HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-10-02; Traffic and Mobility Commission; ; Multimodal Level of Service Methodology UpdateMeeting Date: Oct. 2, 2023
To: Traffic and Mobility Commission
Staff Contact: Nathan Schmidt, Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager
Nathan.schmidt@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-2734
Subject: Multimodal Level of Service Methodology Update
Recommended Actions
Receive an overview of the City of Carlsbad’s multimodal level of service and provide feedback.
Executive Summary
This report provides an overview of the City of Carlsbad’s multimodal level of service, or MMLOS,
methodology for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit travel modes. This report is intended to inform
the Traffic and Mobility Commission of the updates to the City’s current MMLOS methodology
based on feedback received from the Traffic & Mobility Commission ad-hoc subcommittee,
provide the MMLOS results on the initial sample group of streets that were monitored for the
Growth Management Plan, and a review of staff’s recommended revisions to the MMLOS
methodology based on these results. This report includes the most recent proposed updates as
a part of meetings with the ad-hoc subcommittee meetings after the March 6, 2023 meeting.
Based on feedback from the Traffic and Mobility Commission, staff will update the MMLOS
methodology and results based on the recommended revisions and utilize the tool for both
Growth Management Plan Monitoring and for Local Mobility Analysis for private development
projects. The updated findings of this analysis will be presented to the Traffic & Mobility
Commission and included in the Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report for fiscal year
2022-23.
Background
The 2008 California Complete Streets Act requires cities in California to plan for a balanced, multi-
modal transportation system that meets the needs of all travel modes. Accomplishing this state
mandate requires a fundamental shift in how the city plans and designs the street system –
recognizing the street as a public space that serves all users of the system (elderly, children,
bicyclists, pedestrians, etc.) within the urban context of that system (e.g. accounting for the
adjacent land uses).
Previously, growth management circulation performance standard was based on the circulation
needs of a single mode of travel – the automobile. The Sept. 22, 2015, General Plan Mobility
Element was adopted to identify a new livable streets strategy for mobility within the city. This
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 1 of 62
2
strategy focuses on creating a ‘multi-modal’ street network that supports the mobility needs of
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and vehicles. This multi-modal transportation goal aligns
with the city’s Climate Action Plan in achieving its goals of reducing greenhouse gas emission
within the city by reducing vehicle dependence.
The city’s approach to provide livable streets recognizes that improving the LOS for one mode of
transportation can sometimes degrade the LOS for another mode. For example, pedestrian
friendly streets are designed to encourage pedestrian uses and typically have amenities that slow
vehicle travel speeds (e.g., short-distance pedestrian crossings that restrict vehicle mobility).
Therefore, the General Plan Mobility Element’s livable streets approach identifies, based on the
location and type of street (street typology), the travel modes for which service levels should be
enhanced and maintained per the MMLOS standard (LOS D or better). The street typology
identifies which modes of transportation are subject to, and which modes are not subject to, the
MMLOS standard.
Table 1 below summarizes the street typology and MMLOS Standard from the Carlsbad General
Plan Mobility Element and Exhibit 1 depicts the livable street system with the street typologies
identified for all city streets. The original table from the General Plan is found in Appendix C.
Table 1: Street Typology and MMLOS Standard
STREET TYPOLOLOGY Modes subject to the MMLOS D Standard
Auto Transit Pedestrian Bicycle
Freeways Yes Yes No No
Arterial Streets Yes Yes No No
Identity Streets No No Yes Yes
Village Streets No No Yes Yes
Arterial Connector Streets Yes No Yes Yes
Neighborhood Connector Streets No No Yes Yes
Coastal Streets No No Yes Yes
School Streets No No Yes Yes
Employment/Transit Connector Streets No Yes Yes Yes
Industrial Streets Yes Yes No No
Local/Neighborhood Streets No No Yes Yes
All Streets Located Within Half-Mile of a Transit
Center
No Yes Yes Yes
Bicycle/Pedestrian Pathways No No Yes Yes
This report presents the analysis results for 41.1 total miles of roadways of the roadway
typologies listed below for Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS plus a sample of segments for testing the
Transit LOS methodology. A summary of the results of this analysis is provided in Carlsbad
MMLOS Monitoring Results report in Exhibit 3.
• Identity Streets: 4.4 miles
• Village Streets: 19.0 miles
• Coastal Streets: 10.0 miles
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 2 of 62
3
• School Streets: 25.6 miles
• Industrial Streets: 2.8 miles
• Employment/Transit Connector Streets: 9.0 miles
• Arterial Streets 11.4 miles (Transit only)
Prior Traffic and Mobility Commission and Ad-Hoc Committee Review
An overview of the proposed updates to the MMLOS methodology was first presented to the
T&MC at the June 1, 2020, meeting. During this review, and due to the detailed nature of
MMLOS, the T&MC recommended to establish an ad-hoc committee to work with staff to guide
the future updates of the MMLOS methodology. Since this time the ad-hoc committee has
convened several meetings with staff to undergo an iterative process of refining and testing the
methodology.
On April 4, 2022, the Traffic and Mobility Commission was presented with the proposed updates
and initial results of the MMLOS methodology. Based on their review, the T&MC recommended
additional revisions to the methodology, such as provisions for high visibility crosswalks, essential
transit stop access and amenities, Transportation Demand Management, or TDM, requirements,
and additional bicycle lane requirements. The T&MC also advised that staff continue to meet
with the ad-hoc committee to review and refine the methodology based on updated testing
results.
On March 6, 2023 the Traffic and Mobility Commission was once again presented with the
proposed updates. The updates presented are summarized below. Based on the commissions
review, the T&MC requested staff to meet with the ad-hoc committee to discuss the updates in
more detail.
Multimodal Level of Service Methodology
As previously mentioned, the MMLOS method to measure service to pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit modes was originally developed as part of the General Plan Environmental Impact Report,
or EIR. This approach (the development of the MMLOS tool) is unique to the City of Carlsbad.
The Carlsbad MMLOS approach reports a letter grade (A thru F) that reflects the quality of service
provided to a user of that mode of travel based on the attributes of the associated pedestrian,
bicycle or transit facility. Each attribute contributes to a point system that, when the total points
for all attributes are added together, corresponds to a MMLOS letter grade. Essential features
are indicated for each mode of travel and represent the basic components of a pedestrian,
bicycle, or transit facility. If all essential feature elements are met for the applicable mode then
the street will receive an acceptable LOS score of D or better.
The MMLOS tool, used to monitor the LOS for individual streets based on minimum operating
standards defined by street type, was finalized July 2018 with some modifications made. The
MMLOS thresholds are presented in Table 2 below. The detailed MMLOS scoring sheets for
pedestrian and bicycle travel modes are provided in Exhibit 2.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 3 of 62
4
Table 2: Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) Thresholds
Point Score LOS
90 - 100 A
80 - 89 B
70 - 79 C
60 -69 D
41 - 59 E
0 – 40 F
Source: City of Carlsbad
Goal and Purpose of the MMLOS
As noted in General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.3, the purpose of the MMLOS
methodology is to provide a means for evaluating the impacts of individual development
projects, as well as monitoring the LOS for individual streets to ensure that they are meeting
the specified standard by street type. To accomplish these goals, the methodology ideally
needed to result in levels of service similar to auto-based LOS (A through F) and quantitatively
measured (even if some of the individual features evaluated were qualitative in nature).
Ultimately, the City of Carlsbad in collaboration with the consultant Fehr & Peers developed a
spreadsheet-based tool as part of the MMLOS methodology to provide an automated method
of calculating points for a specified location.
Multimodal Level of Service Methodology Updates – Presented March 6, 2023
The following three sections provide an overview of the proposed updates presented at the
March 6, 2023 Traffic and Mobility Commission meeting.
Pedestrian MMLOS Methodology
The Pedestrian MMLOS scoring criteria was established so that a facility can meet the LOS D
standard if it can adequately serve people who walk and disabled users. Additionally, five criteria
were identified that support the City of Carlsbad’s Climate Action Plan goals. A facility segment
must fulfill the criteria indicated as essential features to be assigned a score commensurate with
LOS D. The scoring criteria include, but are not limited to the following:
Essential Features:
• Sidewalk width, condition, and ramps and landing consistent with the Americans with
Disabilities Act, or ADA
• Striped crosswalks are marked according to the California Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Design, or CA-MUTCD
• Adequate pedestrian crossing features are provided on roads with posted speed limits of
35 MPH or more
• High visibility crosswalks are provided on all legs of all
Other Features:
• Design consistent with the CA-MUTCD
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 4 of 62
5
• Street light locations
• Speed limit and number of through lanes
• Sidewalk buffer width from traffic
• Presence of a landscaped buffer
• Safety and speed control at crossings along the segment
• Presence of street tress.
Based on a review of the results and through the testing process staff is proposing the following
changes to the ad-hoc subcommittee’s recommended Pedestrian MMLOS methodology based
on the rationale provide for each feature in Table 3 below:
Table 3: Staff’s Proposed Changes to the Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria
Ad-Hoc Committee
Recommendation:
Proposed Staff Revision: Rationale for Revision:
Essential Feature: Striped
crosswalks are marked
according to CA-MUTCD
guidelines
Essential Feature: Striped
crosswalks, if existing, are
marked according to CA-
MUTCD guidelines
Marking of any new
crosswalks should be
evaluated based on
engineering analysis of
existing conditions.
Essential Features: For
roadways with 4 lane or
more and/or posted speed
35 or more, are the
pedestrian crossings: 1)
controlled (i.e., by a stop
sign, signal or roundabout) or
enhanced with an RRFB or
PHB, if warranted, and 2)
provided within 600 ft
spacing in at least one
direction from a pedestrian
access point to the
development (or at the next
adjacent public street
intersection if intersection
spacing exceeds 600 ft)?
Essential Features:
Applicable to Local Mobility
Analysis projects only. For
roadways with 4 lane or
more and/or posted speed
35 or more, are the
pedestrian crossings: 1)
controlled (i.e., by a stop
sign, signal or roundabout) or
enhanced with an RRFB or
PHB, if warranted, and 2)
provided within 600 ft
spacing in at least one
direction from a pedestrian
access point to the
development? (or at the next
adjacent public street
intersection if intersection
spacing exceeds 600 ft.) and
approved by the City Traffic
Engineer?
The requirement of any new
pedestrian crossing should be
reviewed and approved by
the City Traffic Engineer.
Placement of crosswalks
should be based on an
engineering evaluation
conducted to determine if a
marked crosswalk should be
installed at an uncontrolled
or mid-block location, and if
so, what visibility
enhancements should be
included in the design.
Typical factors which should
be considered when
installing new pedestrian
crossing features include:
Sufficient demand exists to
justify the installation of a
crosswalk. Sufficient sight
distance as measured by
stopping sight distance
calculations exists and/or
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 5 of 62
6
sight distance will be
improved prior to crosswalk
marking.
Essential Feature: High-
Visibility (striped) crosswalks
on all legs of all signalized
intersections where crossings
are permitted
Recommend deleting this
essential feature.
This essential feature is
addressed by the feature
provided in row 1 of this
table. High visibility marking
of crosswalks should not be
implemented
indiscriminately but
determined based on an
engineering evaluation of
existing conditions.
Bicycle MMLOS Methodology
The Bicycle LOS scoring criteria was established so that a facility can meet the LOS D standard if
it meets the expectations laid out in the Bike Master Plan. Similar to Pedestrian LOS, three
criteria were identified that support the CAP. A facility segment must fulfill a majority of these
criteria in order to be assigned a score of LOS D. The scoring criteria include:
Essential Features:
• Require a Class-I (Bike Path), Class-IV (Protected Bikeway), or buffered Class-II when the
posted speed limit is 35 MPH or above
• Bicycle facilities must be the CA-MUTD guidelines for signing and striping
• Free of infrastructure that obstructs a bicycle facility such as drainage grates or other
obstructions
• Class-II bike lanes shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width
• Class-II bike lanes provide a straight-through right of way or clear delineation of conflict
zones at intersections
Other Features:
• Roadway pavement conditions and presence of obstructions
• Design of bikeway consistent with the CA-MUTCD
• Presence of on street parking and parking type
• Speed limit
• Bicycle facility designation and consistency with the Bicycle Master Plan for the study
segment and intersecting segments
• Presence of bicycle detection
• Presence of bicycle racks.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 6 of 62
7
Staff does not propose any additional changes to the Bicycle MMLOS beyond those that were
identified by the TMC ad-hoc subcommittee.
Transit MMLOS Methodology
The Transit LOS scoring criteria was established so that a transit stop can meet the LOS D
standard if it provides reasonable amenities and transit frequency. A stop must include several
key transit stop amenities to be deemed consistent with the CAP. Similar to Pedestrian and
Bicycle LOS, three criteria were identified as essential features that support the City of
Carlsbad’s CAP and SMP. A facility segment must fulfill these three criteria to be assigned a
score commensurate with LOS D. If it fails to meet any of the essential features, the segment’s
score will be capped at LOS E. A partial list of all transit scoring criteria include, but are not
limited to the following:
Essential Features:
• If a project is greater than ¼ mile walk to the nearest transit stop a project will require a
TDM plan
• Pedestrian crossing features such as stop signs, traffic signals, Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFBs) or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons are provided on roads with posted speed
limits of 35 MPH or more
• Mid-block protected pedestrian crossings are provided if a project access point is greater
than 600 feet from the nearest pedestrian crossing
• Sidewalks are ADA-compliant between a project frontage and the nearest transit stop
within a ¼ mile
• Transit stops require a covered bus stop/shelter, bench, ADA accessible pad
• If transit service headways are less than or equal to 30 minutes in peak hours a project
shall be required to include a TDM plan
Other Features:
• Presence of transit stop amenities
• ADA compliant sidewalk connections to the stop
• Transit frequency and number and quality of routes serving the stop
Based on a review of the results and through the testing process staff is proposing the following
changes to the ad-hoc subcommittee’s recommended Transit MMLOS methodology based on
the rationale provide for each feature in Table 4 below. As in the table below, staff is
recommending that the required transit station amenities be consistent with North County
Transit District’s (NCTD) Bus Stop Development Handbook which are based on specific thresholds
for number of daily boardings at each stop location. The excerpt from the NCTD Bus Stop
Development Handbook which indicates the thresholds for daily boardings is provided in Exhibit
5.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 7 of 62
8
Table 4: Staff’s Proposed Changes to the Transit MMLOS Criteria
Ad-Hoc Committee
Recommendation:
Proposed Staff Revision: Rationale for Revision:
Essential Features: No
greater than 1/4 mile to the
nearest transit stop - rail and
bus
Recommend removal of the
essential feature
requirement for these three
(3) criteria
Transit routes and stop
locations are beyond the
control of the city of
Carlsbad. The added
requirement of a project
requiring a TDM plan should
be determined based on a
the city’s TDM ordinance
and/or Growth Management
Plan mitigation requirement.
Essential Features: No
greater than 1/4 mile to the
nearest transit stop - bus
only
Essential Features: No
greater than 1/2 mile to the
nearest transit stop
Essential Features: For
roadways with 4 lane or
more and/or posted speed
35 or more, are the
pedestrian crossings: 1)
controlled (i.e., by a stop
sign, signal or roundabout) or
enhanced with an RRFB or
PHB, if warranted, and 2)
provided within 600 ft
spacing in at least one
direction from a pedestrian
access point to the
development (or at the next
adjacent public street
intersection if intersection
spacing exceeds 600 ft)?
Essential Features: For
roadways with 4 lane or more
and/or posted speed 35 or
more, are the pedestrian
crossings: 1) controlled (i.e.,
by a stop sign, signal or
roundabout) or enhanced
with an RRFB or PHB, if
warranted, and approved by
the City Traffic Engineer?
The requirement of a
pedestrian crossing should be
reviewed and approved by
the City Traffic Engineer.
Placement of crosswalks
should be based on an
engineering evaluation
conducted to determine if a
marked crosswalk should be
installed at an uncontrolled
or mid-block location, and if
so, what visibility
enhancements should be
included in the design.
Typical factors which should
be considered when
installing new pedestrian
crossing features include:
Sufficient demand exists to
justify the installation of a
crosswalk. Sufficient sight
distance as measured by
stopping sight distance
calculations exists and/or
sight distance will be
improved prior to crosswalk
marking.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 8 of 62
9
Essential Features: Are
sidewalks or paths generally
ADA-compliant between the
project frontage and the
nearest transit stop within a
1/4-mile distance?
