG’s Transportation Forecast Information Center (TFIC) Series 14 Base Year 2016 data was
also referenced for additional traffic volume estimates. The type of traffic control and size of
intersection (based on number of through-lanes in the approaching roadways) were collected and
attributed to the location of each intersection collision. Posted speed limit, number of travel lanes,
median presence, and average daily traffic volumes attributed for each midblock collision.
Collisions by Year
Figure 1.2 displays collisions by mode for each of five study years. Collisions for bikes, vehicles, and
total for all modes combined peaked in 2016. The yearly comparison does not yield any discernable
patterns, with collisions for each mode increasing and decreasing over the five-year period.
Pedestrian collisions ranged from a low of 23 collisions in 2018 to a high of 31 collisions in 2019.
Bicycle collisions ranged from a low of 24 collisions in 2019 to a high of 47 collisions in 2016.
Vehicular collisions ranged from a low of 246 collisions in 2017 to a high of 319 collisions in 2016.
Data from 2020 was not included in this analysis as it was incomplete when the project was
initiated. Additionally, travel patterns in 2020 were an anomaly due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, discussions with local law enforcement indicated an increase in bicycle-involved collisions
– particularly electric bikes (e-bikes). Additional anecdotes indicate e-bike use has experienced rapid
growth in 2020 and 2021, enabling people to travel further distances and more easily traverse the
varying topography present across Carlsbad.
Figure 1.3 shows collisions by year and level of injury severity. Combined, severe and fatal injuries
ranged between 5% of all collisions in 2015 to 8% in 2019. The increase in severe/fatal injury
collisions does trend with increases in pedestrian or bicycle collisions, or total collisions for all modes
combined.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 68
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 3
Figure 1.1 - Citywide Crash Tree (2015 – 2019)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 69
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 4
Figure 1.2 - Collisions by Year and Mode (2015 – 2019)
Figure 1.3 - Collisions by Year and Level of Injury Severity (2015 – 2019)
24 26 25 23 3134473936 24
276
319
246 266 267
334
392
310 325 322
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle-Only Total
168
219
161 173 163148151
127 132 133
14 18 18 15 22
4 4 4 5 4
0
50
100
150
200
250
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 70
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 5
1.2 Key Findings
Pedestrian Collisions
During the five-year study period, 129 pedestrian collisions were reported, most frequently at
intersection locations (62% or 80/129). Intersection collisions were most reported at signalized
locations (43 collisions), followed by side-street stop-controlled intersections (28 collisions), with the
remaining nine collisions reported at uncontrolled intersections, all-way stop controlled intersections,
and roundabout locations. Severe injury and fatal collisions accounted for 19% of pedestrian-
involved collisions, the highest rate of all three travel modes.
Drivers were more commonly found to be at-fault for intersection collisions, largely while making left-
turns. The following locations experienced multiple driver at-fault collisions:
Carlsbad Village Drive & Roosevelt Street (signalized) (4 collisions)
Carlsbad Boulevard & Hemlock Avenue (side-street stop-controlled) (4 collisions)
Carlsbad Village Drive & Harding Street (signalized) (3 collisions)
Grand Avenue & Roosevelt Street (signalized) (3 collisions)
Carlsbad Boulevard & Oak Avenue (side-street stop-controlled) (2 collisions)
Pedestrians were the leading party at-fault at mid-block collisions, which accounted for 14 of the 24
severe injury/fatal collisions. Three of the pedestrian at-fault mid-block collisions were concentrated
along Paseo Del Norte, 860’ to 1,000’ south of Palomar Airport Road.
Two violation codes accounted for over half of the 129 pedestrian-involved collisions:
21950(a) – The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection,
except as otherwise provided - 38 collisions, including 2 severe injuries/fatal.
21954(a) – Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked
crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to
all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard - 32 collisions,
including 11 severe injuries/fatal.
Violation 21954(a) accounted for 25% of all injury collisions, yet 46% of severe injury/fatal collisions.
Bicycle Collisions
Bicycle-involved collisions were most frequently reported at mid-block locations (59% or 106 of the
180 records), including the only two fatalities and 12 of the 16 severe injury collisions. Similar to
pedestrian collisions, drivers were more commonly at-fault when bicycle collisions occurring at
signalized intersections (61% or 20 of the 33 signalized intersection collisions where fault was
assigned) while bicyclists were more commonly at-fault with mid-block collisions (72% or 59 of the
82 mid-block collisions where fault was assigned).
The intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard & Poinsettia Lane was the only signalized intersection where
multiple bicyclist at-fault collisions (2) were reported. Two signalized intersections experienced multiple collisions where the driver was at-fault are:
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive (3 collisions)
La Costa Avenue & Piraeus Street (2 collisions)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 71
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 6
Driver at-fault collisions most often occurred when the driver was making a right-turn (17 collisions).
The most frequent bicyclist movement reported for bicyclist at-fault collisions was proceeding
straight (66 collisions).
Two violation codes accounted for 43% the 180 bicycle-involved collision records:
22107 – No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a
roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety… - 39 collisions, including
2 severe injuries/fatal.
22350 – Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions - 38 collisions, including 4 severe
injuries/fatal.
Vehicular Collisions
The 1,374 vehicular collisions were closely split between intersections (53%) and mid-block (47%)
locations. Approximately 60% of the severe injury/fatal collisions were reported at mid-block
locations, and largely concentrated along Carlsbad Boulevard (14 collisions), followed by Palomar
Airport Road (4 collisions) and Rancho Santa Fe Road (4 collisions).
Among the 724 intersection collisions, signalized locations accounted for 78% of all injury collisions
and 59% of severe injury/fatal collisions at intersections.
Rear-End and Broadside collisions were the most frequent crash types for all injuries, accounting for
37% and 29% of vehicular collisions, respectively. The leading crash type for severe injury/fatal
collisions was Hit Object, assigned to 21 of the 66 collisions. Hit Object collisions resulting in a
severe injury or fatal conditions were due to unsafe speeds (8 collisions), driving under the influence
(6 collisions), improper turning (6 collisions), and other improper driving (1 collision).
Violation code 22350, unsafe speed for prevailing conditions, was the most frequent code cited for
all vehicular collisions (488 collisions) and the most frequent for severe injury/fatal collisions (21
collisions).
Violation code 22107, failing to turn safely, and violation 23152(a), driving under the influence of
alcohol, represent higher shares of severe/fatal injury collisions (15% and 17%, respectively) than
they do for all injury collisions (9% and 7%, respectively).
Systemic Collision Matrices
Systemic collision matrices were created for intersection and mid-block locations to help identify
characteristics related to behaviors and roadway environments where collisions were most prevalent.
For intersections, broadside collisions were the most frequent crash type reported, largely due to the
driver’s failure to stop at the limit line. These collisions were most common at signalized
intersections with four- or six-lane approaches on at least one of the two intersecting roads.
The mid-block collision matrix depicted collision concentrations within the rear end crash type due to
the unsafe speed violation code. These collisions most often occurred along roadways with a posted
speed limit of 50 mph or greater and four to six lanes.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 72
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 7
2.0 Pedestrian Collisions
A total of 129 pedestrian-involved collisions were reported and reviewed in this section. Figure 2.1
and Table 2.1 display injury severity by roadway location for the 129 pedestrian-involved collisions.
62% of the collisions were reported as occurring at an intersection (80/129), including 43 records at
signalized intersections and 28 at side-street stop-controlled intersections.
Six collisions resulted in a fatality, split evenly among signalized intersections, stop-controlled
intersections, and mid-block locations. Severe injury/fatal collisions combined were concentrated at
mid-block locations (14/24), accounted for 19% of pedestrian-involved collisions, the highest of all
three travel modes.
Figure 2.1 - Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Table 2.1 - Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Location
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection Roundabout
Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-
Block Total
Complaint of Pain 15 1 8 - 2 8 34
Other Visible Injury 23 3 15 1 2 27 71
Severe Injury 3 - 3 - - 12 18
Fatal 2 - 2 - - 2 6
Total 43 4 28 1 4 49 129
15
1
8
2
8
23
3
15
1 2
27
3 3
12
2 2 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 73
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 8
Figure 2.2 displays the party at-fault by roadway location. Drivers were largely reported as the party
at-fault for collisions occurring at intersections (71% or 55 of the 77 records where fault was
assigned), with the greatest share occurring at signalized intersections (80% or 32 of the 40 records where fault was assigned). The following signalized intersections experienced multiple pedestrian-
involved collisions where the driver was reported as at-fault:
Carlsbad Village Drive & Roosevelt Street (4 collisions)
Carlsbad Village Drive & Harding Street (3 collisions)
Grand Avenue & Roosevelt Street (3 collisions)
The following side-street stop-controlled intersections experienced multiple pedestrian-involved
collisions where the driver was reported as at-fault:
Carlsbad Boulevard & Hemlock Avenue (4 collisions)
Carlsbad Boulevard & Oak Avenue (2 collisions)
Pedestrians were the leading party at-fault at mid-block locations (60% or 28 of the 46 records
where fault was assigned). Three of the 28 pedestrian at-fault mid-block collisions were reported on
Paseo Del Norte ranging from 860’ to 1,000’ south of Palomar Airport Road. Corridors with multiple
pedestrian at-fault mid-block collisions include:
El Camino Real (4 collisions)
Palomar Airport Road (3 collisions)
Carlsbad Boulevard (3 collisions)
Carlsbad Village Drive (3 collisions)
Grand Avenue (2 collisions)
Figure 2.2 - Pedestrian Collision Party at-Fault by Roadway Location
32
3
17
3
17
1
8
1
11
1 1
28
3 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Driver Bicyclist Pedestrian No Fault Assigned
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 74
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 9
Pedestrian collision causes by roadway location are shown in Table 2.2. Pedestrian Violation was
reported as the primary collision cause for 38% of all pedestrian-involved collisions, with 57% of the
records reported at mid-block locations. Pedestrian Right-of-Way Violations were the second most frequent cause (31% of collisions), and the leading signalized intersection collision cause. Pedestrian
Violations were also the leading cause for collisions resulting in a severe injury or fatality, reported
for 16 of those 24 collisions. Violation of a Pedestrian’s Right-of-Way and Improper Turning were the
only other causes attributed to multiple severe/fatal injury collisions, with two records each. Driving
Under Influence of Alcohol was reported as the cause for the one remaining fatal collision.
Table 2.2 - Pedestrian Collision Cause by Roadway Location
Cause
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection Roundabout
Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-
Block Total
Pedestrian Violation 7 (1S; 1F) 1 11 (2S; 1F) 1 1 28 (9S; 2F) 49
Ped R/W Violation 20 3 12 (1S; 1F) - - 5 40
Unsafe Speed 2 - 2 - - 3 7
Improper Turning 2 (1S) - 1 - - 2 (1S) 5
Traffic Signals and
Signs 3 - 1 - - 1 5
Driving Under
Influence of Alcohol 1 (1F) - 1 - - 2 4
Unsafe Starting or Backing 2 (1S) - - - 1 1 4
Other Improper
Driving 2 - - - - 2 4
Unknown 1 - - - 1 1 3
Other Hazardous
Movement 1 - - - - 2 (1S) 3
Auto R/W Violation 1 - - - 1 - 2
Not Stated 1 - - - - - 1
Unsafe Lane Change - - - - - 1 (1S) 1
Other Than Driver - - - - - 1 1
Total 43 4 28 1 4 49 129
S = Severe; F = Fatal
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 75
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 10
Table 2.3 presents the violation codes by level of injury severity. Figure 2.3 compares violation codes
for severe injury and fatal collisions to the violations assigned to all pedestrian injury collisions. The
violation code with the highest number of collisions assigned (32) was 21950(a), the driver failing to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway. The most frequent violation code among
severe injury and fatal collisions (11) was 21954(a), pedestrians failing to yield the right-of-way
vehicles outside a crosswalk.
Table 2.3 - Pedestrian Collision Violation Code by Injury Severity
Violation Code Definition1 Complaint of Pain
Other
Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal Total
21950(a)
The driver of a vehicle shall yield the
right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
within any unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection, except as otherwise provided.
17 19 1 1 38
21954(a)
Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any
point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection shall yield
the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the
roadway so near as to constitute an
immediate hazard.
6 15 8 3 32
22350 Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions. 4 3 - - 7
21950(b)
No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb
or other place of safety and walk or run
into the path of a vehicle that is so close
as to constitute an immediate hazard.
1 3 2 1 7
22107
No person shall turn a vehicle from a
direct course or move right or left upon a
roadway until such movement can be
made with reasonable safety…
- 3 2 - 5
22106
No person shall start a vehicle stopped,
standing, or parked on a highway, nor
shall any person back a vehicle on a
highway until such movement can be
made with reasonable safety.
1 2 1 - 4
21453(a)
A driver facing a steady circular red signal
alone shall stop at a marked limit line,
but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if
none, then before entering the
intersection, and shall remain stopped
until an indication to proceed is shown,
except as provided in subdivision (b).
- 3 - - 3
Other/Not Stated 5 23 4 1 33
Total 34 71 18 6 129
Note: 1 Violation Code definition obtained from California Department of Motor Vehicles 2015 California Vehicle Code.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 76
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 11
Figure 2.3 - Pedestrian Collision Violation Code Comparison
Note: Violation Code definitions are provided in Table 2-3
Pedestrian action by injury severity is shown in Table 2.4. The most frequent pedestrian action
identified was Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection with 47 records. However, In Road and Crossing
Not in Crosswalk were reported as having the highest number of severe injuries and fatalities, with
eight records each.
Table 2.4 - Pedestrian Action by Injury Severity
Pedestrian Action
Complaint
of Pain
Other
Visible Injury
Severe
Injury Fatal Total
Crossing In Crosswalk At Intersection 14 27 5 1 47
In Road 6 19 7 1 33
Crossing Not In Crosswalk 7 13 5 3 28
Not Stated 3 6 - - 9
Crossing In Crosswalk Not At Intersection 3 2 - 1 6
Not In Road 1 4 1 - 6
Total 34 71 18 6 129
21950(a) -
Driver failed to yield; 30%
21954(a) -Ped
failed to yield; 25%
22350 -Unsafe
speed; 5%
21950(b) -
Pedestrian hazard; 5%
22107 -Unsafe
driver movement; 4%
22106 -Unsafe driver start; 3%
21453(a) -Driver failed
to stop; 2%
Other/Not Stated; 26%
All Injury Collisions
21950(a) -Driver
failed to yield; 8%
21954(a) -Ped failed
to yield; 46%21950(b) -Pedestrian
hazard; 13%
22107 -Unsafe driver movement;
8%
22106 -Unsafe driver start; 4%
Other/Not Stated; 21%
Severe/Fatal Injury Collisions
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 77
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 12
Table 2.5 displays the driver movement for the 55 pedestrian-involved collisions reported at
intersections where the driver was the party at-fault. Drivers Making Left-Turn was the most
frequently reported movement, largely concentrated at signalized intersections. Four of the 14 Making Left-Turn movements at signalized intersections were reported at the intersection of
Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt Street.
