Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 11-07; Robertson Ranch West Village; General Plan Amendment (GPA) (2)\ ----·-~---·----~---~------------------- URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. E-MEMO PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, MARKETING & PROJECT SUPPORT ATTN: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CONSULTANTS TO INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT Glen Van Peski, P.E., City of Carlsbad Land Development Engineering lk/ SamP. Kab, II ~vv· Q .r E-Mail: 'Y Glen. VanPeski@ca1'/sbadca.gov TOTALPAGES(Including 7+10 Cover): Attachments ·V May 2, 2011 \ TIME: 2:12:56PM JOB NUMBER: 002610 Robertson Ranch West Village Tamarack Connection Confidential Communications This transmittal is intended for the recipient named above. Unless otherwise expressly indicated, this entire communication is confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not disclose, copy, distribute or use this information. If you received this transmission in error, please notifY us immediately by telephone, at our expense and destroy the information. The revised master plan for the Robertson Ranch West Village includes the elimination of the roadway connection to Tamarack Avenue. Urban Systems Associates, Inc. has evaluated the operation of the El Camino Real I Tamarack Avenue and the El Camino Real I West Village Access intersections with and without the roadway connection to Tamarack Avenue for Existing Plus Project and Buildout Plus Project conditions. As a result of our evaluation it can be concluded that the elimination of the roadway connection to Tamarack Avenue would not adversely affect the operation ofthe El Camino Real I Tamarack A venue intersection in the Near-Term or Buildout traffic conditions. Although the Tamarack A venue connection would reduce the right turn traffic volume turning right from El Camino Real to east onto Tamarack A venue, other critical traffic movements would have increases in diverted traffic, offsetting the right-tum reduction, resulting in slightly worse operating conditions with the Tamarack A venue connection. 1 002610-050311-Ememo-GlenVanPeski-FINAL-spk-L.doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Glen Van Peski City of Carlsbad © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. May2, 2011 Specifically, a portion of the southbound traffic on El Camino Real destined for the West Village through the Tamarack Avenue intersection would divert from the through lane to the left tum lane. Also a portion of the traffic on Tamarack Avenue destined for the West Village from west ofEl Camino Real would divert from the right tum lane to the through lane, a critical traffic movement. During the PM peak hour the El Camino Real northerly traffic flow through the Tamarack A venue intersection is the highest volume, conflicting with the southbound left tum. Increases to the left volumes would increase delay for the opposing northbound through traffic. The eastbound through movement is a critical conflicting movement opposing the west to southbound left tum movement from Tamarack A venue to El Camino Real. Increases in through volumes here increases overall delay. Without the Tamarack A venue connection the El Camino Real I West Village Access would have slightly more traffic volume entering the intersection, resulting in slight increases in intersection utilization and average control delay, but intersection operations for both Near-Term and Buildout conditions would be well within the acceptable levels of services ranges. The following evaluations include intersection operating results that lead to these conclusions. Existing Plus Project The table below shows the results of Existing Plus Project conditions, using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method used in the Growth Management Program Traffic Monitoring Report: -~.~ ,,;=;<<'5.;:' ~: ·:·::: ., :-:·. . _: -:::C' ' _:_. ',:; .-· .• ; ; .·'-;: __ ; Existing Plus Project With Connection Without Connection AM PM AM PM Location ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS El Camino Real/ Tamarack Ave. 0.69 B 0.69 B 0.71 c 0.67 B El Camino Real/ W. Village Entrance 0.46 A 0.63 B 0.46 A 0.65 B : /::2:~;::?,:' >~: r=.··/=-·:::: .. ·-,' . ·.; ::_ . -/•' --. :-· :·:·. :-... ' 2 002610-050311-Ememo-GlenVanPeski-FINAL-spk-L.doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Glen Van Peski City of Carlsbad © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. May2, 2011 As shown in this table, at the El Camino Real I Tamarack A venue intersection: • The AM peak hour increases in ICU by 0.02 without the connection. • The PM peak hour decreases in ICU by 0.02 without the connection, and since the PM peak hour has higher volumes, the overall results without the connection would be a positive effect, resulting in less delay. At the El Camino Real I West Village Access intersection: • The AM peak hour ICU remains the same for both cases, although the overall traffic volume at the intersection is slightly lower with the connection. • The PM peak hour ICU increases by only 0.02 without the Tamarack A venue connection. Buildout Plus Project The existing conditions peak hour traffic volumes were increased using the ratio of buildout average daily traffic volumes· compared to existing ADT volumes. The intersection operations at Buildout were evaluated using Highway Capacity Manual traffic signal simulation software (HCS) with and without the Tamarack connection. The Buildout results are shown in the table below: < < .< .:· ' </ ' < :>::>.·: : .. ' ~· <~.c.::: '' Buildout Plus Project With Connection Withont Connection AM PM AM PM Location DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS El Camino Real I Tamarack Ave. 40.2 D 51.8 D 40.1 D 50.3 D El Camino Real I W. Village Entrance 23.6 c 49.2 D 23.8 c 50.2 D :::x:·. :: <. ::·.: . ..-. > "-< •. ' ... : ·' .;> . < ·.· << : : :: :··::,:<·:. ~·~······ "," ...•. :• :<:: :S):i·:.