Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Tamarack Avenue; Tamarack Avenue; 1977-06-07kJ n n kJ n ,^V.^>^;.f«f^^T^i^V^*3*^^^^^K^_^^rti^:1' •''I*"-*''' • ' ."' - • JJ.jSj^ftT.I-W.-V:-.-'^''-;-^''::'-''•'. ' S^^ii^^^^-;:: ^^^^S^;^^^)^^^|^|l^^ MOHLE, PERRY & ASSOCIATES June 1, 1977 n L n u' n Mr. Ronald Beckman Public Works Administrator U City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 U Attention: Mr. Tim Flanagan , ^ City Engineer u Gentlemen: i—i We are pleased to submit the final report for the Tamarack Avenue Geometric Design Study. Included in the appendix ,_, are comments pertaining to some of the questions raised at the informal public meeting on May 4, 1977. L_J • This project presented a professionally challenging ° experience that made the overall study enjoyable. Special U recognition should be given to Mr. Kent Whitson of your staff for the assistance offered to Mr. Thayer Rorabaugh, n the project engineer, during the conduct of the study. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to have been a part p of this important study. ^ Respectfully submitted, n MOHLE, PERRY & ASSOCIATES U R. Henry Mo\le P-, Vice President u RHM:jh 1-1 Attachment U , r1 MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 1 ', 505 N. Tustin Ave., Suite 121, Santa Ana, CA 92705 • (714) 834-0541 6055 E. Washington Blvd., Commerce, CA 90040 • (213) 723-1452 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE'SUMMARY EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 Alignment Description 1 Traffic Accidents 5 Traffic Volumes 7 Capacity and Level of Service 11 Speed and Delay 14 TRAFFIC GENERATION ' 18 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 21 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 25 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 28 CARLSBAD STATE BEACH 29 PARKING 32 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 35 Introduction 35 Coastal Commission ' - 35 Aesthetics 36 Air, Pollution 37 Noise 37 Quality of Life -37 ALIGNMENT SELECTION 38 Alternate 1 43 Alternate 2 46 COST ANALYSIS 47 EMINENT DOMAIN 48 ACKNOWLE DGMENT S 50 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE 1. FIGURE 1 - STUDY AREA • 2 2. FIGURE 2 - TRAFFIC GENERATION SUBZONES 20 3. FIGURE 3 - DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF C.P.O. ZONES 23 4. FIGURE 4 - GENERALIZED DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF STUDY AREA 24 5. FIGURE 5 - EXISTING AND FUTURE VOLUMES (A.D.T.) 26 LIST OF APPENDICES 1. APPENDIX A - AMTRAK SCHEDULE 2. APPENDIX B - TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SUMMATION 3. APPENDIX C - TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS 4. APPENDIX D - DEFINITION OF A.D.T. 5. APPENDIX E - DOCUMENTATION OF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AND PERCENTAGES 6. APPENDIX F - CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE 7. APPENDIX G - LEVEL OF SERVICE EVALUATION 8. APPENDIX H - SPEED AND DELAY FIELD SHEETS 9. APPENDIX I - TRIP GENERATION BY SUBZONE 10. APPENDIX J - NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT SCHEDULE 11. APPENDIX K - LETTER FROM JACK P. WELCH, AREA MANAGER, "DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 12. APPENDIX L - RIGHT OF WAY AND CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES 13. APPENDIX M - DISCUSSION OF ONE-WAY COUPLET, TAMARACK/CHINQUAPIN 14. APPENDIX N - RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT AND FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY I—I LJ -. rn O . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY n LJ INTRODUCTION PI The need for this report was generated by the City of Carlsbad in an attempt to establish traffic volume projec- P tions on Tamarack Avenue from Carlsbad Boulevard to Highland Drive which will dictate the future of Tamarack Avenue. Due H to time and staffing constraints, the City decided to retain (-1 a consultant to provide the necessary documentation for this (—, important study, thus a long-range development plan compatible {_j with the adopted land uses was formulated. n • • THE STUDY OBJECTIVES n The main objective of this report is to outline the right U of way and curb to curb requirements capable of providing a r~( reasonable level of service to the users of Tamarack Avenue *— ' and to assist the City in providing an orderly development (-, of .the . roadway. This was done in the following manner: U P^ First, traffic volumes were generated by utilizing exist- l_j ' ing zoning in areas contributary to Tamarack Avenue. This generated traffic was distributed and assigned to the roadwayr*>i network. Secondly, an analysis of traffic assignments and existing traffic characteristics was combined with the first primary elements to obtain a roadway cross section that would serve the unique demands of Tamarack Avenue. o • L- ' Tamarack Avenue provides a complex set of traffic services <—i in that it must serve residential access, commercial needs, LJ commuter requirements , and the through movement of traffic destined for the State Beach. Subsequent sections of this j_j report describe the methodology used in the analysis and development of the proposed cross sections. O LJ U n - LJ n LJ METHODOLOGY n ^j The majority of Tamarack Avenue does not have curb and gutter improvements with exception of that portion adjacent•n j to the freeway. The alignment is straight with varying grades, has approximately 60 feet of right of way, and the P pavement section varies from 28 feet to 64 feet. Tamarack Avenue has an interchange with 1-5 and serves the State Beach 1-1 at its terminus, Carlsbad Boulevard. Figure 1, page 2, shows U the general study area. This area was expanded when actually (—, calculating the traffic that would be contributary to LJ Tamarack Avenue, Figure 2, page 20. j , Existing traffic counts were obtained from the City and analyzed to determine the unique characteristics of traffic volumes oh Tamarack Avenue, Appendix E. These characteristicsUwere applied to the projected volumes which in turn provide ^ - the data necessary for cross section determination. U r~t Land use maps were obtained that reflected ultimate i—i zoning. From this traffic, volumes were generated by using P-, various generation factors and land use densities, Appendix I. LJ This generated traffic was then distributed and assigned to the street system. u To assist the consultant in establishing directional distribution, data was obtained from the Comprehensive Planning Organization (C.P.O.). This data was analyzed and n the direction distribution was established as shown on '-J Figures 3 and 4, pages 23 and 24. U Once the directional distribution was.established, sub- 0 zones were prepared, Figure 2, page 20, for these areas con- i_j tributary to Tamarack Avenue. From each of these subzones, traffic was generated, Appendix I, then assigned to the U n LJ n <-J roadway network. Figure 5, page 26, illustrates the existing, (—f, C.P.O., and future traffic volumes projected for Tamarack LJ Avenue. . r~i These projections were subsequently analyzed and compared to existing volume characteristics which yielded the criteria r~i for establishing the required cross section. LJ ^ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS U o After an extensive evaluation of established data with LJ due regard to the impacts of Carlsbad State Beach, page 29, ^ the following conclusions are expressed: U © Future projected traffic volumes for a 24 hourn . period are: Figure 5, page 26. ^ Carlsbad Boulevard to Jefferson Street 12,900 ^ Jefferson Street to 1-5 15,850 r1 1-5 to Adams Street 19,000 0 Adams Street to Highland Drive 14,890 r~> LJ © A right of way width of 80 feet will provide for these anticipated volumes. See cross sections, u page 44. /~> ® The curb to curb width of 64 feet is required to u satisfy projected volumes and intended street use function. See cross sections, page 4.4. u <"""> ® On-street parking is needed for that portion of LJ Tamarack Avenue west of the freeway until such time i^ that the volumes have increased to warrant addi- U. tional through lanes of traffic. o U n u u ^ ® Two lanes for moving traffic in each direction will f-i be necessary for Tamarack Avenue between the freeway LJ and Highland Drive. r~i ' ® Landscaping should be provided be'hind the side- walk in tree planting easements. T~l U ® Bicycle lanes and sidewalks are integrated as 1-1 part of the overall design. LJ ' - . . U RECOMMENDATIONS r"1 LJ Recommendations for the ultimate improvement of Tamarack Avenue are as follows:r~t U ® Adopt the suggested cross sections. I — s (. J • ' •® Initiate an application for Federal funding. / — ' ^ ® Initiate the process of public hearings to establish i— > by ordinance the adoption of the alignment and pro- LJ vide specific future right of way lines as shown on aerial photos at the end of the report. U U r-i u n U r~"i LJ rf~\ LJ r"1 LJ EXISTING CONDITIONS Alignment Description Tamarack Avenue is one of the major east-west arterial roadways within the City of Carlsbad. This important roadway connects eastern residential areas within the City to the interchange at Interstate 5. Tamarack Avenue continues westerly to Carlsbad Boulevard and serves the State Beach located westerly of Carlsbad Boulevard, Figure 1. Tamarack Avenue serves a variety of land uses. On the westerly end there are abutting residential properties which include single family dwelling units and multiple family dwelling units such as apartments, condominiums, duplexes, etc. In the vicinity of Interstate 5, between Jefferson Street and Adams Street, Tamarack Avenue serves general commercial land uses such as gas stations, restaurants, and shopping facilities. As Tamarack Avenue extends easterly, land uses change to the single family dwellings. Tamarack Avenue is somewhat unique in that it is the southerly most east-west arterial that traverses the City north of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Other important aspects are the interchange with Interstate 5 as well as a direct connection to Carlsbad State Beach. Tamarack Avenue has served local residences for many years. These many years of usage and subsequent improvements have left Tamarack with various curb to curb widths and right of way widths. Beginning at Carlsbad Boulevard, Tamarack has three lanes of which two are in the westbound direction and one in the eastbound direction. The two westbound direction lanes provide a right turn lane onto northbound Carlsbad Boulevard and the through lane provides access to Carlsbad State Beach as well as southbound Carlsbad Boulevard. c D 0 D D D D 0 1 figure 1 STUDY AREA Traveling easterly the right turn lane from Carlsbad Boule- vard onto Tamarack is dropped and the roadway is reduced to one lane in each direction. The pavement width along this segment is approximately 28 to 30 feet. The first cross street encountered is Garfield Street at which four-way stop controls are present. Crossing Garfield and continuing easterly, Tamarack Avenue remains at approximately 28 to 30 feet in width with one lane in each direction. Located approximately 650 feet east of Garfield is the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe railroad tracks. A Type 9 automatic gate device crossing protection is provided at this location. See Appendix A for a.m. track schedule. Continuing easterly there are two local streets which intersect Tamarack. The first one encountered is Hibiscus Circle; the second one is Linmar Lane. Both provide local access to R-l residential areas to the south. It is expected that Hibiscus will be constructed