Essential Features: Are
sidewalks or paths generally
ADA-compliant between the
project frontage and the
nearest transit stop within a
1/4-mile distance?
Applicable to Local Mobility
Analysis projects only.
This criteria indicates a
distance from a proposed
project site and would be
applicable to Local Mobility
Analysis projects only.
Essential Features: Covered
bus stops/shelter
Essential Features: Covered
bus stops/shelter shall be
provided if sufficient right-of-
way exist and if the stop
location meets the NCTD
requirements for a shelter
stop (>20 daily boardings)
Staff recommends the
proposed revisions in order
to be consistent with the
requirements established by
North County Transit
District’s Bus Stop Guidelines
Essential Features: ADA
Accessible Pad
Essential Features: ADA
Accessible Pad if sufficient
right-of-way exist and if the
stop location meets the NCTD
requirements for a bench
stop (>10 daily boardings)
Additional Questions for LMA Only Project
Essential Features: Are
transit service headways less
than or equal to 30 minutes
between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-
6 pm on weekdays.
If no, then capped at LOS E
without TDM program
Recommend removal of both
criteria from the Transit LOS
methodology.
In order to meet the essential
feature requirement for both
criteria, a development
project would be required to
implement a TDM plan in
order to address the lack of
transit service to the project
area. Staff recommends
removing each of these
criteria as a project should
require a TDM based on the
city’s TDM ordinance and/or
Growth Management Plan
mitigation requirement.
Essential Features: For
developments with a
residential component, are
transit service headways less
than 60 minutes between
9:00 am and 5:00 pm on
weekends.
If no, the capped at LOS E
without a TDM plan that
includes access to vehicle-
based alternative
transportation.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 9 of 62
10
Multimodal Level of Service Methodology – Proposed Updates October 2023
As previously discussed, at the March 6, 2023 meeting, staff was directed to meet with the ad-
hoc committee again before coming back to the commission. Commissioner Penseyres,
Commissioner Kohl and Commissioner Newlands were assigned to be the committee members.
At the August 7, 2023 meeting, the ad-hoc committee was reduced to just include Commissioner
Penseyres and Commissioner Kohl.
Staff met with the ad-hoc committee on May 31, 2023 and August 23, 2023. In those meetings
staff discussed the proposed revisions in detail. The ad-hoc committee members agreed with all
the proposed revisions to the methodology that were presented on March 6, 2023, but did
recommend the two following changes to the MMLOS methodology.
• Bicycle MMLOS – Recommended changes to the essential feature “If class II bicycle lanes
exists, are lanes a minimum width of 5 ft” to be “If class II bicycle lanes exists, are lanes a
minimum width of 5 ft excluding gutter pan”
• Pedestrian and Transit MMLOS – Both commissioners recommended removal of RRFB’s
as crossing devices.
For the two proposed changes, the table below summarizes staffs recommendations.
Ad-Hoc Committee
Recommendation:
Proposed Staff Revision: Rationale for Revision:
Bicycle MMLOS - Essential
Feature: If class II bicycle
lanes exists, are lanes a
minimum width of 5 ft
excluding gutter pan
If class II bicycle lanes exist,
the minimum bike lane width
should be 6 ft..
Staff recognizes the
importance of have an
appropriate rideable surface
width within the bike lane
when next to a gutter pan or
other longitudinal
obstruction however this
revision will provide for an
easier method to measure
the minimum bike lane
width. It will also allow for a
sufficient ridable width even
with the presence of a gutter
pan.
For roadways with 4 lane or
more and/or posted speed
35 or more, are the
pedestrian crossings: 1)
controlled (i.e., by a stop
sign, signal or roundabout) or
enhanced with an RRFB or
PHB, if warranted, and 2)
provided within 600 ft
For roadways with 4 lane or
more and/or posted speed
35 or more, are the
pedestrian crossings: 1)
controlled (i.e., by a stop
sign, signal or roundabout) or
enhanced with an RRFB or
PHB, if warranted, and 2)
provided within 600 ft
Staff recommends keeping
the option of an RRFB to
enhance pedestrian crossings
along roadways.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 10 of 62
11
spacing in at least one
direction from a pedestrian
access point to the
development (or at the next
adjacent public street
intersection if intersection
spacing exceeds 600 ft)?
spacing in at least one
direction from a pedestrian
access point to the
development (or at the next
adjacent public street
intersection if intersection
spacing exceeds 600 ft)?
Next Steps
Based on feedback from the Traffic and Mobility Commission, staff will update the MMLOS
methodology and results based on the recommended revisions and utilize the tool for both
Growth Management Plan Monitoring and for Local Mobility Analysis for private development
projects. The updated findings of this analysis will be presented to the Traffic & Mobility
Commission and included in the Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report for fiscal year
2022-23. Staff will reassess the tool in 2024 after applying the updated methodology citywide for
the Annual Growth Management Monitoring Report and bring any proposed changes back to the
Traffic and Mobility Commission.
Exhibits
1. General Plan Mobility Element Livable Streets Network
2. Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) Methodology White Paper & Technical Memorandum
3. Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) 2022 Monitoring Results
4. Results with staff’s proposed revisions for Pedestrian and Transit LOS
5. Excerpt from the NCTD Bus Stop Development Handbook
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 11 of 62
3-17
OCEANSIDE
SAN MARCOS
ENCINITAS
78
M
E
L
R
O
S
E
D
R
A L G A R D
RA N C H OSANTA
FE
RD
L A C O S T A AVE
E
L
C
A
M
INO
R
E
A
L
LA COS TA AVE
S
A
N
D
IE
G
O
N
O
R
T
H
ER
N
R
R
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
V
D
P OI N S E T TI A LN
PALOMA R A IR P O RT RD
CAMIN O VIDA R OBLE
AVIARA
PK
W
Y
P O I N S E T T I A LN
PA LOMAR AIRPORT RD
F ARA
D
A
Y
AVE
EL
CAMINO
REAL
CA N N ON R DTAMARACKAVE
E
L
C
A
MI
N
O
R
E
A
L
T A M ARACKAVE
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
B
L
V
D
M A RRON R D
C A R LS B A D VILLAGE D R
CANNON RD
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
L
V
D
78
CA
M
IN
O
JUN
I
P
E
RO
City of
Oceanside
City of
Vista
City of
San Marcos
City of
Encinitas
Batiqu it os Lago o n
MCCLELLAN
-PALOMARAIRPORT
Agua
Hedionda Lagoon
Buena Vista
Lagoon CalaveraLake
Maerkle
Reservoir
P a c i f i c
O c e a n
City of
Oceanside
Highways
Railroad
Transit Centers
Half Mile Radius
City Limits
0 1 20.5
Miles
Source: City of Carlsbad, 2013; SANDAG, 2013; Fehr & Peers, 2013;
Dyett & Bhatia, 2013.
Freeway
Arterial Streets
Identity Streets
Village Streets
Arterial Connector Streets
Neighborhood Connector Streets
Coastal Streets
School Streets
Employment/Transit Connector Streets
Industrial Streets
Local/Neighborhood Street
Figure 3-1
Street System Map
GENERAL PLAN
500 ACRES
100ACRES
Planned Arterial Streets
Planned Arterial Connector Streets
Planned Local/Neighborhood Streets
Figure 3-1: Street System
Exhibit 1
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 12 of 62
Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) Methodology White Paper & Technical Memorandum
January 9, 2022
Exhibit 2
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 13 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 2 of 23
2
1. Background
In 2010, the City of Carlsbad (“City”) contracted Fehr & Peers to prepare the General Plan Mobility
Element. This document was designed to meet the California Complete Streets Act (Assembly Bill
1358). Specifically, the Mobility Element was developed to “include a complete streets1 approach
that balances the needs of all users of the street, including motorists, pedestrians, bicycles,
children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public
transportation.” The Mobility Element established a “multi-modal level of service (MMLOS)
methodology for Carlsbad that determines the vehicle level of service by the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) and evaluates the service levels for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users”
(Mobility Element, updated September 2015). The HCM, last updated in 2022, is the industry
standard for roadway analysis and is published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). The
Mobility Element evaluation methodology for active and transit modes used a customized
approach that considered modes based on roadway typologies included in the Mobility Element
and identified deficiencies in the existing active and transit network and services that could be
improved by the City.
When the City’s MMLOS methodology was originally being developed in 2010, the transportation
industry was still developing complete street strategies and used a variety of methodologies to
evaluate effectiveness and quantify multimodal operations. The Mobility Element identified
several jurisdictions with existing approaches to quantifying MMLOS. The jurisdictions considered
included the City of Fort Collins, and the State of Florida. It also referenced the Pedestrian
Environmental Quality Index (PEQI) and the Bicycle Environmental Quality Index (BEQI), both
developed in the San Francisco area to evaluate streetscape improvements. Finally, the Mobility
Element considered the national MMLOS guidelines published in the 2010 HCM by the
Transportation Research Board (TRB) for cities to develop MMLOS methodologies. Carlsbad’s
Mobility Element defined MMLOS approaches for auto, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit.
At the time the Mobility Element was being developed, the HCM MMLOS methodology was not
conducive to the analysis of citywide active transportation and transit networks, due in part to the
large amount of detailed data required to analyze facilities supporting these modes. The effort to
collect and process this data rendered application of the HCM methodologies cost-prohibitive.
Additionally, the HCM primarily considers the ability of a facility to serve the expected throughput
or volume of users and does not consider the pedestrian or bicyclist experience or amenities that
1 The terms “livable streets” and “complete streets” were used interchangeably in the Mobility
Element.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 14 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 3 of 23
3
may affect active transportation. Finally, the HCM MMLOS methodology included factors that
were outside of the control of the City and did not align with the desire of the City to consider
factors that the City would have the ability to improve if necessary. City staff recognized the
shortcomings of the HCM methodology to evaluate both private development projects and for
citywide monitoring purposes and determined that it would be prudent to create a customized
methodology that not only incorporated principles of current best practices, but also
incorporated Climate Action Plan (CAP) and Sustainable Mobility Plan (SMP) goals and considered
the role that user experience has in encouraging pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facility use. The
remainder of this report describes the approach to calculating LOS for each of the applicable
travel modes and how the MMLOS methodology has evolved.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 15 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 4 of 23
4
2. MMLOS Overview
Carlsbad has implemented a MMLOS methodology that reflects the quality of service a user
experiences as opposed to measuring the demand on a given facility against its capacity. The
MMLOS approach developed for Carlsbad is based on a point system related to the adherence of
a facility’s design to current best practices and industry standards, as well as the amenities
available to the user of that facility. This approach was based on available best practices at the
time of development, including elements used in the PEQI for evaluating sidewalks and paths, the
BEQI for evaluating bikeways and the MMLOS methodologies used in the City of Fort Collins and
the State of Florida. Using guidance from these methodologies, the City of Carlsbad created a
methodology which was validated to local conditions, design guidelines, and correlates the
expectations of travelers and the City to a minimum quality level for each facility type.
Pedestrian LOS
The Pedestrian LOS scoring criteria was established so that a facility can meet the LOS D standard
if it can adequately serve people who walk, as well as disabled users who may use devices to
assist with travel. Additionally, six criteria were identified as essential features that support the
City of Carlsbad’s CAP and SMP goals. A facility segment must fulfill these six criteria to be
assigned a score commensurate with LOS D or better. If it fails to meet any of the essential
features, the segment’s score will be capped at LOS E. A partial list of all pedestrian scoring
criteria includes, but is not limited to the following elements:
• Design consistent with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Design (MUTCD)
• Sidewalk width, condition, and ramps and landing consistent with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA)
• Street light spacing consistent with the City’s Engineering Standard
• Speed limit and number of through lanes on the adjacent street
• Sidewalk buffer width from traffic
• Presence of a landscaped buffer
• Safety and speed control at street crossings and along the segment
• Presence of street trees.
Bicycle LOS
The Bicycle LOS scoring criteria was established so that a facility can meet the LOS D standard if it
meets the expectations laid out in the SMP. Similar to Pedestrian LOS, five criteria were identified
as essential features that support the City of Carlsbad’s CAP and SMP. A facility segment must
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 16 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 5 of 23
5
fulfill these five criteria to be assigned a score commensurate with LOS D. If it fails to meet any of
the essential features, the segment’s score will be capped at LOS E. A partial list of all bicycle
scoring criteria includes:
• Roadway pavement conditions and presence of obstructions
• Design of bikeway consistent with the MUTCD
• Presence of on street parking and parking type
• Speed limit
• Bicycle facility designation and consistency with the SMP for the study segment and
intersecting segments
• Street light spacing consistent with the City’s Engineering Standard.
Transit LOS
The Transit LOS scoring criteria was established so that a transit stop can meet the LOS D
standard if it provides reasonable amenities and transit frequency. A stop must include several
key transit stop amenities to be deemed consistent with the CAP. Similar to Pedestrian and Bicycle
LOS, three criteria were identified as essential features that support the City of Carlsbad’s CAP and
SMP. A facility segment must fulfill these three criteria to be assigned a score commensurate with
LOS D. If it fails to meet any of the essential features, the segment’s score will be capped at LOS E.
A partial list of all transit scoring criteria include, but are not limited to the following:
• Presence of transit stop amenities
• ADA compliant sidewalk connections to the stop
• Transit frequency and number and quality of routes serving the stop
• Presence of controlled crosswalk if applicable
• Provision of a TDM program that provides vehicle-based options in areas without frequent
transit service.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 17 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 6 of 23
6
3. MMLOS Changes
We gathered stakeholder feedback on the MMLOS tool through 2021 and 2022 through virtual
meetings with City of Carlsbad staff members from Community Development, Streets & Traffic,
Traffic and Mobility Commission (TMC), and other members designated by City staff. The MMLOS
methodology and tool interface were updated as a result of the recommendations from
stakeholders.
All elements of the tool were updated including the Page Zero and Glossary tabs as necessary.
We also performed multiple validation and quality control checks on the tool to ensure that the
updated tool is functioning properly and provides reasonable estimates of MMLOS results. The
final changes incorporated in the tool are summarized below in Table 1 through Table 3.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 18 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 7 of 23
7
Table 1– Pedestrian MMLOS Criteria Changes
Category
Revised Original
Changes Criterion Points LOS Cap Criterion Points
Accessibility and functionality
* Essential Features: Sidewalk or path meets ADA unobstructed width based on Sustainable Mobility Plan (SMP) recommendations (Minimum recommended unobstructed width based on SMP is 5')
- E * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 Points eliminated for all essential features.
Sidewalk unobstructed width meets minimum width for typology according to the General Plan (or 5' if unspecified)1 5 D
* Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 5' if unspecified)
10
Word "Unobstructed" added to the criterion. Eliminated as an essential feature and point value adjusted through re-validation process. Sidewalk unobstructed width exceeds minimum width for typology according to the General Plan (or more than 5' if unspecified)1
5 - Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified) 5
Minimum sidewalk width has updated and the word "Unobstructed" added to the criterion.
Sidewalk unobstructed width meets recommended width for typology according to the General Plan (or 8' if unspecified) 5 - Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 10
Word "Unobstructed" added to the criterion and point value adjusted through re-validation process.
* Essential Features: Ramps and landings at intersection meet ADA requirements - E * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Ramps and landings within segment meet ADA requirements 10 Points eliminated for all essential features.
* Essential Features: Sidewalk segments meet ADA requirements (ramps, cross-slope, and trip hazards) - E * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk segments meet ADA requirements (cross-slope and trip hazards) 10 Points eliminated for all essential features.
Street characteristics 3 lanes or less, including turn lanes, to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 5 - 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 Point value adjusted through re-validation process.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 19 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 8 of 23
8
Category
Revised Original
Changes Criterion Points LOS Cap Criterion Points
On-street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 - On-street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 No change
Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 3 - Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 5 Point value adjusted through re-validation process. Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 7 - Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way 10 Point value adjusted through re-validation process.
Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 - Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 No change
Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 - Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 No change
No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings 5 - No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings 5 No change
Permanent speed control devices installed on segments posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 5 - Permanent speed control devices installed on segments posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer 5 No change
Crossing characteristics
* Essential Features: Striped crosswalks are marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines - E * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Crosswalks are marked according to CA MUTCD guidelines 10 Text changed to include all potential crosswalk locations and/or markings * Essential Features: For roadways with 4 lane or more and/or posted speed 35 or more, are the pedestrian crossings: 1) controlled (i.e., by a stop sign, signal or roundabout) or enhanced with an RRFB or PHB, if warranted, and 2) provided within 600 ft spacing in at least one direction from a pedestrian access point to the development (or at the next adjacent public street intersection if intersection spacing exceeds 600 ft)?
- E - -
Added as an essential feature to improve pedestrian network connectivity and accessibility and also improve safety on high-speed segments.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 20 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 9 of 23
9
Category
Revised Original
Changes Criterion Points LOS Cap Criterion Points
* Essential Features: High-visibility (striped) crosswalks on all legs of all signalized intersections where crossings are permitted - E Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the CA MUTCD) 5 Classified as an essential feature to improve pedestrian on crosswalk.
Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island) 7 - Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island) 10 Point value adjusted through re-validation process.
Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian-friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown heads, signage, etc.)
5 -
Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian-friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown heads, signage, etc.)
10 Point value adjusted through re-validation process.
RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 - RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted 5 No change
Other Elements
street lighting locations consistent with City of Carlsbad standards for street light spacing? 5 - * Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light locations appear adequate 10
Street light spacing should be reviewed according to the new developed City's Engineering Standards. Eliminated as an Essential Feature and point value adjusted through re-validation process
Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational spaces) 5 -
Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational spaces)
5 No change
Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk length 5 - Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk length 5 No change
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 21 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 10 of 23
10
Category
Revised Original
Changes Criterion Points LOS Cap Criterion Points
Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 - Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 No change
Pedestrian scale lighting 5 - Pedestrian scale lighting 5 No change
Are directional pedestrian ramps provided? 5 - - -
Criterion added to encourage the use of direction ramps to enhance pedestrian safety and directness of travel for people who walk
1 If sidewalk width exceeds the minimum requirement, no additional points will be given for meeting the minimum sidewalk width.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 22 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 11 of 23
11
Table 2 – Bicycle MMLOS Criteria Changes
Category
Revised Original
Criterion Points LOS Cap Criterion Points Change
Street Characteristics
Speed limit is ≤ 25 mph 20 - Speed limit is ≤ 25 mph 25 Point value adjusted through re-validation process.
Speed limit is 30 mph 15 - Speed limit is 30 mph 15 No change
Speed limit is 35 mph 5 - Speed limit is 35 mph 10 Point value adjusted through re-validation process.
* Essential Features: Speed limit >= 35 and no class I, buffered II, or IV - E - -
Added as an essential features to make sure a protected bike facility is provided on high-speed segments.
Street with ADT < 3,000 10 - Street with ADT < 3,000 15 Point value adjusted through re-validation process.
- - - Street with ADT between 3,000 and 6,000 10
Deleted. Segments with ADT more than 3,000 does not provide a safe and comfortable space for bike users, so should not get any score.
Facility
Class I facility (off-street path, multiuse path) or Class IV (cycle track)? 25 - Class I facility (off-street path), Class IV (cycle track), or multiuse path 25 No change
Class II exist? 5 - Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on-street bicycle lanes) 15
Question split into two questions. 1) if Class II is available, 2) Minimum width of Class II bike lane (see Class II Bike Lane only questions below) Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only) 0 - Class III facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only) 5 Point value adjusted through re-validation process.
Connectivity/ Contiguity Bikeway meets or exceeds the SMP for designated facilities on the segment only 10 - Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 25 Point value adjusted through re-validation process.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 23 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 12 of 23
12
Category
Revised Original
Criterion Points LOS Cap Criterion Points Change
Bikeway Design
Bikeway meets or exceeds the SMP for designated facilities on side streets only 5 - Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master Plan along segment 5 No change
Bikeway meets or exceeds the SMP for designated facilities along both the segment and side streets 15 - Bikeway meets or exceeds the SMP for designated facilities along both the segment and side streets 20 Point value adjusted through re-validation process.
* Essential Features: Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet CA MUTCD guidelines for designated facilities - E * Essential Features: Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet design guidelines D 10 Points eliminated for all essential features.
* Essential Features: Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes) - E * Essential Features: Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes) 10 Points eliminated for all essential features.
* Essential Features: Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates) - E * Essential Features: Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates) 5 Points eliminated for all essential features.
Adjacent Vehicle Parking
No on-street parking and speed limit is 25 or 30 mph 5 - No on-street parking and speed limit is 25 or 30 mph 5 No change
Back-in angled parking 5 - Back-in angled parking 5 No change
On streets with parallel parking provide a minimum 2’ door-side buffer at Class-II bike lanes or sharrows signage and sharrows/BMUFL installed?
5 - Parallel parking with door-side buffered bike lane 5 Changed to emphasize the importance of minimum door-side buffer width.
Other Elements
Are the street lighting locations consistent with City of Carlsbad standards for street light spacing? 5 - - -
Street light spacing should be reviewed according to the new developed City's Engineering Standards
- - - Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at intersections 5
Deleted per City's request. Bike detection will be addressed through the citywide traffic signal program
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 24 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 13 of 23
13
Category
Revised Original
Criterion Points LOS Cap Criterion Points Change
- - - Bicycle racks are provided along segment 5 Deleted per City's request. It is not a contributing factor to bike users comfort level.
Class II Bike lane only features
Class II Bike lane only features
* Essential Features: If Class II Bicycle lanes exists, are lanes a minimum width of 5 ft.? - E Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on-street bicycle lanes) 15
Question split into two questions. 1)if Class II is available, (see above) 2) Minimum width of Class II bike lane.
Bike lane (including buffer) is at least 8' wide from face of curb 10 - Bike lane (including buffer) is at least 8' wide from face of curb 10 No change
Class-II Bike Facility Provided: 7+ Ft.1 7 - - - New criteria added because bike lanes with greater width provide more comfort for bike users. Class-II Bike Facility Provided: 6 Ft.1 5 - - -
Is there a painted buffer between all vehicle and Class II bicycle lanes with CA MUTCD-recommended striping. 5 - Bike lane buffer (2' min) is provided 5 Changed to make sure the buffer lane is striped according to design standards.
* Essential Features: Do all Class-II bicycle lanes provide bicyclists with straight-through right of way or clear delineation of conflict zones at intersections?
- E
Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes or driveways
5
Wording of question changed for clarity. Added as a new essential features to make sure a bike lane connectivity is provided along the segment.
Class III Bike Facility only features
Facility Additional traffic calming/speed management features have been applied to Class III facility (i.e. a bike boulevard) 10 -
Additional traffic calming/speed management features have been applied to Class III facility (i.e. a bike boulevard)
10 No change
1 If the total width of bike lane and buffer is more than 8', no additional points will be given for these two questions.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 25 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 14 of 23
14
Table 3 – Transit MMLOS Criteria Changes
Category Revised Original
Criterion Points LOS Cap Criterion Points Change
Access
* Essential Features: No greater than 1/4 mile to the nearest transit stop - rail and bus
-
if no bus stops within 1/2 mi of the project site cap at E. For LMA projects: if no bus stops within 1/2 mi of the project site cap at E without a TDM plan
- - LOS cap was added to ensure access to transit service is provided within a reasonable walking distance (i.e., 1/2-mile) of a proposed development or analysis segment.
* Essential Features: No greater than 1/4 mile to the nearest transit stop - bus only
* Essential Features: No greater than 1/2 mile to the nearest transit stop No greater than 1/2 mile walk to the nearest transit stop
30 (rail/bus) 20 (bus)
No greater than 1 mile to the nearest transit stop 5 - No greater than 1 mile bicycle ride to the nearest transit stop 5 1 mile bike ride changed to 1 mile distance * Essential Features: For roadways with 4 lanes or more and/or posted speed 35 or more, are the pedestrian crossings to a transit stop on the other side of the street: 1) controlled (i.e., by a stop sign, signal or roundabout) or enhanced with an RRFB or PHB, if warranted, and 2) provided at 600 ft spacing in at least one direction from the ped access point at the development (or at the next adjacent public street intersection if intersection spacing exceeds 600 ft)?
- E - -
Added to improve pedestrian network connectivity and accessibility to transit facilities and also improve safety on high-speed segments.
* Essential Features: for road <= 3 lanes: If it is more than 600 feet from a pedestrian access point to the nearest pedestrian crossing, has an engineering
- E - -
For low-speed segments check enough crossing is provided to access the transit facilities on the other side of the road.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 26 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 15 of 23
15
Category Revised Original
Criterion Points LOS Cap Criterion Points Change
study for a mid-block crossing been conducted?
* Essential Features: Are sidewalks or paths generally ADA-compliant between the project frontage and the nearest transit stop within a 1/4 mile distance?
- E ADA compliant sidewalk or path to transit stops in both directions 15
To clarify this question for the user, the maximum distance (1/4 mile) between a development to the closest transit stop is specified.
Connectivity
Multiple transit routes stop on segment 10 - Multiple transit routes stop on segment 10 No change
Bus route provides a direct link to a COASTER station or mobility hub 15 - Route provides a direct link to a COASTER station or mobility hub 15 No change
- - - Route provides for a single transfer to reach a COASTER station or mobility hub 5
Deleted. This is similar to the question above. and it is deleted to avoid getting credit to a development for both questions.
Transit priority Dedicated right of way 5 - Dedicated right of way 5 No change
Transit priority during peak hours 5 - Transit priority during peak hours 5 No change
Service
Non-LMA only: At least one route has Headways of 15 minutes between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm on weekdays 20 - Headways of 15 minutes between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm on weekdays 15 Point value adjusted through re-validation process.
Non-LMA only: Headways of 30 minutes between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm on weekdays 10 - Headways of 30 minutes between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm on weekdays 5 Point value adjusted through re-validation process.
Non-LMA only: Headways of 1 hour between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm on weekdays 5 - Headways of 1 hour between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm on weekdays 2 Point value adjusted through re-validation process.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 27 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 16 of 23
16
Category Revised Original
Criterion Points LOS Cap Criterion Points Change
Commute shuttle service provided during the morning and afternoon commute periods 10 - Commute shuttle service provided during the morning and afternoon commute periods 10 No change
Non-LMA only: No more than 1 hour headways between 9 am and 5 pm on weekends 5 - No more than 1 hour headways between 9 am and 5 pm on weekends 5 No change
Amenities
Are essential amenities available at all of transit stops see below
-
* Essential Features: Transit stop amenities available: -
Some important amenities changed to essential and if not met, LOS caps at E.
* Essential Features: Covered bus stops/shelter - Covered bus stops 5
* Essential Features: Bench - Bench 10
* Essential Features: ADA Accessible Pad - - -
Well-lit stop that provides a sense of security 5 - Well-lit stop that provides a sense of security 5
Trash receptacle 2 - Trash cans 2
- - - Bus stop located within a block of commercial services 5
Bicycle Accommodations
Bike parking available at the bus stop 5 - Bike parking available at the bus stop 5 No change
Is the bus stop within 1/4 of a bike repair shop or publicly accessible bike repair station? 5 - Bus stop within 1/4 mile of a bike repair shop 5 No change
No Transit Stop Located Within 1/2 Mile Walk from Subject Site or Roadway Segment
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies
- - - Complies with approved TDM program 90 deleted
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 28 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 17 of 23
17
Category Revised Original
Criterion Points LOS Cap Criterion Points Change
Available Mobility Services
- - -
Area governed by an adopted TDM ordinance that will promote ridesharing and/or the use of non-auto modes
60 deleted
- - - On demand rideshare services available 60 deleted
- - - Segment within FLEX service area 60 deleted
Additional Questions for LMA Only Project
Local Mobility Analysis
* Essential Features: Are transit service headways less than or equal to 30 minutes between 6:30-8:30 am and 4-6 pm on weekdays:
-
if no, then capped at LOS E without TDM program
- - LOS cap was added.
* Essential Features: For developments with a residential component, are transit service headways less than 60 minutes between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm on weekends:
-
If no, the capped at LOS E without a TDM plan that includes access to vehicle-based alternative transportation
- - LOS cap was added.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 29 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 18 of 23
18
4. Examples of Multimodal
Methodologies and Tools
The transportation industry generally follows the HCM for automobile LOS analysis. However, the
HCM is not as widely used for evaluating other modes of transportation. This is due to the
shortcomings of the HCM methodology discussed in Section 1, and primarily due to agency staff
and facility users’ desire to meet the city's goals related to active transportation design and to
consider the quality of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities based on user comfort. Many
jurisdictions do not formally calculate a LOS for non-automobile facilities, and they do not employ
minimum operating standards for transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. However, several
public agencies have recognized the value in quantifying operations of multimodal facilities and
services as a means of justifying capital expenditures for constructing new facilities, as well as
requiring the implementation of these facilities as part of new development. Most importantly,
this approach provides a more transparent process for the public to understand investment
decisions related to mobility infrastructure. The following three jurisdictions have developed a
custom methodology to analyze the quality of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in a way
that reflects user comfort and also reflects each jurisdiction’s unique values and planning context.
City of Aspen
In 2013, the City of Aspen developed a MMLOS toolkit which was used throughout Aspen to
analyze pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. This toolkit provided a variable number of points
to each facility depending on the answer to questions regarding the following design features:
• Pedestrian Facilities
o Sidewalk condition
o Pedestrian routes
o Driveways, parking, and access considerations
o Traffic calming and pedestrian network
• Bicycle Facilities
o Modifications to existing bicycle paths
o Bicycle parking
• Transit Facilities
o Basic transit stop amenities
o Enhanced amenities
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 30 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 19 of 23
19
This methodology will be used primarily by developers to determine what improvements are
needed on each roadway providing access to their project site.
The Aspen MMLOS toolkit is currently being updated and will be released by the end of this year.
The updates include an additional of new infrastructure components and some point changes.
City of Boulder
In 2019, the City of Boulder published the Boulder Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan which
includes a methodology for evaluating both pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout Boulder.
The pedestrian facility evaluation considers pedestrian level of traffic stress (LTS) and the network
on which pedestrians can access destinations within a 15-minute walk. The scoring scale for this
methodology is based on a scale of LTS 1 to 4 where LTS 1 is the lowest stress or most
comfortable facility and LTS 4 is the least comfortable facility. This methodology includes the
following considerations:
• Segment level of comfort
o Presence of sidewalk and proximity to vehicle travel paths
o Number of travel lanes
o Presence of a center median
o Posted speed limit
o Presence and frequency of commercial driveway curb cuts
• Crossing level of comfort
o Intersection control
o Traffic control device
o Marking presence
o Intersection posted speed limit (if different from segment posted speed limit)
o Crossing distance
This document also included the following recommendations to the City of Boulder to add
additional criteria to the evaluation methodology as additional data becomes available. The
additional suggested data is as follows:
• Median width
• Pedestrian-scale lighting
• Sidewalk condition
• Traffic volumes
• Turn lanes
• Leading pedestrian intervals and signal timing
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 31 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 20 of 23
20
• Turning operations
• Turning speed and travel speed
• Geometric design elements
The bicycle facility evaluation considers a bicycle vision network and includes a facility type
selection tool that recommends improvements given the following criteria:
• Posted speed limit
• Average daily traffic (ADT)
• Number of lanes
These methodologies were developed based on national research and best practices from
Mekuria, Furth, and Nixon’s Level of Traffic Stress methodology (2012), National Association of
City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Streets Design Guide and the American Association
of State Highway and Transportations Officials (AASHTO).
County of Montgomery
The County of Montgomery in Virginia is currently poised to adopt updates to their Local Area
Transportation Review (LATR) process to incorporate Vision Zero. The current LATR process
includes review of vehicular, bicycle, and transit facilities. The methodologies used for each are as
follows:
• Vehicular Evaluation: LOS
• Bicycle Facility Evaluation: Level of Traffic Stress accessibility
• Transit Facility Evaluation: LOS / Transit Capacity and the Quality of Service Manual
The current update will change some of the evaluation methods to be similar to those used in the
City of Carlsbad. The proposed updated methodologies are as follows:
• Vehicular Evaluation: Focus on crash mitigation over roadway capacity improvements
• Bicycle Facility Evaluation: Level of Traffic Stress accessibility
• Transit Facility Evaluation: LOS / Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual and
pedestrian LTS analysis from the project site to all nearby transit stops
• Pedestrian Facility Evaluation: Pedestrian Level of Comfort (similar to LTS) accessibility
analysis
Additionally, Montgomery County is considering a change in General Plan metrics to person
throughput for both passenger vehicle and transit modes on a corridor level.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 32 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 21 of 23
21
City and County of Honolulu
City and County of Honolulu Department of Transportation Services (DTS) published
Transportation Impact Assessment Guide (DTS TIA Guide) in 2020. This guideline includes the
level of service analysis for all modes including auto, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit.