~>: c<'• ' :>< ::::. ", 3 002610-050311-Ememo-GlenVanPeski-FINAL-spk-L.doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Glen Van Peski City of Carlsbad As shown in this table, at the El Camino Real/ Tamarack A venue intersection: © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. May2, 2011 • The AM peak hour delay decreases slightly without the connection (a 1.5 average control delay decrease). • The PM peak hour delay also decreases without the connection (a 1.1 decrease in average control delay). At the El Camino Real/ West Village Access intersection: • The AM peak hour delay increases slightly without the connection (a 0.2 average control delay increase). • The PM peak hour delay increases slightly without the connection (a 1.0 average control delay increase). These decreases or increases in control delay are minor, and support the conclusion that the elimination of the Tamarack connection would not be detrimental to traffic signal operations at the El Camino Real/ Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real/ West Village Access intersection for both Near-Term and Buildout conditions. Buildout Revised Master Plan Comparison The Robertson Ranch approval relied upon the April 2006 Robertson Ranch Environmental Impact Report for evaluation of traffic impacts and mitigation. That EIR and traffic report did not include the Tamarack Avenue connection. A supplemental traffic analysis dated September 6, 2006 was prepared to evaluate the effects of the circuitous routing, gates and Tamarack A venue connection alternatives. The only major intersection included in the supplemental analysis was the El Camino Real I Tamarack A venue intersection, with and without the Tamarack A venue connection. This comparison of the traffic impacts of the Master Plan revisions includes the intersection levels of service at El Camino Real/ Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real/ West Village Entrance as included in the original EIR, the supplemental analysis, and as re-evaluated in this report. 4 00261 0-050311-Ememo-Glen VanPeski-FINAL-spk-L. doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Glen Van Peski City of Carlsbad © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. May2, 2011 The tables below include levels of service at the two key locations from these three sources. Buildout Plus Project With Connection Without Connection AM PM AM PM Location DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS El Camino Real I Tamarack Ave. NIA NIA NIA NIA 51.6 D 46.3 D El Camino Real I W. Village Entrance NIA NIA NIA NIA 49.8 D 51.7 D AM PM AM PM Location DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS El Camino Real I Tamarack Ave. 50.8 D 44.5 D 51.6 D 46.3 D El Camino Real I W. Village Entrance NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A =Not Analyzed Buildout Plus Project With Connection Without Connection AM PM AM PM Location DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS DELAY LOS El Camino Real I Tamarack Ave. 40.2 D 51.8 D 40.1 D 50.3 D El Camino Real I W. Village Entrance 23.6 c 49.2 D 23.8 c 50.2 D 5 00261 0-050311-Ememo-Glen VanPeski-FINAL-spk-L. doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Glen Van Peski City of Carlsbad © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. May2, 20// As indicated in these tables, the current West Village Master Plan revisions would produce acceptable levels of service at the two intersections evaluated consistent with the original EIR which did not include the Tamarack A venue connection. These three sources included intersection evaluations with El Camino Real mitigation as included in the original EIR, so that no additional mitigation would be needed as a result of the Master Plan revisions. Also, as explained for Attachment 1 below, the revised West Village trip generation is consistent with the trip generation assumptions of the approved EIR so that an additional traffic evaluation should not be needed. Please review this evaluation and contact me if you have questions or need additional information. Attachments Provided below are descriptions of the attachments and the assumptions used for this evaluation. Attachment 1-The trip generation expected from the West Village with access to the El Camino Real entrance and the Tamarack Avenue connection is shown in the first table of this attachment. The second table includes all ofthe West Village planning areas and the total trip generation from the West Village. The third table shows a comparison to the trip generation for the West Village as included in the approved April2006 EIR. The revised trip generation is consistent with the previously assumed trip generation. Attachment 2 -The project only AM and PM traffic volumes with the Tamarack A venue connection are shown in this figure. The percentages of directional distribution were taken from the approved Robertson Ranch traffic report (Urban Systems Associates, September 2003). The amount of traffic expected to use the Tamarack Avenue connection was assumed to be one-half of the peak hour trips from Planning Areas 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 that are destined to Tamarack Avenue. The connection at Tamarack Avenue, as required at approval, was assumed to be right-in-out only with a median preventing left turns, and, therefore, the southbound traffic volume on Tamarack A venue destined for El Camino Real would not change with connection deleted. 6 00261 0-050311-Ememo-GlenVanPeski-FINAL-spk-L.doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Glen Van Peski City of Carlsbad © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. May2, 2011 Attachment 3 -The project only AM and PM traffic volumes without the Tamarack A venue connection are shown. Attachment 4-The existing AM I PM traffic volumes are shown in this figure. TheEl Camino Real I Tamarack A venue intersection traffic counts are taken from the 2010 Carlsbad Traffic Monitoring Report. The volumes at Kelly Drive and Lisa Street are taken from the previous traffic report since recent traffic counts are not available. Attachment 5-Project only traffic volumes were added to existing volumes and are shown in this figure, with the Tamarack A venue connection assumed. Attachment 6 -This figure also shows project only traffic volumes added to existing volumes, but without the Tamarack connection. Attachment 7 -This figure shows Buildout traffic volumes with the Tamarack connection. The Buildout traffic volumes were estimated by factoring up existing peak hour volumes based on the ratio of current average daily traffic volumes to Buildout traffic volumes taken from the SANDAG Series 11 I Combined North County Model. The factoring ratios for each segment approaching the El Camino Real I Tamarack A venue intersection are shown in the following attachment, without the Tamarack A venue intersection. Attachment 8 -The Buildout peak hour volumes without the Tamarack A venue connection are shown in this figure. Attachment 9-The level of service ICU and HCS worksheets are included in this attachment. Attachment 10-Intersection level of service tables from the previous approved EIR and Supplemental traffic study. Vehicle trip generation tables from the approved EIR are included showing the previous West Village trip generation assumptions. 