HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 98-91; Armstrong Garden Center; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (4)January 30, 2007
Ms. Desiree Cook
CB Ranch Enterprises
5600 Avenida Encinas, Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RECEIVED
FEB 0 6 2007
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT
LLG Reference: 3-06-1630
Subject: Responses to City Comments; Flower Fields Driveway
City of Carlsbad
Dear Desiree:
We have received technical comments on our focuses access study prepared for the
Flower Fields Driveway project, dated June 2006. The comments we received were
from the City of Carlsbad comment letter (January 16, 2007), and from RBF Consulting
(August 14,2006). The following are the comments and our responses. Please note that
we have revised the traffic study where appropriate. A revised version
(January 30, 2007) is attached under a separate cover.
The following is a response to the City of Carlsbad comments letter dated January
16, 2007 regarding LLG's traffic report for the proposed Flower Fields project
driveway.
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Engineers & Planners
Traffic
Transportation
Parking
Linscott, Law &
Greenspan, Engineers
4542 Ruffner Street
Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92J11
858.300.8800 T
858.300.8810 r
www.llgengineers.com
Pasadena
Costa Mesa
San Diego
Las Vegas
Comment 1: The queue lengths as provided -within the report do not seem to improve with the proposed
driveway location. This should be discussed within the report. If deficiency is identified in
the report, mitigation should be provided to address the corrective measures for the
improvement.
Response 1: The calculations have been revised per comment 14. As before, the
results show negligible changes in queuing at the major signalized
intersections. The improvement to the street system is evident on an
LOS/Delay basis at the unsignalized PDN/Existing Driveway
unsignalized intersection. Calculated maximum delay reductions
range from -315 seconds (Friday) to -243 seconds (Saturday). The
project itself is clearly shown to be the corrective measure for this
location.
Philip M. Linscott, PE (1924-2000
Jack M. Greenspan, PE (Ret)
William A. Law, PElRet.)
Paul W. Wilkinson, PE
John P. Keating, PE
David S. Shender, PE
John A. Boarman, PE
Clare M. Look-Jaeger, PE
Richard E. Barretto, PE
Keil D. Maberry, PE
An LG2WB Company Founded 1966
Ms. Desiree Cook
January 30, 2007
Page 2
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Comment 2: A weave analysis should be provided for movements from the proposed driveway to the
dual left-turn lanes on westbound PAR at PDN. Conflict may be expected for the vehicles
exiting the proposed driveway and vehicles turning right to northbound PDN.
Response 2: A weave analysis is not appropriate for an urban arterial (see
Chapter 24, page 24-1 of the Highway Capacity Manual).
The comment assumes that outbound drivers would a) use the new
driveway despite being destined for PDN south of PAR, an
obviously poor choice, or b) would not reasonably judge the ability
to make the lane changes in a safe manner. There is no evidence
presented that either case would occur.
Comment 3: Westbound PAR to northbound PDN should be evaluated in the queue analysis. Vehicles
traveling westbound attempting to make a right turn from PAR to northbound PDN may
find it not accessible due to the westbound queue and short right turn lane. Additionally,
drivers may utilize the proposed driveway to avoid the intersection of PAR at PDN.
Responses: The westbound to northbound right turn lane operations at the
PAR/PDN intersection was added to Table 7-2. A turn pocket of
260 feet was assumed based on existing conditions. The calculated
queue does not exceed the provided pocket length. The LOS for this
movement is LOS C or better for both Friday and Saturday Flower
Fields peak hours. Given the acceptable LOS, there is no reason to
generally expect cut-thru traffic to the Premium Outlets via the
proposed driveway, since the driveway will be signed for the
Armstrong Garden Center/Flower Fields (not Premium Outlets, and
such a cut-thru movement would still be circuitous, as it would only
lead to the southern parking fields of the Premium Outlets, and be a
"high-friction" alternative to the public roads.
Friction on the Armstrong site can be increased to control potential
cut-thru by means of using appropriate traffic control and calming
measures, such as stop signs, speed humps, bulb-outs and rerouting
of on-site circulation. The client is amenable to all these measures.
It is the opinion of LLG that the expected relief of traffic at the
existing driveway to PDN with the proposed driveway to PAR
outweighs the minimal impacts expected of any potential cut-thru
traffic along the Armstrong frontage.
N:\l630\Comments\Rc5ponsetoComments_1.30.07.doc
Ms. Desiree Cook
January 30, 2007
PageS
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Comment 4: Westbound queue lengths as stated in the report do not match existing conditions. Queues
in the #3 lane on PAR are often observed to extend to Armada Drive.
Response 4: The calculations are based on observed traffic volumes during the
Flower Fields' peak hours (generally mid-morning to mid-
afternoon), as discussed in Section 3.2 of the report. The comment
does not state whether the observation presented is for the Flower
Fields' peak operations, or the typical commuter peak. The
intersection operations were calculated using parameters dictated by
the City (see Comment 14). The resulting operational
characteristics are a function of the actual mid-day traffic volumes
and the City's mandated parameters.
Comment 5: The posted speed limit on this segment of PAR is 45 mph. A deceleration lane would be
required to be 375 feet plus a 120-foot taper minimum. Additional length may be needed
for storage depending on volume. As proposed, a short deceleration lane may designed to
meet storage capacity will not allow adequate stopping sight distance required by HDM
and could introduce rear-end collisions.
N:\1630\ComiTients\Rcsponse to Comments_1.30.07.doc
Ms. Desiree Cook
January 30, 2007
Page 4
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Response 5: LLG does not believe that a formulaic deceleration lane is required
in this case, based on our extensive experience in the industry. The
"book value" presented in the comment would be appropriate for a
highway-type section of roadway, or something similar, where
throughput of traffic volumes were unimpeded.
The 200' pocket is appropriate, as this is a standard for practice in
San Diego County. Full deceleration does not occur in the taper
and pocket; some deceleration occurs in the through lane in advance
of the pocket. Also, vehicles are typically not decelerating to a full
stop, as the inbound right-turn movement is not controlled by a
stop sign or signal. This reduces the length of deceleration lane
required.
The speed limit is not posted on the westbound segment of PAR
between Armada Drive and PDN, but rather, the segment is posted
with a "Reduced Speed Ahead - 35 mph" advisory sign, indicating
an imminent transition in the regulatory speed limit, and reflecting
the fact that drivers should expect not only traffic control ahead
(signal at PDN), but driveways at the existing service station
between PDN and 1-5.
LLG does not believe it likely that westbound vehicles do, or would,
operate at speeds upwards of 45 mph along the project frontage with
any regularity, due to the high probability of "catching a light" at
PDN, and the inevitable maneuvering for position ahead of the
interchange.
Based on the preceding information, LLG still considers the
proposed decel/storage length to be adequate.
N:\1630\Comments\Response to Commenis_l.30.07.doc
Ms. Desiree Cook
January 30, 2007
PageS
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Comment 6: Driveway location does not meet engineering standards intersection spacing. The
proposed driveway adds conflict points with vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians on the prime
arterial roadway. Bicyclists and pedestrians need to cross the path of vehicles three (3)
additionally [sic] times with the introduction of the proposed driveway locations and
should be identified in the report.
Response 6: The project acknowledges that the proposed driveway does not meet
intersection spacing standards for a prime-arterial. A design
exception is sought because, as shown in Table 7-1, the driveway
will provide major relief to the site's existing driveway at PDN
(currently operating at a very bad LOS F), and will allow access
options to the site, especially during the peak conditions experienced
for 6-8 weeks in the Spring. This will serve to provide peripheral
relief to the Premium Stores during peak times, by "unloading"
flower-fields/Armstrong outbound trips from the existing driveway
to PDN to the proposed driveway to PAR. Again, cut-thru traffic
across the Armstrong site is expected to be minimal.
There a currently multiple driveway directly across from the project
site, serving much higher generating projects than the Flower Fields
(e.g., fast food, big-box retail). LLG is not aware of adverse effects
upon pedestrians and cyclists at these existing, sub-standard
locations.
It should be noted that traffic speeds have consistently been
observed to increase in the eastbound direction on PAR, as drivers
accelerate away from the interchange complex and PDN, and
anticipate coordinated signal operations along PAR.
Comment 7: Cut thru traffic will be a concern with a new access point for vehicles accessing the outlet
stores and should be discussed in the report. This cut thru traffic may conflict with
pedestrian movements from the parking lot to the flower fields.
Response 7: The exact percentage of potential cut-thru traffic from westbound
PAR to the premium outlets can only be speculated upon. However,
common sense and experience dictate that a large percentage of
patrons to the outlets are regional, which indicate a distribution of
volume to/from the freeway, mitigating fear of excessive cut-
through traffic from westbound PAR. Also, the westbound right-
turn operates at LOS C or better for the scenarios analyzed,
indicating that little if any gain may be had by using the new
driveway to bypass the intersection. Again, were cut-thru traffic
determined to be an issue after the opening of the proposed
driveway, appropriate traffic calming measures such as speed humps
to control speed, or stop signs to provide pedestrian access could be
installed on-site.
N:\1630\Comments\Response to Comments_1.30.07.doc
Ms. Desiree Cook
January 30, 2007
Page 6
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Comment 8: U-turns volumes and queues were not taken into consideration for eastbound PAR at
Armada Drive and should be identified in the report. The report should identify any impact
to the intersection operations.
Responses: For a planning level synchro-analysis, left-turns and u-turns are
considered identical. The reserve capacity in the eastbound left-turn
pocket is ample to accommodate redirected project traffic.
Table 7-2 in the traffic study shows that the left-turn pocket length
is 350' while queuing under peak conditions analyzed is 145'.
Comment 9: Figure 6-2 shows the 121 outbound vehicles redistributed to the proposed driveway during
the Saturday period. It would be expected that this volume for Friday and Saturday would
not be the same as shown in Figure 6-1. Revise or clarify as necessary.
Response 9: Comment noted. Figures have been checked and revised as
necessary.
Comment 10: Figure 6-5 and 6-6 do not take into consideration the redistribution form the existing
driveway. The volumes seem to be carried over from Figures 3-3 and 3-4. Revise or
clarify as necessary.
Response 10: Comment noted. Figures have been checked and revised as
necessary.
N:\1630\Commems\ResponsetoCoiTiments_1.30.Q7.doc
Ms. Desiree Cook
January 30, 2007
Page?
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Comment 11: Show corner sight distance for the proposed driveway location. Consideration should be
made for westbound vehicles in the deceleration lane at the proposed driveway location.
Response 11: There are no physical barriers or vertical curves present to warrant
concerns of corner sight-distance impairment at the proposed
driveway. LLG completed a field review, and has included
information in the report.
In our experience, inbound, turning vehicles in a deceleration/turn
lane are not considered impedances to corner sight-distance as they
are not fixed objects.
The issue of corner sight-distance at the intersection of PAR/PDN
was also considered after direction from the City (see item #12, Don
Neu letter to Desiree Cook, dated 12/18/06). The existing
monument sign is raised above the ground on posts. Vegetation is
also provided as decoration. The corner sight distance for the post-
City CIP widening project (which will occur independently of the
proposed driveway) can be maintained if the vegetation/landscaping
is cleared. The existing monument sign does not impede corner
sight distance for westbound traffic looking northbound.
Please refer to the site plan for sight-distance lines.
Comment 12: Revise text as noted in the report.
Response 12: Text has been revised per comments.
Comment 13: Revise existing lane configurations for westbound PAR at PDN.
Response 13: The existing lane configurations shown on Figure 3—1 and analyzed
in the report assume the City's CIP to add a fourth WB thru lane.
N:\1630\ConuTients\Response to Comments_1.30.07.doc
Ms. Desiree Cook
January 30, 2007
PageS
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Comment 14: HCM analysis should use a peak hour factor of 0.95, cycle length of 100 seconds minimum,
and lane saturation volumes of 1800 and 2000 for turns and thru movements, respectively
to evaluate conditions found in the field.
Response 14: The analysis has been revised per these parameters. It should be
noted that the parameters used before are within the guidelines
suggested by the regional SANTEC/ITE Guide to the Preparation of
Traffic Studies in the San Diego Region, and were conservative
(yielding worse operations) than those suggested by the City in this
comment.
Comment 15: PDN at PAR LOS calculations do not match the figures and should be revised.
Response 15: All calculations have been revised per comment 14, and include
revised figures, tables and text and revised summary sheets included
in the appendices.
Comment 16: Verify the 95a> percentile volumes using the symbol # in the appendix for right-in/right-out
queue analysis calculations in Appendix C.
Response 16: The 95th percentile is the worst-case queue to report. The # symbol
indicates where the calculate queue exceeds the user-defined pocket
length in the computer analysis. For non-simulation analyses, LLG
does not typically enter pocket lengths, as this parameter affects
only the visual presentation of the SEVITRAFFIC simulation.
END OF CITY ENGINEERING COMMENTS
N:\163Q\Comrnents\Response to Comments_1.30.07.doc
Ms. Desiree Cook
January 30, 2007
Page 9
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
The following are our responses to the RBF letter dated August 14, 2006, regarding
LLG 's traffic report for the Flower Fields driveway study.
Comment 1: It appears that the methodology used in this analysis is sound and follows the general
guidelines acceptable to City of Carlsbad for conducting traffic analysis. We concur that
an ICU analysis is not necessary for this report and that SYNCHRO is an appropriate
software for conducting HCM level of service analysis.
Response 1: No action required.
Comment 2: The report provided does not have the SYNCHRO worksheets; therefore a technical review
of the operational analysis was not conducted. To complete this review, please provide the
SYNCHRO LOS worksheets.
Response 2: A copy of the appendix will be provided in the next submittal.
Comment 3: Figure 6-1: Add to the legend what the parenthesis mean.
Response 3: The figure has been amended per the comment.
Comment 4: Figure 6-1: Due to the distance between Paseo Del Norte and Armada Drive, as well as
the eastbound through queues from 1-5 to Paseo Del Norte, it is unlikely that any traffic
will redistribute by making a u-turn at Armada Drive. The increase in travel time would
not result in much diversion, if any at all.
Response 4: LLG agrees that there will not be a major redistribution of traffic.
However, there would certainly be some. The analysis assumes a
modest 10%.
N:\1630\Comments\Response 10 Coinments_1.30.07.doc
Ms. Desiree Cook
January 30, 2007
Page 10
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Comment 5: Was the existing u-turn movement at Armada Drive integrated into the analysis? The
existing uses along Paseo Del Norte (Costco, Carl's Jr. and gas station/retail center) result
in a number ofu-turns eastbound at Armada Drive, particularly during the midday peak.
Would the additional u-turning vehicles add to either queue or delay on this movement?
Responses: The u-turns/left-turns have similar effects on the LOS analysis.
While u-turns were not counted specifically, the LOS analysis is
considered accurate, and the existing turn pocket would have ample
reserve capacity to accommodate redirected project traffic.
Comment 6: Table 7-2: The project may reduce the queue lengths on the eastbound movement.
However, the eastbound left queues are shorter than the eastbound through queue
movement. The eastbound through currently exceeds the available storage length. The City
will not likely see this shift in queue as either probable or a benefit considering the existing
conditions.
Response 6: The comment does not specify what time period is being discussed.
The report shows LOS/Delay and Queues for the "peak of the
generator", or the Flower Fields' peak hours (roughly mid AM -
mid PM, Friday/Saturday). Also, the benefit of the project is not
necessarily in queue reduction for movements at PAR/PDN, but in
LOS/Delay improvement at the PDN/Existing Driveway
intersection.