to the north by early 1977. From Linmar Lane to Jefferson Street the width remains at approximately 28 to 30 feet with one lane in each direction. There is a crosswalk located on the west leg of the inter- section which provides crossing protection to Jefferson School, located north of Tamarack adjacent to Jefferson. The east leg of Tamarack has two lanes on the approach to the inter- section at Jefferson. There is one right turn lane with an island and one through lane. At this point the curb to curb width of Tamarack Avenue widens to approximately 64 feet. Approximately 300 feet easterly of Jefferson Street are located the southbound on and off-ramps to Interstate 5. From this point easterly Tamarack has been constructed to 64 feet with two lanes in each direction and left turning pockets are pro- vided at both the southbound on-ramp and the northbound on- ramp to Interstate 5. Continuing easterly the 64 foot curb to curb width is provided which extends to approximately 240 feet east of Pio Pico Drive, at which point it narrows on the north to Adams Street. At the intersection of Pio Pico and Tamarack Avenue there is an actuated traffic signal which controls the movement of vehicular traffic. At the intersection of Adams and Tamarack there are school crosswalks located on the west and the north legs. This intersection is also controlled by a four-way stop. Continuing easterly, the north and south sides of the street have been improved; however, the improvements have only netted a cross sectional width of 50 feet curb to curb. The centerline of the roadway at this point is 20 feet south of the north improvement or curb line with 30 feet on the south. Continuing easterly, there are two streets which enter from the north and "T" into Tamarack Avenue. The roadway has nar- rowed to 28 to 30 feet at this point. The first street en- countered is Margaret Way; the second is Polly Lane. These are cul-de-sac type streets which serve the local residential subdivision only. At Polly Lane the north side of Tamarack has been improved so that the north curb line of Tamarack is located approximately 32 feet north of centerline. From 150 feet east of Polly Lane, Tamarack Avenue narrows to approxi- mately 28 to 30 feet where it meets Highland Drive where four- way stop controls are in force. Tamarack Avenue is only partially improved at this time; however, the City has placed asphalt concrete sidewalks on both sides of Tamarack between Carlsbad Boulevard and Jefferson, Prior improvements which have been constructed subsequent to the construction of Tamarack easterly of Jefferson have pro- vided sidewalks. Sidewalks continue across the freeway and extend to Adams Street. On-street parking is currently per- mitted on most of Tamarack Avenue with the majority of this parking occurring on unimproved shoulders. Traffic Accidents Traffic accidents along Tamarack Avenue were reviewed for the years 1972 through 1976. See Appendix B. This review did not net any typical patterns which exist along the roadway. Many of the accidents which occurred are typical of two-lane type roadways that carry the volumes and serve the type of land uses inherent with this area. Prior to 1973 there were accidents occurring at the inter- section of Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue. These problems were solved by the installation of the traffic signal on May 17r :1973. Prior to the ..installation of the traffic signal at this location, the intersection had an accident history of 14 accidents for the three years 1969 to 1972. Of these 14 accidents, 6 were' fatalities. Since the installation of this traffic signal, three years have elapsed and there have only been 6 accidents with no fatalities. The installation of this traffic signal has definitely reduced the accident fre- quency at this intersection and the accidents that are occurring are rear-end type collisions which are not uncommon to signal- ized intersections. The segment of Tamarack Avenue between Carlsbad Boulevard and Jefferson Street has had several accidents, such as run-off-the-road type and accidents involving parked cars. One accident involved a vehicle backing out into Tamarack from a single family dwelling being struck by a westbound vehicle. Located just easterly of the tracks there were two accidents, one involving a bicycle which was being ridden on the wrong side of the road and a vehicle overtaking another vehicle attempting to make a left turn. Just west of the intersection of Jefferson Street, again one vehicle came out of a private drive and was struck by an eastbound vehicle. In 1976 a vehicle left the roadway and struck a rest home causing a fatality to a resident. At Jefferson Street there has been a series of accidents; however, most of them were involved with the stop sign placed in the island. Of the 5 accidents occurring at this location, 3 of them struck the stop sign and knocked it down. From Interstate 5 easterly to Highland there have been no major accident patterns developing. One slight pattern which warrants review is traffic exiting from the northbound off-ramp turning onto Tamarack. There was one accident that occurred in 1974 and another in 1975 in which vehicles exit- ing the freeway failed to yield the right of way to east- bound vehicles on Tamarack Avenue. Accident rates have been developed for Tamarack Avenue, both east and west of Inter- state 5. These accident rates are shown in Appendix B and reflect the rates for a five year period. These rates are below average for this type street.* The proposed improvements of Tamarack will help to main- tain this rate into the future. The improvements that are proposed will provide definite lane and roadway delineation. The accidents occurring at Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue are somewhat typical of signalized intersections and will probably not improve with the improvement of Tamarack. As land develops and traffic volumes increase along Tamarack Avenue, traffic signals may be required at various locations, such as Tamarack at Jefferson, Adams, and Highland. See Appendix C. The first locations most likely to require signalization will be Adams at Tamarack and the freeway off- ramps. The remaining intersections of Tamarack at Highland and Jefferson should be reviewed periodically to determine when warrants are met. *1975 Accident Rate Summary Study, CALTRANS Traffic Branch, Sacramento, by Dave Henry, Assistant State Traffic Engineer. (J Traffic Volumes For the purpose of this study various types of traffic counts were provided by the City. These traffic counts in- M eluded manual counts, which included all turning movements at the intersections of Carlsbad Boulevard, Jefferson Street, n at the on and off-ramps of Interstate 5, Pio Pico Drive, Adams '-' Street, and Highland Drive. Two-way volumes were obtained D through the use of pneumatic counters for various segments of Tamarack. (See Appendix,E.) [J Traffic counts provided the basic data on which assump- tions for traffic assignment and directional splits were based. To enable the consultant to evaluate all relation- ships of existing traffic, the City provided^traffic counts n for the^weekends as well as the week days. Since this street is impacted by the beach, it was felt that traffic counts (~| would differ on weekends from those of typical working or ^ commuter type trips being conducted during the week. The D majority of the counts were obtained prior to the beginning of summer. Thus, existing traffic counts conducted by the City for past years were reviewed to reflect the increases of jj traffic due to the summer season. Beach attandance could then be applied to the existing volumes to obtain estimated traffic I volumes for the summer months. PI Figure 5, page 26, shows the existing traffic ^volumes on Tamarack Avenue versus the. proposed traff-ic volumes :which n will be discussed in subsequent sections. r-i The existing volumes show an interesting relationship LJ of traffic destined for the freeway to traffic destined for the westerly end of Tamarack towards Carlsbad Boulevard. M Beginning at Carlsbad Boulevard the existing volume of average daily traffic (ADT)(Appendix E) is 4,50Q. East of Garfield this ADT rises to 6,300 vehicles per day. Approaching Jefferson it is noted that these volumes rise once again by approximately 800 vehicles per day to 7,070 vehicles per day. Between the freeway and Jefferson the ADT takes a considerable jump to 10,835 vehicles per day. The significance of these ADT's is that much of the traffic coming from the freeway is destined to the adjacent residential areas rather than the beach. Thus, it is concluded that much of the traffic x traveling this segment of Tamarack Avenue is generated by land uses in the vicinity of Tamarack. Beginning at Highland Drive and continuing in a westerly direction, the ADT is 5,650. Traffic volumes continue to increase to 6,160 approaching Adams. When these relationships are compared with the peak hour characteristics and directional distributions, much of the traffic utilizing Tamarack Avenue between Highland and the freeway is destined to the freeway, thus demonstrating Interstate 5 is a very important traffic corridor for commuters and residents of the City of Carlsbad. One of the important characteristics of traffic volume is not necessarily the total amount of traffic which traverses a given segment of road in one day, but it is the peak hour in which the highest hourly traffic movements occur. As the peak hour percentage of daily volumes decreases, a better utilization of the roadway occurs. This is because a greater number of motorists utilize the roadway for longer periods of the day. Once this percentage of peak hour traffic is determined, the next important factor is to determine the actual directional split which occurs during this peak hour. It is these factors, when placed in relationship with the pro- jected traffic volumes, that determine the requirements of a proposed roadway. The traffic volumes between Carlsbad Boulevard and Jefferson have a peak hour which is approximately 9 percent of the total daily traffic. See Appendix E. This peak hour usually occurs during the evening between the hours of 5:00 and 6:00. As the freeway is approached, the peak hour volume drops to approximately 8 percent, this segment of road being Jefferson Street to the freeway. Easterly of the freeway this peak hour volume which again occurs during the evening is approximately 10 percent of the total daily traffic. This is an interesting relationship when compared to the traffic characteristics west of the freeway. A higher percentage of people use the roadway for an extended period of time for that portion of Tamarack west of the freeway, compared to the sharp peaking characteristics of traffic using that segment of Tamarack east of the freeway. Observing the traffic that uses Tamarack Avenue between Jefferson and Adams, it is interesting to note that during the peak hour much of the traffic from the freeway east is of a commuter type. This is characterized by the larger peak hour volume percentage. The difference in peak hour percentages east of the freeway and west of the freeway is approximately 2 percent. Commuter traffic is comprised of basically the home to work type trips. These generally occur during two hours of the day. The first is the a.m. or morning peak hour which occurs between 7:00 and 8:00. The second is the p.m. peak hour which occurs between 5:00 and 6:00. Commuter traffic tends to raise the percentage of peak hour volumes. Roadways that are less affected