7 002610-050311-Ememo-GlenVanPeski-FJNAL-spk-L.doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Glen Van Peski City of Carlsbad lliiif~!i!IIIM r:B~ PA USE AMOUNT 3 Single Family 89 DU 4 Community Recreation 1.0AC 5 Single Family 24 DU 6 Single Family 65 DU 7 Multi-Family 110 DU 8 Multi-Family 260 DU 9/10 Single Family 78 DU 11(j) Community Commercial 9.5AC 11<D Community Facilities 1.5AC "' ,J:,.t;:;:j:;:t"L Attachment 1 Project Trip Generation (Excluding PA-1, PA-2, PA-12, PA-13) © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. May2, 2011 I Ill 111~'11!1~.1111 U 1111111-IIH II II I I IU ' RATE 10 I DU 50/ AC 10 I DU 10 I DU 6/ DU 6/DU 10 I DU 700 I AC 50/ AC Subtotal I I I _I AM PEAK HOUR ADT % # Split 890 8 71 3:7 50 13 6 5:5 240 8 19 3:7 650 8 52 3:7 660 8 53 2:8 1,560 8 125 2:8 780 8 62 3:7 6,650 4 266 6:4 75 13 10 5:5 11,555 654 To I From North Through Gates Total Project Trip Generation Including All West Village In 21 3 6 16 11 25 19 160 5 266 -2 I 264 J _I J PM PEAK HOUR Out % # Split In Out 50 10 89 7:3 62 27 3 9 5 5:5 3 2 13 10 24 7:3 17 7 36 10 65 7:3 46 19 42 9 59 7:3 41 18 100 10 156 7:3 109 47 43 10 78 7:3 55 23 106 10 665 5:5 333 332 5 9 7 5:5 3 4 398 1,148 669 480 -4 I I -4 I -2 394 1 665 1 475 APPROVED APRIL 2006 EIR COMPARED TO REVISED WEST VILLAGE 8 002610-050311-Ememo-GlenVanPeski-FINAL-spk-L.doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Glen Van Peski City of Carlsbad © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. May2, 2011 ATTACHMENT2 Project Only AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes ~ NO SCALE With Tamarack Connector I 9 002610-050311-Ememo-GlenVanPeski-FINAL-spk-L.doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Glen Van Peski City of Carlsbad © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENT3 Project Only AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Without Tamarack Connector May2, 2011 ~ NO SCALE ~ 10 00261 0-050311-Ememo-Glen VanPeski-FINAL-spk-L.doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Glen Van Peski City of Carlsbad 1446/618- 10/25~ ATTACHMENT 4 Existing AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. May2, 2011 11 002610-050311-Ememo-GlenVanPeski-F1NAL-spk-L.doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Glen Van Peski City of Carlsbad © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENT 5 Existing+ Project AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes With Tamarack Connector May2, 20JI ~ NO SCALE ~ 12 002610-050311-Ememo-GlenVanPeski-FINAL-spk-L.doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Glen Van Peski City of Carlsbad © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. 1446/618- 1 0/25 ~ ATTACHMENT6 Existing + Project AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Without Tamarack Connector May2, 2011 ~ NO SCALE I 13 00261 0-050311-Ememo-Glen VanPeski-FINAL-spk-L.doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite I 06 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Glen Van Pesld City of Carlsbad © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENT 7 Buildout + Project AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes With Tamarack Connector May2, 20II ~ NO SCALE I 14 002610-050311-Ememo-GlenVanPes/d-FINAL-spk-L.doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Glen Van Peski City of Carlsbad © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. LEGEND Increase Existing volumes to Buildout volumes using the ratio of future ADT to Existing ADT: XX.X =Z.Z YY.Y Future ADT (in Thousands) ---:----:-----=-c~---:---:-...<....,-= Increase Existing ADT (in Thousands) Factor 2160/826- 10/25, ~tr ATTACHMENT 8 Buildout + Project AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Without Tamarack Connector May2, 2011 ~ NO SCAlE ~ 15 00261 0-050311-Ememo-GlenVanPeski-FINAL-spk-L.doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 Glen Van Peski City of Carlsbad Attachment 9 © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. May2, 2011 Pagel ofl5 Intersection LOS Worksheets With and Without Tamarack Connection • Existing • Existing Plus Project • Buildout Plus Project 16 00261 0-050311-Ememo-GlenVanPeski-FINAL-spk-L. doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 AM f>·t:::A\L \-\c~.-t()_;· ~~t>TIJ-Jc,,. N-o f>Rc~c:cr El Camino Real at Tamarack A venue Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization Page2of3 Pk.. Hr. Time Period : 7:30AM to 8:30AM South Appr (NB) Lane Config- urations Inside (left) 2 3 4 5 6 Outside 7 Free-flow . Lan; Settings Capacity I 1800 1 1 2 4000 Are the North/South phases split (YIN)? Are the East/West phases split (YIN)? EfficieJJCY Lost Factor 0.10 Hourly Volume 70 358 Adjusted Hourly Volume 70 358 Utilization Factor 0.04 0.09 Critical Factors 0.04 ICURatio = 0.63 Turning Movements at Intersection of: Time: 7:30AM to 8:30AM Date: 0'7/14/10 Day: Wednesday 1 1800 N N 52 52 0,03 LOS= Name : Billy, Fernando Sub- T~ totals w e 325 s 591 0 28 t 266 91 147 A p p ·r Subtotals Total North Apr>r (SB) West Appr (EB) 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1800 4000 1800 1800 2000 1800 11 976 28 28 91 147 11 976 28 28 91 147 O.Dl 0.24 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.24 0.08 B East Appr (WB) 1 1800 308 308 0.17 0.17 1 1 2 4000 227 246 0.06 0 0 19 0 . 