Nonetheless, the through movements on a major road like Palomar
Airport Road receive more green time in the cycle than the left-turn
movement. LLG believes any reduction in left-turn moves improves
the efficiency of the intersections' operations.
Comments 7a-e:
Comment 7a:
Response 7a:
Figure 8-1: Several concerns come to mind in reviewing this design:
Palomar Airport Road has a posted speed limit of up to 55 mph in some areas. Is the 200'
turn pocket and 90' taper sufficient to allow a vehicle to decelerate and transition into the
right turn pocket for this speed? It is stated in the report, but no design standards were
noted. Because of space constraints, this could be an issue in the approval of the design by
the engineering department.
The 200' pocket is appropriate, as this is a standard for practice in
San Diego County. Full deceleration does not occur in the taper
and pocket; some deceleration occurs in the through lane in advance
of the pocket. Also, vehicles are typically not decelerating to a full
stop, as the inbound right-turn movement is not controlled by a
stop sign or signal. This reduces the length of deceleration lane
required.
S':M6JO\Conunems\Rcsponse to Comments_l.30.07.doc
Ms. Desiree Cook
January 30, 2007
Page 11
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Comment 7b: Is sufficient line of sight going to be provided from the driveway if vehicles are queued in
the right turn pocket? Although stated in the report, no sight lines are provided. Nor is the
topography of the land noted on the proposed driveway exhibit.
Response 7b: Sufficient line of sight is expected. Fixed objects such as monument
signs have been located to the downstream side of the intersection.
Standing queues of inbound vehicles are not expected in the
westbound right-turn lane into the site, as there is very little friction
on-site to cause stopping and queues. In the very infrequent times
that a queue may form, it is no different than any other driveway
location with a right-turn lane; the responsibility is on the outbound
turning driver to execute their movement when the judge it is safe.
Comment 7c: How will pedestrians cross the driveway? It appears the driveway would relocate the
existing sidewalk that would align with an existing row of parking.
Response 7c: Figure 8-1 presents a conceptual design, not a final design. The
driveway will be constructed to be fully ADA compliant with
appropriate ramps and sidewalks. Pedestrians will of course not be
routed into the parking lot.
Comment 7d: Would this design result in a loss of parking on site? During peak season, parking is at a
premium for both the Flower Fields and the Premium Outlets and a loss in parking could
impact the Premium Outlets.
Response 7d: The conceptual plan shows that one parking space will be lost with
the construction of the new driveway. This is not considered to
impact the Flower Fields, Armstrong Garden Center, or Premium
Outlets.
N:\ 1630\Comments\Response to Comments_ 1.30.07.doc
Ms. Desiree Cook
January 30, 2007
Page 12
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Comment 7e: Proposed design of the turn pocket length appears to result in an increase in weave
movements along Palomar Airport Road approaching 1-5. Is it necessary to bulb out the
curb between the proposed driveway and Paseo Del Norte? Could this be converted to one
long turn pocket? Look for ways to reduce -weaving. A weave analysis may need to be
conducted to show that the right turn out volume will not conflict or produce a negative
impact to the westbound movements (particularly the 431/481 westbound right turning
vehicles entering the westbound right turn lane at Paseo Del None).
Response 7e: The bulb-out was designed intentionally to break the length of the
right-turn pocket from before the proposed driveway to Paseo Del
Norte. Were it not for the bulb-out, this pocket would potentially be
in excess of 800'. This would not be desirable for cyclists, nor for
outbound turning vehicles from the proposed driveway, who would
be unsure as to whether approaching westbound vehicles in the
right-turn lane were turning into the driveway, or further west at
Paseo Del Norte.
Comment 7f:
Response 7f:
How will bicycles in the proposed realignment of the bicycle lane transition from one right
turn lane to the next. The proposed striping plan shows a bicycle lane, but with the volume
of traffic along Palomar Airport Road either entering or exiting turn pockets, bicycles
appear to be at risk.
Figure 8-1 clearly shows the bike lanes and weaving areas,
transitions are designed per national standards (MUTCD).
The
Comment 8: Site Plan: The proposed driveway will provide a direct path from Palomar A irport Road to
the Premium Outlets. How will the Armstrong Garden Center and seasonal Flower Fields
propose to reduce through traffic between Palomar Airport Road and the Premium Outlet
stores? This design will significantly increase traffic in front of Armstrong's (particularly
during the off season for the Flower Fields).
Responses: While the path to the Premium Outlets is technically shorter, it is
more congested with pedestrians, circulating traffic and general
friction associated with parking lots. This will likely dissuade many
cut-through trips. However, if a problem develops, the project can
apply proven traffic calming measures such as speed humps or other
calming measures.
N:\1630\Comments\Response to CommentsJ .30.07.doc
Ms. Desiree Cook
January 30, 2007
Page 13
We appreciate the opportunity to provide responses to the comments provided by the
City of Carlsbad and RBF. This is an uncommon project, and there are no set
significance criteria for either the City of Carlsbad or LLG to appeal to when assessing
the data presented.
In summary, LLG believes the proposed driveway concept provides valuable relief to
the existing Armstrong driveway to Paseo Del Norte. Improvements to this location
would be expected to have a residual effect on the major Palomar Airport Road/Paseo
Del Norte intersection to the south, as well as the Premium Outlets' driveways/frontage
along Paseo Del Norte to the north.
We would be pleased to meet with CB Ranch Enterprises and the City of Carlsbad to
discuss in further detail if you so desire.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Liuscotfc Law & Greenspan, Engineers
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Chris-lvlendiara
Senior Transportation Planner
cc: File
N:\1630\Comments\Response lo Comments_l.30.07.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECEIVED
0 6 2007
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUNNING DEPT
FOCUSED ACCESS STUDY
FLOWER FIELDS DRIVEWAY
Carlsbad, California
August 28,2006
Revised January 26,2007
Prepared for:
CB RANCH ENTERPRISES
5600 Avenida Encinas, Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4452
LLGRef. 3-06-1630
Lisa Carr
Transportation Planner I
Prepared by:
Chris Mendiara
SeniorTransportation Planner
Under the Supervision of:
John P. Keating, P.E.
Principal
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Linscott Law &
Greenspan, Engineers
4542 Ruffner Street
Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92111
858.300.8800 T
858.300.8810 F
www.llgengineers.com
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Project Description 2
2.1 Project Location 2
2.2 Project Description 2
3.0 Existing Conditions 3
3.1 Existing Street Network 3
3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes 3
4.0 Analysis Approach and Methodology 4
4.1 Approach 4
4.2 Level of Service and Significance Thresholds 4
4.3 Analysis Methodology 4
4.3.1 Signalized Intersections (HCM Methodology - Regional Criteria) 4
4.3.2 Unsignalized Intersections 5
4.3.3 Queuing 5
4.3.4 Project Access (qualitative) 5
5.0 Significance Criteria 6
6.0 Project Driveway Volume/Distribution/Reassignment 7
6.1 Trip Generation 7
6.2 Trip Distribution/Assignment 7
7.0 Analysis of Near-Term Scenarios 9
7.1 Existing Conditions (No New Driveway) 9
7.1.1 Signalized/Unsignalized Intersection HCM Method Analysis 9
7.1.2 Intersection Queuing Analysis 9
7.2 Right-In/Right Out Driveway 9
7.2.1 Signalized/Unsignalized Intersection HCM Method Analysis 9
7.2.2 Intersection Queuing Analysis 9
7.3 Right-Out Only Driveway 10
7.3.1 Signalized/Unsignalized Intersection HCM Method Analysis 10
7.3.2 Intersection Queuing Analysis 10
7.4 Right-In Only Driveway 10
7.4.1 Signalized/Unsignalized Intersection HCM Method Analysis 10
7.4.2 Intersection Queuing Analysis 10
8.0 Access Discussion 12
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
N:\1ci30\Rcpott\Traffic Analysis (rev i-26-Q7).doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.0 Conclusions/Recommendations.
9.1 Conclusions
9.2 Recommendations
13
13
14
APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A. Intersection Manual Count Sheets
B. HCM Intersection Analysis Sheets
C. SYNCHRO Queue Summaries
LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION—FIGURE#FOLLOWING PAGE
1-1 Vicinity Map 1
1-2 Project Area Map 1
3-1 Existing Conditions Diagram 3
3-2 Existing Traffic Volumes - Friday Mid-Day Peak Hour 3
3-3 Existing Traffic Volumes - Saturday Mid-Day Peak Hour 3
6-1 Redistribution of Traffic Volumes -Friday Mid-Day Peak Hour 8
6-2 Redistribution of Traffic Volumes - Saturday Mid-Day Peak Hour 8
6-3 Existing + Proposed Driveway Traffic Volumes - Friday Mid-Day Peak Hour 8
6-4 Existing + Proposed Driveway Traffic Volumes - Saturday Mid-Day Peak Hour 8
6-5 Existing + Right Out Only Driveway Traffic Volumes - Friday Mid-Day Peak Hour 8
6-6 Existing + Right Out Only Driveway Traffic Volumes - Saturday Mid-Day Peak Hour 8
6-7 Existing + Right In Only Driveway Traffic Volumes - Friday Mid-Day Peak Hour 8
6-8 Existing + Right In Only Driveway Traffic Volumes - Saturday Mid-Day Peak Hour 8
8-1 Carlsbad Flower Fields Conceptual Driveway 14
LIST OF TABLES
SECTION—TABLE # PAGE
Table 7-1 Midday Peak Hour Intersection Operations HCM Method 11
Table 7-2 Near-Term 95th Percentile Queue Analysis 12
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
N:\16JO\Rcport\Traffic Analysis (rev i-26-07J.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FOCUSED ACCESS STUDY
FLOWER FIELDS DRIVEWAY
Carlsbad, California
August 28,2006
Revised January 26.2007
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) has prepared the following focused access study for
the Carlsbad Flower Fields to determine the effects of a new proposed driveway for the site to
Palomar Airport Road. The Flower Fields currently have access only via driveways to Paseo Del
Norte. It is proposed to construct a right-in/right-out only driveway (no left-turns in or out) to
Palomar Airport Road. The effects of a right-out only or a right-in only driveway are also analyzed.
Figure 1-1 shows the project vicinity map. Figure 1-2 shows the project area map.
This traffic analysis presented in this report includes the following:
• Project Description.
• Existing Conditions Assessment
• Analysis Approach and Methodology
• Significance Criteria
• Driveway Trip Generation/Distribution/Assignment
• Analysis of Near-Term Scenarios
• Conclusions/Recommendations
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLQRef. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
N:\l630\ReportVTraffic Analysis (rev l-26-07).doc
V.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.V.YDEL MAR
'•PACIFIC
.v.v.vO-.v.v.v.-.v.vleEACH.:.
SOURCE: LLG Engineers, 2006
LL61630 HGI-I.DWG
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Figure 1-1
Vicinity Map
FLOWER FIELDS STRIPING/SIGNING
-setssfc. v\u s/ j#*-,.4^ f'€*» a-^c
Thomas Guide, 2006
FIG1-2.DWG
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Figure 1-2
Project Area Map
FLOWER FIELDS STRIPING/SIGNING
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following is a brief description of the proposed project.
2.1 Project Location
The Flower Fields are located in the City of Carlsbad on approximately 50 acres, east of 1-5 and
north of Palomar Airport Road. Project access is via a shared driveway with the Carlsbad Premium
Outlets to Paseo Del Norte.
2.2 Project Description
The existing Flower Fields commercial project operates as a tourist attraction for approximately six
to eight weeks in the spring when the flower fields are in bloom, typically from early March to early
May. Attendance to the site is highest on Fridays and Saturdays during the midday time frame. Due
to its tourist nature, the majority of trips to the site are via the nearby Interstate 5 freeway. These are
in addition to trips associated with the Carlsbad Premium Outlets, located adjacent to the Flower
Fields. This is a popular regional shopping destination.
A majority of both the Flower Fields' and the Premium Outlets' traffic uses the Palomar Airport
Road to Paseo Del Norte, where both sites have driveways. The first driveway on Paseo Del Norte
serves primarily the Flower Fields, although reciprocal circulation is available for the Premium
Outlets. South of the driveways, the eastbound left-turn queues from Palomar Airport Road to Paseo
Del Norte can be excessive, as can outbound left-turns from the Flower Fields' driveway
(unsignalized) to Paseo Del Norte. Outbound left-turns at the latter intersection are very difficult
under peak conditions due to limited gaps on Paseo Del Norte.
To alleviate the congestion at these locations, especially at the existing unsignalized driveway to
Paseo Del Norte, the Flower Fields have proposed a new project driveway to Palomar Airport Road,
between Paseo Del Norte and Armada Drive. The proposed unsignalized driveway would be
operational all year long and would provide both right turns in and out. No left-turn movements at
the driveway are proposed.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
N:\1630VReponVTraffic Analysis (rev 1-26-07).doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following is a brief summary of the existing network in the study area. For the purposes of this
focused analysis, the study area is defined as Palomar Airport Road between Paseo Del Norte and
Armada Drive, and Paseo Del Norte between Palomar Airport Road and the Flower Fields
Driveway.
3.1 Existing Street Network
Palomar Airport Road is constructed as a six-lane divided roadway within the project vicinity. The
posted speed limit is 55 mph east of Armada Drive (westbound), and bus stops and bike lanes are
provided. Curbside parking is prohibited along both sides of the roadway. It should be noted that the
City is currently designing improvements for the westbound approach at Paseo Del Norte, to include
widening on the north side of Palomar Airport Road to provide a fourth westbound through lane in
advance of the interchange. LLG included this improvement in the conceptual drawings and analyses
in this report.
Paseo Del Norte is a four-lane roadway in the project vicinity divided by a two-way left-turn lane.
Bike lanes are provided and the speed limit is posted at 40 mph.
Figure 3-1 shows the existing conditions diagram.
3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes
LLG commissioned peak midday intersection counts to be conducted during the Flower Fields'
typical peak hours of 10:00 am to 3:00 pm, on both Friday and Saturday, April 21, and
April 22, 2006. These are not necessarily the typical commuter peak hours that would occur on a
Tuesday. Wednesday or Thursday, but instead represent the "peak of the generator'. The weather
was clear, and the Flower Fields had been operating for several weeks.
Discussions with the Flower Fields management after the close of the season revealed that
attendance was about 30% lower this year than in previous years. LLG manually applied a 30%
growth factor to the inbound and outbound traffic volumes at the driveway on Paseo Del Norte. The
growth factor was also applied to the eastbound to northbound left-turn and southbound to
westbound right-turn at the Palomar Airport Road/Paseo Del Norte intersection to account for the
lower attendance.
Appendix A contains the manual count sheets.