DTS’s TIA guideline recommends using the most current version of the PEQI for pedestrian LOS
analysis. PEQI measures 36 indicators across six categories: including intersection safety, traffic,
street design, land use, perceptions of safety, and perceptions of walkability. Each indicator is
assigned a weighted score and added together to generate a total score for a segment or an
intersection. Then, a comfort rating from one to four is assigned to each PEQI score range
representing relative pedestrian comfort.
The Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis for bicycles should be evaluated using the City-specific
LTS tool. The bicycle LTS tool evaluates bicycling conditions using four (4) metrics including traffic
volumes, vehicle speeds, type of bicycle infrastructure, and roadway design. An LTS rating from
one (1) to four (4) is assigned to each study segment or intersection representing the level of
comfort for bicyclists.
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM) is a tool to evaluate transit LOS
recommended by the DTS TIA Guidelines. The TCQSM tool evaluates transit operations, transit
amenities, and pedestrian environment; and assigns a score to each study segment by direction. A
rating from one (1) to four (4) is assigned to each segment representing relative transit
operations/comfort.
The performance of all modes should be compared to target scores which vary by street type
throughout the City and County of Honolulu. Targets are based on the priorities for the study
segments. For instance, automobile traffic and transit services are prioritized on expressways,
boulevards, and parkways where traffic speeds and volumes are higher, while pedestrian and
bicycle comfort scores are prioritized on streets, shared streets and mews (pedestrian malls). The
study segments need to be evaluated and presented in a diagram that includes a target score, an
existing score, and a design concept score (if applicable) as shown in the example below. A
segment is performing well if the existing rating is lower or equal to the target score.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 33 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 22 of 23
22
Example Diagram for a rural road: Auto, ped, bike, and transit are priority modes
on a rural roadway.
Highest Comfort
Level
Lowest Comfort Level
Transit
Ped
Bike
Auto
Street Priority
Existing Conditions Rating
Design Concept Rating
Rural Road
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 34 of 62
Nathan Schmidt January 9, 2022 Page 23 of 23
23
5. Conclusion
Consistent with best practices employed in other communities across the country, and to
quantitatively evaluate multimodal facilities for purposes of monitoring, the City developed a
customized MMLOS methodology for pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities and services. This
practice incorporates the innovative approach to evaluating mobility in support of livable streets
and implementation of the CAP and SMP. The MMLOS tool provides a cost-effective and locally
validated method of determining deficiencies in the non-automobile transportation network
based on easily obtained quantitative information. Analyses can be performed by both City staff
and developer consultants to ultimately ensure compliance with the Growth Management
Program (GMP) monitoring efforts.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 35 of 62
Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS)
2022 Monitoring Results
Coastal, Village, Identity, School Streets
January 25, 2023
Prepared by:
Exhibit 3
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 36 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
2
1. Introduction
Consistent with the General Plan and Sustainable
Mobility Plan (SMP), the City of Carlsbad has
established a process for evaluating transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian Multimodal Level of
Service (MMLOS) on all applicable city streets.
The MMLOS methodology and tool provide a
means for evaluating the impacts of individual
development projects, as well as monitoring the
LOS for individual streets to ensure that they are
meeting the specified minimum operating
standard by street type. The MMLOS tool
provides results of LOS A (the best) through F (the
worst) for transit and active transportation modes
and helps the City to identify where additional improvements are required to meet the minimum operating
standard of LOS D.
This document presents the MMLOS monitoring process for a subset of the City street typologies including
Identity Streets, Village Streets, Coastal Streets, and School Streets. All four roadway typologies require that
Pedestrian or Bicycle LOS be analyzed per the City’s General Plan. A few sample segments where Transit
LOS analysis is required within the Industrial, Employment/Transit Connector, and Arterial Street typologies
were also selected and tested using the updated 2022 tool.
Initially, the tool was developed in July 2018 and later updated in 2019. After two years, the project team
was requested to further refine the MMLOS tool based on comments provided by Traffic Mobility
Commission (TMC) members and City staff to provide more reasonable and intuitive results for all modes.
One of the major changes is that new “capping” criteria for essential features (and a few non-essential
features) were introduced into the tool for all modes so that if selected criteria are not met, the total score
will be capped at a specified LOS grade.
This report presents the analysis results of the four roadway typologies noted above for Pedestrian and
Bicycle LOS (plus a few segments for testing the Transit tool) with the following total street segment lengths:
• Identity Streets: 4.4 miles (2.2 miles in each direction)
• Village Streets: 19.0 miles (9.5 miles in each direction)
• Coastal Streets: 10.0 miles (5.0 miles in each direction)
An example of a high-quality pedestrian intersection.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 37 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
3
• School Streets: 25.6 miles (12.8 miles in each direction)
• Industrial Streets: 2.8 miles (1.4 miles in each direction)
• Employment/Transit Connector Streets: 9.0 miles (4.5 miles in each direction)
• Arterial Streets: 11.4 miles (5.7 miles in each direction)
Overall, a total of 41.1 miles of City of Carlsbad roadways were analyzed using the newly revised December
2022 MMLOS methodology. This document provides the detailed results of this analysis for all study
segments and identifies those street segments where either the Bicycle, Pedestrian, or Transit LOS is
currently deficient (LOS E or F).
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 38 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
4
2. Data Collection and Analysis Methodology
Utilizing the methodology outlined in the July 2018
Methodology report with the updates listed in Section 1,
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities on both sides of the
roadway were initially analyzed using (1) an initial desktop
review using Google Earth, and (2) a subsequent field visit to
each study location to verify the desktop review in 2019.
In 2022, previous data collected in 2019 was reviewed and
updated once more based on newer versions of data
provided by the City or collected through Google Earth.
Information on existing streetlight locations, roadway typologies within the City, existing sidewalk locations
and width, and bicycle facility designations were obtained from the City’s draft Sustainable Mobility Plan
(SMP), 2020. Speed limit information was provided by the City of Carlsbad. The accessibility and safety
requirements for crosswalks, ramps, landings, and bike facility signing and striping were evaluated with the
most recent guidelines including City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards (2022), Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), and Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) guidelines (CA Edition).
Daily segment volumes were collected as part of the previous effort in 2019. The 2022 Average Daily Trafffic
(ADT) were obtained by applying a one percent (1%) annual growth rate to 2019 volumes. The one percent
(1%) growth rate was obtained from 2015 Traffic Monitoring Program. Transit segments attributes were
collected using Google Earth and data from the public transit agency, North County Transit District, that
provides transit services in the city. All other attributes were collected using Google Earth and field
observation verification.
The information gathered was inputted into Geographic Information Software (GIS) software in which a
single layer was created to include data for all inputs included on the Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS tabs of
the MMLOS Tool.
Every segment was analyzed using a “weakest link” approach, in which the entire segment was reviewed
and given a score for the worst-performing portion of the segment. For example, if a roadway segment has
an 8-foot wide sidewalk for a portion of the segment and a 5-foot wide sidewalk for the remainder, the 5-
foot sidewalk will be recorded as the maximum unobstructed sidewalk width and a note will be recorded in
the GIS data that identifies the presence of a wider sidewalk along a portion of the segment.
Example of pedestrian field observation.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 39 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
5
3. MMLOS Monitoring Results
The results of the analysis using the December 2022 MMLOS methodology are illustrated in Figure 1
through Figure 3 for the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes, respectively.
Those segments that are currently deficient (LOS E or F) are listed in Table 1 through Table 3 below. The
primary reason for the deficiency, whether or not essential features are met, is also listed in the tables.
Examples of pedestrian deficient roadways
Examples of bicycle and transit deficient roadways, respectively.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 40 of 62
Pedestrian LOS (2022)for Coastal, Village, Identity, and School Streets
Figure 1 | Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring
¯
A-C
D
E
F
Pedestrian LOS
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 41 of 62
Bicycle LOS (2022)for Coastal, Village, Identity, and School Streets
Figure 2 | Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring
¯
A-C
D
E
F
Bicycle LOS
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 42 of 62
Transit LOS (2022)
for Arterial, Employment Connector, and Industrial Streets
Figure 3 | Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring
¯
A-C
D
E
F
Transit LOS
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 43 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
9
Table 1 – Pedestrian LOS Segment Deficiencies
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
F
r
o
m
)
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
T
o
)
St
r
e
e
t
Ty
p
o
l
o
g
y
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
LO
S
Primary Reason for Deficiency (Essential Features Met?)
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
Wi
d
t
h
AD
A
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
AD
A
Ra
m
p
/
L
a
n
di
n
g
MU
T
C
D
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Hi
g
h
Vi
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
&
Sp
a
c
i
n
g
Cannon Rd College Blvd East Termination School EB 39 F No No No Yes Yes No
Jefferson St Anchor Way Magnolia Ave Village SB 42 F Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
Poinsettia Ln Melrose Dr Paseo Escuela School NB 19 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Poinsettia Ln Melrose Dr Paseo Escuela School SB 19 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Conosa Way Ambrosia Ln Ambrosia Ln School NB 49 F No No No Yes Yes No
Conosa Way Ambrosia Ln Ambrosia Ln School SB 49 F No No No Yes Yes No
Anchor Way Jefferson St Hibiscus Cir School NB 32 F Yes Yes No Yes No No
Anchor Way Jefferson St Hibiscus Cir School SB 32 F Yes Yes No Yes No No
Geode Ln Titanite Pl Quartz Way School NB 52 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Geode Ln Titanite Pl Quartz Way School SB 57 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Camino Robledo Avenida Toronja Paseo Aliso School NB 47 F Yes Yes Yes No No No
Camino Robledo Avenida Toronja Paseo Aliso School SB 52 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Maple Ave Garfield Carlsbad Blvd Village NB 59 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Maple Ave Garfield Carlsbad Blvd Village SB 59 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Mica Rd Titanite Pl Poinsettia Ln School EB 59 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Mica Rd Titanite Pl Poinsettia Ln School WB 59 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Titanite Pl Mica Rd Geode Ln School EB 59 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Titanite Pl Mica Rd Geode Ln School WB 59 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Valley St Chestnut Ave Basswood Ave School EB 37 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Valley St Chestnut Ave Basswood Ave School WB 37 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Cherry Ave Garfield St Carlsbad Blvd Village NB 54 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Cherry Ave Garfield St Carlsbad Blvd Village SB 54 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 44 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
10
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
F
r
o
m
)
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
T
o
)
St
r
e
e
t
Ty
p
o
l
o
g
y
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
LO
S
Primary Reason for Deficiency (Essential Features Met?)
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
Wi
d
t
h
AD
A
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
AD
A
Ra
m
p
/
L
a
n
di
n
g
MU
T
C
D
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Hi
g
h
Vi
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
&
Sp
a
c
i
n
g
Pio Pico Dr Tamarak Ave Magnolia Ave School EB 27 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Pio Pico Dr Tamarak Ave Magnolia Ave School WB 27 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Park Dr Kelly Dr Alondra Dr School NB 59 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Park Dr Kelly Dr Alondra Dr School SB 44 F No No No Yes No No
Buena Vista Way Highland Dr Pio Pico Dr School NB 42 F No No No No No No
Buena Vista Way Highland Dr Pio Pico Dr School SB 42 F No No No No No No
Highland Dr Buena Vista Way Las Flores Dr School NB 44 F No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Sycamore Ave Garfield St Carlsbad Blvd Village NB 54 E No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Quartz Way Poinsettia Ln GEODE LN School NB 59 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Quartz Way Poinsettia Ln GEODE LN School SB 59 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Maverick Way Southern Termination Camino De Los Coches School NB 59 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Maverick Way Southern Termination Camino De Los Coches School SB 59 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
El Fuerte St Luciernga St Corintia St School NB 34 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
El Fuerte St Luciernga St Corintia St School SB 34 F Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
Carlsbad Blvd La Costa Ave Avenida Encinas Coastal NB 31 F No No No Yes No Yes
Carlsbad Blvd La Costa Ave Avenida Encinas Coastal SB 31 F No No No Yes No Yes
Tamarack Ave Strata Dr College Blvd School NB 59 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Tamarack Ave Strata Dr College Blvd School SB 59 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Tamarack Ave College Blvd Strata Dr School EB 59 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Tamarack Ave College Blvd Strata Dr School WB 59 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Las Flores Dr Highland Dr Pio Pico Dr School NB 44 F No Yes Yes Yes No No
Las Flores Dr Highland Dr Pio Pico Dr School SB 44 F No Yes Yes Yes No No
Basswood Ave Valley St Monroe St School EB 37 F Yes Yes Yes No No No
Basswood Ave Valley St Monroe St School WB 37 F No No No No No No
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 45 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
11
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
F
r
o
m
)
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
T
o
)
St
r
e
e
t
Ty
p
o
l
o
g
y
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
LO
S
Primary Reason for Deficiency (Essential Features Met?)
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
Wi
d
t
h
AD
A
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
AD
A
Ra
m
p
/
L
a
n
di
n
g
MU
T
C
D
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Hi
g
h
Vi
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
&
Sp
a
c
i
n
g
Magnolia Ave Brady Cir Monroe St School WB 37 F No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Hibiscus Cir Tamarack Ave Anchor Way School NB 42 F Yes Yes No No No No
Hibiscus Cir Tamarack Ave Anchor Way School SB 42 F Yes Yes No No No No
Hillside Dr Kelly Dr Valencia Ave School EB 37 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Hillside Dr Kelly Dr Valencia Ave School WB 37 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Alondra Dr Park Dr Valencia Ave School NB 47 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Alondra Dr Park Dr Valencia Ave School SB 42 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Valencia Ave Alondra Way Hillside Dr School NB 47 F Yes Yes No No No No
Valencia Ave Alondra Way Hillside Dr School SB 47 F Yes Yes No No No No
Camino De Las Ondas Aviara Pkwy Paseo Del Norte School EB 37 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Camino De Las Ondas Aviara Pkwy Paseo Del Norte School WB 37 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Ambrosia Ln Aviara Pkwy Calliandra Rd School NB 37 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Ambrosia Ln Aviara Pkwy Calliandra Rd School SB 37 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Ambrosia Ln Poinsettia Ln Calliandra Rd School NB 39 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Ambrosia Ln Poinsettia Ln Calliandra Rd School SB 39 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
El Fuerte St Bressi Ranch Way Poinsetia Ln School NB 29 F No No No Yes No Yes
El Fuerte St Bressi Ranch Way Poinsetia Ln School SB 34 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Corintia St Cazadero St El Fuerte St School NB 49 F Yes Yes No No No No
Corintia St Cazadero St El Fuerte St School SB 49 F Yes Yes No No No No
Paseo Aliso Camino Robledo Calle Barcelona School NB 49 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Paseo Aliso Camino Robledo Calle Barcelona School SB 49 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Paseo Tulipero Avenida toronja Paseo Aliso School EB 57 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 46 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
12
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
F
r
o
m
)
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
T
o
)
St
r
e
e
t
Ty
p
o
l
o
g
y
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
LO
S
Primary Reason for Deficiency (Essential Features Met?)