0.00 E! CawJno Real · and Tamarack Avenue North Approach El Camino Real 1420 Total 1015 405 Subtotals 0 28 976 11 Sub-J t ~ totals _j ~ t 19 ___... +--227 554 • r 308 0 North 154 I t r 70 358 52 Tamarack Avenue 0 1431 480 1911 Totals 708 South Approach Note: Left-tum volumes include . U-turns. U-turns in bold. E a s t A p p r 1J;Jt ,n.;:Y-,K \J.cui2--~ 6 ill t;!I;V6.y ;Ju P 12.0Tc cr ®-_ :\ I'; \"T,: ~·~ El Camino Real at Tamarack Avenue Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacil:'; Utilization Page 3 of3 Pk Hr. Time Period: South Appr (NB) 4:45PM to 5:45PM Lane Config- urations Inside (left) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Outside 7 Free-flow Lane Settings Capacity 2 1800 4000 Are the North/South phases split (YIN)? Are the East/West phases split (Y!MJ? Efficiency Lost Factor 0.10 Hourly Volume 146 1303 Adjusted Hourly Volume 146 1303 Utilization Factor 0.08 0.33 Critical Factors 0.33 ICURatio == 0.59 Turning Movements at Intersection of: Time : 4:45 PM to 5:45PM Date: 07/14/10 Day : Wednesday 1 1 1800 N N 220 220 0.12 LOS= Name :·Billy, Fernando Sub- T~ totals w e 304 s 582 0 51. t 278 157 70 A p p r Subtotals Total North Aopr (SB) West Appr (EB) East Appr (WB) 1 2 1 1 1800 4000 1800 1800 29 518 45 51 29 518 45 51 0.02 0.13 0.03 0.03 0.02 A E! Camino Real North Approach 1960 592 0 45 518 29 J ~ ~ _j t __..,.. ~ North I t r 146 1303 220 0 703 1669 2372 South Approach 1 1 1 2000 1800 1800 157 70 115 157 70 115 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.06 1 1 2 4000 113 127 0.03 0 0 14 0 0.00 and Tamarack Avenue El Camino Real Total 1368 Subtotals Sub- totals Totals t__14 ~ 113 242 .----115 0 648 406 Tamarack Avenue Note: Left-tum volumes include U-turns. U-turns in bold. E a s t A p p r AM r'$P.~ \.\C4rLJ e::~l'S;T~fJG. (JL\.4S r R~EL-T . \.J.-f\Tl-\· ~o;$,J'v'jA'P.,I.,C\<. G.li,oJ~C..{oDJ.J El Camino Real at Tamarack Avenue Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization Page2of3 Pk. Hr. Time Period : 7:30AM to 8:30AM South Appr (NB) Lan~ Config- urations Inside (left) 2 3 4 5 6 Outside 7 Free-flow Lane Settings Capacity 1 2 1800 4000 AJ:e the North/South phases split (YIN)? Are the East/West phases split (YfN)? Efficiency Lost Factor 0.10 .f1t HourlyVolume )(~$10 358 Adjusted Hourly Volume 70 358 Utilization Factor 0.04 0.09 Critical Factors 0.04 (t.,til) ICU Ratio = 0.6:1 ) (D .. £~ Turning :Movements at Intersection of: Time: 7:30AM to 8:30AM Date: 07/14/10 Day : Wednesday 1800 N N 1.-'5 52 52 0.03 LOS= 1-.<J~= Name : Billy, Fernando w e s t A p p ·r Sub- T~ JQffi!§_ 325 591 266 0 Subtotals Total 28 91 147 North Appr (SB) West Appr (EB) East Appr (WB) 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1800 4000 1800 1800 2000 1800 1800 4000 0 .,..~ +AD -t-4 .-t--'2..0 .-f-';1 11 976 28 28 91 147 308 227 19 11 976 28 28 91 147 308 246 0 0,01 0.24 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.17 0.06 . 0.00 0.24 0.08 0.17 ( ().7-~) (0 ,c:·t) (o,iCl) B "27 E! Camino Real · and Tamarack Avenue North Approach El Camino Real 1420 1015 405 -~~ 0 28 11 J t ~+~ ___j L 19 ~-i-4 t -+--227 tvz..\l G 308 North t;'1 t r 70 358 52 ~ ·t-· . ,., '? o ·.~r-"1 \ r 1431 \'--; s 480 1911 0 Total Subtotals Sub- totals 554 154 Tamarack Avenue Totals 708 South Approach Note : Left-tum volumes mclude . U-tums. U-tums in bold. ·1 E a s A p p r PI"\ n~AlL \..\Gu'f-: :G'ii~I.!V£. \?i-'vl..S P R.o)C::Cf • @...;..-:,-,.:... t' L.V ,Tfl: 1~"'-tvv\.i>J.>..e..¥-Co!.JfJF-C"li.O,V "" El Camino Real at Tamarack Avenue Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization Page 3 of 3 Pk. Hr. Time Period: South Appr (NB) 4:45PM to 5:45PM Lane Config- urations Inside (left) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Outside 7 Free-flow Lane Settings 2 Capacity 1800 4000 Are the North/South phases split (YIN)? AJ:e the East/West phases split (YIN)? b Efficiency Lost Factor "'1.10 xi>· HourlyVolume #tJ., i46 1303 Adjusted Hourly Volume 146 1303 Utilization Factor 0.08 0.33 Critical Factors 0.33 (o::.S) 1 1 1800 N 1\j' :'(1\ 220 220 0.12 North Appr (SB) 1 1800 1 1 2 4000 .c-'1-'1 . .'t('·{l, 29 518 29 518 0.02 0.13 0.02 ~ .. o?) 1 1800 45 45 0.03 West Appr (EB) East Appr (WB) 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1800 2000 1800 1800 4000 0 .-\-\~ ~~1 ~·,~ 51 157 70 115 113 14 51 157 70 115 127 0 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.06 (c.~t'1) ((;,i'1-) ICU Ratio = 0.59 LOS= A (o,cli) kS·.:: "B Turning Movements at Intersection of: w e s A p p r Time : 4:45 PM to 5:45PM Date: 07/14110 Day: Wednesday Name : Billy, Fernando Sub- T~ totals 304 582 278 0 Subtotals Total 51 . 157 70 E! Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue North. Approach El Camino Real 1960 592 1368 Jr•1'? 0 45 518 2l-t-1.'1 J t _j L_14 ___.,+('"7 t ... 113 t~AI .---::.-:115 North iCf".?:> I t r. 146 13~3 2~q"i i. 0. ~· ~b '1"".)1 703 .~A~ 1669 2372 0 Total Subtotals Sub- totals 242 406 Tamarack Avenue Totals 648 South Approach Note : Left-turn volumes include U-turns. U-tums in bold. E a s A p p r Alvt pe:=t,\L \-\o.tl)... ·:: r,;;·~i0-(V.J( (n . .;vt.S p~;.~T Lth.Tl·kxAT ·~.M ARA...C.K (b,•.J IJ-E-C:...TV.I-./ El Camino Real at Tamarack Avenue Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization Pagc2 of3 Pk .. Hr. Time Period : 7:30AM to 8:30AM South Appr (NB) North Appr (SB) West Appr (EB) East Appr (WB) Lane Config- urations Inside (left) 2 3 4 5 6 Outside 7 Free-flow Lane Settings 1 2 Capacity 1800 4000 .ATe the North/South phases split Cf/N)? Are the East/West phases split (YIN)? . \ Efficiency Lost Factor 0.10 .k1. Hourly Volume . ~~ 70 358 Adjusted Hourly Volume~ 70 358 Utilization Factor 0.04 0.09 Critical Factors 0.04 (',_,,<:b) ICU Ratio = 0.63 (o;1l) 1800 N N k'.>'? 52 52 0.03 LOS= ~.:0<;.:.:=. 1 1800 11· 11 0.01 B c 2 4000 .kA~ 976 976 0.24 0.24 0 ,;t6) 1 1 1 1 2 0 1800 1800 2000 1800 1800 4000 0 .,\--1-A-.-;\'·:z;_1 28 28 91 147 308 227 19 28 28 91 147 308 246 0 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.17 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.17 (oJv) (o)~~~) Turning Movements at Intersection of: El Camino Real · and Tamarack Avemte w e s t A p p ·r Time : i:30 AM to 8:30AM Date: 07/14/10 Day: Wednesday Name : Billy, Fernando Sub- T~ totals 325 591 0 266 North Approach 28 __t 91 ~ 28 J .\-~~ ~ Subtotals Total -~~ 1431 70 0 1911 1015 .-t'6 976 t t North ~'\I 't 358 480 El Camino Real 1420 405 0 11 L~ L 19 +--227 r 308 ·+?>'1 . .rss· r 52 0 Total Subtotals Sub- totals 554 154 Tamaraclc Avenue ® . . . Totals 708 South Approach Note: Left-tum volumes include . U-tums. U-tums in bold. E a s t A p p r f3t!V\ ~A\Ll-\ct.u'{.~ G:i-\S;f"pJt:::; '{)"t ... u.>: fl52-1>S.~e-T V...i I.T~\.