Figure 3-2 and Figure 3—3 show the existing Friday and Saturday mid-day peak hour traffic
volumes (with 30% adjustment) at the key intersections in the study area, respectively.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
N:\1630\Report\Traffic Analysis (rev t-26-07).doc
18
PROJECT
55 MPH
STTE
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
Note: The Planned
fourth WB lane on
Palomar Airport
Road at Paseo
del Norte is
shown as
"existing"
REV. 1/26/07
LLG1630 FIG3-1.DWG
LEGEND
®|
l@
BL -
BS —
NP —
TWLTL
2U
4D
Traffic Signal
Two-Way Stop
Bike Lane
Bus Stop
No Parking
Two—Way Left—Turn Lane
Two lane undivided roadway
Four lane divided roadway
NOT TO SCALE
LAW &
GREENSPAN
Figure 3-
Existing Conditions Diagram
engineers
FLOWER FIELDS STRIPING/SIGNING
NOTES:
— Friday Mid—day peak hour volumes
are shown at the intersections
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 564^
1382—*
208 ~^
PROJECT SITE
431
1541390
o —<ocn —CN co —
§
1721
271
1257—*
269^,
REV. 1/26/07
LLG1630 OG3-2.DWG NOTTOSC/ia.E
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Figure 3-2
Existing Traffic Volumes
Friday Mid-day Peak Hour
FLOWER FIELDS STRIPING/SIGNING
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
REV. 1/26/07
LLG1630 FIG3-3.DWG
NOTES:
— Saturday Mid—day peak hour volumes
are shown at the intersections
r^ in ocom —•*•- to
651^
1120—•
PROJECT SITE
928
146
«•— 1059
^247
749—*
208"^
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Figure 3-3
Existing Traffic Volumes
Saturday Mid-day Peak Hour
FLOWER FIELDS STRIPING/SIGNING
NOTES:
- ADTs are shown midblock
- Saturday Mid-day peak hour volumes
are shown at the intersections
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD (144) ^
144—»
PROJECT
• 173
REV. 1/27/07
LLG1630 FIG3-4.DWG
J
SITE
144
144.3
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
Figure 3-4
40% Re-distribution of Traffic
engineers
FLOWER FIELDS STRIPING/SIGNING
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0 ANALYSIS APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 Approach
The analysis in this traffic study has been prepared to determine a) the effects of the proposed
driveway on both upstream and downstream intersections on Palomar Airport Road, and b) the
appropriate location and layout of the proposed driveway based on the analysis. The former analysis
is conducted by assessing intersection operations based on existing counts, including pre-and-post
project Level of Service, delay and queue. The latter is produced based on site attributes such as the
location of the existing parking lots, potential on-site circulation, and on engineering practices and
principals for driveway design on major roadways.
The following are the near-term comparative analyses included in this report:
• Current Conditions - no new driveway
• Right-in/Right-out Driveway
• Right-out Only Driveway
• Right-in Only Driveway
4.2 Level of Service and Significance Thresholds
Level of service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating conditions which occur on a
given roadway segment under various traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure used to
describe a quantitative analysis taking into account factors such as roadway geometries, signal
phasing, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. Level of service provides an index to
the operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection. Level of service designations
range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing
the worst operating conditions. Level of service designation is reported differently for signalized and
unsignalized intersections, as well as for roadway segments.
4.3 Analysis Methodology
4.3.1 Signalized Intersections (HCM Methodology - Regional Criteria)
Signalized intersections were analyzed under Friday and Saturday midday peak hour conditions.
Average vehicle delay was determined utilizing the methodology found in Chapter 16 of the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), with the assistance of the Synchro (version 5) computer
software. The delay values (represented in seconds) were qualified with a corresponding intersection
Level of Service. The City of Carlsbad provided timing parameters for the calculations.
The Synchro software also reported average queue length for critical movements. This information
was used for the queuing analysis at the key signalized Palomar Airport Road/Paseo Del Norte
intersection. Signalized intersection calculation worksheets and a more detailed explanation of the
methodology are attached in Appendix B.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
N:\1630\Repon\Traffic Analysis (rev 1-26-07J.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It should be noted that for development projects, the City utilized the Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) method of analysis. Since this is not a development study, and since key
comparative measures include delay and queue lengths, the HCM method was used exclusively.
4.3.2 Unsignalized Intersections
Unsignalized intersections were analyzed under Friday and Saturday midday peak hour conditions.
Average vehicle delay and Levels of Service was determined based upon the procedures found in
Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), with the assistance of the Synchro
(version 5) computer software. Unsignalized intersection calculation worksheets and a more detailed
explanation of the methodology are also attached in Appendix B.
rth
4.3.3 Queuing
Intersection queue lengths were obtained from the Synchro software package. The 95tn percentile
intersection queue length (per lane) and the maximum available storage are reported for each
interchange. The 95th percentile queue is defined to be the queue length that has only a 5%
probability of being exceeded during the analysis period. It is a useful parameter for determining
conservative turn pocket lengths, but may not be typical of what an average driver would experience.
The queue lengths are based on optimized green times (i.e., splits) from Synchro and represent
estimated lengths, which are difficult to predict accurately. Adjustments to green times can be made
to give some movements more priority, and therefore, change the resultant queue length. The queue
reports from the Synchro software are contained in Appendix C.
4.3.4 Project Access (qualitative)
The proposed project access is to Palomar Airport Road, a major arterial on the City of Carlsbad's
Circulation Element. The City of Carlsbad has indicated a reluctance to allow a private driveway on
a major arterial, due to the potential high volumes and speeds on Palomar Airport Road. These
factors present challenges in terms of driveway location and layout, as acceleration and deceleration,
potential queuing and on-site circulation must all be taken into consideration.
It should be noted that the proposed driveway would serve the site the whole year. This, as well as
the other qualitative measures discussed above cannot necessarily be addressed using quantitative
analysis methods such as LOS, but must be considered in the ultimate analysis of the project.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLGRef. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
N:\1630\Report\Traffic Analysis (rev 1-26-07J.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The analysis presented in this report is a focused project access study for an existing site with
existing traffic, not a traffic impact study for new development. The analysis is designed to compare
the operations at the key intersections to one another for the different access scenarios, not to
compare a "with-project" scenario to established significance criteria for development projects.
Therefore, no significance criteria are required, per se.
Nonetheless, regional standards of practice hold that LOS D or better operations are considered
acceptable. Where LOS E/LOS F operations occur with the proposed access, no impacts are
calculated if the proposed driveway condition is an improvement over the existing condition.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLGRef. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
N:\163Q\Report\Troffic Analysis (rev 1-26-07).doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.0 PROJECT DRIVEWAY VOLUME/DISTRIBUTION/REASSIGNMENT
The following is a brief discussion of the existing driveway volumes, apparent distribution and
reassignment.
6.1 Trip Generation
The analysis is not for a typical development project. The existing site's absolute project traffic
generation is not being determined and measured against a "no-project" scenario. However, the
addition of a limited access driveway is expected to redistribute some site trips from the existing
driveway to Paseo Del Norte to the new driveway on Palomar Airport Road. Thus, the driveway to
Paseo Del Norte was counted during the midday peak hour. The results of that count showed that for
a Friday during the tourist season, the driveway experiences 361 inbound/433 outbound trips during
the midday peak hour. For a Saturday during the tourist season, the driveway experiences 466
inbound/483 outbound trips during the midday peak hour.
6.2 Trip Distribution/Assignment
Regional distribution (beyond the driveway) is considered primarily to/from 1-5, since the site is a
regional attraction. Some traffic is also expected from east of the site on Palomar Airport Road, and
from Paseo Del Norte north and south of Palomar Airport. For the purposes of this analysis,
redistributed traffic is assumed to/from 1-5.
The proposed improvement would provide a right-in/right-out only driveway on Palomar Airport
Road east of Paseo Del Norte. This would be expected to primarily serve outbound traffic otherwise
using the driveway to Paseo Del Norte, but would secondarily attract some inbound traffic by way of
eastbound to westbound u-turns at Armada Drive.
There is no micro-model available to predict precisely what percentage of traffic may be attracted to
the new driveway. LLG used experience and engineering judgment to make an estimate inbound and
outbound percentages. Given the limited annual use of the site, the redistribution of inbound traffic
would be expected to be limited, since drivers unfamiliar with a location rarely drive out of direction
(to make a u-turn at Armada Drive). However, once on-site, drivers would realize the efficiency of
exiting directly to Palomar Airport Road.
The driveway redistribution was assumed to be 10% inbound and 40% outbound. These percentages
were redistributed from the northbound right-turn (inbound, 10%) and westbound left-turn
(outbound, 40%) at the existing Paseo Del Norte/Existmg Driveway intersection.
Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 show the redistributed traffic volumes for the proposed driveway for the
Friday and Saturday mid-day peak hours, respectively.
Figure 6-3 and Figure 6—4 shows the existing + proposed driveway (redistributed) traffic volumes
for the proposed driveway for the Friday and Saturday mid-day peak hours, respectively.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-06-1630
7 Flower Fields Driveway
N:\1630VReportVTraffic Analysis (rev 1-26-07).iioc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For the purposes of comparison, the City had requested that a right-out only driveway be analyzed as
well. The redistribution of traffic for this scenario is identical to the proposed right-in/right-out
scenario, except that no inbound trips are redistributed through the Armada Drive intersection to the
proposed driveway.
Figure 6-5 and Figure 6—6 shows the existing + right-out only driveway (redistributed) traffic
volumes for the proposed driveway for the Friday and Saturday mid-day peak hours, respectively.
Figure 6-7 and Figure 6—8 shows the existing + right-in only driveway (redistributed) traffic
volumes for the proposed driveway for the Friday and Saturday mid-day peak hours, respectively.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLGRef. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
N:\1630\ReportYrraffic Analysis (rev ! -26-07).doc
NOTES:
— Friday Mid—day peak hour volumes
are shown at the intersections
- 10% of Inbound Re-distributed
- 40% of Outbound Re-distributed
- (XX) show Re-distributed
Traffic Volumes
J
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD (33) ^
33—e
PROJECT
• 121
SITE
33 J3
NORTH
REV. 1/26/07
LL61630 FIG6-1.DWG NOT TO SCALE
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Figure 6-
Re-distribution of Traffic Volumes
Friday Mid-day Peak Hour
FLOWER FIELDS STRIPING/SIGNING
NOTES:
- Saturday Mid-day peak hour volumes
are shown at the intersections
- 10% of Inbound Re-distributed
- 40% of Outbound Re-distributed
- (XX) show Re-distributed
Traffic Volumes
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD (42) J>
42—f
PROJECT
•98
SITE
42 J3
NORTH
REV. 1/26/07
LLG1630 FIG6-2.DWG NOT TO SCALE
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Figure 6-2
Re-distribution of Traffic Volumes
Saturday Mid-day Peak Hour
FLOWER FIELDS STRIPING/SIGNING
NOTES:
— Friday Mid—day peak hour volumes
are shown at the intersections
- Includes Redistributed Volumes
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 531^*1415—
PROJECT j||SITE
T390
k
2362 271
O) CO O>•^MOrO t- CM
T 257 — t.
ocn^269 >.
'
NORTH
REV. 1/26/07
LLG1630 FIG6-3.DWG NOT TO SCALE
LlNSCOTT
LAW 8,
GREENSPAN
engineers
Figure 6-3
Existing + Proposed Driveway Traffic Volumes
Friday Mid-day Peak Hour
FLOWER FIELDS STRIPING/SIGNING
NOTES:
— Saturday Mid-day peak hour volumes
are shown at the intersections
- Includes Redistributed Volumes
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 609 J
1162— •
215^
PROJECT
•^481
»— 1026
T146
SITE
^.63
^10
^247
REV. 1/26/07
LLG1630 F1G6-4.DWG NOT TO SCALE
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Figure 6-4
Existing + Proposed Driveway Traffic Volumes
Saturday Mid-day Peak Hour
FLOWER FIELDS STRIPING/SIGNING
NOTES:
— Friday Mid—day peak hour volumes
are shown at the intersections
- Includes Redistributed Volumes
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 554 _J
1382— *•
208^1,
PROJECT SITE
V-431 1 Cl.
At/*"llf
1721
165^ ~\\257—* ll1257
NORTH
REV. 1/26/07
LLG1630 FIG6-5.DWG NOT TO SCALE
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Figure 6-5
Existing + Right Out Only Driveway Traffic Volumes
Friday Mid-day Peak Hour
FLOWER FIELDS STRIPING/SIGNING
NOTES:
— Saturday Mid—day peak hour volumes
are shown at the intersections
- Includes Redistributed Volumes
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 651^<
1120—
PROJECT SITE
•—1026
r146 1059
o en 10O) rO IDrO CM
REV. 1/26/07
LLG1630 FIG6-6.DWG NOT TO SCALE
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Figure 6-6
Existing + Right Out Only Driveway Traffic Volumes
Saturday Mid-day Peak Hour
FLOWER FIELDS STRIPING/SIGNING
NOTES:
— Friday Mid—day peak hour volumes
are shown at the intersections
- Includes Redistributed Volumes
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
1415—e
208^1,
PROJECT
*^_ 431
•— 1541
^"390
SITE
o *-ID O> T-CS CO *-
2262
1571721
Ol IO CT)T- r^ ooro i- CN
1257—f
269 ~\
Mr
REV. 1/26/07
LLG1630 FIG6-7.DW6 NOT TO SCALE
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Figure 6-7
Existing + Right In Only Driveway Traffic Volumes
Friday Mid-day Peak Hour
FLOWER FIELDS STRIPING/SIGNING
PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
REV. 1/26/07
LLG1630 FIG6-8.DWG
NOTES:
— Saturday Mid—day peak hour volumes
are shown at the intersections
- Includes Redistributed Volumes
Mnocoin T-•*«-n
609^
1162—•
PROJECT
928
146
SITE
1555
Mr01 to roror-^i^CM t- T-
1059
749—«•
208^,
Mrocnioen 10 10ro cs
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
LlNSCOTT
LAW a
GREENSPAN
engineers
Figure 6-8
Existing + Right In Only Driveway Traffic Volumes
Saturday Mid-day Peak Hour
FLOWER FIELDS STRIPING/SIGNING
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.0 ANALYSIS OF NEAR-TERM SCENARIOS
The following analyses are for existing traffic volumes. Redistribution of driveway traffic is as
noted.
7.1 Existing Conditions (No New Driveway)
This analysis represents a "no-build" scenario. This analysis shows the. operations in the study area
for existing access conditions with peak tourist season traffic volumes.
7.1.1 Signalized/Unsignalized Intersection HCM Method Analysis
Table 7—1 shows that for the existing conditions, LOS ;B-D_operations are calculated for the Palomar
Airport Road/ Paseo Del Norte signalized intersection, and LOS F operations are calculated for the
Paseo Del Norte/ Existing Driveway intersections for both Friday and Saturday mid-day periods.
The poor LOS for the Paseo Del Norte driveway is due to the difficulty in drivers obtaining gaps in
traffic to exit the driveway. This unsignalized analysis shows the driveway exit movement only. The
Palomar Airport Road/ Armada Drive intersection is calculated to operate at LOS CJP or better.
7.1.2 Intersection Queuing Analysis
Table 7-2 shows that the 95th Percentile queue for the key signalized intersections. This table shows
that queues at teee-four of the fetff-five key movements at the Palomar Airport Road/ Paseo Del
Norte signalized intersection exceed the measured lane storage available. The eastbound left-turn
queues at the Palomar Airport Road/ Armada Drive intersection are accommodated.
7.2 Right-ln/Right Out Driveway
This, analysis represents peak tourist season operations with the both the existing driveway to Paseo
Del Norte and the proposed right-in/right-out only driveway. Inbound and outbound driveway traffic
is redistributed to the proposed driveway to Palomar Airport Road.