by commuter traffic will show lower percentages of peak hour volumes. However, volumes are generally higher for other portions of the day. This rela- tionship provides better utilization of the roadway compared to roadways which serve primarily commuter traffic. The traffic lane configuration is determined by the peak hour and directional split which is generally greater than the remainder of the day. These relationships are further defined in the section of this report titled "Alternative Alignments." Traffic characteristics for the road segment of Tamarack Avenue between Carlsbad and Jefferson differ slightly from those easterly of the freeway between Pio Pico and Adams. This is evident by the lower peak hour volumes as well as the directional split of traffic upon the roadway. This westerly section of Tamarack Avenue has a peak hour volume approaching approximately 9 percent of the total ADT and the directional split of traffic is approximately 59 percent versus 41 percent. The easterly segment of Tamarack has approximately 10 approach- ing 11 percent peak hour traffic movement and a directional split of 61 percent versus 39 percent for the opposite direc- tion, once again demonstrating the demand of commuter traffic east of the freeway. In essence, this shows that during the p.m. peak hour 61 percent of the traffic that is utilizing Tamarack is destined for the residential areas. Thus, it is the terminus of a work to home type trip. * The effects of the Tamarack extension to El Camino Real on peak hour volumes on Tamarack is not considered significant. This is due to several reasons; the first being the fact that Interstate 5 is close and offers a good level of service to motorists both north and southbound. El Camino Real is a four-lane divided facility which is winding and has local access, thus decreasing driveability. Easterly of Adams the peak hour traffic volumes are much like those for the westerly segment of Tamarack. The peak hour percentage has dropped to approximately 9 percent of the total ADT, thus providing better utilization of the roadway 10 as well as establishing that this segment of the road is less impacted by commuters. It is extremely important that these relationships be established due to the fact that future design criteria is based on these characteristics. After traffic has been generated for the proposed land uses for an ultimate development of the City, these characteristics will be applied to those volumes to determine the peak hour demands for each segment of roadway. These existing peak hour characteristics are expected to continue into the future. This is due to the land use inter- pretations projected by the City, establishing much of the same types of land uses currently existing. To state this simply, if current residential areas were to be rezoned to commercial or industrial, then these characteristics would begin to change, thus creating a different relationship of the peak hour volumes and directional splits. The develop- ments which will occur subsequent to this study are in con- formance with current land usages. Capacity and Level of Service 1 When discussing capacities and traffic volumes, one must realize that there are major differences. The capacity of a roadway is defined as-;the amount-of traffic that may pass a given point for a given time interval. Usually this time interval is a one hour period (vehicles per hour). There are various conditions which affect this capacity figure. These elements are the percentages of trucks and buses, road- way width, lane width, the distance from the edge of the lane to a barrier such as a bridge structure or edge of the roadway, and the amount of turning movements which occur; that is, the left turning movements and the right turning movements. Other factors would include the percent of grade at any given por- tion along the roadway segment. Capacity cannot be assumed 11 to be constant. Another factor which must be considered in this analysis is the ease and comfort at which one drives along the roadway. This is defined as "level of service." Appendix F. As the level of service increases, the motorist has more flexibility to move about, change lanes, etc., thus the capacity of the roadway begins to decrease.because a fewer number of cars may pass that given point during the given time period. Levels of service have been broken down into six categories: A through F. Level of service "A" is characteristic of free-flowing traffic while level.of service "F" is characteristic of a force flow condition where traffic delays are long and there is much stopping and starting. Appendix F of this report defines each category of level of service. According to "Capacity of At-Grade Junctions," published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the lane volumes for various levels of service are defined as follows: LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE VOLUMES (PCU PER HOUR)* A < 1,100 B 1,100 C 1,250 D 1,350 E 1,600 F 0 - 2,000 *Passenger Car Units per Hour These lane volumes were established to represent flow of uninterrupted traffic for one lane of traffic. Due to the fact that traffic traveling along Tamarack Avenue is inter- rupted by four-way stops at Jefferson, Garfield, Adams, and 12 D Highland, this will reduce the capacity by approximately half because when capacity and level of service are computed, they are generally based on one hour of 100 percent "green" or "go" time. With these controls in existence, this 100 percent of green time is reduced to approximately 50 percent of green time because each motorist must always stop. If 50 percent "green" time is assigned to Tamarack, the service volumes would then be reduced to the following: LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE VOLUMES (PCU PER 50% HOUR OF GREEN) A < 550 B 550 C . 625n. F 0 - 1,000 D . 675U E 800 n It should be pointed out that capacity and level of service L-' are basically related; however, the capacity of a roadway does PI not change. The capacity is based on the items mentioned L/i above, while the level of service is based on the quality of traffic flow. The level of service currently being exper- (J ' ienced by the users of Tamarack Avenue is approximately level of service "B." This means that during most of the day vehicles are free to drive at speeds they wish, within the law, and to be able to make the turning movements without direct influence of other vehicles. An analysis of this existing "per lane volume" is shown in Appendix G. When compared to the level of service lane volumes per car unit for 50 percent hour of green, this level of service is within the realm of levels of service "B" to "A." The same analysis was used in conducting level of service analyses for other segments of Tamarack, Appendix G. 13 Speed and Delay To determine if congestion was apparent at any given locations, speed and delay runs were conducted along Tamarack Avenue. A two-man team equipped with stop watches set out to document these conditions. See Appendix H. The run on Tamarack Avenue was set up between Carlsbad\ Boulevard and Highland Drive. Study sheets were prepared with the various intersections where delays were expected. As the study team traversed Tamarack Avenue, the time was noted when each of the predetermined locations was passed. Any extra- ordinary delay caused by traffic controls or excessive vehicle delay was also noted. Along with the running time element the total delay and reason were also noted. By using this method, the travel time could be determined between the various predetermined points along the roadway. To determine the delay caused by vehicles, the delay stop watch was activated when the speed decreased to 10 mph. At the time this speed I increased greater than 10 mph, the watch was stopped and the delay was recorded. During this exercise the study team did not pass any vehicles along this road segment. No unusual driver charac- teristics were noted by the study team and while traversing the segment, average speeds were also obtained. While travel- ing this roadway in an easterly direction, the stop time delays were mainly caused by four-way stop controls at the intersections of Garfield, Jefferson, the traffic signal at Pio Pico, and the four-way stop.controls at Adams and at Highland. These average stop time delays were approximately 3.5 seconds. 14 D The average speed for the entire run was approximately 21 miles per hour. The highest speed achieved along this road segment in an easterly direction was 30 miles per hour. This was located between the railroad tracks and Jefferson. The average speeds along Tamarack Avenue between specific locations are as follows: Carlsbad to Garfield . 14 mph Garfield to R.R. Tracks 24 mph R.R. Tracks to Jefferson 30 mph Jefferson to Centerline of 1-5 28 mph Centerline of 1-5 to Pio Pico 22 mph Pio Pico to Adams 17 mph Adams to Highland . 20 mph These are average speeds between these roadway segments and this analysis was conducted while keeping with the flow of traffic. Another point that should be mentioned at this time is that these travel speed and delay runs were conducted dur- ing the peak hours. The day selected was a Saturday, June 26, 1976, and the peak hours began at 12:00 to 1:00 and the afternoon peak was between the hours of 3:00 and 4:00. This particular day was selected because the consultant hoped to obtain a typical normal day in which much of the traffic would be destined for Carlsbad State Beach. The weather during this day was sunny and warm and much of the beach was occupied. The total travel time in an eastbound direction along Tamarack Avenue beginning at Carlsbad Boulevard and continuing to Highland was approxi- mately 2 minutes, 53 seconds. ' 15 U The same procedure as described for the eastbound direc- tion was followed when traversing Tamarack in a westboundC. direction. The speeds attained between the same given seg-- ments of road were approximately the same and the total time M to traverse this road segment was 2 minutes, 54 seconds. The average difference in traversing Tamarack Avenue in an easterly (~| and westerly direction is approximately one second. The ^ significance of this is that traffic was flowing generally 0 in equal amounts in both directions and there were no major obstructions or geometric inconsistencies which would pre- ^ elude these times from being somewhat equal.G . To establish a comparison for these- travel times andDspeeds along Tamarack, the study team traveled Elm Avenue the• same day during the same peak hours. Elm was selected due /~l to the improvements which have occurred on the street and the types of land uses adjacent to this roadway. These road- n ways are somewhat different in that the adjacent land uses *— ' on Elm are commercial and retail for the majority of the study 0 travel length and the land uses that front Tamarack are mixed and range from R-l residential to commercial and retail facilities.b The same terminus was used for Elm Street (that being Carlsbad Boulevard to the west and Highland Drive to the east) . The roadways are somewhat equal in length with Tamarack being approximately 5,325 feet in length and Elm being approximately 5,016 feet in length, the net difference being approximately 300 feet. The average time to traverse the limits of Elm in an easterly direction was approximately 2 minutes, 32 seconds. The average speed obtained was 22 miles per hour. The delays incurred were mainly at the intersection where traffic signals 16 were present. Traffic signals exist at State Street and at | Harding Street. The other delays incurred were at stop sign controlled intersections such as Highland Drive. 