\ ·TfVvll>.')VI.GI:!.. CcJJ .!J c=<:.:-Ti'i)f.j El Camino Real at Tamarack Avenue Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization Page 3 of3 Pk. Hr. Time Period : 4:45PM to 5:45PM South Appr (NB) · North Appr (SB) Lane Config- urations Inside (left) 2 3 4 5 6 Outside 7 Free-flow Lane Settings Capacity 1 1800 1 1 2 4000 AJ:e the North/South phases split (yM)? AJ:e the East!W est phases split (YIN)? . Efficiency Lost Factor 0.10 .r'S~ Hourly Volume .. ~111146 l303 Adjusted Hourly Volume 146 1303 Utilization Factor 0.08 0.33 Critical Factors 0.33 G ··"'i) ()<7 ICURatio = 0.59 (o,6>'1 .) 1 1 2 1800 1800 4000 1800 N N ·'1 _.\-\?-0 1io 29 518 45 220 29 518 45 0.12 0.02 0.13 0.03 0.02 LOS= A b~= ~ West Appr (EB) 1 1 1 1800 2000 1800 --tW.- 51 157 70 51 157 70 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.08 East Appr (WB) 1 1 1800 1 1 2 4000 -~"l"li 115 113 115 127 0.06 0.03 0.06 (9, \'l-) 0 0 14 0 0.00 Turning Movements at Intersection of: E! Camino Rea! and Tamarack Avenue Time : 4:45 PM to 5:45PM North Approach El Camino Real Date: 07/14/10 Day: Wednesday 1960 Total Name : Billy, Femando 592 1368 Subtotals .. \')...0 0 Sub-45 518 29 Sub- T~ totals J t ~ totals w e 304 _t t__14 s 582 0 51 . t 278 157 ___... t <1!11 113 242 ~0 70 ---. ~115 0 A North -¥-1? p 406 p ~ t r r 146 1303 220. Tamarack Avenue -\-A'? 0 :rst. ~b'1 Subtotals 703 1669 Total 2372 Totals 648 South Approach Note: Left-turn volumes include U-turns. U-tums in bold. E a s A p p r Short Report SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Intersection EL CAMINO Analyst USA/ REAL@ TAMARACK Agency or Co. USA/ Area Type All other areas Date Performed 04/29/11 Jurisdiction CARLSBAD Time Period 2030AMPEAK Analysis Year WEST VILLAGE/WITH TAMARACK Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 3 0 Lane group L T R L TR L T R L TR Volume (vph) 55 174 292 533 379 32 102 519 135 24 1418 41 % Heav}' veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startu_Q_ lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing Excl. Left WB Only Thru & RT 04 Excl. left Thru & RT 07 08 rt"iming G = 10.0 G = 30.0 G = 20.0 G= G = 10.0 G = 45.0 G-G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs = 0.25 Cycle LenQth C = 140.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Dela~, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB jAdj. flow rate 58 183 307 561 433 107 546 142 25 1536 Lane group cap. 126 266 381 569 1375 126 1717 652 126 1708 v/c ratio 0.46 0.69 0.81 0.99 0.31 0.85 0.32 0.22 0.20 0.90 Green ratio 0.07 0.14 0.25 0.32 0.39 0.07 0.32 0.43 0.07 0.32 Unif. delay d1 62.4 57.0 49.3 47.2 29.4 64.3 35.9 25.2 61.2 45.3 Delay factor k 0.11 0.26 0.35 0.49 0.11 0.38 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.42 lncrem. delay d2 2.7 7.3 12.0 34.0 0.1 31.5 0.1 0.1 0.6 5.3 PF factor 0.949 0.889 0.778 0.684 0.569 0.949 0.684 0.500 0.949 0.684 Control delay 61.9 58.0 50.4 66.3 16.9 92.5 24.6 12.7 58.7 36.3 Lane group LOS E E D E B F c 8 E D Apprch. delay 54.1 44.8 31.6 36.7 Approach LOS D D c D lntersec. delay 40.2 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.lf file://C:\Documents and Settings\skab.USAI\Local Settings\ Temp\s2kl6.tmp 4/29/2011 Short Report SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Intersection EL CAMINO !Analyst USA/ REAL@ TAMARACK !Agency or Co. USA/ !Area Type All other areas Date Performed 04/29111 Jurisdiction CARLSBAD Time Period 2030PMPEAK !Analysis Year WEST VILLAGE/WITH TAMARACK Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 3 0 Lane group L T R L TR L T R L TR ~olume (vph) 100 323 124 291 189 23 212 1889 354 69 729 66 %Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ~ctuated (P/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. Qreen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08 lfiming G = 25.0 G = 25.0 G= G= G = 20.0 G = 47.0 G= G= Y= 4 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 135.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB !Adj. flow rate 105 340 131 306 223 223 1988 373 73 836 Lane group cap. 328 345 568 328 644 262 1859 870 262 1833 v/c ratio 0.32 0.99 0.23 0.93 0.35 0.85 1.07 0.43 0.28 0.46 Green ratio 0.19 0.19 0.37 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.35 0.57 0.15 0.35 Unif. delay d1 47.6 54.8 29.3 54.2 47.9 56.0 44.0 16.5 51.1 34.1 Delay factor k 0.11 0.49 0.11 0.45 0.11 0.38 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 lncrem. delay d2 0.6 44.4 0.2 32.8 0.3 12.7 37.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 PF factor 0.848 0.848 0.608 0.848 0.848 0.884 0.644 0.116 0.884 0.644 Control delay 41.0 90.9 18.0 78.7 41.0 62.2 65.8 2.1 45.5 22.0 Lane group LOS D F 8 E D E E A D c Apprch. delay 65.2 62.8 56.3 23.9 Approach LOS E E E c lntersec. delay 51.8 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C:\Documents and Settings\skab.USAI\Local Settings\Temp\s2k25.tmp 4/29/2011 Short Report gy 0 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Intersection EL CAMINO !Analyst USA/ REAL@ TAMARACK !Agency or Co. USA/ !Area Type All other areas Date Performed 04/29/11 Jurisdiction CARLSBAD Time Period 2030AMPEAK !Analysis Year WEST VILLAGE/WITHOUT TAMARACK Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 3 0 Lane group L T R L --:TR L T R L TR !Volume (vph) 55 170 296 533 379 32 102 519 165 16 1425 41 %Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 !Actuated JP/A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2_0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 [t.rrival type 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 0 Lane Width 12.0 12_0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing Excl. Left WB Only Thru & RT 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G-10.0 G-30.0 G = 20.0 G= G = 10.0 G = 45.0 G= G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analvsis (hrs = 0.25 Cvcle Lenath C = 140.