7.2.1 Signalized/Unsignalized Intersection HCM Method Analysis
Table 7-1 shows that for the with the proposed right-in/right-out driveway, the Level of Service at
the Palomar Airport Road/Paseo Del Norte intersection remains at LOS D on Friday mid-day period,
and improves from LOS fi-D_to LOS B-C_during the Friday and Saturday mid-day periods. The
LOS at the remaining key intersections remains unchanged, although large reductions in calculated
delay are shown at the Paseo Del Norte/ Existing Driveway unsignalized intersection. This is
expected, since many vehicles making the critical left-turn out of the site are now redistributed
directly to Palomar Airport Road via the new driveway. The Palomar Airport Road/ Armada Drive
intersection is calculated to continue to operate at LOS D-C_or better, with only a nominal increase
in delay (less than 1 second) measured with the addition of redistributed driveway trips.
7.2.2 Intersection Queuing Analysis
Table 7—2 shows a reduction in queues at twe-three of the fett^-five key movements at the Palomar
Airport Road/ Paseo Del Norte signalized intersection (EB left-turn. WB right-turn and SB thru-
right). The eastbound thru queue experiences a nominal increase in queue (approximately 4-§-7_feet)
>
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-06-1630
9 Flower Fields Driveway
N:\1630VRepOrt\TrafBc Analysis (rev l-26-07j.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
due to redistributed vehicles. The eastbound left-turn queues at the Palomar Airport Road/ Armada
Drive intersection remain are accommodated.
7.3 Right-Out Only Driveway
This analysis represents peak tourist season operations with both the existing driveway to Paseo Del
Norte and a limited, right-out only driveway. Outbound only traffic is redistributed to the proposed
driveway. It should be noted that this is not the proposed access, but an alternative for comparative
purposes.
7.3.1 Signalized/Unsignalized Intersection HCM Method Analysis
Table 7—1 shows that with a right-out only driveway, the Level of Service at the key signalized
intersections is the same as for the proposed driveway alternative. Delays increase slightly at the
Palomar Airport Road/Paseo Del Norte intersection, but decrease slightly at the Palomar Airport
Road/ Armada Drive intersection as compared to the right-in/right-out scenario.
-th
7.3.2 Intersection Queuing Analysis
Table 7-2 shows that for the right-out only driveway, the 95m percentile queues at the Palomar
Airport Road/Paseo Del Norte intersection increase nominally for the eastbound left-turn, but
decrease nominally for the eastbound thru movement when compared to the proposed right-in/right-
out driveway scenario. Generally, queues are similar between both driveway alternatives.
7.4 Right-In Only Driveway
This analysis represents peak tourist season operations with both the existing driveway to Paseo Del
Norte and a limited, right-in only driveway. Inbound only traffic is redistributed to the proposed
driveway. It should be noted that this is not the proposed access, but an alternative for comparative
purposes.
7.4.1 Signalized/Unsignalized Intersection HCM Method Analysis
Table 7-1 shows that with a right-out only driveway, the Level of Service at the key signalized
intersections remain the same, or increase slightly over, the proposed driveway alternative.
Obviously, no relief occurs at the Paseo Del Norte/ExistinR Project Driveway intersection.
7.4.2 Intersection Queuing Analysis
thTable 7-2 shows that for the right-out only driveway, the 95 percentile queues at the Palomar
Airport Road/Paseo Del Norte intersection increase nominally for the eastbound left-turn and the
eastbound thru movement when compared to the proposed right-in/right-out driveway scenario.
Generally, queues are similar between both driveway alternatives.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 10 LLG Ref. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
N:\K530\RepoiT\Traffic Analysis (rev 1-26-07).doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 7-1
MIDDAY PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
HCM METHOD
Intersection
Palomar Airport Rd./Paseo Del Norte
Palomar Airport Rd./ Armada Dr.
Paseo Del Norte/Project Dwy. (U)
Day
Fri
Sat
Fri
Sat
Fri
Sat
Existing Volumes During Peak Tourist Season
Existing
Conditions
Delay3
36.8
30.1
34.2
25.2
487.5
370.0
LOSb
D
C
C
C
F
F
Right-In/Right-
Out Driveway
Redistributed Site
Volumes
Delay
35.5
28.6
34.6
25.6
172.4
127.3
LOS
D
C
C
C
F
F
Right-Out
Only Driveway
Redistributed Site
Volumes
Delay
36.0
29.4
34.2
25.2
173.2
128.4
LOS
D
C
C
C
F
F
Right-In Onh
Driveway
Redistributed Sitt
Volumes
Delay
36.5
29.4
34.6
25.6
487.5
370.0
LOi
E
c
C
C
F
F
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED
DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS
Delay
0.0 < 10.0
10.1 to 20.0
20.1 to 35.0
35.1 to 55.0
55.1 to 80.0
> 80.1
LOS
A
B
C
D
E
F
DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS
Delay
0.0 < 10.0
10.1 to 15.0
15.1 to 25.0
25.1 to 35.0
35.1 to 50.0
> 50.1
LOS
A
B
C
D
E
F
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 11 LLGRef. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
N:\l 630vReport\Traffic Analysis (rev 1 -26-07).doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 7-2
NEAR-TERM 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE ANALYSIS
Intersection/
Critical Movement
Palomar
EB
WB
SB
Palomar
EB
Existing Volumes During Peak Tourist Season
Existing
Conditions
Fri / Sat Storage
Right-In/Right-Out
Driveway
Redistributed Site Volumes
Fri / Sat Storage
Right-Out Only
Driveway
Redistributed Site Volumes
Fri / Sat Storage
Right-In Only
Driveway
Redistributed Site Volumes
Fri_/_S_at Storage
Airport Road/ Paseo Del Norte
Left-Turn
Thru
Thru
Sight
Thru/Right
316/330
482/320
368/217
120/252
181/166
215
430
1.740
260
170
275/295
489/317
399/233
117/239
158/115
215
430
1.740
260
170
311/319
475/303
399/233
119/243
158/115
215
430
1JAQ
260
170
278/305
495/334
368/217
118/248
181/166
215
430
JL740
260
170
Airport Road/ Armada Drive
Left-Turn 118/82 350 145/101 350 118/82 350 145/101 350
General Notes:
1. Calculated queue lengths in feet per lane
2. Bold typeface indicates queue storage deficiency
3. See Appendix C for queue worksheets.
8.0 ACCESS DISCUSSION
LLG qualitatively assessed the effects of the new driveway on local and on-site circulation. The
assessment includes the recommended location of the driveway vis-a-vis Paseo Del Norte, as well as
the physical features of the driveway.
The proposed driveway to Palomar Airport Road should be located on the southeast side of the
existing parking lot. Figure 8-1 shows a conceptual plan. The driveway should be 30 feet wide, with
an 18-foot wide inbound lane and a 12-foot wide outbound right-turn lane. Curb returns should be
provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A 200-foot turn pocket with a 90-foot taper should
be provided on Palomar Airport Road. This is considered sufficient for deceleration and potential
queuing, and is a standard of practice in San Diego County. Full deceleration does not occur in the
taper and pocket: some deceleration occurs in the through lane in advance of the pocket. Also,
vehicles are not typically decelerating to a full-stop, as the inbound right-turn movement is not
controlled by a stop sign or signal.
On-site circulation is expected to function well with the proposed driveway, with minimal on-site
queuing expected to occur given the triangular shape of the lot. There is limited parking immediately
adjacent to the proposed driveway location, so stopping/blockage on-site near the driveway is
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 12 LLG Ref. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
N:\1630VReportVrraffic Analysis (rev l-2S-07).doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
unlikely. A centerline stripe on the driveway is recommended through the first two aisles to dissuade
entering vehicles from turning left.
There is potential for cut-through traffic to the Premium Outlets along the Armstrong/Flower Fields
frontage on-site. LLG does not expect this to be significant, given that there is ample friction within
the parking fields with pedestrian and vehicular circulation to make this a poor option to using Paseo
Del Norte. The analysis shows that the westbound right-turn movement from Palomar Airport Road
to Paseo Del Norte operates at LOS C under all scenarios examined. This indicates that there would
be little need for drivers to cut-thru.
A westbound acceleration lane at the driveway is not recommended given the proposed driveway's
proximity to Paseo Del Norte. The sight-lines looking to the east and west are unobstructed by
topography, which should allow drivers turning out from the site to assess both queued downstream
traffic, as well as approaching upstream traffic. The deceleration lane should be separate from the
right-turn lane immediately west of the proposed driveway.
A free "ramp"-style inbound turn lane is not recommended, primarily because of pedestrian/cyclist
concerns. This would also likely require exceptional right-of-way as compared to a standard turn-
pocket, and could encourage unwanted high-speed egress into the site.
9.0 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 Conclusions
The results of the HCM analysis shows that the construction of a right-in/right-out driveway to
Palomar Airport Road results in significant improvements over existing conditions at two key
locations. At the major Palomar Airport Road/Paseo Del Norte signalized intersection, the Level of
Service improves from LOS E to LOS Dremains at LOS D or better for both Friday and Saturday
mid-day peaks. The existing unsignalized driveway at Paseo Del Norte is still shown to operate at
LOS F with the proposed driveway, but the delay for the outbound traffic is decreased by over 50%.
This is considered the major benefit of this proposed driveway.
The proposed driveway is expected to cause a slight redistribution of traffic to the eastbound left-
turn at the Palomar Airport/Armada Drive signalized intersection in the form of eastbound to
westbound u-turns, but the effects on operations at this location are negligible. LOS continues at
acceptable LOS D or better, and the increase in delay is less than one second.
Similar results occur with a right-out only driveway configuration.
The ..right-in only driveway does not provide any benefit to the existing LOS F-operating driveway to
Paseo Del Norte.
The proposed layout of the driveway is not expected to result in any on-site queuing that would
affect operations on Palomar Airport Road. A 200-foot turn lane is recommended, and would be
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 13 LLG Ref. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
N-.\163(M»cport\Traffic Analysis (rev i-26-07j.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
expected to accommodate any potential queuing. The deceleration lane should be separate from the
right-turn lane immediately west of the proposed driveway.
9.2 Recommendations
Based on the results of the technical analysis for delay, LOS and queuing, it is recommended that the
City allow a right-in/right-out driveway to Palomar Airport Road, to be operational year round. A
right out only driveway is also acceptable from a traffic-engineering standpoint. A right-in only
driveway does not provide relief to the existing driveway at Paseo Del Norte. No significant impacts
on-site due to cut-through traffic are anticipated given the typical friction in the parking lot, and the
good LOS calculated for the westbound right-rum movement on Palomar Airport Road at Paseo Del
Norte. Driveway location, width and deceleration lane lengths have been suggested in this report,
but should ultimately be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 14 LLGRef. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
N-.\1630\RepoitVrraffic Analysis (rev 1-2(>-07).doo
LEGEND
2__2 EXISTING STRIPING
~ PROPOSED STRIPING
EXISTING CURB
PROPOSED CURB
PROPOSED SIGN
«> PROPOSED TYPE IV ARROW
- PROPOSED TYPE 1(10') ARROW
SIGNS THIS SHEET
R3-7
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
MAXIMUM BACK OF QUEUE
CALCULATED AT 495'
REV. 2/5/07
LLGSTR1630.DWG taonro sou E
LlNSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
Figure 8-1
Carlsbad Flower Fields Conceptual Driveway
Carlsbad Flower Fields
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
FLOWER FIELDS DRIVEWAY
Carlsbad, California
August 28,2006
Revised January 26,2007
Prepared for:
CB RANCH ENTERPRISES
5600 Avenida Encinas, Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4452
LLG Ref. 3-06-1630
Prepared by:
Lisa Carr Chris Mendiara
Transportation Planner I SeniorTransportation Planner
Under the Supervision of:
John P. Keating, P.E.
Principal
LINSCOTT
LAW &
GREENSPAN
engineers
LinscottLaw&
Greenspan, Engineers
4542 Ruffner Street
Suits 100
San Diego, CA 92111
858.300.8800 T
858.300.8810 f
www.llgengineers.com
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers
1
APPENDIX A
INTERSECTION MANUAL COUNT SHEETS
LLGRef. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
Nr:\l630\Reporl''Appei>dix Cover Pages.doc
Weather: Clear & Dry
Counted By: C. Parish/S. Tillman
Board No.: D1 -1307/D1 -1432
Loc Paseo Del Norte & Palomar Airport Rd
Traffic Data Service Southwest
9773 Maine Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040
(619) 390-8495 Fax (61 9) 390-8427
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
06113010
00113010
4/21 /2006
1
Groups Printed- 1 - Group 1
Start Time
Paseo Del Norte
Southbound
Left
1 0:00 27
1 0:1 5 42
1 0:30 60
1 0:45 44
Total 1 73
Thru
17
15
19
13
64
Right
40
52
58
54
204
Peds
0
0
0
1
1
App.
Total
84
109
137
111
441
Palomar Airport Road
Westbound
Left
33
28
50
24
135
Thru
254
255
305
301
1115
Right
72
79
75
90
316
Peds
1
1
1
4
7
App.
Total
359
362
430
415
1566
Paseo Del Norte
Northbound
Left
47
58
68
70
243
Thru
31
30
27
17
105
Right
41
40
32
32
145
Peds
0
2
0
0
2
App.
Total
119
128
127
119
493
Palomar Airport Road
Eastbound
Left
98
126
129
123
476
Thru
342
361
340
322
1365
Right
42
33
38
42
155
Peds
0
0
2
1
3
App.
Total
482
520
507
487
1996
Exclu.
Total
1
3
3
6
13
Inclu.
Total
1044
1119
1201
1132
4496
Int
Total
1045
1122
1204
1138
4509
1 1 :00 49
11:15 56
1 1 :30 70
1 1 :45 81
Total 256
1 2:00 67
1 2:1 5 87
12:30 \:_85
12:45 72 "
Total 31 1
13:00 109
1 3:1 5 86
1 3:30 1 00
1 3:45 98
Total 393
1 4:00 1 02
14:15 80
14:30 72
14:45 68
Total 322
Grand Total 1 455
Apprch % 37.6
Total % 5.4
31 68
31 79
26 75
40 66
1 28 288
55 85
50 94
46 103
~63 "99
21 4 381
39 97
44 131
40 109
38 97
1 61 434
40 107
44 98
38 75
40 100
1 62 380
729 1 687
1 8.8 43.6
2.7 6.2
6 148
3 166
0 171
1 187
10 672
0 207
0 231
0 234
5 234
5 906
0 245
0 261
1 249
0 233
1 988
0 249
3 222
2 185
0 208
5 864
22 3871
14.3
60 288 85
79 320 1 41
73 382 110
90 381 1 24
302 1 371 460
107_ 380 113
d"i"9 389 ih'tD
"86 " ~345 106'
78 345 102
390 1 459 431
71 345 1 21
84 341 80
69 329 90
53 343 116
277 1 358 407
46 383 72
47 380 72
58 378 76
61 388 58
21 2 1 529 278
1316 6832 1892
13.1 68.0 18.8
4.9 25.3 7.0
6
6
3
8
23
4
1
3
3
11
5
2
1
6
14
1
4
0
0
5
60
433 56
540 66
565 60
595 64
21 33 246
600 65
618 85
537 —9.4"
525 75
2280 31 9
537 73
505 74
488 75
512 60
2042 282
501 63
499 62
512 68
507 82
201 9 275
10040 1365
43.2
37.1 5.0
39 39
44 44
27 49
38 66
1 48 1 98
47 68
50 62
— 42~™"-8(n
39 " '79
1 78 289
39 71
36 68
35 57
34 64
1 44 260
41 51
35 40
37 43
38 46
1 51 1 80
726 1072
23.0 33.9
2.7 4.0
2 134
3 154
3 136
1 168
9 592
0 180
5 197
2 216
4 193
11 786
1 183
0 178
0 167
0 158
1 686
0 155
1 137
0 148
2 166
3 606
26 31 63
11.7
1 26 31 5 36
119 329 45
1 40 326 35
1 30 335 44
515 1305 160
128 335 50
M 1 7 358 ~~~57^)
"T21 340 "47
1 23 349 54
489 1 382 208
1 25 322 48
1 23 365 52
1 24 389 44
1 04 371 47
476 1 447 1 91
1 08 31 8 55
99 301 36
1 09 303 47
91 264 56
407 1186 194
2363 6685 908
23.7 67.1 9.1
8.7 24.7 3.4
2
0
5
0.