Table 2.5 - Driver at-Fault Pedestrian Intersection Collisions by Driver Movement
Driver Movement
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-Controlled
Intersection
Uncontrolled
Intersection Total
Making Left-Turn 14 2 3 - 19
Making Right-Turn 9 4 - - 13
Proceeding Straight 3 9 - 1 13
Not Stated 3 1 - 1 5
Backing 2 - - 1 3
Slowing/Stopping 1 - - - 1
Other - 1 - - 1
Total 17 17 3 3 55
Figure 2.4 presents pedestrian collision injury severity by lighting. 76 of the pedestrian-involved
collisions occurred during daylight, including one collision resulting in a fatality and 8 collisions
resulting in severe injury. Dark with Street Lights was the second leading category, representing 40
of the 129 of pedestrian-involved collisions. Four fatalities and 5 severe injury collisions occurred
under Dark with Street Lights conditions. Another fatality occurred under Dark with No Street Lights
conditions at the signalized intersection of Jefferson St and Las Flores Dr.
Figure 2.4 - Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity by Lighting
21
12
1
46
19
2 4
8 5 3 1 1141
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - No Street Lights Dusk - Dawn Dark - Street Lights NotFunctioning
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 78
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 13
Pedestrian collisions by time of day are shown in Figure 2.5. Traditional peak commute hours are
noticeable when looking at the hourly distribution of pedestrian-involved collisions occurring in the
morning (7:00AM – 9:00AM). Peaks in the afternoon and nighttime are shown during the 2:00PM hour, 4:00PM hour and 9:00PM hour. 72% of the pedestrian-involved collisions were reported on
weekdays. Peaks on weekends are shown during the 6:00PM hour and 9:00PM to 11:00PM hours.
Figure 2.5 - Pedestrian Collisions by Time of Day
The age and gender of the pedestrians involved in collisions are shown in Figure 2.6. Over two-thirds
of pedestrians were identified as males. The 18-29 age group experienced the greatest number of
collisions, followed by 30-39, and 17 or less. Collision causes and party-at-fault assignments for the
different age groups trended closely with the findings for all pedestrians.
Figure 2.6 - Pedestrian Collisions by Age & Gender
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12 AM1 AM2 AM3 AM4 AM5 AM6 AM7 AM8 AM9 AM10 AM11 AM12 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PM7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM11 PMWeekday Weekend
3
8
4
2
7
3
7
11
9
15
10
6
4
6 6
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
17 or Less18-2930-3940-4950-5960-6970 orMoreUnknownFemale Male
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 79
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 14
Figure 2.7 presents level of sobriety/impairment by part-at-fault for pedestrian collisions. The
influence of alcohol or drugs was reported for 13 collisions, including six collisions where the driver
was assigned fault and six collisions where the pedestrian was assigned fault.
Figure 2.7 - Pedestrian Collision Sobriety by Party-at-Fault
Figure 2.8 identifies if a cell phone was in use by the party-at-fault for pedestrian-involved collisions.
As shown, cell phone use was reported as a factor for three collisions, including two instances by the
driver and one by the pedestrian.
Figure 2.8 - Pedestrian Collisions by Cell Phone Use Where Fault Was Assigned
1 1 1
5
13
48
1 3 6 8
31
1 1 3 6
0
10
20
30
40
50
Under Drug
Influence
Had Been Drinking
- Not Under
Influence
Had Been Drinking
- Impairment
Unknown
Had Been Drinking
- Under Influence
Impairment Not
Known
Not Stated / Had
Not Been Drinking
Driver Pedestrian No Fault Assigned
2
16
59
1
21
30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cell Phone Handheld In Use Not Stated Cell Phone Not In Use
Driver Pedestrian
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 80
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 15
3.0 Bicycle Collisions
A total of 180 bicycle-involved collisions were reported during the study period. Figure 3.1 and Table
3.1 display bicycle collision injury severity by roadway location. Combined, 10% (18 collisions) of the
180 bicycle-involved collisions resulted in a severe injury or fatal collision, the second highest severe
injury/fatal rate of the three modes.
Over half of bicycle-involved collisions (59% or 106 of the 180 records) were reported at mid-block
locations, including the only two fatalities and 12 of the 16 severe injury collisions. The remining four
severe injury collisions were reported at side-street stop-controlled intersections (three collisions)
and signalized intersections (one collision). Of the 106 mid-block bicycle collisions, 90 collisions
occurred along roadways with bike lanes and two along roadways with bike routes bike routes.
Intersection collisions were closely split between signalized and side-street stop-controlled
intersections, accounting for 19% and 17% of all bicycle-involved collisions, respectively. Bicycle
facility presence was not reviewed at intersection locations due to the absence of facilities within the
intersection.
Figure 3.1 - Bicycle Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Table 3.1 - Bicycle Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Location
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection Roundabout
Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-
Block Total
Complaint of Pain 11 1 11 - - 19 42
Other Visible Injury 22 2 17 2 4 73 120
Severe Injury 1 - 3 - - 12 16
Fatal - - - - - 2 2
Total 34 3 31 2 4 106 180
11
1
11
1922
2
17
2 4
73
1 3
12
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
SignalizedIntersection All-Way Stop-ControlledIntersection
Side-Street Stop-ControlledIntersection
Roundabout UncontrolledIntersection Mid-Block
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 81
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 16
Figure 3.2 displays the party at-fault by roadway location. Drivers were more commonly at-fault
during collisions occurring at signalized intersection locations (61% or 20 of the 33 signalized
intersection collisions where fault was assigned). Bicyclists were more commonly at-fault during mid-block collisions (72% or 59 of the 82 mid-block collisions where fault was assigned).
The intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard & Poinsettia Lane was the only signalized intersection where
multiple bicyclist at-fault collisions (2) were reported. Two signalized intersections experienced
multiple collisions where the driver was at-fault:
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive (3 collisions)
La Costa Avenue & Piraeus Street (2 collisions)
Of the 14 severe injury/fatal collisions that occurred at mid-block locations, seven were reported as
bicyclist at-fault, five as driver at-fault, and no fault assigned for the remaining two. Five of those
seven bicyclist at-fault collisions occurred along Carlsbad Boulevard, due to unsafe speeds, unsafe
turning movements, or following too closely.
The most frequent driver movements reported for the 69 driver at-fault collisions include:
Making right-turn (17 collisions)
Making left-turn (8 collisions)
Proceeding straight (5 collisions)
Other (ex., backing, entering traffic, U-turn, other) (6 collisions)
The most frequent bicyclist movements reported for the 93 bicyclist at-fault collisions include:
Proceeding straight (66 collisions)
Changing lanes (8 collisions)
Making left-turn (5 collisions)
Other (ex., right-turn, merging, wrong way, slowing/stopping, other) (14 collisions)
Figure 3.2 - Bicycle Collision Party at-Fault by Roadway Location
20
1
14
1
33
13
2
14
2 3
59
1 3
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Driver Bicyclist No Fault Assigned
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 82
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 17
Bicycle collision causes by roadway location are shown in Table 3.2. Improper Turning was the
leading collision cause, cited for 22% of all bicycle collisions, including three severe injuries which all
occurred in mid-block. Improper turning collisions were split amongst mid-block (22 collisions) and intersection (18 collisions) environments. Unsafe Speed was the second leading cause overall (38
collisions) and the leading cause for severe injury/fatal collisions (4 collisions) which again all
occurred in mid-block.
Table 3.2 - Bicycle Collision Cause by Roadway Location
Cause
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way
Stop-Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-Controlled
Intersection Roundabout
Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-
Block Total
Improper Turning 11 1 5 - 1 22 (3S) 40
Unsafe Speed 2 1 5 - 1 29 (4S) 38
Auto R/W Violation 4 - 6 - 2 8 (1S) 20
Unknown - - 3 (2S) - - 12 (2S) 15
Other Hazardous
Movement 1 - 4 - - 8 13
Traffic Signals and Signs 9 (1S) 1 2 - - 1 13
Unsafe Lane Change - - - - - 7 (2F) 7
Wrong Side of Road 2 - 2 - - 3 7
Following Too Closely - - - 1 - 4 (1S) 5
Unsafe Starting or
Backing - - 2 - - 3 5
Other Than Driver - - 1 (1S) - - 4 (1S) 5
Other Improper
Driving 1 - - 1 - 2 4
Driving Under
Influence 1 - - - - 2 3
Improper Passing 2 - - - - 1 3
Lights - - 1 - - - 1
Ped R/W Violation 1 - - - - - 1
Total 34 3 31 2 4 106 180
S = Severe; F = Fatal
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 83
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 18
Of the 180 bicycle collisions, 65 did not involve a motor vehicle (36%). Figure 3.3 identifies the
additional objects involved in collisions with the bicyclists. The leading category for non-motor vehicle
bicycle collisions were identified as “non-collisions” or overturned bicyclists, accounting for 17 of the 65 collisions.
32 of the 65 collisions resulted from the bicyclist travelling at an unsafe speed, including 10 of the
17 non-collision records. Other leading causes include “unknown” (11 records), improper turning (7
records), and other improper driving (4 records).
Figure 3.3 - Bicycle Collisions without a Motor Vehicle by Object Involved With
Table 3.3 presents violation codes by injury severity. Figure 3.4 compares violation codes for severe
injury and fatal collisions to all injury collisions. Consistent with the collision causes, the most
frequent violation code reported for bicycle-involved collisions was 22107, failing to turn properly (39
collisions). Unsafe speed was the second leading violation code, with 38 collisions reported, and
leading code for severe/fatal injury collisions.
8
11
13
16 17
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Parked Vehicle Fixed Object Other Object Bicycle Non-Collision
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 84
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 19
Table 3.3 - Bicycle Collision Violation Code by Injury Severity
Violation
Code Definition1
Complaint
of Pain
Other
Visible
Injury
Severe
Injury Fatal Total
22107 No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct
course or move right or left upon a roadway
until such movement can be made with reasonable safety…
11 26 2 - 39
22350 Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions. 7 27 4 - 38
21801(a) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the
left or to complete a U-turn upon a highway, or
to turn left into public or private property, or an
alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which
are close enough to constitute a hazard at any
time during the turning movement, and shall
continue to yield the right-of-way to the
approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-
turn can be made with reasonable safety.
3 8 1 - 12
21453(a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal
alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if
none, before entering the crosswalk on the
near side of the intersection or, if none, then
before entering the intersection, and shall
remain stopped until an indication to proceed
is shown, except as provided in subdivision
(b).
3 4 1 - 8
21658(a) Whenever any roadway has been divided into
two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in
one direction, the following rules apply: (a) A
vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical
entirely within a single lane and shall not be
moved from the lane until such movement can
be made with reasonable safety.
- 5 - 2 7
21650.1 A bicycle operated on a roadway, or the
shoulder of a highway, shall be operated in the
same direction as vehicles are required to be
driven upon the roadway.
2 4 - - 6
22106 No person shall start a vehicle stopped,
standing, or parked on a highway, nor shall
any person back a vehicle on a highway until
such movement can be made with reasonable
safety.
4 1 - - 5
21703 The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow
another vehicle more closely than is
reasonable and prudent, having due regard for
the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon,
and the condition of, the roadway.
1 3 1 - 5
Other/Not Stated 11 42 7 0 60
Total 42 120 16 2 180
Note: 1 Violation Code definition obtained from California Department of Motor Vehicles 2015 California Vehicle Code.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 85
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 20
Figure 3.4 - Bicycle Collision Violation Code Comparison
Note: Violation Code definitions are provided in Table 3-3.
Table 3.4 displays the driver and bicyclist movements preceding each collision. Proceeding Straight
was the leading bicycle movement reported, assigned to 142 of the 180 collisions. Driver
movements were led by Proceeding Straight, Making Right-Turn, and Making Left-Turn movements.
Table 3.4 - Bicycle-Vehicle Collisions by Movement
Driver Movement
Proceeding Straight Other/Not Stated Making Right-Turn Making Left-Turn Parked Stopped In Road Making U-Turn Backing Slowing/Stopping Changing Lanes Entering Traffic Merging Other Unsafe Turning Parking Maneuver Ran Off Road Traveling Wrong Way Total Bike Movement Proceeding Straight 34 35 27 15 9 7 5 3 2 1 - 1 1 1 1 - 142
Changing Lanes 7 1 - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 10
Making Left-Turn 4 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7
Making Right-Turn 3 2 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6
Traveling Wrong Way 2 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 4
Other/Not Stated 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3
Entering Traffic 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - 2
Slowing/Stopping - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2
Merging - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
Other Unsafe Turning 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
Passing Other Vehicle - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
Ran Off Road - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
Total 53 46 31 15 9 7 5 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 180
21801(a) -Failure
to yield; 7%
21453(a) -Driver failed to stop; 4%
21658(a) -
Unsafe lane
change; 4%
21650.1 -
Bicycle wrong way; 3%
22106 -
Unsafe driver start; 3%
21703 -
Following too
closely; 3%
Other/Not Stated; 33%
22107 -Unsafe
driver
movement; 22%
22350 -
Unsafe
speed; 21%
All Injury Collisions
21801(a) -Failure
to yield; 5%21453(a) -Driver
failed to stop; 6%
21658(a) -Unsafe lane change; 11%
21703 -Following too closely;
6%
Other/Not
Stated; 39%
22107 -
Unsafe driver
movement;
11%
22350 -Unsafe
speed; 22%
Severe/Fatal Injury Collisions
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 86
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 21
Figure 3.5 presents bicycle collisions by time of day. Approximately 70% of the collisions were
reported on weekdays. Weekday collisions peak during the 12:00PM to 1:00PM hour. Additional
weekday collision spikes are noticeable during hours that may coincide with work and/or school commutes (9:00AM, 2:00PM, 3:00PM, and 6:00PM). Weekend collisions are more concentrated
during the late morning and early afternoon hours between 10:00AM and 2:00PM.
Figure 3.5 - Bicycle Collisions by Time of Day
Figure 3.6 displays bicyclist collisions by age and gender. When compared to the pedestrian records,
bicyclist ages tend to track older, concentrated among the 40 to 69 age groups. Men represented
approximately 83% of bicyclists reported. This information may be useful for targeting educational
programs for specific demographics.