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
Wi
d
t
h
AD
A
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
AD
A
Ra
m
p
/
L
a
n
di
n
g
MU
T
C
D
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Hi
g
h
Vi
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
&
Sp
a
c
i
n
g
Paseo Tulipero Avenida toronja Paseo Aliso School WB 57 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Avenida Toronja Paseo Tulipero Camino Robledo School EB 47 F Yes Yes Yes No No No
Avenida Toronja Paseo Tulipero Camino Robledo School WB 47 F Yes Yes Yes No No No
Levante St Estancia St Segovia Way School EB 42 F Yes Yes No No No No
Levante St Estancia St Segovia Way School WB 47 F Yes Yes No No No No
Segovia Way Estancia St Levante St School NB 47 F Yes Yes No No No No
Segovia Way Estancia St Levante St School SB 47 F Yes Yes No No No No
Estancia St Levante St Segovia Way School NB 47 F Yes Yes No No No No
Estancia St Levante St Segovia Way School SB 42 F Yes Yes No No No No
Levante St La Costa Ave Estancia St School NB 42 F Yes Yes No Yes No No
Levante St La Costa Ave Estancia St School SB 37 F Yes Yes No Yes No No
Calle Barcelona Calle Posada Rancho Santa Fe Rd School EB 44 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Calle Barcelona Calle Posada Rancho Santa Fe Rd School WB 44 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Calle Acervo Rancho Santa Fe Rd Calle Catalonia School EB 44 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Calle Acervo Rancho Santa Fe Rd Calle Catalonia School WB 49 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Jefferson St Pine Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Village NB 59 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Jefferson St Pine Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Village SB 59 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Jefferson St Carlsbad Village Dr Las Flores Dr Village NB 34 F Yes Yes Yes No No No
Jefferson St Carlsbad Village Dr Las Flores Dr Village SB 34 F Yes Yes Yes No No No
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 47 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
13
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
F
r
o
m
)
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
T
o
)
St
r
e
e
t
Ty
p
o
l
o
g
y
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
LO
S
Primary Reason for Deficiency (Essential Features Met?)
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
Wi
d
t
h
AD
A
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
AD
A
Ra
m
p
/
L
a
n
di
n
g
MU
T
C
D
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Hi
g
h
Vi
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
&
Sp
a
c
i
n
g
Harding St Magnolia Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Village NB 59 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Harding St Magnolia Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Village SB 59 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Madison St Arbuckle Pl Laguna Dr Village NB 56 E No No No Yes No No
Madison St Arbuckle Pl Laguna Dr Village SB 56 E No No No Yes No No
Madison St Magnolia Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Village NB 59 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Madison St Magnolia Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Village SB 59 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Roosevelt St Carlsbad Village Dr Laguna St Village NB 59 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Roosevelt St Carlsbad Village Dr Laguna St Village SB 59 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Roosevelt St Magnolia Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Village NB 59 E No Yes Yes No No No
Roosevelt St Magnolia Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Village SB 59 E No Yes Yes No No No
Washington St Chestnut Ave Pine Ave Village EB 57 E No Yes Yes No No No
Washington St Chestnut Ave Pine Ave Village WB 59 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Ocean St Pine Ave Pacific Ave Village NB 37 F No No No No No No
Ocean St Pine Ave Pacific Ave Village SB 37 F No No No No No No
Lincoln St Chestnut Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Village NB 52 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Lincoln St Chestnut Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Village SB 52 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Beech Ave Ocean St Washington St Village EB 59 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Beech Ave Ocean St Washington St Village WB 59 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 48 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
14
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
F
r
o
m
)
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
T
o
)
St
r
e
e
t
Ty
p
o
l
o
g
y
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
LO
S
Primary Reason for Deficiency (Essential Features Met?)
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
Wi
d
t
h
AD
A
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
AD
A
Ra
m
p
/
L
a
n
di
n
g
MU
T
C
D
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Hi
g
h
Vi
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
&
Sp
a
c
i
n
g
Christiansen Ave Ocean St Washington St Village EB 49 F No No No Yes No No
Christiansen Ave Ocean St Washington St Village WB 59 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Cypress Ave Ocean St Carlsbad Blvd Village EB 47 F No No No Yes No No
Cypress Ave Ocean St Carlsbad Blvd Village WB 47 F No No No Yes No No
Carlsbad Village Dr Ocean St Washington St Village EB 49 F Yes Yes Yes No No No
Carlsbad Village Dr Ocean St Washington St Village WB 49 F Yes Yes Yes No No No
Oak Ave Railroad I-5 Village EB 57 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Oak Ave Railroad I-5 Village WB 57 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Pine Ave Carlsbad Blvd Washington St Village EB 47 F Yes Yes Yes No No No
Pine Ave Carlsbad Blvd Washington St Village WB 47 F Yes Yes Yes No No No
Walnut Ave Carlsbad blvd Washington St Village EB 47 F Yes Yes Yes No No No
Walnut Ave Carlsbad blvd Washington St Village WB 42 F No Yes Yes No No No
Chestnut Ave Carlsbad Blvd WashingtonSt Village EB 37 F No No No Yes No No
Chestnut Ave Carlsbad Blvd WashingtonSt Village WB 37 F No No No Yes No No
Chestnut Ave I-5 Railroad Village EB 59 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Chestnut Ave I-5 Railroad Village WB 59 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Magnolia Ave Roosevelt St Harding St Village EB 47 F Yes Yes Yes No No No
Magnolia Ave Roosevelt St Harding St Village WB 47 F Yes Yes Yes No No No
Acacia Ave Carlsbad Blvd Railroad Village EB 52 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Acacia Ave Carlsbad Blvd Railroad Village WB 52 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Juniper Ave Carlsbad Blvd Railroad Village EB 47 F No No No Yes No No
Juniper Ave Carlsbad Blvd Railroad Village WB 47 F No No No Yes No No
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 49 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
15
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
F
r
o
m
)
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
T
o
)
St
r
e
e
t
Ty
p
o
l
o
g
y
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
LO
S
Primary Reason for Deficiency (Essential Features Met?)
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
Wi
d
t
h
AD
A
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
AD
A
Ra
m
p
/
L
a
n
di
n
g
MU
T
C
D
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Hi
g
h
Vi
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
&
Sp
a
c
i
n
g
Hemlock Ave Carlsbad Blvd Railroad Village EB 52 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Hemlock Ave Carlsbad Blvd Railroad Village WB 52 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Redwood Ave Garfield St Carlsbad Blvd Village EB 47 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Redwood Ave Garfield St Carlsbad Blvd Village WB 47 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad Village Dr Cypress Ave Identity (adjacent to retail) NB 56 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad Village Dr Cypress Ave Identity (adjacent to retail) SB 49 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Carlsbad Blvd Redwood Ave Carlsbad Village Dr
Identity (adjacent to res.) NB 41 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Carlsbad Blvd Redwood Ave Carlsbad Village Dr
Identity (adjacent to res.) SB 51 E Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Carlsbad Village Dr I-5 Ramp Carlsbad Blvd Identity (adjacent to retail) EB 54 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Carlsbad Village Dr I-5 Ramp Carlsbad Blvd Identity (adjacent to retail) WB 44 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Carlsbad Blvd Cannon Rd Redwood Ave Coastal NB 32 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Carlsbad Blvd Cannon Rd Redwood Ave Coastal SB 42 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Carlsbad Blvd Palomar Airport Rd Cannon Rd Coastal NB 34 F No No No Yes No No
Carlsbad Blvd Palomar Airport Rd Cannon Rd Coastal SB 34 F No No No Yes No No
Carlsbad Blvd Palomar Airport Rd Island Way Coastal NB 24 F No No No Yes No Yes
Carlsbad Blvd Palomar Airport Rd Island Way Coastal SB 24 F No No No Yes No Yes
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 50 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
16
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
F
r
o
m
)
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
T
o
)
St
r
e
e
t
Ty
p
o
l
o
g
y
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
LO
S
Primary Reason for Deficiency (Essential Features Met?)
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
Wi
d
t
h
AD
A
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
AD
A
Ra
m
p
/
L
a
n
di
n
g
MU
T
C
D
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Hi
g
h
Vi
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
&
Sp
a
c
i
n
g
Carlsbad Blvd Breakwater Rd Island Way Coastal NB 24 F No No No Yes No Yes
Carlsbad Blvd Breakwater Rd Island Way Coastal SB 24 F No No No Yes No Yes
Carlsbad Blvd Ponto Road Poinsettia Ln Coastal NB 54 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Carlsbad Blvd Ponto Road Poinsettia Ln Coastal SB 24 F No No No Yes No Yes
Grand Ave Ocean St Carlsbad Blvd Village EB 59 E No No No Yes Yes No
Jefferson St Tamarack Ave Anchor Way School SB 32 F Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
Valley St Tamarack Ave Magnolia Ave School EB 37 F No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Tamarack Ave College Blvd Simsbury Ct School EB 59 E Yes Yes Yes No No No
Tamarack Ave College Blvd Simsbury Ct School WB 44 F Yes Yes Yes No No No
Tamarack Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Simsbury Ct School NB 42 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Tamarack Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Simsbury Ct School SB 47 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Carlsbad Blvd Avenida Encinas Ponto Road Coastal NB 34 F No No No Yes No Yes
Carlsbad Blvd Avenida Encinas Ponto Road Coastal SB 24 F No No No Yes No Yes
Redwood Ave Garfield St Cul-de-sac Village EB 37 F No No No Yes No No
Redwood Ave Garfield St Cul-de-sac Village WB 37 F No No No Yes No No
Carlsbad Blvd Poinsettia Ln Breakwater Rd Coastal NB 44 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Carlsbad Blvd Poinsettia Ln Breakwater Rd Coastal SB 24 F No No No Yes No Yes
Madison St Arbuckle Pl Carlsbad Village Dr Village NB 59 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Madison St Arbuckle Pl Carlsbad Village Dr Village SB 59 E Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 51 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
17
Table 2 – Bicycle LOS Segment Deficiencies
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
F
r
o
m
)
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
T
o
)
Ty
p
o
l
o
g
y
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
LO
S
Primary Reason for Deficiency (Essential Features Met?)
MU
T
C
D
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
De
s
i
g
n
Fr
e
e
o
f
Ob
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pa
v
e
m
e
n
t
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
B
i
k
e
La
n
e
Wi
d
t
h
Bi
k
e
L
a
n
e
w
i
t
h
St
r
a
i
g
h
t
-
th
r
o
u
g
h
R
i
g
h
t
of
W
a
y
Hi
g
h
-Sp
e
e
d
Ro
a
d
w
i
t
h
a
t
le
a
s
t
c
l
a
s
s
I
,
bu
f
f
e
r
e
d
I
I
,
o
r
I
V
Cannon Rd College Blvd East Termination School EB 32 F Yes Yes Yes No Yes NA
Cannon Rd College Blvd East Termination School WB 32 F Yes Yes Yes No Yes NA
Poinsettia Ln Melrose Dr Paseo Escuela School NB 17 F Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Poinsettia Ln Melrose Dr Paseo Escuela School SB 17 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Pio Pico Dr Tamarak Ave Magnolia Ave School EB 15 F Yes Yes Yes NA NA No
Pio Pico Dr Tamarak Ave Magnolia Ave School WB 15 F Yes Yes Yes NA NA No
Pio Pico Dr Buena Vista Way Las Flores Dr School NB 25 F Yes Yes Yes NA NA No
Pio Pico Dr Buena Vista Way Las Flores Dr School SB 25 F Yes Yes Yes NA NA No
El Fuerte St Luciernga St Corintia St School NB 25 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
El Fuerte St Luciernga St Corintia St School SB 25 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Camino De Las Ondas Aviara Pkwy Paseo Del Norte School EB 17 F Yes Yes Yes NA NA No
Camino De Las Ondas Aviara Pkwy Paseo Del Norte School WB 17 F Yes Yes Yes NA NA No
Ambrosia Ln Aviara Pkwy Calliandra Rd School NB 12 F No Yes Yes NA NA No
Ambrosia Ln Aviara Pkwy Calliandra Rd School SB 12 F No Yes Yes NA NA No
Ambrosia Ln Poinsettia Ln Calliandra Rd School NB 12 F Yes Yes Yes NA NA No
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 52 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
18
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
F
r
o
m
)
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
T
o
)
Ty
p
o
l
o
g
y
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
LO
S
Primary Reason for Deficiency (Essential Features Met?)
MU
T
C
D
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
De
s
i
g
n
Fr
e
e
o
f
Ob
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pa
v
e
m
e
n
t
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
B
i
k
e
La
n
e
Wi
d
t
h
Bi
k
e
L
a
n
e
w
i
t
h
St
r
a
i
g
h
t
-
th
r
o
u
g
h
R
i
g
h
t
of
W
a
y
Hi
g
h
-Sp
e
e
d
Ro
a
d
w
i
t
h
a
t
le
a
s
t
c
l
a
s
s
I
,
bu
f
f
e
r
e
d
I
I
,
o
r
I
V
Ambrosia Ln Poinsettia Ln Calliandra Rd School SB 12 F Yes Yes Yes NA NA No
El Fuerte St Bressi Ranch Way Poinsetia Ln School NB 17 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
El Fuerte St Bressi Ranch Way Poinsetia Ln School SB 17 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Jefferson St Carlsbad Village Dr Las Flores Dr Village NB 13 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Jefferson St Carlsbad Village Dr Las Flores Dr Village SB 13 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Harding St Magnolia Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Village NB 35 F Yes Yes No Yes Yes NA
Harding St Magnolia Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Village SB 35 F Yes Yes No Yes Yes NA
Chestnut Ave I-5 Railroad Village EB 30 F No Yes No NA NA NA
Chestnut Ave I-5 Railroad Village WB 30 F No Yes No NA NA NA
Carlsbad Blvd Cypress Ave Northern City Limits
Identity (adjacent to non-retail or non-residential uses)
NB 20 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Carlsbad Blvd Cypress Ave Northern City Limits
Identity (adjacent to non-retail or non-residential uses)
SB 20 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Carlsbad Blvd Palomar Airport Rd Cannon Rd Coastal NB 27 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 53 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
19
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
F
r
o
m
)
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
T
o
)
Ty
p
o
l
o
g
y
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
LO
S
Primary Reason for Deficiency (Essential Features Met?)
MU
T
C
D
Co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
De
s
i
g
n
Fr
e
e
o
f
Ob
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pa
v
e
m
e
n
t
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
Mi
n
i
m
u
m
B
i
k
e
La
n
e
Wi
d
t
h
Bi
k
e
L
a
n
e
w
i
t
h
St
r
a
i
g
h
t
-
th
r
o
u
g
h
R
i
g
h
t
of
W
a
y
Hi
g
h
-Sp
e
e
d
Ro
a
d
w
i
t
h
a
t
le
a
s
t
c
l
a
s
s
I
,
bu
f
f
e
r
e
d
I
I
,
o
r
I
V
Carlsbad Blvd Palomar Airport Rd Cannon Rd Coastal SB 30 F Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Tamarack Ave College Blvd Simsbury Ct School EB 27 F Yes Yes Yes NA NA No
Tamarack Ave College Blvd Simsbury Ct School WB 27 F Yes Yes Yes NA NA No
Tamarack Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Simsbury Ct School NB 27 F Yes Yes Yes NA NA No
Tamarack Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Simsbury Ct School SB 27 F Yes Yes Yes NA NA No
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 54 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
20
Table 3 – Transit LOS Segment Deficiencies
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
T
o
)
Ex
t
e
n
t
(
F
r
o
m
)
Ty
p
o
l
o
g
y
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
Sc
o
r
e
LO
S
Primary Reason for Deficiency (Essential Features Met?)