0 • •While traversing Elm in a westbound direction the delays Q incurred were approximately the same. The average time was 2 minutes, 37 seconds and the average speed was 21 miles per r-i hour. The consistency of these two travel times and speeds (_] relate that there are no significant roadway characteristics that would preclude traffic in one direction being signifi-O cantly different than traffic in another.' When the two roadways are compared, Tamarack Avenue and Elm Avenue, there is only approximately a 2 mile per hour pi difference in the average travel speed between the given ^ boundaries. The speeds were slightly greater on Elm Street Q due to the improvements that have been made, providing four through lanes for traffic from Harding Street easterly to Highland and providing left turn lanes for Interstate 5 westerly (_J to Carlsbad Boulevard. In essence, these two roadways on June 26, 1976, between the hours of 12:00 and 1:00 and 3:00 O ' "and 4:00, were somewhat equal in speed and travel time. There were no major differences or driver characteristics on f either of these two roadways. At the time of this review, pedestrian and bicycle traffic was not a problem inherent with P Tamarack. Traffic moved very well along both study routes with no major hesitations or operational problems encountered. D It was anticipated that in the vicinity of the residential areas traffic backing onto the highway would present some 0 short delay. However, none of these delays were ever incurred. The parking that is located in downtown Carlsbad along Elm Street again was not a problem. As noted, the average speeds I and travel times on both of these streets are operating at approximately the same level of service. 17 0 TRAFFIC GENERATION•One of the major elements of this study was to generate the traffic for all proposed development in the City which would be tributary to Tamarack Avenue. This would represent a "worst condition" situation. This task was accomplished by utilizing the current zoning established and provided by the City and applying generation rates to determine the total amount of traffic being generated from those zones tributary to Tamarack Avenue. A base map of the City was used and overlayed with sub- ij zones which divided the areas contributing to Tamarack into workable units (Figure 2, page 20). Traffic was generated <Q within each of these subzones with respect to each of the ^ proposed land uses shown on the zoning map. These generation r~> rates were selected from past studies conducted by the U Department of Transportation and were mutually agreed upon ^ by the City and the consultant. The rates* are as follows: (_j Single Family 10 Trip Ends/Dwelling Unit Multiple Family 8 " " jj Mobile Homes 7 ", .". Agriculture 14 " Commercial 13/1000 G.F.A. or 600-700/Acre Schools 50/Acre P Parks 35/Acre *Based on trip generation studies conducted by the State of California Department of Transportation and the Institute of Transportation Engineers and in concurrence with City staff. 18 nu 0U 0 G To supplement this data, input was received from the City Planning Department as to the various number of dwelling units per acre for various densities of residential zoning. RLM (low density) zoning was calculated at 4 dwelling units per acre; RM (medium density) had a range of 4-10 dwelling units per acre. For the purpose of traffic generation, the 10 dwelling units per acre was used. The RMH and RH (medium high and high densities) zoning had two ranges of density. The first was 10-20 dwelling units per acre; the second was 20-30 per acre. The 20 dwelling units per acre figure was used in all cases. For example, an RLM zoned parcel approximately 5 acres r~^ in size would be multiplied by the density of development (J (provided by the Planning Department) . This yields the total number of dwellings for that 5 acre parcel. This number in | ] turn was multiplied by the generation rate in trips per dwelling unit: | Total Trip Ends = Parcel Size per Acre x Density x Generation Rate Total Trip Ends = 5 Acres x 4 Units/Acre x 10 Trips/Dwelling Unit O Total Trip Ends = 200 (5 x 4 x 10) D Figure 2 is a graphic display of the subzones selected for this study. These zones were selected by merely using p> streets and City zoning boundaries as perimeter lines. Traffic (j was then generated for each subzone. Table 2 indicates the amount of traffic generated by each of the subzones, Appendix I. To obtain a more meaningful relationship of the total volume of traffic generated by these subzones , they were compared to the traffic volumes generated from the three figure 2 TRAFFIC GENERATION SUB ZONES 20 corresponding zones covering the same study area used by the San Diego Comprehensive Planning Organization (C.P.O.). The data provided by C.P.O. was in the form of home to work, home to shop, home to other, work to other, and other to other type trips. The total number of trips by type was listed in table form by zones. This printout designates the number of two-way trips between each zone, thus no directional distri- bution is assigned. The total generated traffic for all trip types was analyzed, distributed, and assigned. Due to the impacts of the beach, a separate analysis was conducted and included in the total generated traffic. This portion of the study is discussed in Traffic Generation, page: 18:. This-data--.was analyzed to determine the number of trips to and from each of these three zones to other zones in the County and a directional distribution established. This directional distribution is discussed in the following section. The total amount of traffic generated by all the sub- zones was 107,972. Various subzones which fell outside the zones used by C.P.O. were subtracted from the total for com- parison purposes. Vehicle trips representing 40,850 were subtracted from the total to leave 67,122. The total amount of traffic generated by C.P.O. for the same area contributing to Tamarack was 31,083. The net difference of these figures is primarily due to the consultant making a micro analysis of the areas in which land uses were more acutely defined, thus providing more consistent data. TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION To determine the distribution of traffic before assign- ment to the street network, a basis had to be established. The computerized printout obtained from C.P.O. was used to 21 generate a distribution of traffic from all other zones within the County to the three zones directly contributary to Tamarack Avenue (Figure 3, page 23). This data was used because it provides future 1995 traffic projections for the entire County. The program makes assign- ments from one zone to another taking into consideration zoning, travel desires, trip lengths, etc. From this print- out, an assignment was made by the consultant to the master planned street network. The directional distribution is shown on Figure 3. This enabled the distribution of ultimate traffic generated for the City with respect to current land use planning. To determine a general distribution for each of the three C.P.O. zones, each one was analyzed individually. Zone 7408 (Figure 3) adjacent to the coast included areas outside of those tributary to Tamarack so consideration had to be given to that inconsistency. The distribution conducted by the consultant verified .that approximately 50 percent of the traffic was oriented north, 36 percent south, 5 percent west, and 9 percent were trips which never left the zone. Zone 7410 had 43 percent oriented northerly, 9 percent westerly, 34 percent southerly, 7 percent easterly, and 7 percent of the trips were intra-zone. Zone 6701 had 41 percent oriented northerly, 34 percent southerly, 11 percent easterly, 7 per- cent westerly, and 7 percent of the trips were intra-zone. The results of the individual zones were compared to obtain the overall distribution as noted on Figure 4. This was necessary to provide the consultant a basis for directional distribution of ultimate generated traffic. The C.P.O. model was used judiciously in the determination of this directional distribution. Value judgment on the part of the consultant was exercised in the development of this distribution with 22 external trips internal trips figure 3 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION C.PO. ZONES 23 n L figure 4 GENERALIZD DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF STUDY AREA 24 I considerations given to types of proposed land uses, commer- cial and recreational facilities. The assumptions used in this task are extremely import- ant due to the fact that the assignment of the generated traffic is directly related to the directional distribution. J TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ~T J, To determine the cross section dimensional requirements of the roadway for the various segments of Tamarack Avenue I between Highland Drive and Carlsbad Boulevard, "traffic assignment" is one of the most important considerations. The assumptions made during this phase of the study will have the greatest effects on the recommendations, with respect to "") costs and user benefits. -> The assignment of traffic to Tamarack Avenue was con- J ' ducted in two phases. The first phase was the assignment of ~. traffic from the data obtained from the C.P.O. Desire lines7 j from all other zones were drawn to each of the three zones contributing to Tamarack Avenue. Desire lines represent a '1I graphical analysis of trip distribution from one location ~*fJ to another and are used to show the need for various corri- 1 , dors of traffic movement. To these desire lines, the link volumes were placed, then assigned to the street network. '"1 Figure 5 shows the existing and projected traffic volumes -^ assigned to Tamarack Avenue. It was interesting to note -v that volumes adjacent to the freeway were higher than the J others along Tamarack Avenue. This was not surprising due to the fact that Interstate 5 is the major traffic corridor J from the northerly portion of the County to the southerly portion.-"•> J When assigning projected traffic to the street system, 25 c EXISTING & FUTURE VOLUMES (A.D.T) EXISTING C.EO. 1B95 PROJECTED 26 J a certain amount of judgment had to be exercised. For in- stance, it is obvious that all the traffic south of Carlsbad ~T would not use Interstate 5. There are three routes which could be used: Carlsbad Boulevard, Interstate 5, and El "1 Camino Real. Other aspects to consider were travel times and distances. For the daily home to work commuter, the •"j fastest route would be selected. J -7 The second phase of traffic assignment to Tamarack pre- J, sented a larger problem. The trips generated by each sub- zone within the area tributary to Tamarack Avenue have to I be assigned giving consideration to the directional distribu- tion mentioned in the foregoing section. Unlike the assign- ~y ment of traffic from zone to zone conducted by C.P.O. which included directional distribution in the original model, the ~) assignment from subzone areas to the street system to areas ^ outside of these selected zones was conducted by considering -> this directional distribution. J --. Traffic from each of the subzones was assigned to _) Tamarack by taking into consideration as to where that zone lies within the overall tributary area. For example, trips i assigned to the network from subzones 1, 2, 13, and 14 would follow the directional distribution shown on Figure 3, where trips from zones 45, 46, and 52 would have to be modified due to the ocean located directly to the west. Once again, "1 this assignment was accomplished to attempt to reflect the -' desires of the users. 