Figure 3.6 - Bicycle Collisions by Age & Gender
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
12 AM1 AM2 AM3 AM4 AM5 AM6 AM7 AM8 AM9 AM10 AM11 AM12 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PM7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM11 PMWeekday Weekend
4 4 2
10 8
2 0
3
14 14
18
21
29
24
5
31
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
17 or Less18-2930-3940-4950-5960-6970 orMoreUnknownFemale Male
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 87
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 22
Figure 3.7 presents level of sobriety/impairment by part-at-fault for bicycle collisions. The influence
of alcohol or drugs was reported for four collisions, including three collisions where the driver was
assigned fault and one collision where the bicyclist was assigned fault.
Figure 3.7 - Bicycle Collision Sobriety by Party-at-Fault
Figure 3.8 identifies if a cell phone was in use by the party-at-fault for bicycle-involved collisions. As
shown, handsfree cell phones were reported for three collisions, including two instances by the
driver and one by the bicyclist.
Figure 3.8 - Bicycle Collisions by Cell Phone Use Where Fault Was Assigned
1 2 8
59
4 1 2 7
85
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Under Drug
Influence
Had Been Drinking
- Not Under
Influence
Had Been Drinking
- Impairment
Unknown
Had Been Drinking
- Under Influence
Impairment Not
Known
Not Stated / Had
Not Been Drinking
Driver Bicyclist No Fault Assigned
2
53
14
1
64
34
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Cell Phone Handsfree In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Not Stated
Driver Bicyclist
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 88
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 23
4.0 Vehicular Collisions
A total of 1,374 vehicle-involved injury collisions are included in this analysis. This section excludes
collisions involving pedestrians and bicycles. Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1 display vehicular collision
injury severity by roadway location. Collisions were closely split between intersections (53%) and mid-
block locations (47%).
Approximately 60% of the severe injury/fatal collisions were reported at mid-block locations, and
largely concentrated along Carlsbad Boulevard (14 collisions), followed by Palomar Airport Road (4
collisions) and Rancho Santa Fe Road (4 collisions).
Among the 724 intersection collisions, signalized locations accounted for 78% of all injury collisions
and 59% of severe injury/fatal collisions.
Figure 4.1 - Vehicular Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Table 4.1 - Vehicular Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Location
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection Roundabout
Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-
Block Total
Complaint of Pain 345 9 67 5 6 376 808
Other Visible Injury 204 3 48 8 2 235 500
Severe Injury 14 1 7 - 2 29 53
Fatal 2 - - - 1 10 13
Total 565 13 122 13 11 650 1,374
345
9
67
5 6
376
204
3
48
8 2
235
14 1 7 2 29
2 1 10
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 89
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 24
Table 4.2 displays crash type by roadway location. Rear-End collisions were the most common
vehicular crash type overall (37%), and the leading crash type at mid-block locations (50%).
Broadside collisions were the most frequent crash type at all intersection locations combined, and the leading crash type at all intersection control types individually other than roundabouts.
Table 4.2 - Vehicular Collision Crash Type by Roadway Location
Crash Type
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way
Stop-Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-Controlled
Intersection Roundabout
Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-
Block Total
Rear-End 148 3 30 - 1 328 510
Broadside 266 6 56 1 5 68 402
Hit Object 24 1 8 3 1 105 142
Sideswipe 31 - 8 1 1 73 114
Head-On 62 1 11 4 3 23 104
Other/Not Stated 20 2 5 1 0 27 55
Overturned 14 - 4 3 - 26 47
Total 565 13 122 13 11 650 1,374
Table 4.3 presents crash types by injury severity. The leading crash type for severe injury/fatal
collisions was Hit Object, assigned to 21 of the 66 collisions. Hit Object collisions resulting in a
severe or fatal injury were due to unsafe speeds (8 collisions), driving under the influence (6
collisions), improper turning (6 collisions) and other improper driving (1 collision). Hit Object
collisions were most common at mid-block locations (16 of the 21 collisions). No locations
experienced multiple severe injury/fatal Hit Object collisions.
Broadside collisions were the second most frequent crash type for severe/fatal injuries, reported for
18 records. No locations experienced multiple severe injury/fatal Broadside collisions, however, four unique intersections along El Camino Real and three along Palomar Airport Road were identified.
Nine percent of Overturned collisions resulted in a severe injury or fatality, the highest rate of any
crash type, followed by Hit Object collisions at 7%.
Table 4.3 - Vehicular Collision Crash Type by Injury Severity
Crash Type
Complaint of
Pain
Other Visible
Injury Severe Injury Fatal Total
Rear-End 371 129 8 2 510
Broadside 233 151 15 3 402
Hit Object 49 72 15 6 142
Sideswipe 69 40 4 1 114
Head-On 49 51 4 - 104
Other/Not Stated 23 28 3 1 55
Overturned 14 29 4 - 47
Total 808 500 53 13 1,374
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 90
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 25
Vehicular collision causes are presented by roadway location in Table 4.4. Unsafe Speed was the
most frequent collision cause reported for all locations combined (489 collisions), and the leading
cause for mid-block collisions (317 collisions). Unsafe Speed was also the most frequent collision cause reported for severe/fatal injuries, accounting for 22 collisions, including 14 at mid-block
locations. Failure to obey Traffic Signals and Signs was the second leading cause, reported for 240
collisions with 233 reported at signalized intersection locations including all seven severe injuries
attributed to this cause.
Approximately 13% of the 133 Driving Under the Influence collisions resulted in a severe/fatal injury,
the highest rate of any cause. Driving Under Influence of Alcohol was the second most frequent
cause reported for collisions resulting in a severe injury/fatal situation, accounting for 13 severe
injury and 4 vehicular fatalities (one at a signalized intersection and 3 at midblock locations).
Table 4.4 - Vehicular Collision Cause by Roadway Location
Cause
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection Roundabout
Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-
Block Total
Unsafe Speed 134 2 29 3 4 317 489
Traffic Signals and
Signs
226 2 5 - - 7 240
Auto R/W Violation 50 4 47 1 5 44 151
Improper Turning 29 - 14 - 1 95 139
Driving Under
Influence
40 2 12 9 1 69 133
Following Too Closely 14 1 4 - - 34 53
Unknown 32 - 3 - - 5 40
Unsafe Lane Change 3 - 1 - - 22 26
Other Than Driver 3 1 2 - - 15 21
Other Improper Driving 3 - 2 - - 15 20
Unsafe Starting or
Backing
9 - - - - 9 18
Other Hazardous
Movement
9 - 1 - - 6 16
Not Stated 6 1 1 - - 2 10
Wrong Side of Road 4 - - - - 6 10
Improper Passing 1 - 1 - - 2 4
Impeding Traffic - - - - - 2 2
Pedestrian Violation 2 - - - - - 2
Total 565 13 122 13 11 650 1,374
S = Severe; F = Fatal
The topic of aggressive driving has received attention at the State level through the California
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (2020 – 2024). The SHSP defines aggressive driving to include
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 91
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 26
behaviors such as driving too fast, tailgating, running traffic signals and signs, and other reckless
driving maneuvers as determined by the reporting officer. Approximately 782 of the 1,374 vehicular-
only collisions (57%) were related to aggressive driving, including 29 of the 66 (44%) collisions resulting in a severe/fatal injury.
Table 4.5 presents violation codes by injury severity. The top ten violation codes reported for
vehicular collisions account for approximately 84% of all injury collisions. Figure 4.2 compares the
violation codes for the severe injury and fatal collisions to the leading 10 violations (26 or more
collisions) assigned to all vehicular collisions.
Consistent with the collision causes reported in Table 4.4, violation 22350, unsafe speed for
prevailing conditions, was the most frequent code cited for all vehicular collisions (488 collisions)
and most frequent for severe/fatal injuries (21 collisions).
Violation code 22107, failing to turn safely, and violation 23152(a), driving under the influence of
alcohol, represent higher shares of severe/fatal injury collisions (15% and 17%, respectively) than
they do for all injury collisions (9% and 7%, respectively).
Combined, violation codes 22350, 22107, and 23152(a) account for 64% of all severe/fatal injury
collisions. Focusing recommendations on these issues may help reduce collisions resulting in the greatest levels of injury severity.
Figure 4.2 - Vehicular Collision Violation Code Comparison
Note: Violation Code definitions are provided in Table 4-5.
22350 -Unsafe speed; 36%
21453(a) -
Driver failed to stop; 16%
22107 -Unsafe
driver movement; 9%
23152(a) -
DUI; 7%
21703 -
Following too
closely; 4%
21801(a) -
Failure to yield; 3%
21453(c) -Failure to stop
red arrow; 3%
21804(a) -Failure to yield when entering
traffic; 2%
21802(a) -
Failure to yield
stop sign; 2%21658(a) -Unsafe lane
change; 2%
Other/Not Stated; 16%
All Injury Collisions
22350 -Unsafe
speed; 32%
21453(a) -Driver failed to stop; 11%
22107 -Unsafe
driver movement; 15%
23152(a) -
DUI; 17%
21801(a) -
Failure to
yield; 1%
21453(c) -
Failure to
stop red
arrow; 1%
21804(a) -
Failure to yield when entering traffic; 3%
21658(a) -
Unsafe lane change; 2%
Other/Not
Stated; 18%
Severe/Fatal Injury Collisions
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 92
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 27
Table 4.5 - Vehicular Collision Violation Code by Injury Severity
Violation
Code Definition1
Complaint
of Pain
Other
Visible
Injury
Severe
Injury Fatal Total
22350 Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions. 313 154 15 6 488
21453(a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but
if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to
proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
128 87 7 - 222
22107 No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a
roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety… 57 58 8 2 125
23152(a) It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage to
drive a vehicle. 33 57 8 3 101
21703 The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is
reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the
traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway.
43 10 - - 53
21801(a) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or to complete a U-turn upon a
highway, or to turn left into public or private property, or an alley, shall yield the right-
of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close enough
to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to
yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be
made with reasonable safety.
24 22 1 - 47
21453(c) A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the
movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make a
movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if
none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none,
then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication
permitting movement is shown.
24 10 1 - 35
21804(a) The driver of any vehicle about to enter or cross a highway from any public or private
property, or from an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all traffic, as defined in
Section 620, approaching on the highway close enough to constitute an immediate
hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that traffic until he or she can
proceed with reasonable safety.
20 9 1 1 31
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 93
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 28
Table 4.5 - Vehicular Collision Violation Code by Injury Severity
Violation
Code Definition1
Complaint
of Pain
Other
Visible
Injury
Severe
Injury Fatal Total
21802(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an
intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the
right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue
to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable
safety.
23 7 - - 30
21658(a) Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for
traffic in one direction, the following rules apply: (a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly
as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.
16 9 1 - 26
Other/Not Stated2 127 77 11 1 216
Total 808 500 53 13 1,374
Source: California Department of Motor Vehicles, 2015 California Vehicle Code (2015)
Notes:
1. Violation Code Definition obtained from California Department of Motor Vehicles 2015 California Vehicle Code.
2. This table identifies the ten most frequent violation codes reported for vehicular collisions. Remaining violation codes were grouped together as “Other/Not Stated”.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 94
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 29
Table 4.6 displays driver movements preceding each of the 66 severe injury or fatal collisions. The
combination of reported movements accounting for the greatest number of severe injuries/fatalities
occurred when both drivers proceeding straight, 16 of the 66 records. Eight of these 16 records were broadside collisions.
Table 4.6 - Severe/Fatal Vehicle Collisions by Movement
Vehicle 2 Movement
Proceeding Straight Other/Not Stated Making Left-Turn Parked Stopped In Road Making U-Turn Slowing/Sopping Passing Other Vehicle Total Vehicle 1 Movement (party-at-fault) Proceeding Straight 16 18 4 4 3 - 1 1 47
Making Left-Turn 5 - - - - - - - 5
Other Unsafe Turning 1 3 - - - - - - 4
Changing Lanes 3 - - - - - - - 3
Making U-Turn 1 1 - - - 1 - - 3
Ran Off Road - 2 - - - - - - 2
Making Right-Turn - 1 - - - - - - 1
Passing Other Vehicle - - 1 - - - - - 1
Total 26 25 5 4 3 1 1 1 66
Figure 4.3 presents vehicle collisions by time of day. On weekdays, collision peaks are noticeable
during traditional work and school commute hours. Weekend collisions are more concentrated within
the afternoon hours.
Figure 4.3 - Vehicle Collisions by Time of Day
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
12 AM1 AM2 AM3 AM4 AM5 AM6 AM7 AM8 AM9 AM10 AM11 AM12 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PM7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM11 PMWeekday Weekend
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 95
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 30
Figure 4.4 presents level of sobriety/impairment for vehicular-only collisions. The influence of
impairments such as alcohol, drugs, fatigue, or physical was reported for 145 collisions (11%),
including 14 severe or fatal injury collisions (21%). Of those 145 impaired driving collisions, 20 involved drivers under the legal drinking age (<21) – age was not reported for 41 of the collisions.
Figure 4.4 - Vehicular Collisions by Level of Sobriety
Figure 4.5 identifies if a cell phone was in use by the party-at-fault for bicycle-involved collisions. As
shown, handsfree cell phones were reported for 13 collisions, while handheld cell phones were
reported as a factor in 30 collisions. Cell phones were not reported as a factor in any of the
severe/fatal injury collisions.
Figure 4.5 - Vehicular Collisions by Cell Phone Use
3 10 18 21 11
114 65
1132
0
150
300
450
600
750
900
1050
1200
Other Physical
Impairment
Sleepy -
Fatigued
Under Drug
Influence
Had Been
Drinking - Not
Under
Influence
Had Been
Drinking -
Impairment
Unknown
Had Been
Drinking -
Under
Influence
Impairment
Not Known
Not Stated /
Had Not Been
Drinking
13 30
1149
182
0
150
300
450
600
750
900
1050
1200
Cell Phone Handsfree In Use Cell Phone Handheld In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Not Stated
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 96
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 31
5.0 Systemic Collision Matrices
Systemic collision matrices were created to help identify characteristics related to behaviors and
roadway environments where collisions were most prevalent. The matrices were constructed using
behaviors as the rows and roadway characteristics as the columns.
Separate matrices were prepared for intersection and mid-block location types. The resulting matrices depict collision frequencies within each behavior/environment combination. The matrices
were produced in Excel using a pivot table, enabling the records represented within each cell to be
easily retrieved. Conditional formatting is used to help identify the greatest collision concentrations.
This information may inform the identification of improvements intended to be deployed across
locations with similar environments citywide.
Table 5.1 displays the intersection matrix for the 878 injury collisions, encompassing all travel
modes. The rows are comprised of the crash types which are further expanded to depict the
associated violation codes for the top three crash types as well as pedestrian- and bicycle-involved
collisions. The columns are organized by control type followed by the number of through lanes on the
intersection approaches.