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Del a~, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB jAdj. flow rate 58 179 312 561 433 107 546 174 17 1543 Lane group cap. 126 266 381 569 1375 126 1717 652 126 1708 v/c ratio 0.46 0.67 0.82 0.99 0.31 0.85 0.32 0_27 0.13 0.90 Green ratio 0.07 0.14 0.25 0.32 0.39 0.07 0.32 0.43 0.07 0.32 Unif. delay d1 62.4 56.9 49.5 47.2 29.4 64.3 35.9 25.8 60.9 45.4 Delay factor k 0.11 0.24 0.36 0.49 0.11 0.38 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.42 lncrem. delay d2 2.7 6.5 13.2 34.0 0.1 31.5 0.1 0.2 0.4 5.6 PF factor 0.949 0.889 0.778 0.684 0.569 0.949 0.684 0.500 0.949 0.684 Control delay 61.9 57.1 51.7 66.3 16.9 92.5 24.6 13.1 58.2 36.6 Lane group LOS E E D E B F c B E D !Apprch. delay 54.5 44_8 31.0 36.9 !Approach LOS D D c D lntersec. delay 40.1 Intersection LOS D HCS2000™ Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C:\Documents and Settings\skab.USAI\Local Settings\ Temp\s2k16.tmp 4/29/2011 • Short Report SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Intersection EL CAMINO !Analyst USA/ REAL@ TAMARACK jAgency or Co. USA/ !Area Type All other areas Date Performed 04/29111 Jurisdiction CARLSBAD Time Period 2030PMPEAK !Analysis Year WEST VILLAGE/WITHOUT TAMARACK Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 3 0 Lane group L T R L TR L T R L TR ~olume (vph 100 310 137 291 189 23 212 1889 390 42 756 66 % Heavyveh 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 !Actuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. qreen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 !Arrival type 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasinq Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G = 25.0 G = 25.0 G= G= G = 20.0 G = 47.0 G= G= Y= 4 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs = 0.25 Cvcle Lenoth C = 135.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Dela~, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 105 326 144 306 223 223 1988 411 44 865 Lane group cap. 328 345 568 328 644 262 1859 870 262 1834 v/c ratio 0.32 0.94 0.25 0.93 0.35 0.85 1.07 0.47 0.17 0.47 Green ratio 0.19 0.19 0.37 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.35 0.57 0.15 0.35 Unif. delay d1 47.6 54.3 29.5 54.2 47.9 56.0 44.0 17.1 50.2 34.3 Delay factor k 0.11 0.46 0.11 0.45 0.11 0.38 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 lncrem. delay d2 0.6 34.3 0.2 32.8 0.3 12.7 37.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 PF factor 0.848 0.848 0.608 0.848 0.848 0.884 0.644 0.116 0.884 0.644 Control delay 41.0 80.4 18.2 78.7 41.0 62.2 65.8 2.2 44.6 22.2 Lane group LOS D F 8 E D E E A D c [Apprch. delay 57.6 62.8 55.5 23.3 Approach LOS E E E c lntersec. delay 50.3 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.lf file:/ /C:\Documents and Settings\skab.USAI\Local Settings\ Temp\s2k25 .tmp 4/29/2011 Short Report SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information ~nalyst USA/ Intersection EL CAMINO ~gency or Co. ECRWVOWYANOTAM ~rea Type REAL@PROJECT DWY Date All other areas Performed 04/29111 Jurisdiction CARLSBAD Time Period 2030AMPEAK ~nalysis Year WEST VILLAGE/WITH TAMARACK Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L T R L TR L TR Volume (vph) 102 2160 10 36 577 82 30 3 50 200 4 97 %Heavy veh 2· 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. ~reen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 .3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 60 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasin~ Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 NB Only SB Only 07 08 Timing G = 15.0 G = 55.0 G= G= G= 6.0 G = 24.0 G= G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delav-, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 107 2285 38 607 86 32 56 211 43 Lane group cap. 221 2324 221 2326 1008 84 78 357 332 v/c ratio 0.48 0.98 0.17 0.26 0.09 0.38 0.72 0.59 0.13 Green ratio 0.13 0.46 0.13 0.46 0.66 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.20 Unif. delay d 1 48.9 32.0 46.9 20.0 7.4 55.2 56.2 43.5 39.4 Delay factor k 0.11 0.49 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.18 0.11 lncrem. delay d2 0.8 9.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.9 27.1 2.6 0.2 PF factor 0.905 0.436 0.905 0.436 0.146 0.965 0.965 0.833 0.833 Control delay 45.1 23.7 42.7 8.7 1. 1 56.1 81.3 38.9 33.0 Lane group LOS 0 c 0 A A E F 0 c Apprch. delay 24.6 9.6 72.2 37.9 ~pproach LOS c A E 0 lntersec. delay 23.6 Intersection LOS c HCS2000™ Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C:\Documents and Settings\skab.USAI\Local Settings\Temp\s2k33.tmp 4/29/2011 Short Report General Information !Analyst USA/ !Agency or Co. USA/ Date Performed 04129111 Time Period 2030PMPEAK Volume and Timing Input EB LT TH Num. of Lanes 1 3 Lane group L TR Volume (vph) 246 826 %Heavy veh 2 2 PHF 0.95 0.95 Actuated (PIA) A A Startup_lost time 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 Arrival tyj)_e 5 5 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 10 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 !Timing G = 24.0 G = 60.0 G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= SHORT REPORT Site Information Intersection EL CAMINO REAL@PROJECT DWY. Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CARLSBAD !Analysis Year WEST VILLAGE/WITH TAMARACK WB NB RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 L T R L TR L 25 71 2453 206 15 7 20 240 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 A A A A A A A A 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5 5 5 5 5 5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 04 NB Only SB Only 07 G= G= 6.0 G = 21.0 G= Y= Y= 4 Y= 5 Y= SB TH 1 TR 5 1 0.95 A 2.0 2.0 5 3.0 5 12.0 0 0 3.0 G= Y= RT 0 117 1 0.95 A 0 N 08 ~ ~ Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 130.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delav, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 259 895 75 2582 217 16 28 253 128 Lane group cap. 327 2329 327 2342 954 78 71 289 251 v/c ratio 0.79 0.38 0.23 1.10 0.23 0.21 0.39 0.88 0.51 Green ratio 0.18 0.46 0.18 0.46 0.62 0.05 0.05 0.16 0.16 Unif. delay d1 50.6 22.9 45.1 35.0 10.8 59.7 60.2 53.2 49.8 Delay factor k 0.34 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.12 lncrem. delay d2 6.6 0.1 0.2 49.9 0.1 1.3 3.6 24.5 1.7 PF factor 0.849 0.429 0.849 0.429 0.133 0.968 0.968 0.872 0.872 Control delay 49.6 9.9 38.5 64.9 1.5 59.1 61.9 70.9 45.1 Lane group LOS D A D E A E E E D Apprch. delay 18.8 59.5 60.9 62.3 Approach LOS B E E E lntersec. delay 49.2 Intersection LOS D HCS2000™ Copyright© 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 f file://C:\Documents and Settings\skab.USAI\Local Settings\Temp\s2k40.tmp 4/29/2011 Short Report V\ ~ SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information