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e
t
o
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
S
t
o
p
St
o
p
Am
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
AD
A
C
o
m
p
l
i
e
n
t
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
/
P
a
t
h
Co
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
&
Sp
a
c
i
n
g
Mi
d
-bl
o
c
k
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
S
t
u
d
i
e
d
El Camino Real Aviara Pkwy/Alga Rd La Costa Ave Arterial NB 40 F Yes No No Yes No
El Camino Real Aviara Pkwy/Alga Rd La Costa Ave Arterial SB 47 F Yes No No Yes No
Faraday Ave Hub International Driveway Cannon Rd Employment/ Transit Connectors NB 20 F Yes No Yes Yes No
Faraday Ave Hub International Driveway Cannon Rd Employment/ Transit Connectors SB 20 F Yes No Yes Yes No
Jefferson St/Marron Rd Residential Driveway (W/O Avenida de Anita) Lagoon View Dr Employment/ Transit Connectors NB 45 F Yes No No Yes No
Jefferson St/Marron Rd Residential Driveway (W/O Avenida de Anita) Lagoon View Dr Employment/ Transit Connectors SB 45 F Yes No No No No
Loker Ave W El Fuerte St Palomar Airport Rd Industrials NB 35 F Yes No Yes Yes No
Loker Ave W El Fuerte St Palomar Airport Rd Industrials SB 35 F Yes No Yes Yes No
Palomar Airport Rd Palomar Oaks Way Aviara Pkwy/College Blvd Arterial NB 20 F Yes No No Yes No
Palomar Airport Rd Palomar Oaks Way Aviara Pkwy/College Blvd Arterial SB 25 F Yes No Yes Yes No
Rancho Santa Fe Rd San Elijo Rd Camino Junipero Arterial NB 35 F Yes No Yes Yes No
Rancho Santa Fe Rd San Elijo Rd Camino Junipero Arterial SB 35 F Yes No Yes Yes No
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 55 of 62
Carlsbad MMLOS Monitoring Results-Coastal, Village, Identity and School Streets January 25, 2023
21
4. Recommendations
It is recommended that the City of Carlsbad review the deficiencies listed in Tables 1 throught 3 and
consider upgrades to these segments to improve the corresponding Bicycle, Pedestrian, and/or Transit LOS
to an acceptable level of LOS D or better.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 56 of 62
NB/EB NB/EB SB/WB SB/WB
Ped Score Ped LOS Ped Score Ped LOS NB/EB SB/WB
Cannon Rd College Blvd East Termination 39 F 69 D Yes Yes
Missing Sidewalk, do existing sidewalks meet
ADA, do Ramps/Landings meet ADA
Jefferson St Anchor Way Magnolia Ave 67 D 42 F Yes Yes Do Ramps/Landings meet ADA requirements?
Poinsettia Ln Melrose Dr Paseo Escuela
19 F 19 F No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Conosa Way Ambrosia Ln Ambrosia Ln 49 F 49 F Yes Yes
Missing Sidewalk, do existing sidewalks meet
ADA, do Ramps/Landings meet ADA
Anchor Way Jefferson St Hibiscus Cir 32 F 32 F Yes Yes
High Visibility Crosswalks & do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?Geode Ln Titanite Pl Quartz Way 52 E 57 E No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Camino Robledo Avenida Toronja Paseo Aliso
47 F 52 E No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Maple Ave Garfield Carlsbad Blvd 59 E 59 E No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Mica Rd Titanite Pl Poinsettia Ln 59 E 59 E No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Titanite Pl Mica Rd Geode Ln 59 E 59 E No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Valley St Chestnut Ave Basswood Ave 37 F 37 F No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Cherry Ave Garfield St Carlsbad Blvd 54 E 54 E No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Pio Pico Dr Tamarak Ave Magnolia Ave 27 F 27 F No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Park Dr Kelly Dr Alondra Dr 59 E 44 F No Yes High Visibility Crosswalks, Missing sidewalk (SB)
Buena Vista Way Highland Dr Pio Pico Dr 42 F 42 F N/A*N/A*All essential criteria
Pio Pico Dr Buena Vista Way Las Flores Dr 69 D 67 D
Highland Dr Buena Vista Way Las Flores Dr 44 F 69 D Yes Min sidewalk width 4 ft (NB)
Sycamore Ave Garfield St Carlsbad Blvd 54 E 94 A Yes Min sidewalk width 4 ft
Quartz Way Poinsettia Ln GEODE LN 59 E 59 E No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Maverick Way Southern Termination Camino De Los Coches 59 E 59 E No No High Visibility Crosswalks
El Fuerte St Luciernga St Corintia St 34 F 34 F No No Pedstrian crossing control/provided within 600 ft
Carlsbad Blvd La Costa Ave Avenida Encinas
31 F 31 F Yes Yes
Missing Sidewalk, High visibility crosswalks, do
existing sidewalks meet ADA, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Tamarack Ave Strata Dr College Blvd 59 E 59 E No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Tamarack Ave College Blvd Strata Dr 59 E 59 E No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Las Flores Dr Highland Dr Pio Pico Dr 44 F 44 F Yes Yes
Min sidewalk width 4 ft & High Visibility
Crosswalks
Basswood Ave Valley St Monroe St 37 F 37 F N/A*N/A*All essential criteria (WB)
Magnolia Ave Brady Cir Monroe St 67 D 37 F Yes Yes Missing sidewalk
Hibiscus Cir Tamarack Ave Anchor Way
42 F 42 F Yes Yes
High Visibility Crosswalks & do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Kelly Dr El Camino Real Park Dr 69 D 69 D
Hillside Dr Kelly Dr Valencia Ave 37 F 37 F No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Alondra Dr Park Dr Valencia Ave 47 F 42 F No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Valencia Ave Alondra Way Hillside Dr 47 F 47 F Yes Yes
High Visibility Crosswalks & do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Camino De Las Ondas Aviara Pkwy Paseo Del Norte 37 F 37 F No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Ambrosia Ln Aviara Pkwy Calliandra Rd 37 F 37 F No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Ambrosia Ln Poinsettia Ln Calliandra Rd 39 F 39 F No No High Visibility Crosswalks
El Fuerte St Bressi Ranch Way Poinsetia Ln
29 F 34 F Yes Yes
Missing Sidewalk, High visibility crosswalks, do
existing sidewalks meet ADA, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Corintia St Cazadero St El Fuerte St
49 F 49 F Yes Yes
High visibility crosswalks, Are crossings generally
consistent with MUTCD, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Paseo Aliso Camino Robledo Calle Barcelona 49 F 49 F No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Paseo Tulipero Avenida toronja Paseo Aliso
57 E 57 E No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Avenida Toronja Paseo Tulipero Camino Robledo
47 F 47 F No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Levante St Estancia St Segovia Way
42 F 47 F Yes Yes
High visibility crosswalks, Are crossings generally
consistent with MUTCD, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Segovia Way Estancia St Levante St
47 F 47 F Yes Yes
High visibility crosswalks, Are crossings generally
consistent with MUTCD, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Estancia St Levante St Segovia Way
47 F 42 F Yes Yes
High visibility crosswalks, Are crossings generally
consistent with MUTCD, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Levante St La Costa Ave Estancia St 42 F 37 F Yes Yes
High Visibility Crosswalks & do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Calle Barcelona Calle Posada Rancho Santa Fe Rd 44 F 44 F No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Calle Acervo Rancho Santa Fe Rd Calle Catalonia 44 F 49 F No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Jefferson St Pine Ave Carlsbad Village Dr 59 E 59 E No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Jefferson St Carlsbad Village Dr Las Flores Dr
34 F 34 F No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCDHarding St Magnolia Ave Carlsbad Village Dr 59 E 59 E No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Pedestrian MMLOS
Failing With ProposedStaff Revisions?Roadway From To Reason For Failing
Exhibit 4
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 57 of 62
Madison St Arbuckle Pl Laguna Dr
56 E 56 E Yes Yes
Missing Sidewalk, High visibility crosswalks, do
existing sidewalks meet ADA, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Madison St Magnolia Ave Carlsbad Village Dr
59 E 59 E No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Roosevelt St Carlsbad Village Dr Laguna St
59 E 59 E No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Roosevelt St Magnolia Ave Carlsbad Village Dr 59 E 59 E Yes Yes
Min sidewalk width 4 ft & High Visibility
Crosswalks
Washington St Chestnut Ave Pine Ave
57 E 59 E N/A* N/A*
Missing Sidewalk, High visibility crosswalks, do
existing sidewalks meet ADA
Ocean St Pine Ave Pacific Ave 37 F 37 F N/A*N/A*All esential criteria
Lincoln St Chestnut Ave Carlsbad Village Dr
52 E 52 E No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Garfield St Tamarak Ave Pine Ave 99 A 99 A
Beech Ave Ocean St Washington St 59 E 59 E No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Christiansen Ave Ocean St Washington St
49 F 59 E Yes Yes
Missing Sidewalk, High visibility crosswalks, do
existing sidewalks meet ADA, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Grand Ave Carlsbad Blvd Roosevelt St 100 A 100 A
Grand Ave Roosevelt st Eastern Terminus 100 A 99 A
Carlsbad Village Dr Ocean St Carlsbad Blvd 79 C 96 A
Cypress Ave Ocean St Carlsbad Blvd
47 F 47 F N/A* N/A*
Missing Sidewalk, High visibility crosswalks, do
existing sidewalks meet ADA, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Carlsbad Village Dr Ocean St Washington St 49 F 49 F No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Oak Ave Railroad I-5 57 E 57 E No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Pine Ave Carlsbad Blvd Washington St
47 F 47 F No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Walnut Ave Carlsbad blvd Washington St
47 F 42 F No Yes
Missing sidwalk (WB), High Visibility Crosswalks &
Are crossings generally consistent with MUTCD
Chestnut Ave Carlsbad Blvd WashingtonSt
37 F 37 F Yes Yes
Missing Sidewalk, High visibility crosswalks, do
existing sidewalks meet ADA, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Chestnut Ave I-5 Railroad 59 E 59 E No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Magnolia Ave Roosevelt St Harding St 47 F 47 F No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Acacia Ave Carlsbad Blvd Railroad
52 E 52 E No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Juniper Ave Carlsbad Blvd Railroad
47 F 47 F Yes Yes
Missing Sidewalk, High visibility crosswalks, do
existing sidewalks meet ADA, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Hemlock Ave Carlsbad Blvd Railroad
52 E 52 E No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Redwood Ave Garfield St Carlsbad Blvd 47 F 47 F No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Carlsbad Blvd Cypress Ave Northern City Limits 68 D 69 D
Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad Village Dr Cypress Ave 56 E 49 F No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Carlsbad Blvd Redwood Ave Carlsbad Village Dr 41 F 51 E No No Pedstrian crossing control/provided within 600 ft
Carlsbad Village Dr I-5 Ramp Carlsbad Blvd 54 E 44 F No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Carlsbad Blvd Cannon Rd Redwood Ave 32 F 42 F No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Carlsbad Blvd Palomar Airport Rd Cannon Rd
34 F 34 F Yes Yes
Missing Sidewalk, High visibility crosswalks, do
existing sidewalks meet ADA, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Carlsbad Blvd Palomar Airport Rd Island Way
24 F 24 F Yes Yes
Missing Sidewalk, High visibility crosswalks, do
existing sidewalks meet ADA, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Carlsbad Blvd Breakwater Rd Island Way
24 F 24 F Yes Yes
Missing Sidewalk, High visibility crosswalks, do
existing sidewalks meet ADA, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Carlsbad Blvd Ponto Road Poinsettia Ln
54 E 24 F Yes Yes
Missing Sidewalk, High visibility crosswalks, do
existing sidewalks meet ADA, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Grand Ave Ocean St Carlsbad Blvd
59 E 100 A Yes
Missing Sidewalk (EB), do existing sidewalks meet
ADA, do Ramps/Landings meet ADA
requirements?
Jefferson St Tamarack Ave Anchor Way 62 D 32 F No Yes do Ramps/Landings meet ADA requirements?
Valley St Tamarack Ave Magnolia Ave 37 F 67 D Yes 4 ft min width sidewalk
Tamarack Ave College Blvd Simsbury Ct 59 E 44 F No No
High Visibility Crosswalks & Are crossings
generally consistent with MUTCD
Tamarack Ave Carlsbad Village Dr Simsbury Ct 42 F 47 F No No High Visibility Crosswalks
Carlsbad Blvd Avenida Encinas Ponto Road
34 F 24 F Yes Yes
Missing Sidewalk, High visibility crosswalks, do
existing sidewalks meet ADA, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Redwood Ave Garfield St Cul-de-sac
37 F 37 F N/A* N/A*
Missing Sidewalk, High visibility crosswalks, do
existing sidewalks meet ADA, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Carlsbad Blvd Poinsettia Ln Breakwater Rd
44 F 24 F Yes Yes
Missing Sidewalk, High visibility crosswalks, do
existing sidewalks meet ADA, do Ramps/Landings
meet ADA requirements?
Madison St Arbuckle Pl Carlsbad Village Dr 59 E 59 E N/A*N/A*High Visibility Crosswalks
*Alternative Streets will no longer require monitoring.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 58 of 62
NB/EB NB/EB SB/WB SB/WB
Transit Score Transit LOS Transit Score Transit LOS
Loker Ave W Palomar Airport Rd El Fuerte St 35 F 35 F
Missing Bench, ADA Pad,
Covered Shelter.
Jefferson St/Marron Rd Lagoon View Dr Residential Driveway (W/O Avenida de Anita) 45 F 45 F
Covered Shelter & Are sidewalks
within a 1/4 mile ADA
compliant.
Faraday Ave Cannon Rd Hub International Driveway 20 F 20 F
Missing Bench, ADA Pad,
Covered Shelter.
El Camino Real La Costa Ave Aviara Pkwy/Alga Rd 40 F 47 F
Missing ADA Pad, Covered
Shelter & Are sidewalks within a
1/4 mile ADA compliant.
Palomar Airport Rd Aviara Pkwy/College Blvd Palomar Oaks Way 20 F 25 F
Missing Bench, ADA Pad,
Covered Shelter & Are sidewalks
within a 1/4 mile ADA compliant
(NB).
Rancho Santa Fe Rd Camino Junipero San Elijo Rd 35 F 35 F
Missing Bench, ADA Pad,
Covered Shelter.
Roadway From To Reason For Failing
Transit MMLOS
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 59 of 62
Section 3:
Bus Stop Guidelines
3.0 Bus Stop Guidelines
Obstacles to improving transit infrastructure – lack of sidewalk and bike network, available space for stop
infrastructure (including ADA), accessible neighborhood sidewalks connecting to stops, accessible street crossings.
Work with city departments to make improvements and encourage continued upgrades to complete the
networks, especially during other construction projects.
3.1 Curb-Side Improvements
Passenger comfort, safety, and convenience are all impacted by bus stop features that are located off the street
or roadway, commonly referred to as curbside improvements. This section outlines how developers and
jurisdictions can appropriately locate bus stops and choose the correct stop type, as well as information on
general preferred and recommended curbside improvements.
3.1.1 Bus Stop Types
The design of a bus stop can often impact the amount of ridership at that particular location. A stop must be
accessible, safe, and convenient for passengers. NCTD has developed three distinct bus stop types – the basic
stop, the bench stop, and the shelter stop – as well as stops associated with transit stations/centers.
BASIC STOPS are characterized by the presence of a bus stop sign only, and do not contain passenger amenities like
benches or shelters. These stops are generally utilized in rural areas or those areas with lower density and lower
ridership. Basic stops are required to meet ADA design requirements.
BENCH STOPS are basic transit stops with the addition of a bench for waiting passengers and trash receptacles. In
some cases, additional amenities such as lighting or bicycle racks may be warranted. Bench stops are best suited
for areas with low to medium density and ridership.
Be
n
c
h
S
t
o
p
s
Required Amenities Recommended Amenities Optional Amenities
·Bus stop sign
·ADA accessible pad
·Bench
·Connection to adjacent
sidewalks/pathways
·Trash receptacle
·Lighting
·Bicycle racks/lockers
·Transit route information
·Screening from sun / elements
(landscaping)
·Transit system information
SHELTER STOPS are located in areas with higher ridership and medium to high density developments. In addition to
a sign, ADA compliant concrete pad, and bench, these stops include a shelter and trash receptacle, at a minimum.
Additional amenities like lighting and bicycle racks are highly encouraged. The design of a shelter stop is
dependent upon the existing features of the site, including sidewalk design, right-of-way, and proximity to existing
structures.
Exhibit 5
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 60 of 62
Section 3:
Bus Stop Guidelines
Sh
e
l
t
e
r
S
t
o
p
s
Required Amenities Recommended Amenities Optional Amenities
· Bus stop sign
· ADA accessible pad
· Bench
· Shelter
· Connection to adjacent
sidewalks/pathways
· Trash receptacle
· Lighting
· Bicycle racks/lockers
· Transit route information
· Screening from sun / elements
(landscaping)
· Transit system information
· Digital messaging signs
STATION STOPS are associated with branded services like BREEZE Rapid. These stops have enhanced passenger
amenities, including more robust transit system information signage and branded shelters.
St
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
o
p
s
(B
R
E
E
Z
E
R
a
p
i
d
)
Required Amenities Recommended Amenities
· All requirements of shelter
stops, plus:
· Single shelter or double shelter
with integrated station marker
· Station marker with integrated
seats
· Solar-powered LED lighting
· Transit route and schedule
information
· Transit system information
· Wayfinding signage
· Digital messaging signs
The dimensions for each stop type above have been provided as guidelines for the development of new bus stops.