Broadside collisions were the most frequent crash type reported, largely due to the driver’s failure to
stop at the limit line. These collisions were most common within the following environments:
Signalized intersections where four-lane and two-lane roads intersect (55 collisions)
Signalized intersections where six-lane and two-lane roads intersect (34 collisions)
Signalized intersections where six-lane and four-lane roads intersect (32 collisions)
The leading three pedestrian collision behavior/roadway environment combinations include:
Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk at side-street stop-controlled
intersections where four-lane and two-lane roads intersect (11 collisions)
Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk at signalized intersections where four-
lane and two-lane roads intersect (9 collisions)
Pedestrians failing to yield to drivers at side-street stop-controlled intersections where two
two-lane roads intersect (8 collisions)
Four behavior/roadway environment combinations each experienced four bicycle-involved collisions,
including:
Unsafe turns at signalized intersections where six-lane and two-lane roads intersect
Unsafe turns at signalized intersections where four-lane and two-lane roads intersect
Unsafe turns at side-street stop-controlled intersections where four-lane and two-lane roads
intersect
Unsafe speed at side-street stop-controlled intersections where two two-lane roads intersect
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 97
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 32
Table 5.1 - Intersection Matrix for All Injury Collisions
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 98
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 33
Table 5.2 displays the matrix for the 805 mid-block injury collisions, combining all travel modes. The
rows were created using all crash types and further expanded to depict the associated violation
codes. The columns are organized by the posted speed limit followed by the number of through lanes.
Mid-block collisions were very concentrated within the rear end crash type due to the unsafe speed
violation code. The environments these collisions most often occurred within include:
Roadways with a posted speed limit of 55 mph and six lanes (92 collisions)
Roadways with a posted speed limit of 50 mph and four lanes (24 collisions)
Roadways with a posted speed limit of 55 mph and five lanes (16 collisions)
The findings from the two matrices are not unusual, generally emphasizing environments where
some of the greatest levels of transportation activity occur.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 99
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 34
Table 5.2 - Mid-Block Matrix for All Injury Collisions
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 100
City of Carlsbad DRAFT Local Roadway Safety Plan
Appendix B - Intersection & Segment Analysis
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 101
Prepared For Prepared By
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
CR Associates
3900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92103
CITY OF CARLSBAD
LOCAL ROADWAY
SAFETY PLAN
NOVEMBER 2021
DRAFT
Intersection & Segment Analysis
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 102
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1
California Office of Traffic Safety Rankings ....................................................................................... 1
Strategic Highway Safety Plan Challenge Areas ............................................................................... 2
Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 3
2.0 Intersection Collisions ............................................................................................................................. 5
Intersection Collision Frequency.......................................................................................................... 5
Intersection Crash Rates ..................................................................................................................... 13
3.0 Segment Collisions ................................................................................................................................ 17
Segment Collision Frequency ............................................................................................................. 17
Segment Collision Rates ..................................................................................................................... 23
4.0 High Frequency Collision Intersections .............................................................................................. 27
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 103
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page ii
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Severe/Fatal Injury Collisions ........................................................................................... 6
Figure 2-2 High Collision Frequency Intersections ............................................................................ 7
Figure 2-3 Vehicle-Only Collisions ....................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2-4 Pedestrian-Involved Collisions ....................................................................................... 10
Figure 2-5 Bicycle-Involved Collisions .............................................................................................. 12
Figure 3-1 High Collision Frequency Segments .............................................................................. 19
List of Tables
Table 1-1 California OTS Crash Ranking Comparison ...................................................................... 2
Table 2-1 Intersections with Multiple Severe/Fatal Injury Collisions .............................................. 5
Table 2-2 High Collision Frequency Intersections ............................................................................ 8
Table 2-3 Intersections with Multiple Pedestrian Collisions ............................................................ 8
Table 2-4 Intersections with Multiple Bicycle Collisions ............................................................... 11
Table 2-5 Intersection Crash Rates ................................................................................................ 14
Table 3-1 Segments by Severe/Fatal Injury Collision Frequency ................................................. 17
Table 3-2 Segments by Collision Frequency .................................................................................. 18
Table 3-3 Segments by Vehicle-Only Collision Frequency ............................................................. 20
Table 3-4 Segments with Multiple Pedestrian Collisions .............................................................. 20
Table 3-5 Segments with Multiple Bicycle Collisions .................................................................... 21
Table 3-6 Segment Crash Rates ..................................................................................................... 24
Table 4-1 High Collision Intersections ............................................................................................ 27
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 104
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 1
1.0 Introduction
The City of Carlsbad embarked on development of the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) to identify
locations where transportation safety may be improved and to identify specific safety improvements.
A Descriptive Statistics Report was developed to identify citywide trends amongst collision records,
including an examination of collision causes, violations, movements, and roadway characteristics for
collisions involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. The Descriptive Statistics Report documents the construction of the five-year collision database (January 2015 – December 2019), which
resulted in a total of 1,683 injury collisions.
This Intersection and Segment Analysis Report is intended to compliment the Descriptive Statistics
Report by identifying collision frequencies and rates at individual intersections and roadway
segments across the City. A supplemental focus is placed on locations that experienced the greatest
collision frequencies. The findings from this report, combined with the Descriptive Statistics Report
and input from City staff and other stakeholders, will be used to determine specific locations and
topic areas to focus recommendation – or countermeasure – development on.
Following this introductory chapter, this report is divided into chapters for intersection collisions and
segment or mid-block collisions, followed by a chapter focusing on the highest collision frequency
locations.
California Office of Traffic Safety Rankings
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) provides comparisons of traffic safety statistics between
cities with similar sized populations. This data can help build an understanding of which areas cities
are doing well in or may need improvement in. The most recent year of OTS data is for 2018.
With an estimated 2018 population of 113,365, the City of Carlsbad falls within Group B, which
includes 59 cities with a population size between 100,001 – 250,000. Additional cities in San Diego
County categorized in Group B include Oceanside, Vista, Escondido, and El Cajon.
Table 1-1 displays the OTS rankings for Carlsbad and the other Group B cities in San Diego County. The rankings depict two numbers: the first number is the city’s ranking in that category, while the
second number is the total number of cities within that Group. Number 1 in the rankings is the
highest or worst, while 59 would be the lowest or best for Group B.
OTS provides the following description as to how the rankings are determined:
“Crash rankings are based on the Empirical Bayesian Ranking Method, which adds weights to
different statistical categories including observed crash counts, population and vehicle miles
traveled. The crash counts reflect the aggregated impacts of all influential factors containing
even the unrecognized or unmeasurable ones (e.g. level of enforcement), and the population
and vehicle miles traveled represent the important traffic exposure factors that affect crash
occurrence. The weights are assigned to the three components in a way that maximizes the
precision of estimated Bayesian crash counts.”
By comparison, areas that may be noteworthy in Carlsbad include collisions involving bicyclists and
collisions involving drivers that have been drinking under the age of 21. Bicycle collisions may be
addressed through a combination of engineering, education, and enforcement related measures. Underage drinking drivers could be addressed through enforcement and education programs.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 105
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 2
Table 1-1 California OTS Crash Ranking Comparison for 2018
Type of Crash Carlsbad Oceanside Vista Escondido El Cajon
Total Fatal and Injury 47/59 36/59 56/59 9/59 4/59
Alcohol Involved 40/59 17/59 34/59 8/59 13/59
Has Been Drinking Driver < 21 8/59 5/59 35/59 3/59 26/59
Has Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 38/59 13/59 33/59 8/59 29/59
Motorcycles 33/59 3/59 20/59 6/59 2/59
Pedestrians 26/59 40/59 44/59 12/59 2/59
Pedestrians < 15 30/59 46/59 51/59 18/59 2/59
Pedestrians 65+ 37/59 52/59 46/59 18/59 3/59
Bicyclists 5/59 22/59 52/59 23/59 8/59
Bicyclists < 15 30/59 41/59 36/59 29/59 21/59
Composite 39/59 10/59 42/59 10/59 13/59
Speed Related 36/59 7/59 58/59 15/59 9/59
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 56/59 12/59 45/59 26/59 7/59
Hit and Run 36/59 31/59 46/59 25/59 5/59
Source: California Office of Traffic Safety (2021)
Strategic Highway Safety Plan Challenge Areas
The California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is a statewide traffic safety plan that provides a
framework and strategies for reducing fatalities, severe injuries, and total crashes. The SHSP
development is led by stakeholders representing California’s 5 Es of traffic safety: Education,
Enforcement, Engineering, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies.
The SHSP identifies safety “Challenge Areas” to focus resources. The 2020 – 2024 SHSP includes a
total of 16 Challenge Areas which were categorized into High Priority Areas and Focus Areas. Greater
resources are focused on High Priority Areas, as they are identified as having the greatest potential to significantly decrease statewide fatalities and severe injuries.
High Priority Areas
Active Transportation: Pedestrians &
Bicyclists
Impaired Driving
Intersections
Lane Departures
Speed Management/Aggressive Driving
Focus Areas
Aging Drivers (≥65 years in age)
Commercial Vehicles
Distracted Driving
Driver Licensing
Emergency Response
Emerging Technologies
Motorcyclists
Occupant Protection
Work Zones
Young Drivers (ages 15 – 20)
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 106
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 3
Based on the Descriptive Statistics Report findings and OTS data, High Priority Areas relevant to
Carlsbad include Active Transportation: Pedestrians & Bicyclists, Impaired Driving, Intersections, and
Speed Management/Aggressive Driving.
Key Findings
Intersections
From the 1,683 collision records that were analyzed, 878 records were identified as intersection collisions, including 41 collisions resulting in severe injuries or fatalities. Intersection collisions are
dispersed throughout the City, primarily along roadways intended to carry relatively higher volumes of
traffic. Greater concentrations are present within the Village area and along Carlsbad Boulevard for
all travel modes. Relatively high levels of pedestrian and bicycle activity are also common in these
areas.
The two intersections that experienced multiple severe injury/fatal collisions are:
El Camino Real & Faraday Avenue (signalized) – 2 severe/fatal; 6 collisions total
Alicante Road & Colina De La Costa (uncontrolled)– 2 severe/fatal; 3 collisions total
From the 10 intersections with highest collision frequencies, 50% are located along El Camino Real
and 30% along Palomar Airport Road. The intersections with the highest collision frequencies when
combining for all travel modes are:
El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) – 18 collisions
Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) – 16 collisions
Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street (signalized) – 15 collisions
The intersections with the highest vehicle-only collision frequencies are:
El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) – 17 collisions
Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) – 16 collisions
El Camino Real & Alga Road (signalized) – 14 collisions
The intersections with the highest pedestrian collision frequencies are:
Roosevelt Street & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) – 4 pedestrian collisions
Carlsbad Boulevard & Hemlock Avenue (side street stop controlled) – 4 pedestrian collisions
The intersection with the highest bicycle collision frequency is:
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive (signalized)– 4 bicycle collisions
Intersection and segment crash rates were determined to provide a comparison that accounts for
vehicular activity in addition to collision frequency. The three intersections with the highest crash
rates include:
Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street (roundabout) – 0.510
Tamarack Avenue & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) – 0.337
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive (signalized) – 0.337
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 107
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 4
Segments
From the 1,683 collision records that were analyzed, 805 records were identified as segment
collisions, including 67 collisions resulting in severe injuries or fatalities. Similar to intersection collisions, segment collisions are primarily located along roadways intended to carry relatively higher
volumes of traffic, with greater concentrations the Village area and along Carlsbad Boulevard.
Severe injury/fatal collision concentrations are depicted along multiple stretches of Carlsbad
Boulevard, eastern Palomar Airport Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Five of the nine segments
identified to have multiple severe injury/fatal collisions were located along Carlsbad Boulevard. The
segments with highest severe injury/fatal collision frequencies are:
Carlsbad Boulevard from Solamar Drive to Island Way – 5 severe/fatal; 15 total collisions
Carlsbad Boulevard from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road – 4 severe/fatal; 21 total
collisions
The segments with greatest collision frequency when combining all travel modes are:
Carlsbad Boulevard from Tamarack Ave to Cannon Road – 21 collisions
Palomar Airport Road from El Camino Real to Loker Avenue/Innovation Way – 20 collisions
El Camino Real from Costa del Mar Road to La Costa Avenue – 18 collisions
The segments with greatest vehicle-only collision frequencies are:
Palomar Airport Road from El Camino Real to Loker Avenue/Innovation Way – 17 collisions
Palomar Airport Road from El Fuerte Street to Melrose Drive – 17 collisions
El Camino Real from Costa Del Mar Road to La Costa Avenue – 16 collisions
The segments with greatest pedestrian collision frequencies are:
Carlsbad Boulevard from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road – 3 pedestrian collisions
Carlsbad Village Drive from Harding Street to I-5 SB Ramps - 3 pedestrian collisions
Paseo del Norte from Palomar Airport Road to Camino De Las Ondas - 3 pedestrian collisions
The segments with greatest bicycle collision frequencies are:
Carlsbad Boulevard from Solamar Dr to Island Way – 7 bicycle collisions
Carlsbad Boulevard from Tamarack Ave to Cannon Road – 5 bicycle collisions
Carlsbad Boulevard from Avenida Encinas to La Costa Avenue – 5 bicycle collisions
The three segments with the highest crash rates also experienced some of the highest crash frequencies in the City and include:
Carlsbad Village Drive from Harding St to I-5 SB Ramps – 3.003
Carlsbad Boulevard from Solamar Drive to Island Way – 1.689
Carlsbad Boulevard from Cannon Road to Cerezo Drive – 1.435
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 108
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 5
2.0 Intersection Collisions
Collisions with a reported intersection offset distance of 50 feet or less were categorized as
intersection collisions. This approach helps account for the influence that intersection characteristics
(ex., intersection control or markings) may have on records just outside of the physical intersection
footprint. This chapter focuses on the 878 records identified as intersection collisions, which include
41 collisions resulting in a severe injury or a fatality. Separate sections below are provided for intersection collision frequencies and collision rates.
Intersection Collision Frequency
Collision frequency was determined for severe injuries/fatalities all travel modes combined and for
each mode individually. The graphics presented in this chapter include and distinguish between intersection and mid-block collision locations to further make concentrations visible
Figure 2-1 displays the 39 unique intersections where severe injury or fatal collisions were reported
as well as the mid-block severe injury/fatal collisions. These collisions are primarily along roadways
intended to carry relatively higher volumes of traffic. Greater concentrations of severe injury/fatal
collisions at intersections are present within the Village area and along Carlsbad Boulevard.
Table 2-1 identifies the two intersections that experienced multiple severe injury/fatal collisions
during the five-year study period, and a breakdown of all injury collisions by travel mode.