1 J It should be pointed out that this assignment assumed that Tamarack would be constructed to El Camino Real, the J Park Drive extension would be completed, and Cannon Road would be constructed to El Camino Real. If these assumptions -\i change, a larger demand will be placed on Tamarack Avenue. A separate analysis would have to be conducted to establish these relationships. '21 LJ The volumes west of the freeway assigned to Tamarack Avenue are somewhat consistent with those of the C.P.O. esti- M mations; the only exception is that the consultant's were a slightly higher. A quite different picture develops east 0 .of the freeway. The projected volumes are approximately twice the C.P.O. projections (see Figure 5, page 26). An-explana- O tion of this is as.,follows. . <^7 When traffic was generated from the zones south of LJ Tamarack between the freeway and El Camino Real, a precise „ plan that had been prepared for the City by Alan M. Voorhees J) and Associates was used. This plan outlined the land use elements more precisely, thus giving a more accurate defini-O tion of area development. This allowed the consultant to• generate from this area a more realistic amount of traffic f7 which would in turn be assigned to the street system. ' The C.P.O. model was set up without the aid of this valuable in- T7 formation.d Q The assumptions used, for this area, which included the future roadway construction outlined above, would subject ^ the area to an increased amount of development. As pointed I) out in the Voorhees report, if these alignments were not completed as master planned, the demands on Tamarack would j i increase. Once the traffic assignment was completed, these volumes could be analyzed by using existing peaking condi- Tj tions and characteristics to determine the cross sectional requirements. PU PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION LJ The newly established North County Transit District is continually reviewing the existing bus routes in the Carlsbad [j area. See Appendix J for existing routings. During conver- sations with the Transit District it was mentioned that 28 (J budgeting constraints have required the schools to cut bus service. This should increase the demand for public trans- ]\ portation. I In the future, public transit will play an important role for beach patrons. As areas in the east and southeast- fj erly segments of the City develop, public transportation will be an important mode of transportation for those who •p cannot drive, do not have private transportation available, U or discover that good parking is not available. P •(J CARLSBAD STATE BEACH One of the major considerations of this study is the vehicular impact to Tamarack Avenue created by the beach. ( f Beach patronage, parking, and size was reviewed to provide insight to those impacts. T Discussions were held with an official representing the 0 Carlsbad State Beach area and other individuals dealing with traffic problems related to beaches which fall into their jurisdictions.* It was determined that "beach capacity" is jj calculated on a 10' x 10' or 100 square foot area per person. As the beach patronage increases, this 100 square foot area fT1 i may decrease to 64 square feet per person. For the purpose of this study the 100 square foot figure was used. n According to Mr. Jack Welch, Department of Parks and fl Recreation, San Diego Coast Area, the State Beach is approxi- *-* mately 5,400 feet long and 75 feet wide. This computed to 0 approximately 405,000 square feet of usable beach. San Diego Gas & Electric recently negotiated with the State to provide *City of Huntington Beach and Department of Parks & Recreation 29 O an additional 2,000 feet of beach for public use. This will add approximately 150,000 square feet to the existing 405,000 square feet, upping the total to 555,000 square feet. Due to the location of this additional beach, it is not considered to have a direct effect on Tamarack traffic volumes. - f~T To establish a realistic relationship of existing volumes -U to future volumes, the existing figure of 405,000 square feet p . of beach was used. To obtain "beach capacity" this figure is (J divided by 100 square feet. Thus, it is possible that there would be 4,050 persons at the beach at one given time period. H Mr. Welch estimated that the average length of stay is 3 hours, Appendix K. This represents a possible turnover of all available space every 3 hours during a 9 hour day (10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), thus the person demand at capacity for the (~j beach during any day would be 12,150. (J • ' fl To determine if this assumption of 100 square feet per ^ person -is correct, a comparison was made with actual beach PI counts provided by the Parks and Recreation Department (_| (letter from .Parks and Recreation Department (Appendix K ). For the months of June, July, August, and September the total [J beach attendance was 771,777. Assuming average daily attend- ance there are 122 days during those months. This is divided • into the total attendance to obtain the average attendance. = 6/326 U • This average attendance per day is divided into the totaln|J square footage of beach to obtain the average space required per person. These computed figures do not consider a turnover p| • rate. S« ^ j^™^ - *!«.*». 2§£§jfS21 - 64 average for Year ^.^ - AITEMMJCE/Dfflr 1'1^-584 = 3,026 n 30 Iu BEACH TOTAL AREA 75'x5,400 ,_,„ _ _. /T, ATTENDANCE PER DAY = = 134 Sq-^t-/Person- G. p Considering the 64 square feet per person would be saying O that all 6,326 persons were at the beach at one time. To „ . accurately assess beach demand the turnover rate of 3 would U have to be applied to the 6,326, thus 2,109 persons would be at the beach at one time period. Thus, H Months A^S^A^^y^v = Sq.Ft.Ave. 15 (*5^j°— = 192 Sq.Ft./Person 0 0 Average for Year ^^ ' STTEMDSNCE/Dffl 1'1°^'584 = 3,026 As expected, the demand presented by the summer months 0 -is much greater than the average for the entire year. How- ever, the basic assumed figure of 100 feet per person is "H somewhat accurate when computing beach capacity. Since it is not economically feasible to design for ultimate usage, the <pj figure of 100 square feet will be used. As mentioned earlier, U a demand of 12,150 people per day exists for the State Beach. ,—. Disregarding the people who walk in, which is approximately (_) 22 percent of the total taken from attendance figures, and assuming that all would arrive in a vehicle, this wouldn - • -I generate approximately 5,063 trips per day. ATTENDANCE PER DAY 12,150 c „,, TT , . ,= — ' A = 5,063 Vehicles-— ] (DCCUEANCY RATE/VEHICLE* 2.4u ^ These generated trips must be assigned to Tamarack Avenue <_] and the north and south legs of Carlsbad Boulevard. From (~j *This occupancy was determined by observations made by the U consultant and estimates by the Department of Parks and Recreation. 31 existing manual counts taken at the intersection, the direc- tional distribution is as follows: IN OUT 61% 54% H State Beach -<24% State Beach " >«~24% Tamarack Avenue d ^r t 15% 22%c • . To relate the expected growth in the southeastern portion ! ! of the City, the directional distribution is as follows: 45% Carlsbad Boulevard North ^-40% Tamarack 15% Carlsbad Boulevard South D . - . • . It is projected that the demand for the beach from Tamarack ( [ will increase, reflecting the increase in percentage assigned to Tamarack. Thus, 2,025 trips will be distributed to Tamarack, "Tj 2,278 trips will be distributed to the north leg of Carlsbad ^ Boulevard, and 759 trips will be distributed to the south. n (_) The projected demand for the beach is a realistic con- ,-, sideration when considering the beach only. There are addi- (j tional factors which enter into the evaluating process. Once these volumes arrive, where are they going to park? This Pl i will be discussed in the following section. P PARKING C The impacts created by the State Beach to Tamarack Avenue will depend largely on the amount of parking available. OThe estimated attendance figures discussed in the preceding section assume that adequate parking is provided. An inven- tory of available parking indicates that there are approxi- 1 mately 475 spaces. The inventory is as follows: 32 nu IJ LOCATION SPACES 1. Below Jetty (3 lots @ 40 each) 120 i 2. Encina Fishing Area 60 3. Tamarack Lot 120 ([ 4. New Development at Tamarack 70 5. Pine Street (north end) 35 p 6. On-street (Carlsbad Boulevard) 100 TOTAL 475 n . Li Discussions with the City and the State Parks and Recre- _ ation Department suggested that all open space available for |_j parking is currently being utilized and there are no immed- iate plans for providing additional facilities. .Considering the current parking provisions, the proposed, or generated figure of 5,063 vehicle trips is somewhat unrealistic. Q 'The beach patronage turnover rate of 3 was used; there- in fore, it is estimated that the demand for parking will be ^ 1,688 spaces. P ™L' VBSOgg^D BY BE^ . mp ^ ^ ^ ^^ 5,063 ___ -- i,688 U Existing spaces subtracted from the projected demand would net ,— , 1,213 additional spaces needed. If additional spaces are not |_J provided, motorists destined for the beach will seek parking on adjacent residential streets. 0 Summing up the above data, the projected volumes based C on total beach capacity are not likely to be met due to the•fact that sufficient parking to meet the projected demand may O not be provided. ri There are several options which the City and the State •U Parks and Recreation Department could take to improve the <~i quality of parking in the general area. The first -is exploring nu (J vacant parcels adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard for additional parking facilities. These vacant parcels would make ideal • [J locations for parking and provide the needed facilities as projected growths in vehicular volumes are experienced. ui i Another possible option would be to encourage the Transit District to provide low cost beach transit for many of the P people who reside beyond walking distance to the beach. The third option could be utilization of the existing rail- •f~) road right of way located approximately half way between U Garfield and Jefferson. The right of way on the north side P of Tamarack is approximately 200 feet in width. The westerly (_] portion of this right of way is currently being used as access for the dwellings on Redwood, Hemlock, and Juniper. 