District staff understands that some stops may not be able to be retrofitted to meet these standards, or
alternative designs may be more feasible based on existing conditions. When a developer has been required to
upgrade an existing stop, District staff should be contacted to help create an appropriate design.
3.1.2 Bus Stop Type Selection Criteria
The type of stop provided is primarily driven by route frequency and land use density – routes with higher
frequency are typically located in areas with more intensive development, and generally result in more daily
boardings. The table below shows the recommended attributes for each of the four stop types. District staff will
assist developers in determining the appropriate stop type on a case-by-case basis.
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 61 of 62
Section 3:
Bus Stop Guidelines
Table 1: Bus Stop Type Location Recommendations
Criteria Basic Stop Bench Stop Shelter Stop
Minimum Daily Boardings
Rural Stop <5 daily boardings 5 – 10 daily
boardings
10+ daily
boardings
Suburban Stop <10 daily
boardings
10 – 20 daily
boardings
>20 daily
boardings
Urban Stop <20 daily
boardings
20 – 30 daily
boardings
>30 daily
boardings
Density Considerations Low density
residential; Rural
Low to Medium
Density
Residential;
Commercial;
Industrial
Medium to High
Density
Residential;
Mixed-Use;
Commercial Core
Land Use and Development:
Located ¼-mile (max.) from
employment center,
retail/commercial center, mixed
use development or other major
activity center
Population Considerations:
Youths, seniors, disabled persons,
low-income households
Within ¼-mile of
population
concentrations
Within 1/8-mile of
population
concentrations
Connections with other NCTD
mode or transit provider
Located within Planned Enhanced
Development Corridor
In addition, NCTD’s system also includes Station Stops, which are generally characterized by service from multiple
routes and/or providers, enhanced facilities, and higher ridership. Stops that are served by BREEZE Rapid are also
categorized as Station Stops. New stations should be focused in urban and more developed suburban areas with a
mix of uses, commercial core development, and medium to higher density housing, particularly with affordable
and multi-family housing, in addition to the provision of enhanced transit service or connections to multiple
transit options. In suburban settings, a minimum of 100 daily boardings may warrant a general station, while in
urban settings, a minimum of 500 daily boardings should be generated.
3.1.3 Design and Access
Providing defined, safe, and direct access to a bus stop is critical to maintaining and increasing transit usage.
Access to a bus stop from an intersection or land use should be as direct as possible, and provide essential
security and safety along the route. General guidelines for access are as follows:
Oct. 2, 2023 Item #2 Page 62 of 62
1
To: Carlsbad traffic commission
From: Steve Linke (splinke@gmail.com)
Date: October 2, 2023
Subject: Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) Methodology Update (10/2/2023 Agenda Item #2)
I submitted the attached letter (Attachment A) to staff in April for distribution to the commission to
provide feedback on the MMLOS methodology review process. I never received any confirmation that it
had been distributed, and I hope you have an opportunity to read the full letter for additional details,
but below is a summary with updates:
• The Carlsbad Municipal Code defines the commission’s primary duty as implementing the 2015
General Plan Mobility Element, and the first five implementing policies in that element are
related to establishing and using the MMLOS methodology.
• The MMLOS methodology was supposed to require funding of transportation improvements
from developer and city projects with the promise that it would trigger a “transformation” in
infrastructure for the alternative modes of travel—pedestrian, bicycle, and transit.
• Instead, in the ensuing eight years, projects have only been conditioned to fund very minimal
MMLOS-based improvements, and the city also has failed to establish an MMLOS methodology
or report monitoring results, even though that is required every year by Growth Management.
• Each year when the GMP monitoring report is presented to the commission and council, staff
claims that they will do MMLOS monitoring before the end of the year and submit the results as
a late supplement—and each year they have broken their promise to do that.
• Sadly, during the GMP Update committee process, for which I served as your commission’s
voting representative, staff recommended abolishing any minimum standards under MMLOS.
• The staff report you received for today’s meeting is largely a copy-paste of the staff report from
your March meeting with the same, seemingly anemic, proposed MMLOS systems.
• One change in the new staff report relative to the March version is staff again breaking the
promise to present MMLOS monitoring in a late supplement for FY 2021-22 and, instead, they
are now going to wait until FY 2022-23.
1. What list of MMLOS deficiencies reflects all of staff’s proposed revisions?
Exhibit 3 of the staff report appears to show theoretical lists of MMLOS deficiencies for pedestrian
(Table 1), bicycle (Table 2), and transit (Table 3), but those are based on previous committee
recommendations—and not staff’s proposed revisions. Exhibit 4 appears to include a subset of the
deficiencies, but it is not described well in the staff report.
Sample question for staff: If the commission agrees to all of staff's proposed revisions, and then
monitoring is done consistent with those revisions, will all of the deficiencies listed in Exhibit 4 appear
in the monitoring report?
2
2. Pedestrian LOS: Sidewalk widths
Staff has seemingly reduced the sidewalk width minimum standard by downgrading the “Essential
Features” from meeting the minimum widths stated in the Mobility Element (6 to 10 feet for some
street types, and at least 5 feet for all other street types, wherever feasible) down to just Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance—seemingly 4 feet in California:
The current language refers to some alleged width “recommendations” in the SMP or 5 feet, but I am
unaware of any width recommendation in the SMP, and the inclusion of the word “recommendations”
means that developers can only be conditioned to use the minimum ADA width of 4 feet. Thus, the
following revision should be made:
Essential Feature: Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the
Mobility Element (or 5' if unspecified), wherever feasible
Sample questions for staff:
• For Identity Streets in the Village, the Mobility Element calls for minimum sidewalk widths of 6
to 10 feet. For School Streets, it calls for a minimum of 6 feet. With staff’s currently proposed
sidewalk width “essential feature” language, will developers and the city be required to
improve sidewalks to these widths with their projects, wherever feasible?
• What is the minimum ADA width? What are the minimum widths that staff alleges are in the
SMP? What can actually be required with the currently proposed MMLOS language?
3. Pedestrian LOS: Crosswalks
I wanted to get more crosswalks marked at busy intersection on major streets. Two examples arose with
large apartment complexes that are under construction near Palomar Airport Road—one near the
intersection with College Boulevard/Aviara Parkway and another near Palomar Oaks Way. None of the
legs has any markings for pedestrians, despite the fact that the developments will allegedly add
significant pedestrian traffic, and despite the fact that these intersections serve bus stops and business
access points to which people could walk. These are only a couple of examples, but neither
development was required to help fund crosswalks.
I suggested that an essential feature for these types of intersections should be high-visibility crosswalks
(ones with “ladder” cross-hatches). Staff pushed back, stating that including too many of these would
reduce the effectiveness. OK, then regular crosswalks (two parallel lines) should be appropriate, and
many jurisdictions include these as standard at every signalized intersection.
However, staff is proposing eliminating installation of new crosswalks as a requirement—entirely
deleting the reference to high-visibility crosswalks and limiting the regular crosswalks to only reviewing
whether already-existing crosswalks meet guidelines. I urge the commission to suggest the following
alternative:
3
Essential Feature: All crosswalks marked according to CA-MUTCD guidelines, regular marked
(transverse line) crosswalks on all legs of all signalized intersections where crossings are
permitted, and additional regular or upgraded high-visibility crosswalks where warranted by
high pedestrian usage
Sample question for staff:
• Under staff’s proposed language, would a marked crosswalk be required at busy intersections
like Palomar Airport Road/College Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road/Palomar Oaks Way?
4. Pedestrian LOS: Safety lighting
I urge the commission to convert this to a required “essential feature” rather than just one that adds
points: Essential Feature: Street lighting locations consistent with City of Carlsbad standards for street
light spacing
5. Pedestrian LOS: Countdown signals
I urge the commission to add a criterion related to countdown signals: Essential Feature: Pedestrian
countdown signals at intersections adjacent to developments that add pedestrian traffic
6. Transit LOS: Bus/rideshare stop amenities
Despite claims by staff at your March meeting, there are many studies that establish that adding stop
amenities like benches and shelters increases transit/rideshare ridership. Staff is recommending tying
amenity requirements to North County Transit District (NCTD) guidelines, which appears to be >10
boardings per day for a concrete pad/bench, and >20 for a shelter. However, as of 2018-19, only 14% of
Carlsbad stops have >10 boardings per day, and only 7% have >20.
When sizable new developments are proposed, they often are located near these low-usage stops, but
then they claim traffic mitigation based on their residents/employees using transit/rideshare services
that could utilize these stops. Therefore, future (not just current) usage of a bus stop should be taken
into account when deciding on the requirements for improvements:
Essential Feature: If transit ridership is included among any of a development’s mitigation
strategies, or if the stop location is projected to meet the NCTD requirements for a “bench
stop” after accounting for increased ridership from the development, then a an ADA-
accessible pad, bench, trash can, and pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided. If sufficient
right-of-way does not exist, compact amenities shall be provided, where feasible.
Essential Feature: If transit ridership is included among any of a development’s mitigation
strategies, or if the stop location is projected to meet the NCTD requirements for a “shelter
stop” after accounting for increased ridership from the development, then a shelter shall be
provided. If sufficient right-of-way does not exist for a full-size shelter, a compact shelter shall
be provided, where feasible.
4
Sample question for staff:
• For developments, under staff’s proposed language, would the NCTD boarding minimums for
bench and transit stops be based on current ridership (before any contributions of the
development) or projected ridership after the development is built?
7. Transit LOS: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) mitigation
One promise of the MMLOS system in the Mobility Element was that it would help transform the transit
system on transit-prioritized streets. On such streets with infrequent transit service, TDM (including
ridesharing) has been used an alternative to generate transit LOS points. However, staff is now declaring
that lack of meaningful transit service should be addressed through the “TDM ordinance and/or Growth
Management Plan mitigation requirement”—not MMLOS.
The reference to Growth Management seems bizarre, because the MMLOS performance standard is the
exact mechanism by which a mitigation requirement is established under Growth Management.
Sample question for staff:
Under your proposed revisions, what is the mechanism by which Growth Management will be
used to establish a transit mitigation requirement—if not through MMLOS?
And with regard to the TDM ordinance: (1) The ordinance is only mandatory and enforced for
commercial developments, and nearly every recent major development has been residential. (2) The
TDM Ordinance is a general citywide approach to reduce employee trips in order to address the city’s
Climate Action Plan. It is not designed to address the lack of usable transit in specific transit-prioritized
corridors. Some developments may fall under the general TDM ordinance, but, if they are also in a
transit-prioritized area with deficient transit service, they should have additional mitigation obligations.
Sample question for staff:
• Will TDM plans under the TDM ordinance directly address the lack of usable transit in specific
transit-prioritized corridors, like the transit LOS system is supposed to do?
• Will TDM ordinance plans for residential projects be mandatory and enforced?
TDM requirement should be retained in MMLOS system:
The committee’s-recommendations for Essential Features related to TDM mitigation (based
on distance to stops and frequency of service) in Table 4 of the staff report should be retained,
and staff’s recommendation to remove them should be rejected.
1
To: Traffic and Mobility Commission
From: Steve Linke (splinke@gmail.com)
Date: April 20, 2023
Subject: Follow-up on Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS) Methodology Update (3/6/2023 Item #2)
This letter is a follow-up to my 3/3/2023 letter on this topic based on additional issues that arose from your
3/6/2023 meeting, which may be of particular interest to those now serving on the MMLOS Ad Hoc
Committee of which I am a former member.
GENERAL
Failed implementation of the MMLOS system
One of the primary duties of the Traffic and Mobility Commission is to guide implementation of the 2015
General Plan Mobility Element, so all commissioners should familiarize themselves with it. The first five
Implementing Policies (pp. 28-29) establish that the MMLOS methodology is supposed to be used for all
development and city projects to require construction of, or fair share contributions toward, the “livable
streets” improvements listed in Table 3-1 (pp. 11-15), which are specific to the individual street typologies
designated in Figure 3-1 (p. 17). However, rather than the promised “transformative” nature of the MMLOS
system, staff has implemented anemic MMLOS point schemes and exemptions, leading to barely any
meaningful multimodal improvements by developers. That is why I called for reform of the MMLOS
methodology in the commission’s work plan and formation of the MMLOS Ad Hoc Committee.
History of the MMLOS methodology update (Ad Hoc Committee)
The committee was established at the June 2020 commission meeting. It met at least five times over two
years (12/3/2020, 3/18/2021, 7/28/2021, 5/26/2022, and 8/3/2022) to discuss changes to make the
MMLOS methodology more robust. However, suggested changes were routinely met with logistical and
legal excuses by staff, and there were long delays between meetings, although it seemed like some
progress was being made.
About a week before your 3/6/2023 meeting, staff provided you with a document entitled “Multi-Modal
Level of Service (MMLOS) Methodology White Paper & Technical Memorandum” prepared by Fehr & Peers
(the consultant that also wrote the 2015 General Plan Mobility Element and promised its “transformative”
MMLOS approach to planning). When I read the white paper, I thought it could have been more consistent
with the Mobility Element and gone further to promote MMLOS, but it actually includes much of the
committee’s input.
However, when the staff report was released a few days later, I was extremely disappointed to see that
staff was making numerous last-minute recommendations (not reviewed by the committee) that
undermine many of the pedestrian changes and virtually all of the transit changes suggested by the
committee over the course of those two years. And I was even more disappointed when, in response to a
question at the meeting, staff falsely implied that their presentation/recommendations were somehow the
same as the white paper.
2
I do not understand why staff would circulate the white paper in advance without the context of their
actual recommendations that drastically changed it. The appropriate way to address all of their new
recommended last-minute changes should have been at another committee meeting, so I thank the
commission for forcing that issue.
“Essential features” and the level of service (LOS) “D” minimum standard
At the meeting, a couple of commissioners expressed concern about the seemingly low required LOS “D”
letter grade. While that is a perfectly understandable feeling (we all want A’s or B’s), it should not be a
concern in this case. ”D” is just the grade that was arbitrarily chosen as the minimum performance standard
in Carlsbad’s Growth Management Program, and the features required to achieve that grade can be chosen
to meet any reasonable goal.
I recommend treating this more like a pass-fail system. Any features you think should be a required
minimum should be defined as the “essential features” necessary to get a passing “D” grade. If the city ever
implements the originally envisioned “transformative” MMLOS system, funding of those essential features
would be required of the development, while any additional features that raise the grade above a “D” will
not be required nor will they ever be funded by the development. The city can fund such additional
features to get better grades at their discretion, though.
Small projects already exempt from analysis
At the meeting, staff also used the excuse that some of the criteria are not suitable for very small
development projects. However, that is irrelevant, because those projects are already exempt from having
to do any mobility related analyses—the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) Analysis Guidelines, and the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program all
exempt small projects. Further, if staff believes any individual criterion should have an even higher size
threshold, that also could be implemented, rather than staff’s “solution” of just eliminating it.
MMLOS features must account for additional users introduced by developments
When vehicle LOS is assessed by a development, it is based on future usage that includes new users after
the development is built. The same standard needs to be applied to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit LOS for
criteria to which staff wants to apply a user minimum—for example, when determining whether marked
crosswalks, pedestrian countdown timers, transit stop pads, transit shelters, etc. are warranted.
Unfortunately, based on staff comments at the meeting, it seems they intend only to use currently existing
numbers of users—not the increased numbers introduced by developments. This fatal flaw in staff’s
recommendations is also inconsistent with the premise that developments should pay for their impacts.
Any development that cites alternative modes of travel (pedestrian, bicycle, and/or transit) as mitigating
factors in its application, or that introduces significant numbers of such users, should be required to
assess LOS features based on the increased users. This clarification needs to be directly incorporated into
the MMLOS methodology. Otherwise, staff will allow developers to just use existing numbers.
3
PEDESTRIAN LOS
Sidewalk widths
Before the ad hoc committee even started working on the MMLOS update, Pedestrian LOS included the
following requirement, which is fully consistent with the Mobility Element:
Essential Feature: Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility
Element (or 5' if unspecified)
For most streets in Carlsbad, this requires the 5-foot minimum width. The Mobility Element specifies larger
minimums for “Identity Streets” (10 feet adjacent to retail where feasible, 6 feet adjacent to residential,
and 8 feet elsewhere) and “School Streets” (6 feet). It also allows exceptions to sidewalks on
“Local/Neighborhood Streets” when they are “inconsistent with the existing desirable neighborhood
character” (i.e., those neighborhoods that have chosen to forego sidewalks).