Table 2-1 Intersections with Multiple Severe/Fatal Injury Collisions
Location
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
El Camino Real & Faraday Avenue (signalized) 6 5 - 1 2
Alicante Road & Colina De La Costa (uncontrolled) 3 3 - - 2
The signalized El Camino Real/Faraday Avenue intersection experienced two severe injury collisions,
one collision involved a westbound vehicle failing to stop at the limit line, resulting in a broadside
collision with a southbound vehicle. The second collision involved an eastbound travelling bicyclist
failing to stop at the limit line, resulting in a broadside collision with a southbound vehicle.
The Alicante Road/Colina De La Costa intersection – which is uncontrolled and provides access to a
multi-family residential development – experienced one fatal and one severe injury collision. The
fatal collision occurred when an eastbound vehicle making a left-turn failed to yield to a southbound
vehicle, resulting in a broadside collision. The severe injury collision involved a single northbound
vehicle (motorcycle) that was travelling at an unsafe speed and collided with a fixed object.
Figure 2-2 and Table 2-2 display the 10 intersections with the highest collision frequencies – those
with 10 or more collisions. Each of the ten locations identified in Table 2-2 are reviewed in greater
detail in Chapter 4. These 10 locations account for approximately 15% (130 of 878 collisions) of all
intersection collisions within the City. Five of the 10 intersections are located along El Camino Real and three along Palomar Airport Road – the signalized El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road
intersection being one of the locations. These roadways traverse the City while carrying some of the
greatest vehicular volumes with posted speed limits up to 55 mph. Three of the 10 intersections
experienced a severe or fatal injury collision – all are intersections along El Camino Real.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 109
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 6
Figure 2-1 Severe/Fatal Injury Collisions
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 110
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 7
Figure 2-2 High Collision Frequency Intersections
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 111
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 8
Nine of the ten high collision frequency intersections are signalized, the exception being Carlsbad
Boulevard/State Street which is roundabout controlled. The roundabout experienced the third most
total collisions, including one pedestrian and two bicycle collisions, however no severe injury/fatal collisions. This aligns with one of the intended benefits of roundabouts, to reduce injury severity.
Table 2-2 High Collision Frequency Intersections
Location
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) 18 17 1 - 1
Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) 16 16 - - -
Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street (roundabout) 15 12 1 2 -
El Camino Real & Alga Road (signalized) 14 14 - - 1
College Boulevard & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) 12 12 - - -
El Camino Real & La Costa Avenue (signalized) 12 11 - 1 -
Rancho Santa Fe Road & La Costa Avenue (signalized) 12 12 - - -
El Camino Real & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) 11 11 - - -
El Camino Real & Cannon Road (signalized) 10 10 - - 1
Melrose Drive & Lionshead Avenue (signalized) 10 10 - - -
Figure 2-3 displays the 1,374 vehicle-only collisions across the City, differentiating between those
intersection and mid-block collisions. The ten intersections identified in Table 2-2 were also the ten
intersections with the greatest vehicle-only collision frequency. These intersections account for 125
vehicle-only collisions, approximately 17% of the 724 vehicle-only intersection collisions citywide.
Figure 2-4 displays pedestrian-involved collisions across the City, differentiating between those that
occurred at intersection and mid-block locations. Table 2-3 identifies the ten intersections where two
or more pedestrian collisions were reported.
Table 2-3 Intersections with Multiple Pedestrian Collisions
Location
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
Roosevelt Street & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) 7 2 4 1 -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Hemlock Avenue (side street stop) 5 1 4 - 1
Roosevelt Street & Grand Avenue (signalized) 3 - 3 - -
Harding Street & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) 8 4 3 1 -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Oak Avenue (side street stop) 4 - 2 2 -
Washington Street & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) 6 3 2 1 1
Carlsbad Boulevard & Maple Avenue (side street stop) 3 1 2 - -
Adams Street & Magnolia Avenue (all way stop) 2 - 2 - -
Paseo Del Norte & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) 9 7 2 - -
Faraday Avenue & College Boulevard (signalized) 9 7 2 - 1
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 112
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 9
Figure 2-3 Vehicle-Only Collisions
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 113
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 10
Figure 2-4 Pedestrian-Involved Collisions
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 114
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 11
A concentration of intersection collisions is present within the Village area where relatively high
levels of pedestrian activity are common. The signalized Roosevelt Street/Carlsbad Village Drive
intersection within the Village was one of two locations where four pedestrian collisions were reported. In all four collisions, the driver was reported as the party at-fault while making a left-turn as
the pedestrian crossed Carlsbad Village Drive. The intersection is controlled by a permissive signal
on the minor street approaches (Roosevelt Street).
The side street stop-controlled Carlsbad Boulevard/Hemlock Avenue intersection was the other
location where four pedestrian collisions were reported, including one severe injury. The driver was
reported as the party at-fault during all four collisions, due to failing to yield the right-of-way to the
crossing pedestrian. The driver was headed southbound while proceeding straight during three
collisions, and westbound while making a right-turn during the fourth collision.
Five of the remaining eight intersections where multiple pedestrian collisions were reported are
located within the Village or the identified stretch of Carlsbad Boulevard. The countermeasure
development stage may focus on identifying potential treatments for these areas.
An additional concentration of intersection collisions is located along Carlsbad Boulevard, between the Village and Tamarack Avenue. Pedestrian activity is high in this area as people frequently seek
access to the beach and walkway along the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard. Many of the Carlsbad
Boulevard intersections along this stretch with consist of a marked crosswalk, stop sign on the minor
street, no control on Carlsbad Boulevard, and a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) with
additional signage and a pedestrian refuge. Where present, the pedestrian refuge/median also
restrict left-turns from the minor street onto southbound Carlsbad Boulevard.
Figure 2-5 displays bicycle-involved collisions citywide, differentiating between those that occurred at
intersection and mid-block locations. Table 2-4 identifies the nine intersections where two or more
bicycle collisions were reported. Five of the locations are intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. The
Carlsbad Boulevard/Cerezo Drive intersection experienced four bicycle collisions - the highest
collision frequency citywide. All four collisions occurred when the bicyclist was traveling northbound.
The intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard/State Street experienced two bicycle-involved collisions and
was also identified as the intersection with the third highest collision frequency for all travel modes
combined. The Carlsbad Boulevard/Oak Avenue intersection experienced two bicycle collisions and
two pedestrian collisions.
Table 2-4 Intersections with Multiple Bicycle Collisions
Location
Severe/ Fatal
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive (signalized) -
Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street (roundabout) -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Oak Avenue (side street stop) -
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 115
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 12
Carlsbad Boulevard & Shore Drive (S) (side street stop) -
Celinda Drive & Carlsbad Village Drive (side street stop) -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Poinsettia Lane (signalized) -
Piraeus Street & La Costa Avenue (signalized) -
Cassia Road & Poinsettia Lane (signalized) 1
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Avenida Soledad (signalized) -
Figure 2-5 Bicycle-Involved Collisions
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 116
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 13
Intersection Crash Rates
The collision frequencies presented in the previous section indicate areas with higher occurrences of
collisions. This is important for identifying potential areas where improvements may have great
benefits, however, frequencies do not consider the varying levels of traffic unique to each location.
Crash rates take the vehicular activity into account to allow for a more normalized comparison.
Intersection crash rates were developed using the following formula:
𝑅𝑅=𝐶𝐶× 1,000,000𝑉𝑉𝑒𝑒× 365 × 𝑁𝑁
Where:
R = Crash rate per one million entering vehicles
C = Total collisions within the intersection during the study period
Ve = Daily vehicles entering the intersection
N = Number of years of data
All intersection collisions were used in this assessment, regardless of travel mode. ADT volumes
were obtained from the City of Carlsbad and SANDAG’s Series 14 Base Year 2016 Regional
Transportation Model for approaches to each intersection. The average of the north-south approach
was summed with the average of the east-west approach to estimate total daily vehicles entering the
intersection.
Table 2-5 presents the crash rate for each intersection with five or more reported collisions. The
table also identifies the frequencies of total crashes, severe injuries/fatalities, and each crash type.
The roundabout controlled intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard/State Street was determined to have
the highest crash rate (0.510) and the third highest collision frequency (15 collisions). This location
experienced a variety of crash types, with head-on, hit object, and overturned the most frequent
crash types, assigned to three collisions each. Eight collisions at this location were due to driving
under the influence. As previously stated, no severe injury or fatal collisions were reported at this
location, demonstrating the roundabout is fulfilling one of its primary intents of reducing injury severity.
The signalized Tamarack Avenue & Carlsbad Village Drive intersection experienced the second
highest collision rate (0.340), with seven of the eight collisions reported as broadside crash types.
Five of the seven broadside collisions were due to traffic signal violations such as failure to stop at
the limit line. Of those five, the party-at-fault was traveling westbound during three collisions,
eastbound during one collision, and northbound during one collision. Two additional westbound
collisions were reported. The westbound approach has a 40 mile per hour posted speed limit and is
on a downward slope. Implementing a high visibility crosswalk could help better define the
intersection limit, while an additional overhead mounted signal head may help improve driver
awareness of the signal.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 117
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 14
Table 2-5 Intersection Crash Rates
Intersection Control Crash Rate Total Collisions Severe/Fatal Injuries Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Head-On Other Hit Object Overturned Pedestrian Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street Roundabout 0.510 15 - 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 1
Tamarack Avenue & Carlsbad Village Drive Signal 0.340 8 - 7 1 - - - - - -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive Signal 0.337 9 - 4 1 1 1 2 - - -
Roosevelt Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Signal 0.285 7 - 2 - 1 - - - - 4
Paseo Avellano & Calle Barcelona Signal 0.276 5 - 2 1 - - - 1 - 1
Washington Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Side Stop 0.274 6 1 3 - - - 1 - - 2
State Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Signal 0.238 5 - 1 2 2 - - - - -
Monroe Street & Marron Road Signal 0.229 5 - 1 2 - 1 - - - 1
Harding Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Signal 0.209 8 - 3 1 1 - - - - 3
Carlsbad Boulevard & Avenida Encinas Signal 0.188 5 1 - - - - 2 1 1 1
Faraday Avenue & College Boulevard Signal 0.182 9 1 5 - - - 1 - 1 2
Carlsbad Boulevard & Hemlock Avenue Side Stop 0.179 5 1 1 1 - - - - - 3
Cassia Road & Poinsettia Lane Side Stop 0.176 5 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 1 -
Car Country Drive & Cannon Road Signal 0.171 8 - 3 4 - - - 1 - -
Avenida Encinas & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.168 7 1 6 - - - - - - 1
Valley Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Signal 0.168 6 - 1 - - 3 1 - 1 -
Alicante Road & Alga Road Signal 0.160 7 - 4 1 1 1 - - - -
Melrose Drive & Lionshead Avenue Signal 0.159 10 - 6 1 1 - 2 - - -
El Camino Real & Carlsbad Village Drive Signal 0.153 11 - 7 1 1 - 1 1 - -
Faraday Avenue & Cannon Road Signal 0.151 6 1 1 3 1 - - - 1 -
Monroe Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Signal 0.150 6 - 4 1 - 1 - - - -
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 118
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 15
Table 2-5 Intersection Crash Rates
Intersection Control Crash Rate Total Collisions Severe/Fatal Injuries Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Head-On Other Hit Object Overturned Pedestrian El Camino Real & Chestnut Avenue Signal 0.149 8 - 2 4 - 2 - - - -
Rancho Santa Fe Road & La Costa Avenue Signal 0.128 12 - 2 8 1 1 - - - -
Aviara Parkway & Poinsettia Lane Signal 0.126 7 1 3 1 2 - - - 1 -
El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.123 18 1 9 3 1 2 1 - 1 1
El Camino Real & Alga Road Signal 0.118 14 1 4 7 1 2 - - - -
Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.116 16 - 8 1 1 2 1 3 - -
College Boulevard & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.116 12 - 8 1 1 2 - - - -
Paseo Valindo & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.112 8 - 6 2 - - - - - -
El Camino Real & Cassia Road Signal 0.108 8 - 1 3 2 1 - - 1 -
El Camino Real & Camino Vida Roble Signal 0.107 8 - 4 2 - 1 - - - 1
Palomar Oaks Way & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.107 8 - 4 3 - - 1 - - -
El Camino Real & Dove Lane Signal 0.105 8 - 4 3 - - 1 - - -
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Camino Junipero Signal 0.104 9 1 2 5 - 1 - - - 1
Cannon Road & El Camino Real Signal 0.096 10 1 4 4 - 1 - - 1 -
I-5 SB Ramps & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.096 5 - 5 - - - - - - -
Avenida Encinas & Cannon Road Signal 0.094 5 - 4 - - 1 - - - -
El Camino Real & La Costa Avenue Signal 0.091 12 - 5 5 2 - - - - -
El Camino Real & Tamarack Avenue Signal 0.091 6 - 1 2 1 2 - - - -
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Camino De Los Coches Signal 0.088 7 - 4 3 - - - - - -
Piraeus Street & La Costa Avenue Signal 0.087 6 - 3 2 1 - - - - -
Paseo Del Norte & Poinsettia Lane Signal 0.086 6 - 4 1 - - 1 - - -
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 119
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 16
Table 2-5 Intersection Crash Rates
Intersection Control Crash Rate Total Collisions Severe/Fatal Injuries Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Head-On Other Hit Object Overturned Pedestrian Paseo Del Norte & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.086 9 - 4 1 - 2 - - - 2
El Camino Real & Arenal Road Signal 0.081 8 1 2 5 - - - - - 1
I-5 NB Ramps & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.079 5 - 1 1 - - - 1 - 2
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Avenida Soledad Signal 0.074 7 - 6 1 - - - - - -
I-5 NB Ramps & Cannon Road Signal 0.072 5 - 2 2 - - - - 1 -
El Fuerte Street & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.071 8 - 5 1 - 1 - - 1 -
El Camino Real & Levante Street Signal 0.068 5 - 1 3 - 1 - - - -
Camino Vida Roble & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.067 5 - 2 1 1 1 - - - -
El Camino Real & Plaza Drive Signal 0.065 6 - 2 2 1 - - - - 1
El Camino Real & Faraday Avenue Signal 0.057 6 2 4 1 - 1 - - - -
College Boulevard & El Camino Real Signal 0.056 5 - 3 1 1 - - - - -
El Camino Real & Costa Del Mar Road Signal 0.052 5 - 2 1 - 1 1 - - -
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Melrose Drive Signal 0.047 5 - 3 - - - - 1 - 1
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 120
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 17
3.0 Segment Collisions
All collisions reported outside of intersections and the 50-foot offset distance were categorized as
segment or mid-block collisions. Roadways were broken up into individual segments at the
intersections of two Circulation Element roadways, cross-section changes, roadway terminus, or City
limit. The minimum segment length was set at 1/10-mile long – adjacent segments shorter than this
length were typically combined.
This chapter reviews the 805 segment collisions, which include 67 collisions resulting in a severe
injury or a fatality. Sections below are dedicated to collision frequencies and crash rates.