1, The Santa Fe railroad could be approached and an encroach- ment permit obtained to utilize a portion of this right of \ i way for a parking facility. It is close enough to the beach which would allow people to park and walk to the beach. O Another possibility would be to provide some type of a shuttle bus which would take individuals from this lot down P to .the State Beach. The City of Laguna Beach currently uses U this approach during the summer months when there is a great P demand for the beach and downtown facilities. The parking situation for the beach is currently some- l what of a problem and as the demand for the beach increases, the parking situation is going to become critical. In sub- sequent sections on Design Alternatives, pages 43-46, one of the design criteria considered for Tamarack Avenue is the P provision for parking. Generally speaking, parking should not be provided along arterial roadways. However, in this 0 situation where Tamarack Avenue serves local access as well as providing for the through arterial movement of traffic, P combined with the close proximity of the beach which gener- (J ates the demand for parking, this design concept was incor- porated into the cross sectional area for the proposed 34nu 0 n , - : U widening of Tamarack Avenue. Although the parking which will be achieved through the widening of Tamarack Avenue will be [j of a parallel type, it will not totally satisfy the needs for the demands created by the beach. However, with this parking i provided, it will assist in diminishing a small portion of the parking requirements as well as providing parking in P front of the residential housing fronting onto Tamarack Avenue. n . ^ The cross section selected for this portion of Tamarack pi has the capability of providing two through lanes with LJ parking plus bicycle facilities or four through lanes with- out parking plus bicycle lanes. Projected volumes suggest jj the need for a two-lane facility which will provide addi- tional parking; however, if in the future additional lanes j i are needed, this parking will be eliminated. P ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS(J ! ; P Introduction (j O Many controversial subjects are involved with the en- vironmental considerations of a construction or improvement project. This section of the report should not be miscon- I j strued as an Environmental Impact Statement. It merely pre- sents an overview of potential problems which may be encoun- tered when the proposed project is implemented. P Coastal Commission O The Coastal Commission is concerned with providing var- ious types of constraints to provide an overall scheme which P, would consider all types of users. This would include the (j construction of residential and commercial properties in concert with aesthetics and individuals wishing to use the nu n • ' . . ' U beaches via vehicles, bicycles, and foot traffic. It is in P.. the interest of the Coastal Commission and the City of (j Carlsbad that these requirements be met. The restrictions set forth by the Coastal Commission for development along and adjacent to Tamarack Avenue were due to the fact that there have been no plans for ultimate improvement of Tamarack 1 I Avenue. The demands for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic on Tamarack were not known. It is through this n report that traffic was generated, distributed, and assigned U to Tamarack, thus providing insight as to what future demands D will be. This report should establish a base that both the Coastal Commission and the City of Carlsbad can utilize for „ their decisions on proposed developments adjacent to Tamarack jj Avenue. Aesthetics n - The proposed widening of Tamarack Avenue will have a direct effect on the aesthetics of the area. Due to the (~) required roadway width, most of the existing trees which ^—' line Tamarack Avenue on either side will have to be removed O or relocated. The improvements proposed for Tamarack Avenue will include curbs, gutters, and sidewalks as well as trees adjacent to the roadway. Where much of Tamarack has earth (J shoulders adjacent to the paved roadway, curbs and gutters will define street limits, thus improving the aesthetics I I of the roadway by defining the exact limits of the road. To reduce the impact of this widening project, provisions j~] for trees and landscaping have been made. These trees will be located behind the sidewalk in tree planting easements. 0 During the rainy season, much of the water that currently ponds will be carried away by curbs, gutters, and storm drains, 0 These improvements will be made during reconstruction of the roadway. D 36 n(J Air Pollution nI Wherever the probability of future development exists, an increase in air pollution is inevitable. However, these jl impacts can be minimized by providing safe and efficient movement of traffic through well designed-roadways in which n stopping and starting, slowing, and idling will be reduced *—' to a minimum. Other mitigating measures would be the pro- p vision of public transit which would lower the total number LJ of vehicles utilizing this roadway. This is especially true during the summer months or Santa Ana wind conditions U - when air pollution problems are intensified. Noise n Sound levels will be increased for all the residences along this corridor due to the projected increase in traffic p. volumes. The street right of way comes very close to indi- ^ vidual dwellings at several locations along the proposed r-j alignment. At these locations the noise levels will be (_] increased. Improvements to the homes, such as insulation and windows specially designed to reduce noise levels, may jj . be installed. In some locations it may be necessary to pro- vide block walls to reduce the sound levels produced by the i projected traffic volumes. For the houses in close proximity to the railroad, increases in noise level intensity due to (~) the projected traffic will not be higher than those currently caused by the railroad. However, due to these increases O in traffic volumes, noise levels will exist for longer dura- tions throughout the day. n (J Quality of Life jj Some of the residential housing, in which the road passes very near the structure itself, will notice some 0 37 U decrease in general quality of living. At these locations these individuals will no longer be able to park their cars [j in driveways or park on the street. Due to the noise impacts, those affected individuals may notice an increased noise level j I for extended periods of the day. f~| Generally, the improvements of Tamarack Avenue will pro- vide safe and efficient movement of traffic for ingress and |~| egress to all those private parcels fronting Tamarack as ^ well as the arterial movement of traffic. Arterial traffic f—I is referred to as commuter type traffic, the home to shop U type traffic, as well as home to other which would include the recreational traffic destined for the beach, parks, etc.c (There are two houses which will have to be removed and i several others that will be affected due to the nearness of the proposed alignment. It is the opinion of the consultant n that the benefits gained by the motoring public through safety, roadway efficiency, reduction in energy consumption,\ Q and other environmental considerations will overcome the initial and .continuing impacts to the parcels mentioned above. U ALIGNMENT SELECTION Many things were considered when establishing the cri- teria for a street configuration which would serve the demands and the needs of the roadway users. The first and most important task was to determine the quantity of ["I vehicles using the roadway. After this task was accomplished, - the volumes were analyzed to determine the operating charac- p teristics which are directly related to the design criteria. U ^ Consideration was given to all forms of transportation: |_J pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicular traffic. The City's master plan of bike trails does not include a bikeway facilityn 38 (J along Tamarack over the freeway. Due to the demand that will be placed onto Tamarack, it was felt that it would be [j • somewhat unrealistic to exclude bicycle traffic from any portion of Tamarack. The State Beach located at the end of Tamarack also emphasizes the need to establish provisions for bicycle traffic. [j Pedestrian facilities were a major consideration for D the ultimate improvement of Tamarack. Tamarack, due to various schools and specifically the beach, has a rather Dhigh demand for pedestrian facilities. In all of the following alternatives, pedestrian facilities are recom- mended with only minor changes in cross sectional elements. u : . Medians were considered to improve the aesthetics of Tamarack as well as provide channelization and ease of movement for vehicular traffic. With the installation of P median islands, side friction caused by vehicles driving adjacent to one another is reduced considerably. However, O due to right of way constraints, particularly between Carlsbad Boulevard and Jefferson Street and the need to pro- p, vide access to local residents fronting Tamarack, raised LJ medians have been ruled out as a viable 'alternative. nj Landscaping and lane widths were considered for each of the alternatives. The selected driving lane width is 11 to 12 feet with a 10 foot left turn lane provided along the entire length from Carlsbad Boulevard to Highland Drive. To determine lane configuration, the existing and pro- O jected volumes must be carefully analyzed. Utilization of only the >24 hour traffic volume for lane determination ,-, is inadequate. This is only a secondary feature when con- (J sidering design criteria for a roadway. Two other elements of the ADT must be analyzed: the peak hour percentages and 39 (J distribution of the peak hour traffic. Peak hours, when analyzed, will display various characteristics of a roadway. Q . . A normal peak hour for commuter type traffic, which I I includes the home to work trip, will generally amount to 10-12 percent of the average daily traffic. A typical pro- f~l file of the daily volumes would be as follows. The a.m. ^ peak would occur between 7:00 and 8:00 and would amount to D approximately 8-10 percent of the ADT. After the morning peak, the percentages would drop to approximately 3-5 percent. n As 12:00 noon approaches, the percentages begin to climb [J then fall off around 3:00 and once again build to the p.m. peak which generally occurs between 5:00 and 6:00. This is usually the highest peak in which 10 to 12 percent of the ADT occurs. This picture begins to change when looking at n the traffic which occurs in a downtown area. p A morning peak still occurs; however, the volumes do ^ not drop to the level as they would with the commuter p traffic. Throughout the day traffic volumes maintain at (_) higher levels. The p.m. peak hour tends to be a bit lower, o between 8 and 10 percent, but in essence both streets could (J have the same ADT. The important part of this discussion is that better utilization of the roadway occurs with the downtown condition. [~j When considering the design elements for a given street, the controlling factor is the design direction peak hour. Q In the above example, it is conceivable that both could have the same ADT but, due to the differences in peak con- Dditions, one roadway may require two lanes in one direction while the other could efficiently handle its volumes with one lane in each direction.D As mentioned in a prior section of this report, traffic 40 /j counts were conducted by the City for the purpose of this study. The road segments between Carlsbad and Jefferson I have peak hour percentages of 9 percent. This percentage will be applied to the projected volumes shown on Figure 5. fj It should be pointed out at this time that the peak hour percentages will probably not change. The reason for this / O is twofold. Much of this area is currently developed. There are no major changes in land uses, only in land use densities. DThis will tend to increase the ADT as shown by Appendix D, "Existing and Future Volumes," but the peak hours will in- crease proportionally, thus the peak hour percentage will i] remain consistent. The second is the demand for the beach will remain as it is today, percentage-wise. 0 The peak hour volume of 9 percent of the highest pro- f~[ jected volume for this roadway segment, which is 12,900 vehicles per day, is 1,161 vehicles. The next step in [~| determining the cross sectional needs is to review the LJ directional split of these 1,161 vehicles. Again, the exist- p, ing volumes were analyzed and it was determined that approxi- (J mately 58 percent of this traffic was traveling in one direction during the peak hour and 42 percent in the other. Fifty-eight percent of the projected 1,161 peak'hour vehicles will net 673 vehicles. This is the number of vehicles that i Tamarack should be designed to carry between Carlsbad Boule- vard and Jefferson Street in one direction for one hour. PI There will be times when this volume will be exceeded; how- ever, this situation will only occur occasionally, and the Q benefit gained from constructing a road for its highest peak hour of the ye!ar is negligible. n(_J Level of service is a term used for describing the ease and comfort in which one can drive along any portion of a l given roadway. As mentioned earlier in the report, the capacities for a roadway with the characteristics of Tamarack, 41 LJ according to "Capacity of At-grade Junctions," published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, lane volumes for various levels of service are as follows: P LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE VOLUMES (PCU/H)* A '< 1,100 P B . 