7
2
2
2
0
6
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
4
5
22
477 16
493 12
501 11
509 10
1 980 49
513 6
532 8
508 7
526 12
2079 33
495 6
540 2
557 2
522 7
21 1 4 17
481 2
436 8
459 2
411 6
1 787 18
9956 1 30
36.8 0.5
1192 1208
1 353 1 365
1 373 1 384
1 459 1 469
5377 5426
1 500 1 506
1 578 1 586
1 495 1 502
1 478 1 490
6051 6084
1 460 1 466
1 484 1 486
1 461 1 463
1425 1432
5830 5847
1 386 1 388
1 294 1 302
1 304 1 306
1 292 1 298
5276 5294
27030 271 60
99.5
Weather: Clear & Dry
Counted By: C. Parish/S. Tillman
Board No.: D1 -1307/D1 -1432
LOG Paseo Del Norte & Palomar Airport Rd
Traffic Data Service Southwest
9773 Maine Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040
(619) 390-8495 Fax (619) 390-8427
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
06113010
00113010
4/2172006
2
Start Time
Paseo Del Norte
Southbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total
Palomar Airport Road
Westbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total
Paseo Del Norte
Northbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total
Palomar Airport Road
Eastbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total Int Total
Peak Hour From 10:00 to 14:45 - Peak 1 of 1
Intersection 12:00
Volume
Percent
12:15 Volume
Peak Factor
High Int.
Volume
Peak Factor
311
34.3
87
12:30
85
214
23.6
50
46
381
42.1
94
103
906
231
234
0.968
390 1459 431
17.1 64.0 18.9
119 389 110
12:15
119 389 110
2280
618
618
0.922
319
40.6
85
12:30
94
178
22.6
50
42
289
36.8
62
80
786
197
216
0.910
489
23.5
117
12:15
117
1382
66.5
358
358
208
10.0
57
57
2079
532
532
0.977
6051
1578
0.959
Weather: Clear & Dry
Counted By: C. Parish/S. Tillman
Board No.: D1 -1307/D1 -1432
Loc Paseo Del Norte & Palomar Airport Rd
Traffic Data Service Southwest
9773 Maine Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040
(619) 390-8495 Fax (61 9) 390-8427
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
06113010
00113010
4/21 /2006
3
3811 2141 3TT1
Right Thru
J
Left
L»
"nj I North
4/21 /2006 1 2: 00: 00 PM
4/21/2006 1245: 00PM
1 - Group 1
Left Thru Right
3191 1781 2891
8121 1 7861 I 15981
Out In Total
Paseo Del Norte
Weather: Clears Dry
Counted By: C. Parish/S. Tillman
Board No.: D1 -1307/D1 -1432
Loc Paseo Del Norte & Palomar Airport Rd
Traffic Data Service Southwest
9773 Maine Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040
(619) 390-8495 Fax (619) 390-8427
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
06113040
00113040
4/22/2006
1
Groups Printed- 1 - Group 1
Start Time
Paseo Del Norte
Southbound
Left
10:00 25
10:15 32
1 0:30 43
1 0:45 38
Total 1 38
Thru
15
20
28
27
90
Right
26
40
56
69
191
Peds
0
0
2
0
2
App.
Total
66
92
127
134
419
Palomar Airport Road
Westbound
Left
28
36
24
41
129
Thru
177
184
203
206
770
Right
64
86
91
92
333
Peds
3
0
3
1
7
App.
Total
269
306
318
339
1232
Left
44
55
49
53
201
Paseo Del Norte
Northbound
Thru
41
24
26
38
129
Right
33
28
37
41
139
Peds
2
0
1
0
3
App.
Total
118
107
112
132
469
Palomar Airport Road
Eastbound
Left
144
125
101
150
520
Thru
257
236
256
251
1000
Right
41
38
36
39
154
Peds
2
1
4
1
8
App.
Total
442
399
393
440
1674
Exclu.
Total
7
1
10
2
20
Inciu.
Total
895
904
950
1045
3794
Int
Total
902
905
960
1047
3814
11:00 54 23 78 0 155
11:15 47 24 82 3 153
11:30 57 25 78 0 160
11:45 48 18 98 4 164
Total 206 90 336 7 632
12:00 57 45 104 2 206
12:15 47 32 117 5 196
12:30 51 61 106 0 218
12:45 66 29 99 0 194
Total 221 167 426 7 814
13:00 87 33 105 2 225
13:15 60 31 135 0 226
, — -13:30 73 43 115 4 231
13:45 87 39 111 3 237
Total 307 146 466 9 919
14:00 73 38 119 0 230
' — -14:15 77 35 142 9 254
14:30 82 31 122 0 235
14:45 78 31 140 0 249
Total 310 135 523 9 968
Grand Total 1182 628 1942 34 3752
Apprch% 31.5 16.7 51.8
Total % 5.2 27 8.5 16.4
37 234 106 10 377
27 227 143 7 397
39 247 110 5 396
31 226 121 2 378
134 934 480 24 1548
57 270 99 6 426
47 229 96 4 372
36 234 91 3 361
27 224 88 5 339
167 957 374 18 1498
35 215 97 4 347
24 236 79 7 339
44 231 100 3 375
30 285 112 8 427
133 967 388 22 1488
50 191 142 17 383
22 221 127 4 370
43 232 120 4 395
34 263 98 5 395
149 907 487 30 1543
712 4535 2062 101 7309
9.7 62.0 28.2
3.1 19.8 9.0 31.9
72 44 37 2 153
52 35 50 5 137
56 41 43 6 140
66 51 38 0 155
246 171 168 13 585
54 40 51 0 145
39 32 36 1 107
43 39 37 0 119
67 44 45 4 156
203 155 169 5 527
77 44 42 0 163
76 45 40 1 161
64 49 48 0 161
45 38 50 7 133
262 176 180 8 618
76 45 34 0 155
54 44 41 3 139
58 43 22 0 123
50 31 41 1 122
238 163 138 4 539
1150 794 794 33 2738
42.0 29.0 29.0
5.0 3.5 3.5 11.9
142 267 35 3 444
152 291 35 0 478
148 263 48 3 459
158 305 58 3 521
600 1126 176 9 1902
157 279 44 1 480
120 209 60 0 389
151 245 53 0 449
141 262 62 3 465
569 995 219 4 1783
137 277 52 3 466
148 276 60 1 484
130 291 61 1 482
139 268 51 0 458
554 1112 224 5 1890
145 272 59 1 476
141 289 44 3 474
148 290 48 0 486
148 245 48 0 441
582 1096 199 4 1877
2825 5329 972 30 9126
31.0 58.4 10.7
12.3 23.2 4.2 39.8
15 1 1 29 1 1 44
15 1 1 65 1 1 80
14 1 1 55 1 1 69
9 1 21 8 1 227
53 4667 4720
9 1 257 1 266
10 1 064 1 074
3 1 1 47 1 1 50
12 1 1 54 1 1 66
34 4622 4656
9 1201 1210
9 1 21 0 1 21 9
8 (1249^ 1257
1 8 V1 255,/ 1 273
44 491 5 4959
1 8 (7244s) 1 262
1 9 U237/ 1 256
4 1 239 1 243
6 1 207 1 21 3
47 4927 4974
1 98 22925 231 23
0.9 99.1
Weather: Clear & Dry
Counted By: C. Parish/S. Tillman
Board No.: D1 -1307/D1 -1432
Loc Paseo Del Norte & Palomar Airport Rd
Traffic Data Service Southwest
9773 Maine Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040
(619) 390-8495 Fax (61 9) 390-8427
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
06113040
00113040
4/22/2006
2
Start Time
Paseo Del Norte
Southbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total
Palomar Airport Road
Westbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total
Paseo Del Norte
Northbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total
Palomar Airport Road
Eastbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total Int Total
Peak Hour From 10:00 to 14:45 - Peak 1 of 1
Intersection 1 3:30
Volume 31 0
Percent 32.6
13: 45 Volume 87
Peak Factor
High Int 1 4:1 5
Volume 77
Peak Factor
1 55 487
16.3 51.2
39 111
35 142
952
237
254
0.937
146
9.4
30
1 3:45
30
928 481
59.7 30.9
285 112
285 112
1555
427
427
0.910
239
40.6
45
13:30
64
1 76 1 73
29.9 29.4
38 50
49 48
588
133
161
0.913
555
29.4
139
13:30
130
1 1 20 21 5
59.3 11.4
268 51
291 61
1 890 4985
458 1 255
0.993
482
0.980
Weather: Clear & Dry
Counted By: C. Parish/S. Tillman
Board No.: D1 -1 307/D1 -1432
Loc Paseo Del Norte & Palomar Airport Rd
Traffic Data Service Southwest
9773 Maine Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040
(619) 390-8495 Fax (61 9) 390-8427
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
06113040
00113040
4/22/2006
3
Paseo Del Norte
Out In Total
12121 1 952| | 21641
4871 1551 316~1
Right ThruJ Lettu
North ti' - tO
Left Thru Right
2391 1761 j 73~l
Weather: Clear & Dry
Counted By: C. Harper/S. Mangiafico
Board No.: D1 -1427/D1 -1431
Loc: Armada Dr & Palomar Airport Rd
Traffic Data Service Southwest
9773 Maine Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040
(619) 390-8495 Fax (61 9) 390-8427
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
06113020
00113020
4/2172006
1
Groups Printed- 1
Start Time
Armada Drive
Southbound
Left
10:00 17
10:15 16
10:30 17
1 0:45 22
Total 72
Thru
12
19
12
10
53
High
t
38
22
33
35
128
Red
s
0
0
0
0
0
App.
Total
67
57
62
67
253
Palomar Airport Road
Westbound
Left
53
62
59
61
235
Thru
265
285
286
274
1110
Righ
t
28
47
33
33
141
Ped
s
0
1
1
0
2
App.
Total
346
394
378
368
1486
- Group 1
Armada Drive
Northbound
Left
51
60
92
91
294
Thru
9
5
8
12
34
Righ
t
19
38
42
37
136
Ped
s
0
0
0
2
2
App.
Total
79
103
142
140
464
Palomar Airport Road
Eastbound
Left
31
46
36
54
167
Thru
273
263
251
251
1038
Righ
t
51
37
44
51
183
U-
Turn
s
11
8
11
5
35
Ped
s
0
0
2
0
2
App.
Total
355
346
331
356
1388
Exclu.
Total
11
9
14
7
41
Inclu.
Total
847
900
913
931
3591
Int
Total
858
909
927
938
3632
1 1 :00 11
11:15 18
11:30 30
11:45 34
Total 93
1 2:00 20
12:15 26
12:30 31
12:45 38
Total 1 1 5
1 3:00 31
1 3:1 5 41
13:30 41
1 3:45 40
Total 1 53
1 4:00 35
1 4:1 5 36
1 4:30 39
1 4:45 42
Total 1 52
Grand Total 585
Apprch % 32.4
Total % 2.7
23 51
19 47
18 51
24 87
84 236
25 68
12 50
28 55
18 46
83 219
20 57
17 48
9 46
12 31
58 182
11 33
7 46
10 33
8 28
36 140
31 4 905
17.4 50.2
1.4 4.1
0 85
1 84
0 99
0 145
1 413
3 113
0 88
3 114
2 102
8 417
1 108
1 106
0 96
0 83
2 393
0 79
0 89
2 82
2 78
4 328
15 1 804
8.2
74 300 35
59 389 41
65 403 31
73 392 48
271 1484 155
74 472 36
65 453 40
59 404 33
64 340 28
262 1669 137
58 31 8 29
65 340 33
61 275 35
48 390 25
232 1323 122
51 353 11
50 323 1 9
42 432 1 8
61 343 24
204 1451 72
1204 7037 627
13.6 79.4 7.1
5.5 32.2 2.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
2
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
7
409 75
489 1 24
499 1 03
51 3 1 02
1 91 0 404
582 91
558 95
496 93
432 110
2068 389
405 116
438 1 03
371 111
463 98
1 677 428
415 84
392 97
492 113
428 1 00
1 727 394
8868 1909
56.2
40.5 8.7
14 46
18 60
8 48
14 73
54 227
21 60
20 69
19 73
22 65
82 267
20 74
13 83
14 70
14 58
61 285
13 60
13 88
12 83
12 59
50 290
281 1 205
8.3 35.5
1.3 5.5
0 135
0 202
1 159
0 189
1 685
0 172
1 184
0 185
1 197
2 738
0 210
2 199
0 195
0 170
2 774
3 157
0 198
0 208
0 171
3 734
1 0 3395
15.5
56 231 44 9
28 251 56 26
38 310 56 23
37 329 69 22
159 1121 225 80
35 283 59 27
44 329 81 32
49 316 60 25
45 330 52 27
173 1258 252 111
53 334 66 26
53 301 73 33
59 353 72 36
34 354 52 16
199 1342 263 111
28 316 54 31
48 311 39 28
32 259 49 26
16 242 46 21
124 1128 188 106
822 5887 1111 443
10.5 75.3 14.2
3.8 26.9 5.1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
6
1
8
1
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
5
16
331 9
335 27
404 24
435 22
1 505 82
377 31
454 33
425 35
427 32
1 683 1 31
453 28
427 38
484 37
440 16
1 804 119
398 39
398 28
340 28
304 23
1 440 118
7820 491
35.7 2.2
960 969
1110 1 1 37
1 1 61 1 1 85
1 282 1 304
451 3 4595
1 244 1 275
1 284 1 31 7
1 220 1 255
1 1 58 1 1 90
4906 5037
1 1 76 1 204
1 1 70 1 208
1146 1183
1 1 56 1 1 72
4648 4767
1 049 1 088
1 077 11 05
1 1 22 1 1 50
981 1 004
4229 4347
21 887 22378
97.8
Weather. Clear & Dry
Counted By: C. Harper/S. Mangiafico
Board No.: D1 -1427/D1 -1431
LOG: Armada Dr & Palomar Airport Rd
Traffic Data Service Southwest
9773 Maine Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040
(619) 390-8495 Fax (619) 390-8427
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
06113020
00113020
4/2172006
2
Start Time
Armada Drive
Southbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total
Palomar Airport Road
Westbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total
Armada Drive
Northbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total
Palomar Airport Road
Eastoound
Left Thru Right App.