Segment Collision Frequency
Collision frequency was determined for severe injuries/fatalities, all travel modes combined, and for
each mode individually. The length of each segment is also presented in this section.
All severe injury or fatal collisions were previously depicted in Figure 2-1, distinguishing between
intersection and mid-block collisions. The 67 mid-block collisions occurred along 39 unique
segments. Severe injury/fatal collision concentrations are depicted along multiple stretches of
Carlsbad Boulevard, eastern Palomar Airport Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Table 3-1 displays collision frequency for the nine segments that experienced two or more severe
injury/fatal collisions. As shown, only two segments experienced more than three severe/fatal
collisions, both located along Carlsbad Boulevard. Five of the nine segments were located along
Carlsbad Boulevard – the only roadway containing multiple segments with two or more severe/fatal
collisions.
Table 3-1 Segments by Severe/Fatal Injury Collision Frequency
Street From To
Length
(miles)
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
Carlsbad Blvd Solamar Dr Island Way 0.68 15 7 1 7 5
Carlsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave Cannon Rd 1.18 21 13 3 5 4
Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Rd Loker Ave /
Innovation Way 0.44 20 17 1 2 3
Carlsbad Blvd Ponto Rd Avenida Encinas 0.50 6 6 - - 3
Carlsbad Blvd Avenida Encinas La Costa Ave 0.67 7 2 - 5 3
Paseo Del Norte Palomar Airport Rd Camino De Las
Ondas 1.15 11 7 3 1 2
Carlsbad Blvd Palomar Airport Rd Solamar Dr 0.52 8 7 1 - 2
Marron Rd El Camino Real Avenida De Anita 0.31 7 7 - - 2
Carlsbad Village Dr Donna Dr El Camino Real 0.47 3 3 - - 2
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 121
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 18
Figure 3-1 and Table 3-2 identify the ten segments with the greatest collision frequency when
combining all travel modes. These ten segments account for approximately 19% (155) of the 805
mid-block collisions. Four of the segments were also found to experience two or more severe injury/fatal collisions. Roadways with multiple high frequency collision segments represented
include:
Carlsbad Boulevard (3 segments)
Palomar Airport Road (3 segments)
Table 3-2 Segments by Collision Frequency
Street From To
Length
(miles)
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
Carlsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave Cannon Rd 1.18 21 13 3 5 4
Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Real Loker Ave /
Innovation Way 0.44 20 17 1 2 3
El Camino Real Costa Del Mar Rd La Costa Ave 0.27 18 16 - 2 -
Palomar Airport Rd El Fuerte St Melrose Dr 0.43 17 17 - - -
Carlsbad Blvd Solamar Dr Island Way 0.68 15 7 1 7 5
Carlsbad Blvd Cannon Rd Cerezo Dr 0.32 13 12 0 1 -
Carlsbad Village Dr Harding St I-5 SB Ramps 0.12 13 7 3 3 -
Palomar Airport Rd Paseo Del Norte Armada Dr 0.32 13 11 2 - -
La Costa Ave Saxony Rd El Camino Real 1.13 13 9 1 3 -
Paseo Del Norte Car Country Dr Palomar Airport Rd 0.50 12 8 2 2 -
Table 3-3 presents the ten segments with the greatest vehicle-only collision frequency. These ten segments account for 20% (127) of all 650 vehicle-only collisions reported at mid-block locations.
Only three different roadways are represented among the ten segments, including:
El Camino Real (4 segments)
Palomar Airport Road (4 segments)
Carlsbad Boulevard (2 segments)
Two of the segments experienced multiple severe/fatal injury collisions. The six segments with the
highest vehicle-only collision frequency were also identified in Table 3-2 as having the greatest
collision frequencies when combining all travel modes.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 122
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 19
Figure 3-1 High Collision Frequency Segments
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 123
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 20
Table 3-3 Segments by Vehicle-Only Collision Frequency
Street From To
Length
(miles)
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Real Loker Ave / Innovation Wy 0.44 20 17 1 2 3
Palomar Airport Rd El Fuerte St Melrose Dr 0.43 17 17 - - -
El Camino Real Costa Del Mar Rd La Costa Ave 0.27 18 16 - 2 -
Carlsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave Cannon Rd 1.18 21 13 3 5 4
Carlsbad Blvd Cannon Rd Cerezo Dr 0.32 13 12 - 1 -
Palomar Airport Rd Paseo Del Norte Armada Dr 0.32 13 11 2 - -
El Camino Real Faraday Ave Palomar Airport Rd 0.62 11 11 - - -
El Camino Real College Blvd Faraday Ave 0.77 11 10 1 - 1
El Camino Real Cannon Rd Jackspar Dr / Rancho Carlsbad
Dr
0.50 11 10 - 1 -
Palomar Airport Rd Armada Dr The Crossings Dr /
Hidden Valley Rd 0.45 10 10 - - -
Table 3-4 displays the seven segments where multiple pedestrian collisions were reported. An
additional 26 segments each experienced a single pedestrian collision. Pedestrian collisions were
graphically displayed in Figure 2-3. These seven segments account for approximately 35% (17) of the
49 mid-block pedestrian collisions. Five of the seven segments were also identified as high
frequency for all modes combined (11 or more total mid-block collisions), and two segments were in
the top ten locations for vehicle-only collisions.
Table 3-4 Segments with Multiple Pedestrian Collisions
Street From To
Length
(miles)
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
Carlsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave Cannon Rd 1.18 21 13 3 5 4
Carlsbad Village Dr Harding St I-5 SB Ramps 0.12 13 7 3 3 -
Paseo Del Norte Palomar Airport Rd Camino De Las
Ondas 1.15 11 7 3 1 2
Paseo Del Norte Car Country Dr Palomar Airport Rd 0.50 12 8 2 2 -
Carlsbad Blvd Island Way Breakwater Rd 0.42 3 - 2 1 1
Palomar Airport Rd Paseo Del Norte Armada Dr 0.32 13 11 2 - -
Magnolia Ave Pio Pico Dr Monroe St 0.79 2 - 2 - -
The three pedestrian collisions along Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon
Road were dispersed across the segment. All three records were due to pedestrian violations while
crossing Carlsbad Boulevard. Two of the three pedestrian collisions along Carlsbad Village Drive
between Harding Street and I-5 Southbound Ramps were also due to pedestrian violations, with the
remaining collision attributed to a driver being under the influence.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 124
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 21
Multiple severe injury/fatal pedestrian collisions were reported in the Paseo Del Norte from Palomar
Airport Road to Camino De Las Ondas segment (1 severe and 1 fatal pedestrian collision). These
collisions were concentrated near the Tip Top Meats deli with the records indicating it was dark out, however, streetlights were present and functioning.
Table 3-5 identifies the 17 segments where multiple mid-block bicycle collisions were reported.
These segments total 50 bicycle collisions, approximately 47% of the 106 mid-block bicycle
collisions citywide. Bicycle collisions were graphically displayed in Figure 2-4. The three segments
with the greatest bicycle collision frequency are located along Carlsbad Boulevard.
Table 3-5 Segments with Multiple Bicycle Collisions
Street From To Length (miles) All Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike Severe/ Fatal
Carlsbad Blvd Solamar Dr Island Way 0.68 15 7 1 7 5
Carlsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave Cannon Rd 1.18 21 13 3 5 4
Carlsbad Blvd Avenida Encinas La Costa Ave 0.67 7 2 - 5 3
Carlsbad Village Dr Harding St I-5 SB Ramps 0.12 13 7 3 3 -
La Costa Ave Saxony St El Camino Real 1.13 13 9 1 3 -
La Costa Ave Piraeus St Saxony Rd 0.57 8 5 - 3 1
El Camino Real Lisa St / West
Ranch St Cannon Rd 0.37 4 1 - 3 -
Chestnut Ave Pio Pico Dr Monroe Rd 0.80 3 - - 3 1
Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Real Loker Ave /
Innovation Wy 0.44 20 17 1 2 3
El Camino Real Costa Del Mar Rd La Costa Ave 0.27 18 16 - 2 -
Paseo Del Norte Car Country Drive Palomar Airport Rd 0.50 12 8 2 2 -
Avenida Encinas Palomar Airport Rd Poinsettia Lane 1.59 11 8 1 2 1
Carlsbad Blvd N City Boundary Beech Ave 0.59 8 6 - 2 1
Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad Village Dr Pine Ave 0.22 7 4 1 2 1
El Camino Real
Jackspar Dr /
Rancho Carlsbad
Dr
College Blvd 0.45 7 5 - 2 -
Adams Street Tamarack Ave Park Dr 1.00 5 3 - 2 -
Harding St / Carol Pl Carlsbad Village Dr Jefferson St 0.81 3 1 - 2 -
The Carlsbad Boulevard segment between Solamar Drive and Island Way experienced seven bicycle
collisions, three of which were concentrated just south of Solamar Drive. The driver was reported as
at fault for all three collisions, which occurred along the southbound carriageway where angled
parking and a bicycle lane are located. Two severe bicycle collisions were reported along this
segment, both collisions involved two bicyclists and no vehicles.
Five bicycle collisions were reported along Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and
Cannon Road, three involved parked vehicles. One fatal bicycle collision was reported in the
southbound direction, with the bicyclist identified as at-fault for an unsafe lane change.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 125
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 22
The five bicycle collisions along Carlsbad Boulevard between Avenida Encinas and La Costa Avenue
were all reported as bicyclists at-fault collisions. The causes and locations along this segment varied.
High frequency collision segments identified for more than one travel mode are summarized below.
The following segments experienced high vehicular and high pedestrian collision frequency:
• Carlsbad Boulevard, from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road: 13 vehicular; 3 pedestrian
• Palomar Airport Road, from Paseo Del Norte to Armada Drive: 11 vehicular; 2 pedestrian
Three segments experienced high vehicular and bicycle collision frequency:
• Palomar Airport Road, from El Camino Real to Loker Avenue/Innovation Way: 17 vehicular; 2
bicycle
• El Camino Real, from Costa Del Mar Road to La Costa Avenue: 16 vehicular; 2 bicycle
• Carlsbad Boulevard, from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road: 13 vehicular; 5 bicycle
Multiple pedestrian and bicycle collisions were reported along the following three segments:
• Carlsbad Boulevard, from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road: 3 pedestrian; 5 bicycle
• Carlsbad Village Drive, from Harding Street to Interstate 5 Southbound Ramps: 3 pedestrian;
3 bicycle
• Paseo Del Norte, from Car Country Drive to Palomar Airport Road: 2 pedestrian; 2 bicycle
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 126
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 23
Segment Collision Rates
Segment crash rates were developed using the following formula:
𝑅𝑅=𝐶𝐶× 1,000,000𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴× 365 × 𝑁𝑁× 𝐿𝐿
Where:
R = Crash rate per one million vehicle miles travelled
C = Total collisions along the segment during the study period
ADT = Average daily traffic along the segment
N = Number of years of data
L = Length of the roadway segment in miles
ADT volumes were obtained from the City of Carlsbad and SANDAG’s Series 14 Base Year 2016
Regional Transportation Model.
Table 3-5 presents the crash rate for each segment with five or more reported collisions. The table
also identifies the frequencies of total crashes, ADT volumes, segment length, severe
injuries/fatalities, and each crash type. The three segments with the highest crash rates also
experienced some of the highest crash frequencies in the City.
The Carlsbad Village Drive segment between Harding Street and Interstate 5 southbound ramps was
found to have a crash rate just over 3.0. This short segment (.12 miles) experienced 13 collisions.
No severe or fatal collisions were reported along this segment. The most frequent crash type was
rear end collisions (5), followed by broadside collisions (4), and bicycle (3).
Carlsbad Boulevard from Solamar Drive to Island Way experienced the second highest crash rate
(1.69) and 15 total collisions, including five collisions resulting in a severe injury or fatality. The five
severe/fatal collisions consisted of three bicycle-involved collisions (including two that did not involve
a vehicle), one pedestrian collision due to improper turning, and one vehicular collision due to
improper turning.
Carlsbad Boulevard from Cannon Road to Cerezo Drive experienced the third greatest crash rate
(1.44) and 13 total collisions. No severe injuries or fatalities were reported along this segment. Ten
of those13 collisions were rear end collisions. Nine of the ten collisions were due unsafe speeds.