1,100 ^ C 1,250 n D 1,350 - U E 1,600 (J These lane volumes were established to represent the flow of uninterrupted traffic for one lane of traffic. This will reduce the assumed 100 percent green time of the above volumes to approximately 50-60 percent due to the right of jj way being assigned to the cross street. If 50 percent of the green time would be assigned to Tamarack, which would be n a minimum, the volumes would be reduced to the following: r-) LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE VOLUMES (PCU/50% HOUR (J ' ' . OF GREEN). A i< 550 H B 550 C 625 P D 675 ^ E 800 n LJ Based on this analysis, a two-lane roadway (one lane p-, in each direction) would provide a conservative level of U service "D" for the projected volumes of 685 vehicles for the p.m. peak hour utilizing Tamarack Avenue between Carlsbadn •1 Boulevard and Jefferson Street. *Passenger car units per hour per lane for 100% green, 42 (_J As shown on Figure 5, page 26, the projected volumes east of the freeway are much higher than those west of the freeway. j It was determined from existing counts that the peak hour for this road segment was 10 percent and the directional split j ] was slightly higher at 61 percent and 39 percent. Ten per- cent of 19,000 is 1,900 and 61 percent of 1,900 is 1,159. P This is the design volume for this roadway segment. D The 1,159 vehicles per hour exceed the volumes shown above; therefore, a two-lane facility should be designed to facilitate this increase. This would net an approximate lane (j volume of 580 vehicles, thus providing a level of service "B" to "C." The segment between Adams and Highland is pro- j jected to carry 14,200 vehicles per day. The same analogy is used to determine the number of lanes for this segment. H So (14,890) x (.09) x (.56) equals 750 one direction which is in the realm of level of service "E" but. would be un- p acceptable to the roadway users. This would require a ^ four-lane facility to be constructed to Highland Drive. nU The following table represents the peak hour volumes and levels of service for the projected traffic volumes on Tamarack jj Avenue: EXISTING % FUTURE P| PROJECTED PEAK DIRECTIONAL PEAK HR. LEVEL OF \J . STREET SEGMENT VOLUMES HOUR DISTRIBUTION VOLUMES SERVICE Carlsbad Blvd. to Jefferson St. 12,900 9% 58% 1,160 D (j Jefferson St. to 1-5 15,850 8% 61% 1,270 A* 1-5 to Adams St. 19,000 10% 61% 1,900 C* |~j Adams St. to Highland Dr. 14,890 9% 56% 1,340 A* *2 lanes, one direction n ^ ' Alternate 1 n LJ Alternate 1 shown at the back of this report and drawn on the 40 scale aerial photos is the alternative recommended 43 nu j n U nu by the consultant to serve the projected volumes, provide adequate facilities for the residents, and be the most cost- effective alternative for improvement of Tamarack Avenue. A uniform section of 80 feet of right of way and a 64 foot curb separation is proposed for Tamarack from Carlsbad Boulevard to Highland Drive. This was selected because it conforms to all the requirements of the projected volumes and meets the criteria needed for Federal funding. Federal funding is anticipated to be sought to assist in the con- struction of this roadway. In order to obtain Federal fund- ing, certain criteria are required. Eleven to 12 foot travel lanes and 10 foot parking lanes are encouraged to be used. These considerations have been incorporated in the following recommended cross sections. TAMARACK AVENUE Carlsbad Boulevard to Jefferson Street 1- UJ2$ Ul The s< 8'I JQSIDEWALKiO'PARKINGi" • ^ 5' 12' Ul! S 1TRAVELLANEi 1 o i- 6 ^I LEFT-TURN LA12' UJ^ cc"1 4' — — 5' Ul < CO -" i iO' 8'PARKING-. -™j- ^ ' 80' sgment of y~SIDEWALKi— / ^ Tamarack east of the freeway has a differ- ent cross section than that of Tamarack By deleting parking TREE(-EASEMENT) R/W8'J-SIDEWALK15' Ul m but providing two ii1 *~^ l^^ilf ^r ^3DC -1 ypsm^ttH! ffflt M niBB it -jjIS i- 1 5io& i 0'-ILEFTTURNVj LANEit' _J ^ZnE3EGSE3tH 1 64' west of the freeway. lanes IB il' £% BJU^UI^g ams in each direction 5' •2. m 80' ^ 44 8'[fc SI DEWALK ,t- ^>> lij ^ LU ^ Ui U As mentioned in an earlier portion of this study, a four-lane roadway is necessary to meet the projected demands (j To stay within a 64 foot curb to curb width it will be necessary to reduce the lane widths to 11 feet and remove on-street parking. n One of the major functions of Tamarack is to serve residential dwellings fronting this roadway. To provide D for the safe and efficient movement of traffic, a two-way left turn lane is proposed along the entire length. This Owill remove left turners from the through lanes, thus allow- ing through traffic to move without interruption. There will be 8 feet allotted for the parkway and sidewalks. The [j segment of Tamarack between Carlsbad Boulevard and Jefferson Street will allow parking on both sides of the street. I Adjacent to the parking lanes will be located an exclusive bicycle lane which will be delineated by a solid white line. There is no plan to change the existing traffic controls D along this segment of roadway at this time. At such time projected volumes are approached, the intersection of Jeffer- ,—I son and Garfield should be reviewed periodically to determine |_| when signalization is warranted. (See Appendix C) Several locations along Tamarack have been improved to ultimate conditions. These will not be affected by the I proposed alignment. There is, however, one section in front of the Safeway Shopping Center at Adams which will be affected. n To minimize the impacts on the residential housing east of Adams, the street west of Adams will have to be realigned to D a limited degree. This will require a minimum amount of curb removal in front of the shopping center. I) Due to the recommended changes in roadway widths, 45 '|_j modifications to the existing striping will occur throughout the length of Tamarack within the study area. This striping includes delineation for parking, bicycle lanes, through lanes, and left turn lanes. Consideration should.be given M to bus turnouts at bus stop locations. PI Alternate 2 D The cross sections recommended for Tamarack Avenue will remain consistent for all alternatives. The only difference in the two alignments is the position of the roadway within U the physical constraints of the right of way. The second alternative is basically the placement of the roadway symmetrical to the existing centerline. There are some locations along Tamarack which are improved and the right f~] of way take is off one side only. D There were only two alternatives prepared on the 40 scale aerials; however, other alternatives were studied in (—i detail. These were not shown because of the right of way !U takes and anticipated construction problems that might be encountered, plus the adverse impacts on existing properties.D- • . • ; Consideration was 'given to an alternative route. The concept involved a one-way couplet scheme using Tamarack Avenue and Chinquapin Avenue. A brief discussion of this n possibility is included in Appendix M. D This study was needed to provide necessary input to the City and various other agencies and to identify the D future needs of Tamarack Avenue. It is not the intent of this study to provide a preliminary design of Tamarack Avenue, However, the intent is to show the needed geometries to I J efficiently move the projected traffic volumes. 46 n- COST ANALYSIS LJ - ^H Detailed cost estimates were prepared for the selected alternatives, Appendix L. r~| L-J To obtain the true land values of the parcels fronting ,—, Tamarack, several realtors were contacted and comparisons i_j were made. It was determined that the true value was approxi- mately 200 percent that of the Assessor's values. J . . ' Appendix L gives preliminary construction costs with ; the right of way costs included. The construction estimates- are preliminary and a detailed breakdown of each item which H would contribute to the actual construction is not included. J rn The segment of Tamarack Avenue between Carlsbad Boule- U vard and Interstate 5 will probably be constructed before ' the second segment between Interstate 5 and Highland Drive. ^_J To reflect this, the cost estimates are shown for both seg- ments of Tamarack and both alternative alignments. HU • . • " . Total roadway costs* are shown below:n ALTERNATE 1 H Right of Way $ 383,150 L-' Construction 991,400 r-i TOTAL $1,374,550 U ALTERNATE 2 Right of Way $ 508,700 Construction 991,400 TOTAL $1,500,100 [J n *Costs reflective of January 1977 U 47 y EMINENT DOMAIN There have been recent changes in the eminent domain laws. Eminent domain is the right of a government to take PI private property for public use by virtue of the superior . domain of the sovereign power over all lands within its F] jurisdiction. The changes are as follows: D l. A 4/5ths vote of the Council is required for all condemnations. j 2. Condemnation resolutions require a noticed public hearing at least fifteen days in advance of Council action. The affected propertyowners must be noticed and the Council must make certain n • findings before adopting their resolution. Under the new law such a resolution will still be con- pi elusive but the Court's ability to review the U findings in support of that resolution through ,—, a mandamus procedure allows a propertyowner [j to attack the taking itself, which contains potential serious delays in the project. 