Total Int Total
Peak Hour From 10:00 to 14:45 - Peak 1 of 1
Intersection 11:45
Volume 111 89 260
Percent 24.1 19.3 56.5
12:15 Volume 26 12 50
Peak Factor
High Int. 11:45
Volume 34 24 87
Peak Factor
460
88
145
0.793
271
12.6
65
12:00
74
1721
80.1
453
472
157
7.3
40
36
2149
558
582
0.923
381
52.2
95
11:45
102
74
10.1
20
14
275
37.7
69
73
730
184
189
0.966
165
9.8
44
12:15
44
1257
74.3
329
329
269
15.9
81
81
1691
454
454
0.931
5030
1284
0.979
Weather: Clear & Dry
Counted By: C. Harper/S. Mangiafico
Board No.: D1 -1427/D1 -1431
Loc: Armada Dr & Palomar Airport Rd
Traffic Data Service Southwest
9773 Maine Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040
(61 9) 390-8495 Fax (61 9) 390-8427
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
06113020
00113020
4/21 /2006
3
Armada Drive
Out In Total
3961 I 4601 I 856 1
2601 891
Right Thru LeftL>
North
E^
4/21 12006 1 1 : 45: 00 AM
4/21/20061 230:00 PM
1 - Group 1
t a
•£~2>
LeH Thru Right
381 I 741 2751
Weather: Clear & Dry
Counted By: C. Harper/S. Mangiafico
Board No.: D1 -1427/D1 -1431
Loc: Armada Dr & Palomar Airport Rd
Traffic Data Service Southwest
9773 Maine Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040
(619) 390-8495 Fax (619) 390-8427
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
06113050
00113050
4/22/2006
1
Groups Printed-
Start Time
Armada Drive
Southbound
Left
10:00 3
10:15 13
10:30 10
1 0:45 21
Total 47
Thru
22
10
9
6
47
Righ
t
21
28
25
14
88
Red
s
0
1
1
0
2
App.
Total
46
51
44
41
182
Palomar Airport Road
Westbound
Left
57
38
43
56
194
Thru
175
182
189
212
758
High
t
13
20
11
26
70
Ped
s
0
0
0
2
2
App.
Total
245
240
243
294
1022
Group 1
Armada Drive
Northbound
Left
50
83
84
91
308
Thru
18
12
9
11
50
Righ
t
Ped
s
25 0
41 0
39 0
38 0
143 0
App.
Total
93
136
132
140
501
Palomar Airport Road
Eastbound
Left
32
34
23
27
116
Thru
171
137
185
154
647
Righ
48
37
45
50
180
U-
Turn
s
18
19
20
36
93
Ped
s
2
0
0
0
2
App.
Total
251
208
253
231
943
Exclu.
Total
20
20
21
38
99
Inclu.
Total
635
635
672
706
2648
Int
Total
655
655
693
744
2747
11:00 10
11:15 6
1 1 :30 7
11:45 17
Total 40
1 2:00 1 8
1 2:1 5 9
1 2:30 1 2
12:45 10
Total 49
13:00 12
13:15 13
1 3:30 1 0
1 3:45 24
Total 59
14:00 20
14:15 18
14:30 17
14:45 17
Total 72
Grand Total 267
Apprch % 24.5
Total % 1.8
9 18
7 24
9 29
15 35
40 106
19 27
16 25
13 25
9 29
57 106
15 23
13 20
11 35
12 34
51 112
15 54
19 38
17 32
10 29
61 153
256 565
23.5 51.9
1.7 3.7
1 37
0 37
0 45
0 67
1 186
2 64
2 50
2 50
0 48
6 212
0 50
2 46
1 56
0 70
3 222
0 89
0 75
0 66
0 56
0 286
12 1 088
7.1
74 245
55 243
64 249
49 180
242 91 7
82 227
51 242
59 222
55 223
247 91 4
43 198
66 219
58 208
53 227
220 852
55 200
52 196
54 199
44 208
205 803
1108 4244
19.6 75.1
7.3 27.9
12 0
19 1
14 1
10 0
55 2
20 0
17 0
10 0
16 1
63 1
15 0
22 0
6 2
20 0
63 2
8 0
13 0
14 0
15 0
50 0
301 7
5.3
2.0
331 93
317 69
327 79
239 119
1 21 4 360
329 97
310 96
291 1 02
294 95
1 224 390
256 1 05
307 96
272 69
300 1 21
1 1 35 391
263 91
261 90
267 1 08
267 118
1 058 407
5653 1856
56.3
37.1 1 2.2
14 49
10 52
11 47
7 63
42 211
16 73
8 58
9 66
6 69
39 266
18 65
8 98
10 75
14 57
50 295
10 76
11 69
16 71
10 80
47 296
228 1211
6.9 36.8
1.5 8.0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
156 20 170 45 44
131 24 179 48 56
137 31 196 66 33
189 33 186 47 48
613 108 731 206 181
186 30 188 68 55
162 39 195 40 31
177 32 173 45 45
170 38 193 55 57
695 139 749 208 188
188 17 166 57 54
202 35 181 55 42
154 24 183 54 49
192 35 177 56 38
736 111 707 222 183
177 20 169 56 37
170 33 195 59 59
195 20 195 68 36
208 19 195 41 44
750 92 754 224 176
3295 566 3588 1040 821
10.9 69.1 20.0
21.6 3.7 23.6 6.8
2
1
2
0
5
0
2
3
0
5
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
13
235 47
251 58
293 36
266 49
1045 190
286 58
274 36
250 50
286 59
1 096 203
240 54
271 44
261 53
268 38
1 040 1 89
245 37
287 59
283 36
255 44
1 070 1 76
51 94 857
34.1 5.3
759 806
736 794
802 838
761 81 0
3058 3248
865 923
796 832
768 81 8
798 857
3227 3430
734 788
826 870
743 796
830 868
31 33 3322
774 81 1
793 852
81 1 847
786 830
31 64 3340
1 5230 1 6087
94.7
Weather: Clear & Dry
Counted By: C. Harper/S. Mangiafico
Board No.: D1 -1427/D1 -1431
Loc: Armada Dr & Palomar Airport Rd
Traffic Data Service Southwest
9773 Maine Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040
(619) 390-8495 Fax (61 9) 390-8427
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
06113050
00113050
4/22/2006
2
Start Time
Armada Drive
Southbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total
Palomar Airport Road
Westbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total
Armada Drive
Northbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total
Palomar Airport Road
Eastbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total Int Total
Peak Hour From 10:00 to 14:45 - Peak 1 of 1
Intersection 12:00
Volume
Percent
12:00 Volume
Peak Factor
High Int
Volume
Peak Factor
49
23.1
18
1 2:00
18
57
26.9
19
19
106
50.0
27
27
212
64
64
0.828
247
20.2
82
1 2:00
82
914
74.7
227
227
63
5.1
20
20
1224
329
329
0.930
390
56.1
97
12:00
97
39
5.6
16
16
266
38.3
73
73
695
186
186
0.934
139
12.7
30
12:00
30
749
68.3
188
188
208
19.0
68
68
1096
286
286
0.958
3227
865
0.933
Weather: Clear & Dry
Counted By: C. Harper/S. Mangiafico
Board No.: D1 -1427/01 -1431
LOG: Armada Dr & Palomar Airport Rd
Traffic Data Service Southwest
9773 Maine Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040
(619) 390-8495 Fax (61 9) 390-8427
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
06113050
00113050
4/22/2006
3
l_r
I
rf^l-
Armada Drive
Out In Total
241J I 2121 I 4531
I 1061 571 49|
Right Thru LeftJ j u
North
4/22/2006 1 2 00: 00 PM
4/22/2006 12 45: 00PM
Group 1
«n I r"Left Thru Right
I 3901 391 256]
Weather: Clear & Dry
Counted By: K. Thind
Board No.: D1 -1429
Paseo Del Norte & Flower Field/Outlet DW
Traffic Data Service Southwest
9773 Maine Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040
(619) 390-8495 Fax (61 9) 390-8427
Groups Printed- Group 1
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
06113030
00113030
5/21 /2006
1
Start Time
Paseo Del Norte
Southbound
Left
10:00 4
10:15 8
10:30 4
1 0:45 7
Total 23
Thru
76
78
117
91
362
Right
0
0
0
0
0
Peds
0
1
0
0
1
App.
Total
80
86
121
98
385
Flower Fields/Outlet Driveway
Westbound
Left
14
23
21
23
81
Thru
0
0
0
0
0
Right
5
3
2
4
14
Peds
4
4
3
3
14
App.
Total
19
26
23
27
95
Paseo Del Norte
Northbound
Left
0
0
0
0
0
Thru
156
168
167
164
655
Right
61
50
70
65
246
Peds
1
0
0
0
1
App.
Total
217
218
237
229
901
Eastbound
Left Thru Right Peds
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
App.
Total
0
0
0
0
0
Exclu.
Total
5
5
3
3
16
Inclu.
Total
316
330
381
354
1381
Int
Total
321
335
384
357
1397
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
Total
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
Total
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
Total
14:00
14:15
14:30
1 4:45
Total
Grand Total
Apprch %
Total %
2 122
4 137
6 136
4 153
16 548
6 152
6 170
6 177
6 196
24 695
5 153
10 190
3 185
4 178
22 706
5 210
2 182
10 167
6 179
23 738
108 3049
3.4 96.6
1.2 34.3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0.0
0.0
124 32
141 29
142 33
157 40
564 1 34
158 48
176 48
183 55
202 41
71 9 1 92
158 61
200 59
188 54
182 55
728 229
215 49
184 46
177 27
185 33
761 1 55
31 57 791
75.0
35.5 8.9
0 8
0 8
0 12
0 15
0 43
0 11
0 16
0 42
0 24
0 93
0 20
0 15
0 9
0 16
0 60
0 19
0 11
0 12
0 12
0 54
0 264
0.0 25.0
0.0 3.0
1 40
1 37
0 45
6 55
8 177
0 59
2 64
0 97
2 65
4 285
1 81
1 74
0 63
0 71
2 289
2 68
0 57
0 39
2 45
4 209
32 1 055
11.9
0 1 63 72
0 1 78 61
0 1 81 76
0 1 89 75
0 71 1 284
0 228 74
0 1 79 70
0 1 86 74
0 1 88 73
0 781 291
0 21 1 61
0 1 91 43
0 1 69 54
0 1 66 57
0 737 21 5
0 1 54 45
0 1 36 40
0 1 75 47
0 118 43
0 583 1 75
0 3467 1211
0.0 74.1 25.9
0.0 39.0 1 3.6
0 235
0 239
0 257
0 264
0 995
0 302
0 249
0 260
0 261
0 1072
0 272
0 234
0 223
0 223
0 952
0 199
0 176
0 222
0 161
0 758
1 4678
52.6
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 6
0 8
0 0
0 2
0 0
0 2
0 4
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 2
0 2
0 0
0 0
0 2
0 4
0 34
0.0 0.4
399 400
41 7 41 8444 444
476 482
1 736 1 744
51 9 51 9
489 491
540 540
528 530
2076 2080
51 1 51 2
508 509
474 474
476 476
1 969 1 971
482 484
41 7 41 7
438 438
391 393
1 728 1 732
8890 8924
99.6
Weather: Clear & Dry
Counted By: K. Thind
Board No.: D1 -1429
Paseo Del Norte & Flower Field/Outlet DW
Traffic Data Service Southwest
9773 Maine Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040
(619) 390-8495 Fax (619) 390-8427
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
06113060
00113060
5/22/2006
1
Start Time
Paseo Del Norte
Southbound
Left
1 0:00 1 0
10:15 7
10:30 7
10:45 11
Total 35
Thru
48
69
100
116
333
Right
0
0
0
0
0
Peds
0
0
0
0
0
App.
Total
58
76
107
127
368
Grou
Flower Fields/Outlet Driveway
Westbound
Left
19
18
24
26
87
Thru
0
0
0
0
0
Right
11
7
9
10
37
Peds
2
2
0
2
6
App.
Total
30
25
33
36
124
ps Printed- Group 1
Paseo Del Norte
Northbound
Left
0
0
0
0
0
Thru
163
150
141
169
623
Right
85
82
78
84
329
Peds
0
0
0
0
0
App.
Total
248
232
219
253
952
Flower Fields/Outlet Driveway
Eastbound
Left
0
0
0
0
0
Thru
0
0
0
0
0
Right
0
0
0
0
0
Peds
0
0
0
0
0
App.
Total
0
0
0
0
0
Exclu.
Total
2
2
0
2
6
Inclu.
Total
336
333
359
416
1444
Int
Total
338
335
359
418
1450
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
Total
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
Total
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
Total
14:00
14:15
1 4:30
14:45
Total
Grand Total
Apprch %
Total %
9 126
13 118
10 129
9 129
41 502
17 171
9 143
10 169
13 174
49 657
22 162
16 176
8 185
11 170
57 693
15 200
10 205
5 190
8 198
38 793
220 2978
6.9 93.1
2.2 29.8
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
135 18
131 36
139 33
138 45
543 1 32
188 44
152 39
179 42
187 44
706 1 69
184 41
192 49
193 52
181 49
750 1 91
215 41
215 46
195 46
206 55
831 1 88
31 98 767
58.2
32.0 7.7
0 17
0 16
0 16
0 17
0 66
0 36
0 33
0 32
0 31
0 132
0 40
0 35
1 28
0 29
1 132
0 41
0 40
0 60
0 43
0 184
1 551
0.1 41.8
0.0 5.5
0 35
3 52
0 49
0 62
3 198
1 80
0 72
1 74
0 75
2 301
0 81
2 84
4 81
1 78
7 324
1 82
0 86
2 106
0 98
3 372
21 1 31 9
13.2
0 1 76 91
0 215 99
0 207 90
0 226 84
0 824 364
0 1 90 75
0 1 92 86
0 1 70 89
0 1 99 81
0 751 331
0 21 3 75
0 1 90 88
0 209 73
0 1 92 99
0 804 335
0 1 94 81
0 21 5 78
0 1 93 89
0 1 86 73
0 788 321
0 3790 1680
0.0 69.3 30.7
0.0 37.9 16.8
0 267
0 314
0 297
0 310
0 1188
0 265
0 278
0 259
0 280
0 1082
0 288
0 278
1 282
0 291
1 1139
0 275
0 293
0 282
0 259
0 1109
1 5470
54.8
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0 0
0 3
0 0
0 0
0 3
0 1
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 2
0 0
0 2
0 5
0 1
0 8
0 1
0 0
0 2
0 0
0 3
0 22
0.0 0.2
437 437
497 500
485 485
51 0 51 0
1 929 1 932
533 534
502 502
51 2 51 3
542 542
2089 2091
553 553
554 556
556 561
550 551
221 3 2221
572 573
594 594
583 585
563 563
231 2 231 5
9987 10009
99.8
Weather: Clear & Dry
Counted By: K. Thind
Board No.: D1 -1429
Paseo Del Norte & Flower Field/Outlet DW
Traffic Data Service Southwest
9773 Maine Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040
(619) 390-8495 Fax (61 9) 390-8427
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
06113060
00113060
5/22/2006
2
Start Time
Paseo Del Norte
Southbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total
Flower Fields/Outlet Driveway
Westbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total
Paseo Del Norte
Northbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total
Flower Fields/Outlet Driveway
Eastbound
Left Thru Right App.
Total Int Total
Peak Hour From 10:00 to 14:45 - Peak 1 of 1
Intersection 14:00
Volume
Percent
14:1 5 Volume
Peak Factor
High Int.