f-nalyst USAf Intersection EL CAMINO Agency or Co. ECRWVDWYANOTAM !Area Type REAL@PROJECT DWY. Date All other areas Performed 04/29111 Jurisdiction CARLSBAD Time Period 2030AMPEAK !Analysis Year WEST VILLAGE/NO TAMARACK Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L T R L TR L TR Volume (vph) 114 2160 10 36 577 82 30 3 50 200 4 127 %Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. Qreen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 60 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 NB Only SB Only 07 08 Timing G = 15.0 G = 55.0 G= G= G= 6.0 G = 24.0 G= G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delalf, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 120 2285 38 607 86 32 56 211 75 Lane group cap. 221 2324 221 2326 1008 85 78 357 329 rvtc ratio 0.54 0.98 0.17 0.26 0.09 0.38 0.72 0.59 0.23 Green ratio 0.13 0.46 0.13 0.46 0.66 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.20 Unif. delay d1 49.3 32.0 46.9 20.0 7.4 55.2 56.2 43.5 40.2 Delay factor k 0.14 0.49 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.18 0.11 lncrem. delay d2 1.4 9.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 27.1 2.6 0.4 PF factor 0.905 0.436 0.905 0.436 0.146 0.965 0.965 0.833 0.833 Control delay 46.0 23.7 42.7 8.7 1.1 56.0 81.3 38.9 33.9 Lane group LOS D c D A A E F D c ~pprch. delay 24.8 9.6 72.1 37.6 [Approach LOS c A E D lntersec. delay 23.8 Intersection LOS c HCS2000™ Copyright 10 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.lf file://C:\Documents and Settings\skab.USAI\Local Settings\Temp\s2k33.tmp 4/29/2011 Short Report \ ' SHORT REPORT ---'\S General Information Site Information Intersection EL CAMINO Analyst USAf REAL@PROJECT DWY. Agency or Co. USA/ f\.rea Type All other areas Date Performed 04129111 Jurisdiction CARLSBAD Time Period 2030PMPEAK ~nalysis Year WEST VILLAGE/ NO TAMARACK Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 3 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L T R L TR L TR !Volume (vph) 286 826 25 71 2453 206 15 7 20 240 5 153 %Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ~ctuated (PIA) A A A A A A A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ~rrival type 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 NB Only SB Only 07 08 lfiming G = 24.0 G = 60.0 G= G= G= 6.0 G = 21.0 G= G= Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 5 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 130.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Dela "• and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB f\dj. flow rate 301 895 75 2582 217 16 28 253 166 Lane group cap. 327 2329 327 2342 954 78 71 289 250 v/c ratio 0.92 0.38 0.23 1.10 0.23 0.21 0.39 0.88 0.66 Green ratio 0.18 0.46 0.18 0.46 0.62 0.05 0.05 0.16 0.16 Unif. delay d1 52.1 22.9 45.1 35.0 10.8 59.7 60.2 53.2 51.2 Delay factor k 0.44 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.24 lncrem. delay d2 18.4 0.1 0.2 49.9 0.1 1.3 3.6 24.5 6.5 PFfactor 0.849 0.429 0.849 0.429 0.133 0.968 0.968 0.872 0.872 Control delay 62.6 9.9 38.5 64.9 1.5 59.1 61.9 70.9 51.1 Lane group LOS E A 0 E A E E E 0 ~pprch. delay 23.1 59.5 60.9 63.1 jApproach LOS c E E E lntersec. delay 50.2 Intersection LOS 0 HCS2000™ Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.lf file://C:\Documents and Settings\skab.USAI\Local Settings\Temp\s2k40.tmp 4/29/2011 Glen Van Peski City of Carlsbad © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. May2, 2011 Page 1 of7 Attachment 10 Excerpts From Approved EIR (April2006) And Supplemental Analysis (September 2006) 17 00261 0-050311-Ememo-GlenVanPeski-FINAL-spk-L. doc 4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-4911 • Fax (858) 560-9734 5.2-Traffic/Circ~~otio~~~ '{Y Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis TABLE 5.2-4 Project Trip Generation Without School Noles: ' = Planning Area 11 is designated for dual use with a minimum of 5.0 acres of community focifilies. Source: Urban Systems Associates. Inc .. 2005. 1\r-\. P:--\. "1_-~~~~~-~~j~-~~Glv\h~i~~j~_:_·~_Jv....J~\~·· ___ ·_····_·-_-··_-_·wl·~~~--g...:.I~=-~J=~-'-~-!---:--_-_-_-_---r--r--.,,:'.,_:~J~-:-+-~-~~-~! Robertson Ranch Moster Plan Final EIR 5.2-8 April 2006 Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation TABLE 5.2-11 Year 2030 With/Without Project Comparison of . J Intersection Peak Hour Levels of S_ervice ..,.~ .. ,.. (\P~,;tzt"~1~-" . (Congestion Management Plan Methodology) ~0~ fA Significance threshold of more then 2.0 s·econds of additional delay only ot LOS E or F. {1] =Delay: Total control delay per vehicle {seconds) per 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. {2) = Stop sign control on minor street. Source: Urban Systems Associates, Inc .• 2005. Robertson Ranch Moster Plan Final EIR 5.2-25 April2006 • • ---~-······------------------ Chapter 5-Environmental Impact Analysis 5.2-Traffic/Circulation ® \J) only lane. Other projects are responsible for the construction of the fourth northbound through lane and the second southbound right turn lane on Melrose Drive. Significance After Mitigation. There is no guarantee that adequate funding will be provided for the construction of.the fourth northbound through lane and second right tum lane on Melrose Drive. Therefore. if unfunded. cumulative impacts to this intersection will remain significant and unmitigated in 2030. Other Robertson Ranch mitigation only includes installing traffic signals at project access roadways as warranted. and frontage improvements along El Camino Real. Cannon Road and College Boulevard. Table 5.2-12 shows intersection levelsot service after mitigation at these seven locations. (See Appendix B- Figures 7-4 through 7-7 which show the AM and PM project only peak hour volumes, at study area intersections, expected in Year 2030 and the AM and PM peak hour volumes with project traffic included.) The lane configurations shown in these figures are the same as existing conditions. without mitigation. except for #3, #23, and #28 which include mitigation needed for Year 2010. improvements by other approved projects. or Robertson Ranch frontage and access improvements. TABLE 5.2-12 .Year 2030 With/Without Project Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service With Mitigation Notes: Significance threshold of more than 2.0 seconds of additional delay only applies at lOS E or F. (1) =Delay: Total control delay per vehicle (seconds) per 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. Source: Urban Systems Associates. Inc., 2005. C. Ramp Meters The ramp meter analysis indicates that the additional ramp meter queue lengths due to project only traffic are expected to be minimal and could be accommodated on existing ramps and. surface streets. (See Appendix B -Table 7-4 which shows ramp meter queues with project only traffic added to Yeor 2030 conditions). Robertson Ranch Moster Plan Final EIR 5.2-29 April2006 • • URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, IN, C. Pt.AHHIIIG & TRAFFIC EHGIHI!I!R/Ha, MARKCTIHCJ & PI!OiSCTS!JPPORT CO/ISCI~TAIITS TO IIIDIISTI!l' A/10 GOVIiRIIItlfllir E-MEMfllVED .. ATTN: Brian Milich EwMail: T CITY OF CARLSBAD , .. ·.