These locations, and other high crash rate segments may be further reviewed during the
countermeasure development stage.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 127
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 24
Table 3-6 Segment Crash Rates
Segment From To Crash Rate ADT Length (miles) Total Injury Collisions Severe/Fatal Injuries Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Head-On Other Hit Object Overturned Pedestrian Bike Carlsbad Village Dr Harding St I-5 SB Ramps 3.003 19,111 0.124 13 - 4 5 1 1 - - - 2 3
Carlsbad Blvd Solamar Dr Island Wy 1.689 7,200 0.676 15 5 2 3 1 1 4 1 2 1 7
Carlsbad Blvd Cannon Rd Cerezo Dr 1.435 15,667 0.317 13 - 1 10 1 - 1 - - - 1
Carlsbad Blvd Palomar Airport Rd Solamar Dr 1.434 5,826 0.525 8 2 - 2 - - 2 1 2 1 -
Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad Village Dr Pine Ave 1.128 15,757 0.216 7 1 - 3 2 - - 1 - 1 2
Palomar Airport Rd I-5 NB Ramps Paseo Del Norte 1.105 24,631 0.101 5 - 1 2 2 - - - - - -
Marron Rd El Camino Real Eastern Terminus 0.928 13,388 0.309 7 2 4 1 1 - 1 - - - -
Paseo Del Norte Palomar Airport Rd Camino De Las Ondas 0.909 5,782 1.147 11 2 5 1 2 - - - - 3 1
Lionshead Ave Melrose Dr Eastern City Boundary 0.829 3,812 0.867 5 1 3 - - - - 1 1 - 1
Palomar Airport Rd I-5 SB Ramps I-5 NB Ramps 0.754 24,631 0.177 6 - 1 5 - - - - - - -
El Camino Real Costa Del Mar Rd La Costa Ave 0.692 52,663 0.270 18 - 4 11 1 - - 2 - - 2
Jefferson St Marron Rd Las Flores Dr 0.634 6,889 0.753 6 1 - - 2 - - 2 1 1 1
Cannon Rd Wind Trail Wy Hilltop St 0.610 24,283 0.259 7 - 1 3 - 1 - 1 1 - 1
Avenida Encinas Palomar Airport Rd Poinsettia Ln 0.598 6,318 1.595 11 1 8 - 2 - - - - 1 2
Paseo Del Norte Car Country Dr Palomar Airport Rd 0.587 22,296 0.503 12 - 5 3 1 1 - - - 2 2
Cannon Rd Hilltop St College Blvd 0.586 24,059 0.272 7 - - 7 - - - - - - 1
Carlsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave Cannon Rd 0.576 16,853 1.185 21 4 1 10 2 - 4 2 - 2 5
Carlsbad Blvd Ponto Rd Avenida Encinas 0.568 11,608 0.499 6 3 - 2 3 - - - 1 - -
Carlsbad Blvd Northern City
Boundary Beech Ave 0.560 13,218 0.593 8 1 - 6 1 - - 1 - - 2
Adams St Tamarack Ave Park Dr 0.549 5,007 0.997 5 - - - - - 2 2 1 - 2
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 128
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 25
Table 3-6 Segment Crash Rates
Segment From To Crash Rate ADT Length (miles) Total Injury Collisions Severe/Fatal Injuries Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Head-On Other Hit Object Overturned Pedestrian Bike Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Real Loker Ave / Innovation
Wy 0.485 51,834 0.436 20 3 1 15 - - 2 1 - 1 2
Palomar Airport Rd Paseo Del Norte Armada Dr 0.438 50,476 0.322 13 - 1 8 2 - - 1 - 1 -
College Blvd Tamarack Ave Tamarack Ave 0.406 28,980 0.233 5 1 - 5 - - - - - - 1
Carlsbad Blvd Avenida Encinas La Costa Ave 0.396 14,458 0.670 7 3 - 2 1 - 1 - 3 - 5
Avenida Encinas Cannon Road Palomar Airport Rd 0.393 9,007 0.929 6 - 2 1 - - - 2 - 1 1
Palomar Airport Rd El Fuerte St Melrose Dr 0.390 55,355 0.432 17 - 1 11 5 - - - - - -
El Camino Real Dove Ln Aviara Pkwy / Alga Rd 0.351 38,647 0.202 5 - - 5 - - - - - - -
Paseo Del Norte Cannon Rd Car Country Dr 0.326 16,900 0.597 6 - 2 - - - 3 1 - - -
Palomar Airport Rd Chipotle / Lowe's
Parking Lot El Camino Real 0.311 35,328 0.250 5 - - 1 1 - - 2 1 - -
El Camino Real Kelly Dr West Ranch St / Lisa
St 0.302 31,438 0.404 7 1 1 - 1 1 2 1 - 1 -
Rancho Santa Fe Rd La Costa Ave Camino De Los
Coches 0.301 41,538 0.395 9 1 - 5 2 - - 1 - 1 1
Melrose Dr Northern City
Boundary Palomar Airport Rd 0.290 39,164 0.338 7 1 - 6 - - - 1 - - 1
El Camino Real Cannon Rd Jackspar Dr / Rancho
Carlsbad Dr 0.287 42,068 0.499 11 - - 9 2 - - - - - 1
El Camino Real Town Garden Rd Camino Vida Roble 0.282 36,486 0.266 5 - - 4 1 - - - - - -
El Camino Real La Costa Ave La Costa Towne
Center 0.272 36,303 0.278 5 - - 3 - - - 2 - - 1
El Camino Real Faraday Ave Palomar Airport Rd 0.267 36,641 0.616 11 - - 10 1 - - - - - -
Palomar Airport Rd Hidden Valley Road College Blvd 0.250 48,772 0.269 6 - - 4 2 - - - - - 1
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 129
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 26
Table 3-6 Segment Crash Rates
Segment From To Crash Rate ADT Length (miles) Total Injury Collisions Severe/Fatal Injuries Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Head-On Other Hit Object Overturned Pedestrian Bike Palomar Airport Rd Armada Dr The Crossings Dr /
Hidden Valley Rd 0.250 48,772 0.450 10 - - 8 1 - - 1 - - -
Rancho Santa Fe Rd Calle Barcelona Camino Alvaro 0.238 40,759 0.339 6 - - 4 - - - 1 1 - 1
Rancho Santa Fe Rd Camino De Los
Coches Calle Barcelona 0.234 41,538 0.339 6 1 - 3 1 - - 1 1 - 1
El Camino Real College Boulevard Faraday Ave 0.213 36,641 0.771 11 1 - 6 - - - 4 - 1 -
La Costa Ave Piraeus Street Saxony Rd 0.202 38,040 0.570 8 1 - 3 1 - - 3 1 - 3
El Camino Real Arenal Rd Costa Del Mar Rd 0.194 51,765 0.381 7 - - 6 - - 1 - - - 1
Rancho Santa Fe Rd Paseo Lupino/Via
Mercato Camino Junipero 0.190 41,269 0.419 6 1 2 4 - - - - - - -
Rancho Santa Fe Rd San Elijo Road Avenida Soledad 0.189 50,645 0.286 5 - - 2 - 1 1 - 1 - -
Palomar Airport Rd Loker Ave El Fuerte St 0.189 52,066 0.390 7 - - 2 2 1 - 2 - - -
El Camino Real Jackspar Dr / Rancho
Carlsbad Dr College Blvd 0.186 45,813 0.449 7 - 1 4 - - - 1 1 - 2
La Costa Ave Saxony Road El Camino Real 0.164 38,415 1.134 13 - - 6 3 - 2 1 - 1 3
La Costa Ave El Camino Real Viejo Castilla Wy 0.161 16,845 1.007 5 - 1 1 - 2 - 1 - - -
Palomar Airport Rd Eagle Dr Eastern City Boundary 0.152 35,733 0.503 5 1 - 4 - - - 1 - - -
El Camino Real Alga Rd Arenal Rd 0.151 52,663 0.550 8 1 1 5 - - 1 1 - - -
Rancho Santa Fe Rd Fire Station 6
Driveway Camino Junipero 0.149 50,645 0.509 7 1 - 2 2 - - 3 - - 1
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 130
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 27
4.0 High Frequency Collision Intersections
Table 4-1 identifies the high frequency collision intersections – intersections with ten or more
collisions for all modes combined – that are reviewed in further detail throughout this section to
better understand location specific collision trends. Locations with high pedestrian or bicycle
collision frequencies were previously discussed. Segments were not addressed in this chapter due to
the varying segment lengths, however, countermeasures may still be considered in future project phases.
For each location, a diagram is provided depicting the collision locations by crash type and level of
injury severity. The diagram also depicts any mid-block collisions in the location vicinity for reference
– those beyond 50’ from the intersection – however the remaining data and narrative focus on the
intersection records.
Tables identifying collisions by year and mode are also provided. Charts are used to display collisions
by time of day, as well as the collisions by crash type. Descriptions of trends related to the most
common crash type at each location are also provided. This information may be used to aid in the
countermeasure/improvement selection process.
Table 4-1 High Collision Intersections
Rank Location
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
1 El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road 18 17 1 - 1
2 Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road 16 16 - - -
3 Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street 15 12 1 2 -
4 El Camino Real & Alga Road 14 14 - - 1
5 College Boulevard & Palomar Airport Road 12 12 - - -
6 El Camino Real & La Costa Avenue 12 11 - 1 -
7 Rancho Santa Fe Road & La Costa Avenue 12 12 - - -
8 El Camino Real & Carlsbad Village Drive 11 11 - - -
9 Cannon Road & El Camino Real 10 10 - - 1
10 Melrose Drive & Lionshead Avenue 10 10 - - -
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 131
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 28
El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road
A total of 18 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The crash rate was
determined to be 0.123 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. The 18
collisions resulted in one severe injury (vehicle), nine visible injuries, and eight complaint of pain
injuries.
Broadside Collisions
Nine of the 18 vehicular collision records
were broadside collisions. Six of the nine
broadside collisions were due to violation
code 21453(a)1, failing to stop at the limit
line, and following under the violation
category of “Traffic Signs and Signals”. The
party-at-fault was travelling in the east or
south direction in six of the nine broadside
records. Also, in six of the nine broadside
collisions, the party-at-fault was proceeding straight.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 6 5 1 - - -
2016 3 3 - - 1 -
2017 5 5 - - - -
2018 1 1 - - - -
2019 3 3 - - - -
Total 18 17 1 - 1 -
1 21453(a) – A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 132
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 29
Rear-End Collisions
Two of the three rear-end collisions were
caused by a vehicle proceeding straight, one vehicle heading south and one vehicle
heading west. The third collision was caused
by a stopped vehicle in the westbound
direction.
Pedestrian-Involved Collision
The vehicle was at-fault for the only collision
involving a pedestrian, failing to yield to the
pedestrian while the pedestrian was crossing
in the (unmarked) crosswalk at the
intersection. The vehicle was heading north
and making right-turn.
Sobriety
Alcohol was not reported as a factor during
any of the 18 collisions at this location.
Lighting and Time of Day
Eleven of 18 collisions (61%) were reported
during daylight. 33% of the collisions occurred
during in the nighttime, when visibility may be
limited. Lighting is provided on all four signal
poles and was reported as functioning.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
Broadside,
50%
Head-On, 11%
Other, 5%
Overturned, 5%
Rear-End, 17%
Sideswipe, 6%
Vehicle -Pedestrian, 6%
Dark -
Street Lights, 33%
Daylight, 61%
Dusk -Dawn,
6%
0
1
2
3
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 133
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 30
Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road
A total of 16 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.116 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. All 16 collisions
were vehicle collisions and there were no fatal or severe injury collisions reported.
Broadside Collisions
Eight of the 16 collision records were broadside collisions. Seven of the eight
broadside collisions were due to violation
code 21453(a)2, failing to stop at the limit
line. In four of the eight broadside collisions,
the driver was making either a left-turn,
right-turn, or other unsafe turning, and the
remaining four were proceeding straight. In
all instances, the party-at-fault was heading
either south or east.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 - - - - - -
2016 7 7 - - - -
2017 1 1 - - - -
2018 2 2 - - - -
2019 6 6 - - - -
Total 16 16 - - - -
2 21453(a) – A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 134
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 31
Hit Object Collisions
Three of the 16 collision records were hit
object collisions. Two of them were attributed to violation code 223503, unsafe
speed, and one of them was due to a
person driving under the influence of
alcohol. In all three instances, the vehicles
were heading in the east-west direction.
Two of them were proceeding straight and
one was making a left-turn.
Sobriety
Only one of the 16 collisions at this location
involved a driver under the influence of
alcohol. This resulted in other visible injury.
Lighting and Time of Day
Nine of the 16 collisions (56%) reported at
this location occurred during nighttime,
when visibility may be limited. Lighting is
provided on all four signal poles and was
reported as functioning.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collision by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
3 22350 - Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions.
Broadside,
50%
Head-On, 13%
Hit Object,
19%
Not Stated, 6%
Rear-End, 6%
Sideswipe,
6%
Dark -Street
Lights, 56%
Daylight,
44%
0
1
2
3
4
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 135
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 32
Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street
A total of 15 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.510 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. From the 15
collisions, there were two bicycle-involved collisions and one pedestrian involved collision reported.
None of them resulted in a severe injury or fatal collision.
Head-On Collisions Three of the 15 vehicular collision records were
head-on collisions. All three head-on collisions
were due to violation code 23152(a)4, driving
under influence of alcohol. The party-at-fault
was proceeding straight and going south in all
head-on collisions.
Hit Object Collisions
Three of the 15 vehicular collision records were
hit object collisions. They were all attributed to
the party-at-fault driving under the influence of
alcohol. All vehicles were proceeding straight in
the north-south direction.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 4 3 1 - - -
2016 8 7 - 1 - -
2017 1 1 - - - -
2018 2 1 - 1 - -
2019 - - - - - -
Total 15 12 1 2 - -
4 23152(a) – It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage to drive a vehicle.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 136
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 33
Overturned Collisions
Three of the 15 vehicular collisions were overturned
collisions. Two of them were caused by a driver under the influence of alcohol and one was due to
unsafe speed. All party-at-fault vehicles were
heading in the north-south direction. All of them
were making different movements.
Pedestrian Collision
The only pedestrian collision reported was attributed
to violation code 21456(a)5, a pedestrian failing to
yield the right-of-way to a vehicle already in the
crosswalk. In this case, the vehicle was proceeding
straight in the west direction.
Bicycle Collisions
Two bicycle-involved collisions were reported. One of
them was attributed to violation code 21703(b)6, a
vehicle driving too closely to the bicycle resulting in a
rear-end collision. No violation code was assigned to
the other bicycle collision, but the bicyclist was
identified as the party-at-fault while making a
merging movement. In both bicycle-involved
collisions, the party-at-fault was heading north.
Sobriety
Nine of the 15 collisions involved drivers under the
influence of alcohol. None of these resulted in a
severe or fatal injury. One impairment was unknown.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Lighting and Time of Day
14 of the 15 collisions (93%) were reported during nighttime or dusk when visibility may be limited.
Lighting is provided via one traditional pole over the intersection and a series of pedestrian-scaled
poles. Streetlights were reported as Not Functioning for two collisions, the most recent in December 2018.
Collisions by Time of the Day
5 21456(a) – A pedestrian facing the “WALK” signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal, but shall yield the right-
of-way to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that signal is first shown.
6 21703 – The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard
for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway.
Broadside,
6%
Head-On,
20%
Hit Object,
20%
Other, 13%
Overturned, 20%
Rear-End,
7%
Sideswipe,
7%
Vehicle -
Pedestrian, 7%
Dark -Street Lights, 73%
Daylight,
7%
Dusk -Dawn, 20%
0
1
2
3
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 137
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 34
El Camino Real & Alga Road
A total of 14 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.118 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. The 14
collisions resulted in one severe injury (auto), four visible injuries, and nine complaint of pain
injuries.
Rear-End Collisions
Seven of the 14 vehicular collision records
were rear-end collisions. Five of the seven
rear-end collisions were attributed to violation
code 223507, vehicles going at unsafe
speed, one was due to a vehicle driving too
closely to another, and one was caused by
the party-at fault using an electronic device while driving. The party-at-fault was travelling
in the northbound or southbound direction
preceding six of the seven rear-end collisions.
Five of them were proceeding straight and
only one was making a right-turn.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 1 1 - - - -
2016 4 4 - - - -
2017 2 2 - - 1 -
2018 3 3 - - - -
2019 4 4 - - - -
Total 14 14 - - 1 -
7 22350 – Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 138
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 35
Broadside Collisions
Four of the 14 collisions at this intersection
were reported as broadside collisions, including one severe injury. The party-at fault
was driving in a different direction in each
collision. The only one heading east was
making a left-turn, and the remaining three
were proceeding straight. Two of the four
broadside collisions were due to a vehicle
failing to stop at the limit line, violation code
21453(a)8. The severe/injury collision was
caused by a vehicle failing to yield the right-
of-way to other traffic, violation code
21451(a)9. The party-at-fault was proceeding
straight heading south.
Sobriety
Alcohol was not reported as a factor during
any of the 14 collisions at this location.