Volume
Peak Factor
38
4.6
10
14:00
15
793
95.4
205
200
0
0.0
0
0
831
215
215
0.966
188
50.5
46
14:30
46
0
0.0
0
0
184
49.5
40
60
372
86
106
0.877
0
0.0
0
14:15
0
788
71.1
215
215
321
28.9
78
78
1109
293
293
0.946
0
0.0
0
9:45:00 AM
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
2312
594
0.973
Weather: Clear & Dry
Counted By: K. Thind
Board No.: D1 -1429
Paseo Del Norte & Flower Field/Outlet DW
Traffic Data Service Southwest
9773 Maine Avenue
Lakeside, CA 92040
(619) 390-8495 Fax (619) 390-8427
File Name
Site Code
Start Date
Page No
06113060
00113060
5/22/2006
3
Paseo Del Norte
In Total
~972] I 831 I I 18031
North
Left Thru Right
01 7881 3211
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers
1
APPENDIX B
HCM INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SHEETS
LLGRef. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
N:\16JO\Keport\AppaKiu Cover Pages.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Palomar Airport Rd & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
>t V
Lane Configurations vs
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
53
4.0
1.00 0.98
Satd. Flow (prot)3252 5248
Satd. Flow (perm)3252 5248
3252 6745 1500 3252 3379
3252 6745 1500 3252 3379
1.00
H
3252
3252
4.0
II
0.90nm
3368
3368
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0 0 271
Prot Perm Prot
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0li
Prot
Permitted Phases
Effective Green, g (s) 22.3 39.9
~ (Q
"4.0 4.0Clearance Time (s)
16.5 34.1 34.1 14.1 16.0
3^ v^^Ss^i^ra^w^3^Bs^^ll^^M0^Ml
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Perm
UniformDelay^ll
Incremental Delay, d2
Level of Service
Approach LOS
HCM Average Control Delay
711 2053 526 2255 501 450 530$m
0.12
41.0 29.8 25.7 42.2 39.2
434 512
D c c D D
36.8 HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)Actuated Cycle Length (s)
" .............................. I
Flower Fields 5:00 pm 2/15/2006 Friday Midday Existing
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Palomar Airport Rd & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t
L£neConfiguratins
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93
SatdI. Flow (prot)
Satd. Flow (perm)
3252 5224
H
3252 5224
3252 6745 1500 3252 3448
H
3252 6745 1500 3252 3448
1 00089
3252 3301
3252 3301
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
RTOR Reduction (vph)
...........
Clearance Timejs)4.0 4.0
6.9 24.2 24.2 11.2 11.7
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Perm
Un if orm Delay, d 1
Incremental Delay, d2
Approach LOS
847 2379
!U!£2lilifGU*&@i*
30.7 17.9
5.7 0.4
D B
II
C
HCM Average Control Delay
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
30.1
88.7
Analysis Period (min)
llSP
253 1840 409 411 455mm017
39.6 27.4 28.2 36.7 35.6
4.L^, °:3__ JL8_-.- JL7— °i8_
D C C D DmC D
m
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
502528
.QtQ^BmQlOOa
35.2 348
2.9 2.5
D D
D
C
H
8.0
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Saturday Midday Existing
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Pagel
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Palomar Airport Rd & Armada Drive 1/31/2007
t v
Satd.Flow(prot)
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
§L
0 0 0 139RTOR
Turn Type
Permitted Phases
Effective Green, g (s)
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Perm
Uniform Delay, df
IncrementalDelay, d2
Level of Service
Approach LOS
Prot
H
10.2 34.1
40^40
3181748
44.9 31.4
1.9 1.9
HD C
sJjaUc
HCM Average Control Delay
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Analysis Period (min)
Permm
4
M34.1
4.0
490~
Hi
0.08
HjPDmi
25.7
0.3
Cm
•
34.2
WM
104.4m
15
Prot
MM
Mi
21.8
4.0
m
350
-vfyl/ii
'{3»<rxjfil
39.4
13.5m
D
45.7
jflUM|
4.0
•2343
m
24.9
•1.6
C
C
Permm
8m
45.7
4.0
657~
Wffl0.05
17.4
H
0.1
B
ProtHi
0
17.0
4.0
530~
26.6
4.0
H§lfjl
44T
41.7
ifff'Ttf^Pf
6.1
D
34.2nm
2.2
M
D
Prot Perm
I6
5.9 15.5 15*5
i.tfJri^flHfth^H^ifiB«H^Qa
4.0 4.0 4.0
?84291223
0.09
S
48.2 39.8 41.6
7.0 0.6 4.6
EDOm
D
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
Flower Fields 5:00 pm 2/15/2006 Friday Midday Existing
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Palomar Airport Rd & Armada Drive 1/31/2007
<.f V \
Lane Configurations
Total Lost time (s)
Frt
111
Satd. Flow (prot)
Satd. Flow (perm)
HI
3252 1704
3252 1704
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
d
o
Peak-tour facto^PHF
RTOR Reduction (vph)
Permitted Phases
Effective Green, g (s):
i
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Perm
Uniform Delay, d1
Incremental Delay, d2^
R
Level of Service
Approach LOS
HCM Level of Servicemm&H
Sum of lost time (s)
HCM Average Control Delay
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Analysis Period (min)
litielffttatrHii?
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Saturday Midday Existing
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Driveway & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t A V
Lane Configurations
11111
Peak Hour Factor
HIPedestrians
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
pX, platoon unblocked
tC, 2 stage (s)
|raKvl*/jjgMK&H«Ml
pO queue free %
0 0 0 0 37 0 0
*"|||Ji|iSpJS«***ll^
134 560 1700 1700 1700 560 1700 1700a
Queue Length 95th (ft) 68424 000500
F B B
Jz&gOa
F
LaneLOS
Approach LOS
Average Delay
Analysis Period (min)
Flower Fields 5:00 pm 2/15/2006 Friday Midday Existing
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
PageS
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Driveway & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t A V
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Rhtturnflarevefiy
pX,platooniiblocked
vCu, unblocked vol
H
tC,2stage(s)
HHHLpO queue free %
1458 469
53
1377
Volume Left
K
cSH
R
QueueLength 95th (ft)
Lane LOS
Approach LOS
257 0 0 0 0 52 0 0
1
108 541 1700 1700 1700 494 1700 1700
572 61 0009 0 0
F C B
(SB
F
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Saturday Midday Existing
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
PageS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Palomar Airport Rd & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
V
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
1.00 0.98 0.85 1.00 0.911.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)
!iSB[[gg__
Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 5250 3252 6745 1500 3252
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0
3379
3379
EfBl0.95
g|9j
1.00 0.92
3252 3419
3252 3419
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 16
PermiUed Phases
Effective Green, g (s)
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)438 474
i.
v/s Ratio Permm
Unferm Delay dl
Incremental Delay, d2
Level of Service
Approach LOS
HCM Average Control Delay HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Analysis Period (min)
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Friday Midday Right In/Out
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Palomar Airport Rd & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
A t V
Satd. Flow (prot)3252 5228 3252 6745 1500 3252 3448 3252 3326
Satd. Flow (perm)3252 5228 3252 6745 1500 3252 3448 3252 3326
6.9 25.2 25.2 11.1 10.5 13.5 12.9
Clearance Time (s)
LaneGrpCap (vph)
V
Total Lost tim e (s)
{^msBi
Peak-hour factor, PHFmRTOR Reduction (vph)
Effective Green, g (s)
v/s Ratio Perm
I
Uniform Delay, d1
Incremental Delay, d2
Level of Ser ice
Approach LOS
HCM Average Control Delay HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Analysis Period (min)
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Saturday Midday Right In/Out
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Pagel
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Palomar Airport Rd & Armada Drive 1/31/2007
T V V
Lane Configurations
Total Lost time (s)
1.00
3252 5353
3252"5353
0.95 0.95
1.00
1676 5353
0.85 1.00
1500 3252
1500
1.00 1.00 0.85
Satd. Flow (prot)3252 1961 1500
3252 1961 1500
Peak-hour factor, PHF
RTOR Reduction (ph)
Turn Type
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
0 0
Permitted Phases
Effective Green, g (s)
ielSalel
10.7 34.6
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)494 348 2330
v/s Ratio Perm
Uniform Delay^dl
Incremental Delay, d2
HHUmi
Level of Service
45 2 31 3 25 6 39 7 25 3 177 42 1 34 4'
3.7 1.8 0.3 13.9 1.7 0.1 6.4 2.2
48.5 40.0 41.8
Approach LOS
HCM Average HCM Level of Service
ActuatedCycle Length (s)Sum of lost time (s)
Analysis Period (min)
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Friday Midday Right In/Out
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Palomar Airport Rd & Armada Drive 1/31/2007
t \ V
Lane Configurations
Total Lost time (s)
Hllclol
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
^^s^^e^K/^^^t^S jfewfiff 4^jJI^%3*ia«*^«Sfea^s*%£i0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00Frt
Satd. Flow (prot)
Satd. Flow (perm)
3252 5353 1500 1676 5353 1500 3252 1704
3252 5353 1500 1676 5353 1500 3252 1704
IIS
0.95
3252 1961 1500
11
32521961"1500
Peak-hour factor, PHFmm
RTOR Reduction (vph)
H
0.95 0.95 0.95*
Permitted Phases
Effective Green, g (s)
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)340 1323 371 361 1917 537 621 472
0.04 0.02
166 269 206
v/s Ratio Perm
Uniform Delay, d1 32.6 25.4 22.5 27.9 19.9 16.0 28.7 21.8
6.9 0.5
35.0 29.4 28.8
Incremental Delav. d2
Level of Service
Approach LOS
HCM Average Control Delay
Actuated Cycle Length (s)76.5
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Saturday Midday Right In/Out
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Driveway & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ffs)
Right turn flare (veh)
Median storage veh)
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
|37
pX, platoon unblocked
560 1700 1700 1700
Queue Length 95th (ft) 317
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Friday Midday Right In/Out
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Pages
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Driveway & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t V
Lane Configurations
Grade
is^aftfiSi" *Jtv-St* i
095 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Right turn flare (veh)
Median storage veh)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, 2 stage (s)
pO queue free %
1458 469
m
1333
108
0
541 1700 1700 1700 514 1700 1700
Queue Length 95th (ft) 274 61 0 0 0 8 0
Average Delay 19.9
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Saturday Midday Right In/Out
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
PageS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Palomar Airport Rd & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
A t V
Total Lost time (s)
Frt
Satd Flow (prot)
Satd. Flow (perm)
4.0u
1.00 0.98
3252 5248
3252 5248
V! to
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0in
1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.92
3252 6745 1500 3252 3379
3252 6745 1500 3252 3379
3252 3419
H
3252 3419
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95
_jE!l
0
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
RTOR Reduction (vph)
Turn Type
Perm 'tted Phases
j^BTOalis^lJpJ^B^^Q
Effective Green, g (s)224 41.3
40 4J3
_ __
Clearance Time (s)
11
Lane Grp Cap (vph)n
v/s Ratio Perm
Uniform Pelayjjl 38.1 26.5
Incremental Delay, d2 8.3 1.9
|Mpft%£
D
Prot Perm Protm
8
M
16.6 3^5 35.5 14.2 14.6
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Level of Service
Approach LOS
HCM Average Control Delay
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
36.0
102.2
15
528 2343 521 452 483
0.13
41.0 29.4 24.9 42.3 40.5
IfQwl
7.1 1.3 0.4 6.5 0.9
D C C D D
M
C D
HCM Level of Service
Prot
13.7 14.1lililllllll
4.0 4.0
•436 472
!01«t(PlS;S(!if9S!l
42.6 41.7
7.1 3.0
D D
H
D
Sum of lost time (s)
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Friday Midday Right-Out Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Pagel
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Palomar Airport Rd & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t
Frt
Said. Flow (prot)
1.00 0.98
H
3252 5224
1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.93
3252 6745 1500 3252 3448
3252 6745 1500 3252 3448_____
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95" 0.95 6T95 0.95 "0.95 6~95~ " 0.95
fa
jfjvjB
4.0
0.89gupl
3326
3326m0.95 0.95
344~ 0RTOR Reduction (vph)
Turn Type
Effective Green, g (s)m
Clearanic:e"nnne(s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Perm
23141.7
4040
845 2450
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
252 1935 430 410 411
0.17
13.7 13.1
501 490
Uniform Delay, d1 30.8
^^^^S^^Mi^ffiillill^S
Incremental Delay, d2 5.9
•1 7 n 7Q 71 f .U \j&. f
0.3 4.3
>&H
26.9
r«3K8S:<
0.4
SHyflll
27.3
2.3
36.8
!!rfliK
2.7
36.7
i$i?m]S|':|"i;?ft.x^1.1
35.4 34.7
3.0 0.7
lg^^.^|_ . ;-J^ *|' 'f rj| • J-feifli'^gSffl^^^' ^
Level of Service D
I'MSisTifo^'^ftT IsyniPTy^^^^V^ ^- ''^§?-""7" y?1*^ "%' ">v*:
i/^^^^?A5AS^!U^^*^/'»5*U1' ' V>"lV' v " ,1^"?, *?f'K-j|?ls^*
Approach LOS
B D
C
C
IPcSHBJgSiBl
C
C
HBBMM
D
ii8H|jBBpB^i
p__.._
D
D D
UlMyHHK^q-tlWffiiJiifiBimrn'ffl;9iiH%gi
D
HCM Average Control Delay 29.4 HCM Level of Service
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Saturday Midday Right-Out Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Pagel
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Palomar Airport Rd & Armada Drive 1/31/2007
A t V V
Lane Configurations
Total Lost time (s)
0.88 1.00 1.00
1729 3252 1961Satd. Flow (prot)3252 5353
1
32*52 5353Satd. Flow (perm)
1111!