•. .. -'·· . . . .. .. . . , .. ·· · P~.~NNINGDEPT ·. COMPANY: ;TfleMcMillm ComP,tmzes "t\ / hniilich@mcmillln.com· . FROM:. Satn P. Kab, H ~~ . :l'OTALPAGEI' (TndudlngDwu): .. -~ ~~nb DATE: September 6, 2006 TIME: 10:39:02AM JOB NUMBER: 003101 SUBJECT: Robertson Ranch West Village Roadway Alternatives As you requested, Qrban Systems is proyiding below~ final summary of the results of our eval11a:tions for the various roadway alternatives for the Robertson Ranch West Village that will effectively reduce through traffic. The Attachment 1 table summarizes the red\lcti~n .ii:t ·traffic volumes on Glasgow and Edinburgh Drives with the various alternatives. . EXISTING A VERAGB DAlLY TRAfFIC VOLUMES Attachment 2 sho"!s existing average daily traffic volumes within the Colony. ROBERTSON RANCH-MASTER PLAN Attachment 3 shows the future traffic from the Robertson Ranch Master .Plan without unit. reductions and without traffla calming. CIR.CUTIOUS ROUTING ONLY· . . Attachment 4 shows the effect of providing circuitous routing only of vehicles through the West Village. The tight angle turns, traffic circles, and other traffic calming measures (narrow streets etc.) are expected to reduce through traffic up to 45%. A; report by the .F~deral Hig~way Administration and the Institute for Transportation ~ngineers has estimated a 45% reduction on tr~ffic volumes for blocks with traffic diverters which are similar· to the right angle turns provided with _Robertson Ranch circu~tous routing. . · This 45% reduction was applied to the previous evaluation of through traffic (dated.June 15, 2006) and shown in Attachment3. The West Village trip g~nerationis based onineduction of units to 1,122 D.U. with the.· school. Planning·area 7 is assumed to include 105 D.U. of senior housing so that no school traffic is associated with those senior dwelling units .. Ultimately with an elementary school assumed in the East Village, no elementary school trips will use the Colony s~eets. However, these evaluations include elementary school traffic to and from the north as a conservative assumption. As a result of these traffi~ calming measures the segment of Edinburgh Driye soWh of Glasgeiw Drive could increase by only 27%, from 1,200 ADT to 1,523ADT. 3 101-091206·emBI11'NPk-d I/540"Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106 • San Diego, CA 92123 • (858) 560-49ll• Fax (858) 560-9734 ATTACHMENT 13~-~9· , • Brian Milich Urban Systems Associatu, l11c. The Corky McMillin Compa111es September 6, 2006 .. The segment of Glasgow Drive south ofKirkwall Avenue could increase by 64%, from 900 ADT to 1,4?8 ADT. CIRCUITOUS ROUTING PLUS CONNECT TO TAMARACK AS A LOCAL STREET : .. Attachment 5 shows the result of the circuitous routing (with no gates on Edinburgh or Glasgow Drive), and with the connection through to Tamarack Avenue as a local street. The segment ofEdinburgh Drive south of Glasgow Drjve could increase by only 16% from 1,200 ADTto 1,387 ADT. The segment of Glasgow Drive south ofKirkwall Avenue co.uld increase by 41% from 900 ADT to 1,273 ADT. CONNECT TO TAMARACK WITH COLLECTOR STREET. GATE PA-9. 10, EMERGENCY GATE ON GLASGOW DRIVE This alternative would prevent through traffic on Glasgow Drive south of Edinburgh Drive with the installation of an emergency access only gate, as shown in Attachment 6. Planning Area 9 and 10 would be a gated community, with limited access to Edinburgh Drive. A traffic signal would be installed at the collector street intersection on Tamarack Drive as part of the project. Edinburgh Drive south of Glasgow Drive could Increase by 15% from 1,200 ADT to 1,381 ADT. Glasgow Drive south ofKirkwall Avenue would not increase in traffic volumes. TAMARACK AVENUE CONNECTION The connection to Tamarack Avenue with a collector street and gates within the West Village would divert project traffic to Tamarack Avenue and possibly affect project traffic through the El Calllino Realfl'amarack Avenue intersection. Therefore, both the Tamarack Avenue/Collector Street Connection and the El Camino Real/Tamarack Avenue intersection have been evaluated for peak hour levels of service with this diversion of traffic assumed. As shown in the table below, each of these intersections would operate acceptably (LOS D or better) during both A.M and P.M. peak hours at buildout. 2 (8 .'dJ • --------· ·~·----------- Ul'bon Systems Arsociafes, Inc. September 6, 2006 \ ~.___-/~ .. ~--.. /----·~,./-·""·..--=·-/-/.::.. / / /"< AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ' .. ......... / LocatiDn Delay LOS Delay LOS ~ /,.-. I l ( ·~v ~":"" :1 " El Caniino Real/ Tamarack A venue -~i *($r.$) 50.8 *(D)D *(46.3) 44.5 *(D)D .,..... -'c~ ---...........__.. .. , .. . . ...... -, ---"'(!~-· '~ ---~-·23;9 __ "'~· ... --"'··-0-----~/ Tamarac venue I RR CoUector . ., __ ~_...... ----23:7 . ) / Tamarack A venue I Robertson Ranch Local Street 14.8 B 15.5 B .. * (XX.X) = W1thout Connection Therefore, no additional mitigation would be needed with this alternative. Attachment 7 includes a traffic signal war.rant worksheet for the Tamarack Avenue/Collector Street Connection intersection. Attachment 8 includes estimates of the peak hour traffic as a result of this alternative and level of service worksheets. Also included are planning area dwelling unit amounts for each of the reduced project alternatives and elementary and middle school estimates for the master plan. Cc: Barbara Keru:tedy Jeremy Riddle Bob Johnson Don Mitchell KenCablay Paul Klukas · Tim Gnibus Gary Kruger 3 6) lY