Lighting and Time of Day
Nine of 14 collisions (64%) were reported
during daylight. Lighting is provided on all
four signal poles and was reported as
functioning.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
8 21453 (a) – A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to
proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
9 21451 (a) – A driver facing a circular green signal shall proceed straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn unless a sign
prohibits a U-turn. Any driver, including one turning, shall yield the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.
Broadside,
29%
Head-On,
14%
Rear-End,
50%
Sideswipe,
7%
Dark -
Street
Lights, 36%
Daylight, 64%
0
1
2
3
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 139
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 36
College Boulevard & Palomar Airport Road
A total of 12 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.116 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. The 12
collisions resulted in four visible injuries and eight complaint of pain injuries.
Broadside Collisions
Seven of the eight collisions were attributed
to violation code 2145310, a driver failing to
stop at the limit line facing a circular red
signal. The party-at-fault in six of the eight
broadside collisions were proceeding
straight, and two were making a left-turn. In
five of these incidents, the vehicle was heading in the east direction.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 1 1 - - - -
2016 1 1 - - - -
2017 3 3 - - - -
2018 3 3 - - - -
2019 4 4 - - - -
Total 12 12 - - - -
10 21453(a) – A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 140
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 37
Sobriety
Alcohol was not reported as a factor during
any of the 12 collisions at this location. However, one collision was reported to be
involved with a driver under drug influence.
It resulted in complaint of pain.
Lighting and Time of Day
Eight of 12 collisions (67%) were reported
during daylight. Street lights were reported
as not present for one collision which
occurred in December 2017, however,
lighting is provided on all four signal poles
and reported as functioning for the
remaining three collisions that occurred
when it was dark.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
Broadside,
67%
Head-On,
17%
Rear-End, 8%
Sideswipe,
8%
Dark -No Street
Lights, 8%
Dark -
Street
Lights, 25%
Daylight,
67%
0
1
2
3
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 141
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 38
El Camino Real & La Costa Avenue
A total of 12 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.091 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. The 12
collisions resulted in five visible injuries, and seven complaint of pain injuries.
Rear-End Collisions Rear-end collisions accounted for 42% of the
collisions at this intersection. Three of the
five rear-end collisions were attributed to
violation code 2235011, driving at an unsafe
speed. The party-at-fault was proceeding
straight during all five rear-end collisions and
travelling in the eastbound direction in three
of the five rear-end collisions.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 3 3 - - - -
2016 2 1 - 1 - -
2017 1 1 - - - -
2018 1 1 - - - -
2019 5 5 - - - -
Total 12 11 - 1 - -
11 22350 – Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 142
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 39
Broadside Collisions
Broadside collisions accounted for 41% of the
collisions at this intersection. Two of the five broadside collisions were attributed to
violation code 21453(a)12, failing to stop at
the limit line. The party-at-fault was travelling
in the east- or westbound direction in three of
the five records. There was not a pattern
found in the party-at-fault movement
preceding the incident. Two of them were
proceeding straight, two were making either a
left- or right-turn, and one was travelling
wrong way.
Bicycle Collision
The party-at-fault for the only bicycle-involved
collision was reported to be the bicyclist.
Violation code attributed to this incident was
21453(a), failing to stop at the limit line,
crosswalk, or intersection. Preceding the
accident, the bicyclist was heading south,
and the driver was proceeding straight east.
Sobriety
The driver had been drinking alcohol before
one of the 12 collisions, however, the level of
impairment was stated as unknown.
Lighting and Time of Day
Ten of 12 collisions (83%) were reported
during daylight. Nine of the 12 collisions
occurred between 2:00pm and 7:00pm.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
12 21453(a) – A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
Broadside, 41%
Rear-End, 42%
Sideswipe,
17%
Dark -Street
Lights, 9%
Daylight,
83%
Dusk -
Dawn, 8%
0
1
2
3
4
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 143
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 40
Rancho Santa Fe Road & La Costa Avenue
A total of 12 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.128 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. The 12
collisions resulted in five visible injuries, and seven complaint of pain injuries.
Rear-End Collisions
Rear-end collisions were the leading crash type at 67% of collisions at this intersection
(8/12). The main violations associated with
the rear-end collisions were related to the
driver driving at unsafe speed, 2235013. The
party-at-fault was travelling in the north-
southbound direction during all rear-end
collisions and proceeding straight during
seven of eight rear-end collisions.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 3 3 - - - -
2016 5 5 - - - -
2017 - - - - - -
2018 4 4 - - - -
2019 - - - - - -
Total 12 12 - - - -
Sobriety
One of the 12 collisions reported at this
location was involved with a driver under the
influence of alcohol. It resulted in other
visible injury.
13 22350 – Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 144
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 41
Lighting and Time of Day
Eight of 12 collisions (67%) were reported
during daylight. Lighting is provided on all four signal poles and was reported as
functioning.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
Broadside,
17%
Head-On,
8%
Rear-End,
67%
Sideswipe,
8%
Dark -
Street
Lights, 33%
Daylight, 67%
0
1
2
3
4
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 145
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 42
El Camino Real & Carlsbad Village Drive
A total of 11 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.153 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. The 11
collisions resulted in four visible injuries and seven complaint of pain injuries.
Broadside Collisions
Broadside collisions were the leading crash type at this intersection, accounting for 64%
(7/11) of the collisions. Six of the seven
broadside collisions occurred while the party-
at-fault was travelling north- or southbound
and proceeding straight through the
intersection. As well, six broadside collisions
were due to violation code 21453(a)14,
failing to stop at the limit line while facing a
red signal.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 1 1 - - - -
2016 2 2 - - - -
2017 5 5 - - - -
2018 1 1 - - - -
2019 2 2 - - - -
Total 11 11 - - - -
14 21453(a) – A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 146
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 43
Sobriety
Two of the 11 collisions reported at this
location were involved with a driver under the influence of alcohol or drugs. None of these
resulted in a severe or fatal injury.
Lighting and Time of Day
Six of 11 collisions (55%) were reported
during daylight. Lighting is provided on all
four signal poles and was reported as
functioning.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
Broadside, 64%Hit Object, 9%
Other, 9%
Rear-End, 9%
Sideswipe, 9%
Dark -Street
Lights, 45%
Daylight, 55%
0
1
2
3
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 147
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 44
Cannon Road & El Camino Real
A total of 10 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.096 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. The 10
collisions resulted in one severe injury (auto), two visible injuries, and seven complaint of pain
injuries.
Broadside Collisions Broadside collisions accounted for 40%
(4/10) of the collisions, including one severe
injury collision. Three of the four broadside
collisions, including the severe injury
collision, were due to violation code
21453(a)15, failing to stop at the limit line
while facing a red signal. There was no clear
trend identified in reference to movement or
direction preceding the collisions.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 - - - - - -
2016 5 5 - - 1 -
2017 - - - - - -
2018 2 2 - - - -
2019 3 3 - - - -
Total 10 10 - - 1 -
15 21453(a) – A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 148
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 45
Rear-End Collisions
Similar to broadside collisions, rear-end
collisions accounted for 40% (4/10) of the collisions at this location. All four rear-end
collisions occurred while the party-at-fault
was travelling north- or southbound. The
movement preceding the collision was evenly
split between proceeding straight and
slowing/stopping. Each rear-end collision was
attributed to a different violation code, so
there were no cause trends identified.
Sobriety
One of the 10 collisions involved a driver
under the influence of alcohol. This resulted
in a complaint of pain collision.
Lighting and Time of Day
Eight of 10 collisions (80%) were reported
during daylight. Four of the 10 collisions
occurred between 4:00pm and 6:00pm,
which coincides with commute time.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
Broadside,
40%
Head-On, 10%Overturned, 10%
Rear-End,
40%
Dark -Street
Lights, 20%
Daylight,
80%
0
1
2
3
4
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 149
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 46
Melrose Drive & Lionshead Avenue
A total of 10 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.159 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. The 10
collisions resulted in one visible injury, and nine complaint of pain injuries.
Broadside Collisions
Broadside collisions were the leading crash type at this intersection, accounting for 60%
(6/10) of the collisions. Five of the six
broadside collisions occurred while the party-
at-fault was travelling north- or southbound
and proceeding straight through the
intersection. Four of the six broadside
collisions were attributed to violation code
21453(a)16, failing to stop at the limit line
while facing a red signal. One of the
remaining broadside collisions was due to
violation code 21453(c)17, failing to stop at
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 2 2 - - - -
2016 2 2 - - - -
2017 2 2 - - - -
2018 4 4 - - - -
2019 - - - - - -
Total 10 10 - - - -
16 21453(a) – A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to
proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
17 21453(c) – A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication permitting movement is shown.
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 150
Local Roadway Safety Plan DRAFT Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 47
the limit line while facing a red signal and
making a left-turn. The vehicle was turning
east.
Sobriety
Alcohol was not reported as a factor during
any of the 10 collisions at this location.
Lighting and Time of Day
All 10 collisions reported at this location
occurred during daylight.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
Broadside, 60%Not Stated, 20%
Rear-End, 10%
Sideswipe, 10%
Daylight, 100%
0
1
2
Sept. 6, 2022 Item #8 151
Miriam Jim, Senior Engineer, City of Carlsbad
Andrew Prescott, Transportation Planner, CR Associates
September 6, 2022
Draft Local Roadway Safety
Plan (LRSP)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive a presentation and provide feedback
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
TODAY’S PRESENTATION
•Background
•Recap March 7th, 2022 T&MC Presentation
•Topics to Address
•Recommendations
•Implementation Considerations
•Next Steps
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
BACKGROUND
•On Jan. 9, 2020, the city was selected by Caltrans for a grant in the
amount of $72,000 to prepare a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
•On April 5, 2021, by 7-0 vote, the Traffic and Mobility Commission
members appointed Commissioner Fowler and Commissioner
Penseyres to serve as part of LRSP Stakeholder group
•On March 7, 2022, staff provided a progress update on the LRSP
development. At the meeting, a summary of the collision data
analysis findings and focus areas were presented.
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
•LRSP provides a framework to systematically identify, analyze
and prioritize roadway safety improvements to reduce
fatalities and serious injuries on local roadways
•A data-driven plan that uses a proactive approach to improve
traffic safety in the city
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
•Analyzed city-wide collision data between 2015 and 2019
•Identified hot-spots or high collision locations
•Identified safety trends or focus areas in the city
•Determined appropriate countermeasures
•Prioritized these countermeasures or projects
•Recommended implementation strategies
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
MARCH 7TH,2022 T&MC PRESENTATION
•Stakeholder Involvement Effort
•Analysis Findings & Focus Areas
•Recommendation Development
•Next Steps
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
TOPICS TO ADDRESS
•Pedestrian
–Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks
–Pedestrians failing to yield to drivers while crossing outside
of crosswalks
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
TOPICS TO ADDRESS
•Bicycle
–Drivers failing to yield to bicyclists while making right-turns
–Bicycle at-fault collisions due to unsafe speeds (primarily
non-motor vehicle collisions)
–Increases in E-bike use: people of varying bicycle skill levels
are travelling further and faster than ever before
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
TOPICS TO ADDRESS
•Vehicular
–Leading violations
•Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions
•Failure to stop at limit line
•Driving under the influence (including youth DUI)
–Leading crash types
•Broadside (intersections and driveway locations)
•Rear end (mid-block approaching intersections)
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
RECOMMENDATIONS
•Programmatic
–Education
–Enforcement
•Infrastructure
–Citywide
–Site Specific
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS
•Education
–Safe Routes to School
–Bicycle Education
•Smart Cycling
•Bike Rodeos
•City Cycling
•City Cycling for E-bikers
–Youth Driving Under the Influence (Every 15-min)
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS
•Enforcement & Emergency Response
–Targeted DUI Enforcement
–Targeted Speeding Enforcement
–E-Bike Collision Coding
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
Topic to address
Countermeasure
Drivers
yielding to
pedestrians
Drivers
yielding to
bicyclists
Failure to
stop at the
limit line
Broadside
collisions
Rear end
collisions
Retroreflective backplates
Overhead-mounted signal head
Signal timing
High visibility crosswalks
Advance stop bar
Green conflict paint (right-turn)
Red light indicators
CITYWIDE
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
Countermeasure
Location Retroreflective backplatesOverhead signal headDynamic speed warning signsHigh visibility crosswalksCurb extensionsAdvance stop barLightingSpeed reduction markingsEnhance sight distanceRoosevelt St & Carlsbad Village Dr
Harding St & Carlsbad Village Dr
Roosevelt St & Grand Ave
El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Rd
Melrose Dr & Palomar Airport Rd
Carlsbad Blvd & State St
El Camino Real & Alga Rd
Locker Ave & Palomar Airport Rd
Carlsbad Blvd & Cerezo Dr
INTERSECTION
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
Countermeasure
Location
Road diet +
buffered
bike lanes
Class I bike
path
Pedestrian
refuge +
curb
extensions
Rectangular
rapid
flashing
beacon
Paseo Del Norte:
Palomar Airport Rd to Camino Del Parque
Carlsbad Boulevard:
Carlsbad Village Dr to Cannon Rd
Carlsbad Boulevard:
Tierra Del Oro to La Costa Ave
SEGMENT
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
•Cost Estimates
•Benefit Cost Ratios
–Can be used to prioritize countermeasures
–Used to determine HSIP awards
•Previous HSIP Cycle BCR threshold for funding: 12.0
–Caltrans formula (cost, crash reduction factor, crash history)
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
Location Countermeasures BCR
IntersectionsEl Camino Real & Palomar Airport Rd
•Retroreflective backplate borders
•Overhead-mounted signal head
•High visibility crosswalk
•Advance stop bar
14.35
Carlsbad Boulevard & State St •Intersection lighting 15.80
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Dr •Dynamic warning signs 63.81
SegmentsPaseo Del Norte:Palomar Airport Rd to Camino Del Parque
•Road diet + buffered bike lanes
•Pedestrian refuge + curb extensions
•Rectangular rapid flashing beacon
17.77
Carlsbad Boulevard:Carlsbad Village Dr to Cannon Rd •Road diet + buffered bike lanes 18.03
BENEFIT COST RATIOS
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
•Funding Sources
•Implementation with Scheduled Maintenance
•Pre-and Post Implementation Monitoring
–Collisions
–Count Data
–Infrastructure Modifications
–Development Projects
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
NEXT STEPS
•Finalize report and present findings and
results to City Council
•Submit to Caltrans
•Pursue HSIP Funding
ITEM 8: Draft LRSP
Traffic & Mobility Commission
Agenda Item #8
Bicycle Collisions
M caused 41%
Solo Fall 38%
B caused 21%
Carlsbad Bicyclist Crashes 2014-2020
22
12
8 6
14
3
60
19
11
17
9 9
2
7
Bike -Car Collisions in Carlsbad 2014-2020
•Legend: Cyclist Fault are Blue Motorist Fault are Red