3252 1961i
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95
0 0RTOR Reduction (vph)
Permitted Phases
Effective Green, g (s)
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
y/s Ratio Perm
Uniform Delay, d1
Incremental Delay, d2
iI
Level of Service
Approach LOS
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
HCM Average Control Delay
tioj
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
|pjj^MJ^i|j^^§^^^
Analysis Period (min)15
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Friday Midday Right-Out Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Palomar Airport Rd & Armada Drive 1/31/2007
t V
LaneConfigi£ations
Total Lost time (s)HIP
Frt
Satd. Flow (prot)
4.0
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF
H
RTOR Reduction (vph)
5353
5353
1676
1676
my?j*ra
0.95
SH]w£y
0
3252
3252
0.95
1704wm
1704
Hi
0.95
H
3252 1961 1500
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Permitted Phases
Effective Green, g (s)
Clearance Time (s)
LaneGrpCap(vph)
v/s Ratio Perm
Uniform Delay, d1
Incremental Delay, d2
Level of Service
Approach LOS
HCM Average Control Delay
I
Actuated Cycle Length (s)Sum of lost time (s)
Analysis Period (min)
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Saturday Midday Right-Out Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Driveway & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
\\
Lane Configurations
t_Jl
Grade o% o%
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Right turn flare (veh)
Median storage veh )"" ..........
pX, platoon unblocked
vCu, unblocked vol
HtC,2stage(s)Ltl^l^^i
pO queue free %
1342 446
75
1235
0 0 37 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 317 24
1F
0
LaneLOS
Approach LOS
B
Ayerage Delay
Analysis Period (min)
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Friday Midday Right-Out Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
PageS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Driveway & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t A V \
Grade
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
H
Right turn flare (veh)
iBi^pp^igjiili
Ex.'..El^0?P_-1JI1^loik?5l
vC1,stage 1 confvol
vCu, unblocked vol 1458 469
tC, 2 stage (s)
pO queue free % 0 53
1377
90
Volume Left 154 0 0 0 0 52 0 0
cSH 108 541 1700 1700 1700 494 1700 1700
QueueJ_ength 95th (ft) 275 61 0009 0 0
m^^^j^HB^]^]^Bip]|ffl^^^^a^^SB^}^
F C B
1
F
Average Delay
HAnalysis Period (min)
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Saturday Midday Right-Out Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
PageS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Palomar Airport Rd & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t V V
Satd. Flow (prot)
Satd. Flow (perm)
3252 5250
3252 5250
3252 6745 1500 3252 3379
3252 6745 1500 3252 3379
1.00 0.90
3252 3368
3252 3368
Peak-hourfeictor, PHF
RTOR Reduction (vph)
Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Prot
Permitted Phases
Effective Green, g (s)21.4 39.7
Clearance Time (s)
^S^^^Ssli
4.0 4.0
16.5 34.8
4.0 4.0
14.1 16.0
HH
13.6 15.5
H
4.0 4.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph)684 2047 527 2306 513 434 513
Uniform Delay, d1
HCM Average Control Delay
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Analysis Period (min)
101.8m
15
Flower Fields 1/23/2007 Friday Midday Right-In Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Palomar Airport Rd & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
A t V
Lane Configurations
ygs
Satd. Flow (perm)3252 5228 3252 6745 1500 3252 3448 3252
V
Peak-hour factor, PHF
RTOR Reduction (vph)
Turn Type Prot Prot
Effective Green, g (s)
ClearanceTime (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
HCM Average Control Delay
5
HCM Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Analysis Period (min)
Flower Fields 1/23/2007 Saturday Midday Right-In Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Palomar Airport Rd & Armada Drive 1/31/2007
t A V V
Lane Configurations
Total Lost time (s)
*i tM.. Mt
4.0 4.6 4.0
1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.88
[ffl Iftc
1.00 1.00 0.85
IP
3252 5353 1500 1676 5353 1500 3252 1729
38toii^&»ai!6iaKMfesaa«a»!^ii^
3252 5353 1500 1676 5353 1500 3252 1729
II
3252 1961 1500
3252 1961 1500
aQ'mffiEOSB
fflk'_r_^HilfilL. °'95
J...A9L.JHL_J^
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 165 0 0 86 0 104 0 0 0 139
Turn Type
Permitted Phases
Effective Green, g (s)10.7 34.6 34.6 21.8 45.7 45.7 17.0 26.7 5.9 15.6 15.6
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
vis Ratio Perm
Umform Delay, d1
Incremental Delay, d2
Level of Service
&j**ffMfltHft,M\t'MAfftini<ttifin\ in r
Approach LOS
331 1764 494 348 2330 653 527 440
0.08 0.05
45.2 31.3 25.6 39.7 25.3 17.7 42.1 34.4
3.7 1.8 0.3 13.9 1.7 0.1 6.4 2.2
HD C C D C B D D
C C D
183 291 223in
0.09
48.5 40.0 41.8
7.1 0.6 4.6
H
EDO
HCM Average Control Delay
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
34.6
105.0ms
15
8.0
Flower Fields 1/23/2007 Friday Midday Right-In Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Palomar Airport Rd & Armada Drive 1/31/2007
t \
Total Lost time (s)
1.00 1.00 0.85 100 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.85
Satd. Flow (prot) 3252 5353 1500 1676 5353 1500 3252 1704 3252 1961 1500
Satd. Flow (perm) 3252 5353 1500 1676 5353 1500 3252 1704 3252 1961 1500
pflk'^r^
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 165 "*" 0 0 42 0 183 0 0 0 97
Turn Type __ J^rot f^rOTL Prot _ Perm Prot Prot Perm™ "" " " " SiL™,
8
Effective Green, g (s) 8.0 18.9 18.9 16.5 27.4 27.4 14.6 21.2 3.9 10.5 10.5
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
v/s Ratio Permmi
Uniform Delay, d1
A04—,--^-^ - — k°£.
32.6 25.4 22.5 27.9 19.9 16.0 28.7 21.8
Incremental Delay, d2 2.1
__j|l
Level of Service C
269 . 206m
0.01nm
35.0 29.4 28.8
1.1 0.4 0.2
D C C
HCM Average Control Delay
Actuated Cycle Length (s)^ 76.5 Su m oflost tiimje(s)
Analysis Period (min) 15
Flower Fields 1/23/2007 Saturday Midday Right-In Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Driveway & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t V 4
Lane Configurations ^ f ft f ^ ft
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Pedestrians
tC, 2 stage (s)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Right turn flare (veh)
Median storage veh)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1342
Volume Left
cSH 134 560 1700 1700 1700 560 1700 1700
Queue Length 95th ft) 684 24
Analysis Period (min)
Flower Fields 1/23/2007 Friday Midday Right-In Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
PageS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
9: Driveway & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t
Peak Hour Factor
f tt r i
^0%
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Median storage veh)
pX, platoon unblockecl
ililiiiiilP
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, 2 stage (s)
pO queue free %in
1458 469
53
1377
Volume Left
WSiffif
cSH
251
108
Queue Length 95th (ft) 572
Lane LOS F
0 0 0 0 52 0 0
rpwBjjygPJPM
541 1700 1700 1700 494 1700 1700
I
61 0 0 0 9 0 0
j£5jj
c
0
jifflffifj
Flower Fields 1/23/2007 Saturday Midday Right-In Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Pagel
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
SYNCHRO QUEUE SUMMARIES
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-06-1630
Flower Fields Driveway
N:\l6JO\Report\Appendix Cover Pages.doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Queues
3: Palomar Airport Rd & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t V
Adj. Flow (vph) _ 594 1455
r(VBfiL_5§4~ __
J0.84_^p.82""
5JL2 32.4 -
0.0"" 0.0~
219 411 1622 454 336 187 304 327 225 401
v/c Ratjo
Queue Delay
[P^r^jay^""*, .~3IIIir~^-2"ZJ13I
Queue LengthTsbth (ft) "214" 383
JHr "1622
0.78 ~ 0.73~ 0.59 0.75 0.64 0.76 0.80
iMfeLeDStMSthJft) JQ16
Internal Link'bisf(ft) ' ___ 3056
Base Capacity (vphj______^5
~~ ~~5
JO
____Q_
Reduced v/c Ratio 0773 0.74
, 33.4_ ' ^L3
aoj_* "b'o ~" otf
55J _3l£T2_~"8.3
150 299 "23*
WJSL
" 1660
i, 190
0.0
lMSZi:P_58.i
0.0 " 0.0""O.O
123 73
3104
121 115
630
485 975
Spillback Cap Reductn
0.68 0.65 0.56 0.65 0.51 0.67 0.64
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Flower Fields 5:00 pm 2/15/2006 Friday Midday Existing
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Queues
3: Palomar Airport Rd & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t
Adj. Flow (vph)mm
Queue Delay
Queue Length 50th (ft)
InternajUr^DistJft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Spillback Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.42 0.40 0.66 0.51 0.41
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer."
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Saturday Midday Existing
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Pagel
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Queues
6: Palomar Airport Rd & Armada Drive 1/31/2007
t V V
Adj. Flow (vph)
v/c Ratio
Queue Delay
........
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Internal Link Dist (ft)
OUt£K£S»»ffib^K^.>:^^i«G<^!^Base Capacity (vph)
Spillback Cap Reductn
!«eS*«e!K«(l^-Stej(^te(»sJ;e^?fe3^^
Reduced v/c Ratio
# 95th percentilei volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Flower Fields 5:00 pm 2/15/2006 Friday Midday Existing
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Queues
6: Palomar Airport Rd & Armada Drive 1/31/2007
t V
Adj. Flow (vph)_
v/c Ratio
11
146 788m 219 260 1115 66 411 41 280 52 60 112
0.39 0.62 0.42 0.70 0.55 0.11
Base Capacjtyjyjjh)_ 649 J2073 715 674 2965 860 1104 888
1J.u^uuumiuJp
Spillback Capjgeductn 0 0 0 000000000
•OH
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.38 0.31 0.39 0.38 0.08 0.37 0.36
0.18 0.28 0.42
Queue Delay
Queue Length 50th (ft)
0.12 0.13 0.25
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Saturday Midday Existing
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Queues
3: Palomar Airport Rd & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t \
Adj. Flow (vph) 559 1489 219 411 1749 454 336 187
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.81 0.78 0.74 0.57 0.74 0.68
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0fflffiiiffiS@K3^^^^^il^~»£i3SMHPi31^writfritifrm- ^saa^uSnatii /-SsL --"*-- -«-»TM-. -4?^^-i' ^ f*^» -^rfa^L-ro -aJ-J j^iii ,&^. «^*,»S.*w ^^m^^n^^^J^^M^^^^u^ftl^u^vin- w- ^eStffltdaS.iii^j4tittKiA.
Queue Length 50th (ft) 194 377 143 308 21 118
Infernal Link Dist (ft)
Base Capacity (vph) 813 2294
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0
304 327 225
0.75 0.75
3056 660 3104
610 2546 821 517 966
0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.74 0.67 0.69 0.55 0.65 0.51
488 905
0.67 0.55
#^95thpercentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
274
T5
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Friday Midday Right In/Out
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Queues
3: Palomar Airport Rd & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t
Adj. Flovv (vph)
y/c Ratio
641 1223 226 154 1080HMD!506 185 182 326 163 409
0.65 0.68
H
Queue Delay
IntemalLink Dist (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Reduced v/c Ratio
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Saturday Midday Right In/Out
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Pagel
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Queues
6: Palomar Airport Rd & Armada Drive 1/31/2007
t
Adj. Flow (vph)
Queue Delay
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Internal Link" DisT(ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
Spillback Cap Reductn
SSSp!P|SMpaK|S32towael^
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.53 0.64 0.39 0.62 0.66 0.20 0.61 0.53 0.46 0.20 0.57
95th P£r£gn^ev£^ni££xceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Friday Midday Right In/Out
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Queues
6: Palomar Airport Rd & Armada Drive 1/31/2007
t v
Adj. Flow (vph)191 788 219 260 1115 60 112
v/c Ratio 0.46 0.62 0.42 0.70 0.57 0.11 0.64 0.48
Base Capacity (vph) 656 2073 715 674 2941 854 1104 888" ................................................... " ...........
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.38 0.31 0.39 0.38 0.08 0.37 0.36
0.18 0.28 0.42
Queue Length 50th (ft) 40 112
0.12 0.13 0.25
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Saturday Midday Right In/Out
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Queues
3: Palomar Airport Rd & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t V J V
Adj. Flow (vph)
E^^
v/c Ratio
594 1455 219 411 1749 454 336 187 _304 327 225 274
'75@&rJ]^
0.84 0.79"" ~0.78" 0.75 0.58 0.75 0.68~ 0.76 0.75
Queue Length 50th (ft) 07 366
)/' #3 Ij
Internal Link Dist(ft) 3056 1660 3104 630
Base Capacity (vph)810 2285 601 2509 813 510 958
00000SjpillbajckjCapReidi£tn 0 0
iMHw!A£rau&&>'.u&££* •4«^IIaKfc~wfjw£K»u~a& ™-w--iS$K» J3L4~-s*fc-Jd«_^^ ^^^~^^j^^m1i-f^^^is^MK^^^i&ii^gti^^S.Ji
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 0.73 0.68 0.70 0.56 0.66 0.51
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.~ ~ ~"
gBgi^;^fl^^aiii*i.(a^ftf^^aff^
0.68 0.56
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Friday Midday Right-Out Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Queues
3: Palomar Airport Rd & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t V
v/c Ratio
Queue Delay
Queue Length 50th (ft)
0.0 0.0 0.0
184 209 43 155 77 70 54
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.64 0.48
765 494 875m
OOP
0.42 0.44 0.66 0.51 0.42
0.65 0.69
H
0.0 0.0
91
0.49 0.49
V
252 185
0.62 0.65
Spillback Cap Reductn
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Saturday Midday Right-Out Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Pagel
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Queues
6: Palomar Airport Rd & Armada Drive 1/31/2007
t V
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.44 0.64 0.19 0.60 0.53
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
V
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Spillback Cap Reductn
0.46 0.20 0.56
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Friday Midday Right-Out Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Queues
6: Palomar Airport Rd & Armada Drive 1/31/2007
A t V
146 788 219 260 1115 66 411 41 280 52 60 112^
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.62 0.42 0.70 0.55 0.11 0.64 0.48 0.18 0.28 0.42
Queue Delay
Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 112
IntemaMJnkDistft)
Base Capacity (vph)417 479 451649 2073 715 674 2965 860 1104
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
000000
l^O^^^^^^^Q^^S^^.Q^^^^^^^O^^^^^^feQ^^^^BKY^0.22 0.38 0.31 0.39 0.38 0.08 0.37 0.36 0.12 0.13 0.25
Flower Fields 2/15/2006 Saturday Midday Right-Out Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Queues
3: Palomar Airport Rd & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t
Adj. Flow (vph)
v/c Ratio
559 1489 219
0.82 0.83
,33:2:;
411 1622 454 336 187 304 327 225 401
0.78 0.71 "" 0.58 0.75 "~"o.64 0.76 0.80
Queue Delay
[OllSliir
Queue Length 50th (ft) 202 394 150 293 22 123 73 121 115
Internal Link Dist (ft) 3056 1660 3104 630
Base Capacity (vph) 810 2266 607 2521 817 516 972 486 976
Spillback Cap Reductn 00 00000 00
0.69 0.75 0.68 0.64 0.56 0.65 0.51
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
jmssa^fft^a^feB^jafere^^
0.67 0.64
Flower Fields 1/23/2007 Friday Midday Right-In Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Queues
3: Palomar Airport Rd & Paseo Del Norte 1/31/2007
t V
Adj. Flow (vph)641 1223 226
v/c Ratio
ii0.79 0.62
Queue Delay
154 977 506 252 185
0.48 0.56 0.78 0.61 0.60
0.0 0.0 0.0
Ii50
182
0.0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.66 0.49 0.41
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
326 163
32"6!il|3!6!
0.65 0.77m
0.0 0.0
V
513
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Spillback Cap Reductn
0.48 0.57
Flower Fields 1/23/2007 Saturday Midday Right-In Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Queues
6: Palomar Airport Rd & Armada Drive 1/31/2007
f V V
Adj. Flow (vph)
Queue Delay
Queue Length 50th (ft)
.........................
i*ss*ftEiWSaiSatfe«sw3
Internal Link Dist (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)
I
Spillback Cap Reductn
¥^^W^^S^Pt!i7^^SS8?^tl8^^^6^^
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.53 0.64 0.39 0.66 0.20 0.61 0.53 0.46 0.20 0.57
95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
-massiCSV
Flower Fields 1/23/2007 Friday Midday Right-In Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Queues
6: Palomar Airport Rd & Armada Drive 1/31/2007
t V
Adj. Flow (vph)788 219 260 1115
0.46 0.62 0.42 0.70 0.57 0.11 0.64 0.48 0.18 0.28 0.42
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Queue Length 50th (ft)
Base Capacity (vph)656 2073 715 674 2941 854 1104 888 417 479 451
Spillback Cap Reductn
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.38 0.31 0.39 0:38 0.08 0.37 0.36 0.12 0.13 0.25
Flower Fields 1/23/2007 Saturday Midday Right-In Only
Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers
Synchro 6 Report
Page 2