I do not recall the ad hoc committee ever endorsing a change in that criterion or a reduction in the
minimum sidewalk widths below those stated in the Mobility Element, but staff’s proposed change would
do just that, undermining the existing requirement:
Essential Feature: Sidewalk or path meets [Americans with Disabilities Act] unobstructed width
based on Sustainable Mobility Plan (SMP) recommendations (Minimum recommended
unobstructed width based on SMP is 5')
It is my understanding that the ADA requires only 3 feet with the California Building Code increasing that to
4 feet, and I am unaware of any language in the SMP that sets a minimum sidewalk width. Therefore, the
references to the ADA and the SMP, and the inclusion of the 5’ “recommended” width make this change
very ambiguous. It certainly sets a lower standard than the Mobility Element for the Identity and School
Streets, and it also could be interpreted by developers to not even “require” a 5-foot sidewalk, since that is
only “recommended”—resulting in only 3-foot or 4-foot sidewalks.
I am not sure why staff wants to make this last-minute change, but, if it is entirely related to feasibility (lack
of land to expand the sidewalks) in some areas, then I would propose the following simple modification of
the existing criterion, which remains more consistent with the Mobility Element:
Essential Feature: Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility
Element (or 5' if unspecified), wherever feasible
If the change is actually intended to allow developers to leave or install sidewalks at 3 feet or 4 feet in
width, or to ignore the wider standard on the other streets, then the commission should not support that.
Crosswalks/high-visibility crosswalks
Staff is rejecting the ad hoc committee’s recommendation to put high-visibility crosswalks on all legs of all
signalized intersections where crossings are permitted. They also seemingly are limiting regular marked
crosswalks (transverse lines) to an analysis of only whether any existing painted lines meet California
guidelines, as opposed to exploring whether new marked crosswalks could be warranted with
4
developments. These significant reversals occurred despite the fact that staff included them during the ad
hoc committee meetings.
It is reasonable to conduct an engineering analysis (warrant study) to assess whether intersections should
have marked crosswalks and/or be upgraded to high-visibility crosswalks. The problem is that staff has
apparently not adopted any objective standards for such a study, like they have done for stop signs and
traffic signals. They certainly never presented any proposed standards to the ad hoc committee, which
would have been appropriate for review and incorporation into the MMLSO methodology.
The main factors in this type of “engineering study” likely would be: vehicle speed, vehicle volume, street
width (number of lanes), and pedestrian volume. However, as described above, I suspect that staff will not
require developers to conduct such warrant studies, and, even if they do, the studies will focus on the
pedestrian volume factor to allow avoidance of installation of crosswalks—for example, by not accounting
for the increased number of users introduced by the development and/or by setting an unreasonably
high “pedestrians per hour” threshold. Staff should be asked about those factors.
Another question to ask staff is whether the two Palomar Airport Road intersections I included in my last
letter would warrant crosswalks under their proposed engineering study (overhead images below): College
Boulevard/Aviara Parkway (Aviara Apartments) and Palomar Oaks Way (West Oaks Apartments). No
marked crosswalks exist at those intersections or were deemed warranted, despite the very wide streets
with very high vehicle speeds and volumes, and despite the fact that residents at the new developments
there are supposed to walk to the bus stops (blue symbols) and other nearby destinations. If marked
crosswalks are not warranted there, I am not sure where they would be.
5
Several cities install at least regular marked crosswalks (transverse lines) at all signalized intersections, and
high-visibility crosswalks are appropriate on many, including those near schools and other crossings at
heavily traveled destinations or frequented by at-risk users.
6
Carlsbad should really have objective Pedestrian Crosswalk Guidelines, like many other cities do. In the
meantime, I recommend exploring the following language:
Essential Feature: All crosswalks marked according to CA-MUTCD guidelines, regular marked
(transverse line) crosswalks on all legs of all signalized intersections where crossings are
permitted, and additional regular or upgraded high-visibility crosswalks where warranted by a
mandatory engineering study
Pedestrian lighting
The committee recommended that street lighting that is consistent with City of Carlsbad standards be a
required feature to improve pedestrian safety, but staff only wants to assign five extra points to that, rather
than making it a requirement. Sufficient lighting is one of the main safety measures for pedestrians (both
traffic safety and personal safety).
Although I understand Commissioner Penseyres’ opposition to increased lighting based on the potential
higher visibility of the lights on bicycles in darker areas, I think that the safety benefits to pedestrians
supersedes that, and that bicycle lights should still be very visible. The following criterion should be kept:
Essential Feature: Street lighting locations consistent with City of Carlsbad standards for street
light spacing
Pedestrian countdown signals
Upgrades to pedestrian countdown signals should be required at intersections adjacent to developments
that add pedestrian traffic, consistent with the General Plan Mobility Element.
TRANSIT LOS
Transit stop amenities improve ridership and also can be used for flexible fleets/ride-sharing
Staff made the false claim during the meeting that amenities like transit shelters do not increase ridership
and, instead, may just inhibit pedestrians. They also have complained that ADA-compliant concrete pads
and shelters may not fit in some locations. These are just excuses to rationalize their opposition to requiring
improvements to transit conditions.
There are several studies that indicate that bus stop amenities like transit shelters increase ridership—and,
at the very least, make things more comfortable for existing riders. For example, see the studies cited in
this article and this article, or look at the articles in this Google search. And, if there are locations in which a
full-size pad and/or shelter might not fit or might partially block a sidewalk, the MMLOS guidelines can refer
to alternatives, like smaller pads, compact shelters, and/or shelters without enclosed sides—again, instead
of just exempting a development from making improvements.
It also should be noted that “flexible fleets” and “ride-sharing,” which may substitute for fixed-route transit,
could also use these enhanced transit stops as part of their services.
7
Retain the requirement for Growth Management-based TDM mitigation in transit under-served areas
Staff’s last-minute recommendations remove the most important criteria that affect Transit LOS—
distance to the stops and the frequency of service—effectively gutting the committee’s two years of
progress on Transit LOS. Staff chose to prioritize several corridors for transit in the 2015 Mobility Element
(thereby not prioritizing them for certain other modes) with the promise of improving Transit LOS. Now,
ironically, they are citing the fact that transit is so unusable in many of those areas that developers
effectively should not have to do anything extra to make improvements there.
To account for the city’s limited control over transit routes and stop locations, the committee
recommended requiring Growth Management-based TDM of developers in the under-served areas. This is
analogous to the requirement that TDM be used as mitigation when Vehicle LOS is deficient on streets that
have been exempted due to the impracticality of further increasing capacity.
However, staff’s logic-defying rationale for the removal of all of these requirements is that TDM should be
implemented instead through Growth Management and/or TDM Ordinance-based plans. With regard to
Growth Management, staff should be asked to clarify what they mean by that, because it is this exact
MMLOS approach that would create the requirement for a Growth Management-based TDM plan.
With regard to the TDM Ordinance: (1) The TDM Ordinance is only mandatory and enforced for commercial
developments, and nearly every recent major development has been residential. (2) The TDM Ordinance is
a general citywide approach to reduce employee trips in order to address the city’s Climate Action Plan. It is
not designed to address the lack of usable transit by residents in specific transit-prioritized corridors. Some
developments may fall under the general TDM Ordinance, but, if they are also in a transit-prioritized area
with deficient transit service, they should have additional mitigation obligations.
Accordingly, the committee’s-recommendations for Essential Features related to TDM mitigation (based
on distance to stops and frequency of service) in Table 4 of the staff report should be retained, and staff’s
recommendation to remove them should be rejected.
Transit stop amenity requirements need to be based on development contributions to user pool
Staff’s recommendation is to set thresholds of >10 boardings per day to require an ADA-compliant concrete
pad, and >20 boardings per day to require a shelter. I did a public records request with North County
Transit District for current usage of our 284 bus stops. Only 14% of stops have >10 boardings per day, and
only 7% have >20 boardings per day (2018-19 data).
Now, consider three of the largest recent residential developments in Carlsbad: (1) Marja Acres on El
Camino Real north of Cannon Road, (2) Aviara Apartments on Aviara Parkway and Palomar Airport Road,
and (3) West Oaks on Palomar Oaks Way and Palomar Airport Road. All of the bus stops directly adjacent to
these proposed developments currently average only 1 or 2 boardings per day, which would exempt them
from having to install pads or shelters under staff’s recommendation.
However, all of the projects include their hundreds of future residents’ alleged usage of transit as a
significant traffic mitigation strategy. As explained above, the new users of transit introduced by these
developments should have triggered the need for transit stop improvements:
8
Essential Feature: If transit ridership is included among any of a development’s mitigation
strategies, or if the stop location is projected to meet the NCTD requirements for a “bench stop”
after accounting for increased ridership from the development, then a an ADA-accessible pad,
bench, trash can, and pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided. If sufficient right-of-way does
not exist, compact amenities shall be provided, where feasible.
Essential Feature: If transit ridership is included among any of a development’s mitigation
strategies, or if the stop location is projected to meet the NCTD requirements for a “shelter stop”
after accounting for increased ridership from the development, then a shelter shall be provided. If
sufficient right-of-way does not exist for a full-size shelter, a compact shelter shall be provided,
where feasible.
Nathan Schmidt, Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager
Nick Gorman, Associate Engineer
Traffic & Mobility Commission
October 2, 2023
Multimodal Level-of-Service
Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive a presentation and provide feedback
on the City’s Multimodal Level of Service
(MMLOS) methodology.
ITEM 2: MMLOS UPDATE
TODAY’S PRESENTATION
•Overview
•History and evolution of MMLOS in Carlsbad
•Overview of the updates to the MMLOS
methodology developed by the T&MC Ad-Hoc
Committee
•Staff’s proposed revisions to the methodology
•Receive questions and comments
ITEM2: MMLOS UPDATE
GENERAL PLAN MOBILITY ELEMENT
ITEM 2: MMLOS UPDATE
•Policy 3-P.3: Apply and update the city’s multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) methodology and guidelines that reflect the core values of the Carlsbad Community Vision related to transportation and connectivity. Utilize the MMLOS methodology to evaluate impacts of individual development projects and amendments to the General Plan on the city’s transportation system.
•Policy 3-P.4: Implement the city’s MMLOS methodology and maintain LOS D or better for each mode of travel for which the MMLOS standard is applicable.
BACKGROUND – ORIGINAL MMLOS METHODLOGY
ITEM 2: MMLOS UPDATE
•Original tool created as part of the EIR for
the City’s General Plan Update
MMLOS Update Process to Date
•June 2020: MMLOS first presented to the
T&MC.
•Recommended to establish an ad-hoc
committee to work with staff
•April 2022: T&MC reviewed the proposed
updates
•Recommended additional revisions and
continue meeting with ad-hoc committee
•March 2023: T&MC reviewed the proposed
updates
•Recommended additional meeting with ad-
hoc committee
ITEM 2: MMLOS UPDATE
Current MMLOS Tool
•Updated from original General Plan version to
include more factors reflecting user experience
•“Essential Features” which are minimum
required elements needed to achieve an
acceptable MMLOS score
•“Standard Features” which are optional but
may be required to achieve an acceptable
MMLOS score
•MMLOS applies to:
•Private development projects
•Growth Management Plan (GMP)
Monitoring
ITEM 2: MMLOS UPDATE
How is MMLOS used in Carlsbad?
•Private Development Project (Direct Impacts):
•Analyze private development projects
through Local Mobility Analysis (LMA) and
determine direct project impacts which are
features that shall be implemented by the
project
•Growth Management Plan (GMP) Monitoring:
•Review the citywide transportation
network for deficiencies
•Identify areas in need of multimodal
improvements
ITEM 2: MMLOS UPDATE
What streets require MMLOS
analysis?
ITEM 2: MMLOS UPDATE
MMLOS Scoring Thresholds
•Applies to all travel modes (pedestrian, bicycle,
transit)
•Scale: 0-100+ points
•Calculated by roadway direction
•“Essential Features”: Minimum components of
a pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facility need to
achieve LOS D
ITEM 2: MMLOS UPDATE
Proposed Revisions After March 6, 2023 Meeting:
ITEM 2: MMLOS UPDATE
Ad-Hoc Committee
Recommendation:
Proposed Staff Revision:Rationale for Revision:
Bicycle MMLOS - Essential
Feature: If class II bicycle lanes
exists, are lanes a minimum
width of 5 ft excluding gutter
pan
Essential Feature: If class II
bicycle lanes exist, the minimum
bike lane width should be 6 ft.
Staff recognizes the importance
of have an appropriate rideable
surface width within the bike
lane when next to a gutter pan or
other longitudinal obstruction
however this revision will provide
for an easier method to measure
the minimum bike lane width. It
will also allow for a sufficient
ridable width even with the
presence of a gutter pan.
ITEM 2: MMLOS UPDATE
Ad-Hoc Committee
Recommendation:
Proposed Staff Revision:Rationale for Revision:
Pedestrian/Transit MMLOS - Essential
Feature: For roadways with 4 lane or
more and/or posted speed 35 or
more, are the pedestrian crossings: 1)
controlled (i.e., by a stop sign, signal
or roundabout) or enhanced with an
RRFB or PHB, if warranted, and 2)
provided within 600 ft spacing in at
least one direction from a pedestrian
access point to the development (or
at the next adjacent public street
intersection if intersection spacing
exceeds 600 ft)?
Essential Feature: For roadways with
4 lane or more and/or posted speed
35 or more, are the pedestrian
crossings: 1) controlled (i.e., by a
stop sign, signal or roundabout) or
enhanced with an RRFB or PHB, if
warranted, and 2) provided within
600 ft spacing in at least one
direction from a pedestrian access
point to the development (or at the
next adjacent public street
intersection if intersection spacing
exceeds 600 ft)?.
Staff recommends
keeping the option of an
RRFB to enhance
pedestrian crossings
along roadways.
Proposed Revisions After March 6, 2023 Meeting:
Pedestrian Level of Service
Proposed Essential Features With Revisions:
•Sidewalk width (5 ft), cross-slope, and ramps and landing
consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA
•Striped crosswalks, if existing, are marked according to the
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or CA-
MUTCD
•Adequate pedestrian crossing features are provided on roads
with posted speed limits of 35 MPH or more (local mobility
analysis projects only).
Other Features:
•Street lighting, sidewalk buffer width, presence of street trees,
buffers from traffic, high visibility crosswalks, etc.
ITEM 2: MMLOS UPDATE
Bicycle Level of Service
ITEM 2: MMLOS UPDATE
Proposed Essential Features With Revisions:
•Require a Class-I (Bike Path), Class-IV (Protected Bikeway), or
buffered Class-II when the posted speed limit is 35 MPH or
above
•Bicycle facilities must meet the CA-MUTD guidelines for signing
and striping
•Free of infrastructure that obstructs a bicycle facility such as
drainage grates or other obstructions
•Class-II bike lanes shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width
•Class-II bike lanes provide a straight-through right of way or
clear delineation of conflict zones at intersections
Other Features:
•Roadway pavement conditions, design consistent with CA-
MUTCD, presence of on-street parking, bicycle detection at
signals, etc..
Transit Level of Service
ITEM 2: MMLOS UPDATE
Proposed Essential Features With Revisions:
•Adequate pedestrian crossing features are provided on roads
with posted speed limits of 35 MPH or more (local mobility
analysis projects only).
•Sidewalks are ADA-compliant between a project frontage and
the nearest transit stop within a ¼ mile (local mobility analysis
projects only).
•Transit stops require a covered bus stop/shelter if sufficient
right-of-way exists, bench, ADA accessible pad
Other Features:
•Presence on-demand transit, multiple transit routes on the
segment, or direct links to a COASTER station
•Other stop amenities including lighting, trash cans, or bike
parking
Next Steps
•Receive T&MC feedback
•Conduct MMLOS analysis for the FY22-23 GMP
Monitoring Report on all required roadways
ITEM 2: MMLOS UPDATE
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive the presentation and provide feedback
on the Multimodal Level of Service (MMLOS)
updates.
ITEM 2: MMLOS UPDATE