3. Findings are required for Council actions in M regard to condemnation so care must be taken to see that the staff report and the engineer's n report on the project contain a full justification ^ of the project and a full justification for the D taking of the particular piece of property. Project implementation can be affected primarily by the |) changes in the rules governing the orders of immediate possession. Prior to changes in the law it was possible to- get an order of immediate possession within twenty-one days 48 after the filing of the lawsuit. Thirty days after the Council passed the condemnation resolution the project could proceed notwithstanding that the case might not be resolved for several years. That period has been extended to thirty- one days for vacant land; all other condemnations now require a ninety day waiting period before the order of immediate possession can be effective. Furthermore, previously it was not possible for a prop- ertyowner to contest an order of immediate possession. There is now in the law a "hardship" standard that allows the Court to intervene and delay the taking of the property. Not only can the Court extend the time for effecting the order of immediate possession, but they also can attach conditions. What this means in practical terms is that if developed property is being taken and the owner wishes to employ counsel to fight the project, there is the potential for serious delays. Thus, projects involving developed properties should be acquired before the project goes.to bid. 49 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CITY'OF.CARLSBAD Kent Whitson Tim Flanagan Ron Beckman Dana Whitson STATE OF CALIFORNIA Jack Welch Nello Greer COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Gordon Loots Dennis Thompson COASTAL COMMISSION Chuck Damm Daniel Gorfain Civil Engineering Assistant City Engineer Public Works Administrator Assistant Planner Beaches and Parks Cooperative Projects, CALTRANS Comprehensive Planning Organization Comprehensive Planning Organization Administrative Analyst Assistant Executive Director NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT - Oceanside Dan D1amico 50 APPENDIX A AMTRAK. SCHEDULE LOS ANGELES -SAN DIEGO Read Down (Pacific Time) Read Up The San Diegans Amtieet Service Oporatai Daily 778 a • B30p 90Sp 921p E 941p I 1009p 1029p 11 05p *776 .HO 430p SOSp 521p E 541p 1 609p 629p 705p ' 4>774 . M. 1 30p 20Sp 221p E 241p | 309p 329p 405p ( 4 772 Hia 1030o 1 1 05o 11 2Io 1 • 1149a 1209p 1229p lOSp I )0p 2 I5p I75p 150p 770 .^ 730a 805a 821a .1 : 850a 910a 932a 10 lOa 11 lOo 12 15p !030o 11 05 o Milot 0 23 36 58 63 87 105 128 128 144 128 144 •^ Typo of Service ^ Op.... LOS ANGELES, CA Ar San Juan Capiitrano • San Clemente 9 Oceanside Del Mar® Ar SAN DIEGO, CA Dp (g3-Grexhound Lines) Op. San Diego, CA (Amtrak Sla.)Ar Ar.Ti'/uana, 8. Cla. (Downtown) . Dp /pftt \(ggJ-Mexicoiicnj Dp. Son Diego, CA (Amlralc Sfo.)Ar Ar. Tijuana, 8. Cla. (Downtown) . Dp 771 Hlft 935a 9 OOa 840a E 818a 1 749a 730o 7 OOa '. •'',„' r .-. • ' • •• •' A773 13 12 10p 11 35a 11 lOa E1048a I 10 19a lOOOa 930a '.... ',X. 775 HO; 335p 300p 240p 1 210p 149p 1 30p lOOp 11 45a 1040o 11 35o 11 OOa 777 M 705p 630p 610p 1 340p 5 19p SOOp 430p 345p 240p 350p 375p +779 H tOOSp 930p 910p E 848p I 819p SOOp 730p 650p 6 15p The San Diegans Los Angeles - San Diego Beverage Service— Am-dinetto Coach Service— Unreserved SeatsBaggage Service— Checked baggage handled on Nos. 772 and 775 atall stations except San Clemente. Checked baggage handled on Nos. 771 and 776 at Los Angeles and San Diego only; no checked service SAVE WITH AMTRAK'S ROUND-TRIP EXCURSION FARES about 5-DAY EXCURSION FARES on the Vancouver-Seattle-Portland lines. and 4-DAY EXCURSION FARES on the San JoaquJn. Tickets must be pur* chased before boarding train. >- Th* Caltrak trains are Not. 773. 774, 776 and 779. Service financed in part through fund* made available by the Slat* ol California. For customs information, se« reverse side. APPENDIX B TRAFFIC ACCIDENT SUMMATION 9 m CD o ;o> r< I S!c/>oc C/5 o 3) SEP 2O 2 8 o O 3) > O m mzcm APPENDIX C TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Various criteria must be established on which the justification for traffic control devices can be based. In this instance, warrants that were taken from the State Traffic Manual and are consistent with Federal standards can be used for future evaluation. The traffic signal warrants which follow take into consideration traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes, interruption of continuous traffic, traffic accidents, and other data. Thus, the need for a traffic signal is not based on one specific requirement. LJ .0 9-4 August, 1972 D n 0 SIGNALS AND ILLUMINATION Traffic Manual Figure 9-1A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Major St'rritiral Critical DATF ^pprnqpfl Spoort Approach Spend „„_ . r-i-\ ™ I RURAL (R)D\) Q URBAN (U) . mph mph WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume Satisfied YesQ NO APPROACH LANES Major Street Minor Street Minimum Requirements U R 1 500 150 350 105 U R 2 or more 600 200 420 140 / / / // % / //Hour NOTE: Lett turn movements from Major St. included when LT-phasing is proposed WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Satisfied Yes [3 No APPROACH LANES Major Street Minor Street Minimum Requirements U R 1 750 75 525 53 U R 2 or more 900 100 630 70 . / " Hour NOTE: Left turn movements from Major St. included when LT-phasing is proposed (~l WARRANT 3 — Minimum Pedestrian Volume Satisfied YesQ No Major Street Volume Ped's XingMajor Street Minimum Requirements No Median Raised 4" Median 600 1000 420 700 150 105 Hour MIDBLOCK SIGNAL PROPOSED D MIS. REQUIREMENT DISTANCE To NEAREST ESTABUSHED CROSSWALK 150 Feet N/E -ft S/W Satisfied Yes QNO n WARRANT 4 - School Crossings See Chapter 10 Not Applicable Q See School Crossings Warrant Sheet LJ T5-10A (2/71) Traffic Manual SIGNALS AND ILLUMINATION 9-5 August, 1972 Figure 9-IB TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Satisfied YesQ DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL n > 1000 ft | N , S ft, E ft, W . ft i Not Satisfied ON ISOLATED ONE WAY ST. OR ST. WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING & SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST ON 2-WAY ST WHERE ADAJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING & SPEED CONTROL. PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM CM_ D] D . Fulfilled Not Satisfied Q WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience Satisfied Yes No D D SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACC. FREQ. ACC WITHIN A 12 MO. PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR.4 INVOLVING INJURY OR>$IOO DAMAGE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT _| NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE | MINIMUM VOLUME REQUIREMENT SATISFIED I WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME % 807. 8- -OR - - - OH MORE OF 1 WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TFC /° I ~~OR ~ ~ ~ ~ „/f WARRANT 3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME /c D D D D D D n n HHAN, /- bystems warrant Satisfied Yes Q N MINIMUM VOLUME REQUIREMENT 800 VEH/HR ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR VEH/HR VEH FOR EACH | SATURDAY AND/OR SUNDAY OF ANY S HRSOFAJ | c c— cc CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES PART OF HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TFC CONNECTS AREAS OF PRINCIPLE TRAFFIC GENERATION RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING, OR TRAVELING A CITY HAS SURFACE STREET FWY OR EXPWAY RAMP TERMINALS APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STS. U Not Sat „ ( FI ^ 1 MAJOR ST isfied Killed MINOR ST « n & a NO n D Not Satisfied Fulfilled WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants Satisfied Yes Q No D REQUIREMENT TWO WARRANTS SATISFIED WARRANT SATISFIED 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME % 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC) % 3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME % The satisfaction ot a warrant is not necessarily justification for signals. Delay, congestion, contusion or other evidence ot the need tor right ot way assignment must be shown. T5-IOBI2/72) APPENDIX D DEFINITION OF A.D.T. Average daily traffic (A.D.T.) is a term which describes a general condition of the roadway. Traffic volumes are sampled during the year to reflect the various seasonal changes, etc., then averaged. These volumes obtained are for more than one day but less than one year, or 365. Ultimately, the A.A.D.T. (Annual Average Daily Traffic) is the best figure to use if available because it considers every day during the year. However, it takes a master count station to yield this valuable data. For the purpose of this study a small sample was obtained then combined and averaged. D n APPENDIX E D • • • DOCUMENTATION OF PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AND PERCENTAGES en cm a • c=3 CD en en era cm =1 ooo IO <o -t>Ioc O s -D csm o O -( r< CO Ol r< I CD C/) O C H 90 Orc £w co o oo O33 mzcm o 3) > O §33 > r~ m Z Cm mzcm COH m33COo p(j APPENDIX F PI CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE fl "LEVEL OF SERVICE" EXPLANATION p The term "level of service" as used in this report is ^—*• defined as a means of describing operating conditions on an p arterial street. The term was derived for use in the 1965 LJ "Highway Capacity Manual" to express a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors, which include speed [J and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience, and operating costs. j i As stated in the "Manual," "In practice, selected specific levels and defined in terms of particular limiting values P of certain of these factors." p A particular section of arterial street or intersection *-> will operate at many different levels of service as the p flow varies during the hour, and as the volume varies during |_j different hours of the day, days of the week, periods of the year, and during different years with traffic growth. For the purpose of this report the afternoon peak hour 1 was selected for level of service measurement. Following are the level of service factors used in this report. nu 0 0 LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR URBAN ARTERIAL STREETS Traffic Flow Conditions (Typical Approximations, Not Rigid Criteria) Level of Service Description A Free Flow (relatively) B Stable Flow (slight delay) C Stable Flow (acceptable delay) D Approaching Unstable Flow (tolerable delay) E Unstable Flow (congestion; intolerable delay) F Forced Flow (jammed) Average Overall Travel Speed (MPH) >30 =25 ^20 Approx. 15 n D nU D 0 LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR DOWNTOWN STREETS Traffic Flow Conditions Level of Service Description B C D E F Free Flow (relatively; some stops will occur) Stable Flow (delays not unreasonable) Stable Flow (delays significant but acceptable) Approaching Unstable Flow (delays tolerable) Unstable Flow (congestion not due to back-ups ahead) Forced Flow (jammed) Average Overall Speed (MPH) -25 Below 10 but moving Stop-and-go LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR STOPPED TIME DELAY Level Average •U of " Individual Delay Service (seconds/vehicle) 0 B <30 C =T45 D ^60 0 0 nU APPENDIX Gn -LJ LEVEL OF SERVICE EVALUATION r-i TT , Total ACT x % Peak Hour Volume x Directional Splitfj Lane Volume = Total Number of Lanes • *— fl For instance, the traffic volume between Jefferson Street and Linmar Lane of 7,070 will be used: n U Lane Volume = 7'707 x j08 x '58 =328 Vehicles per Hour a e EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE - TAMARACK AVENUE n Limits Veh/Hr Level of Service Carlsbad Boulevard to Garfield Avenue 215 A p Garfield Avenue to R.R. Tracks 330 A U R.R. Tracks to Jefferson Street 320 A p Jefferson Street to S/B Off-Ramp 265 A (J N/B Off-Ramp to Pio Pico Drive 360 A Pio Pico Drive to Adams Street 510 A-Bn1 I . Adams Street to Margaret Way 285 A Polly Lane to Highland Drive 310 A 0 nu U APPENDIX H n(J SPEED AND DELAY FIELD SHEETS 0 D ' nu City Oc£2X-£^E Route *"VCX<\C^Z Triii started at Trip ended at Location UK=>UU^O £*OO«creS> P*0 "Fvco <L ^©S'Pfeoj*} C^Ff^PiaLi 'R'P. T<2**-^ d-W-Ft^Up Cc*ok>fc)s%o bwo jC^c,VL- fc • ' 7 : -VZ,f. Seconds Stopped 9. < .c TlM.^ 0. 3 ( cr . i)l ljL.1^ 1} Ul^ljMl kO£r Dii -7 A.M. At P.M. A.M. At P.M. Cause s 'ft : 2 • ^c> -si ,vj i^U.• ' /P •e \ c L IJIJ I Trip No. :tion VcJ /?tS \\e,UL^O^ (Location) .C*2Js^>^3C£D (Location) Location 1 (Mileage) (Mileage) Cause i Total Trip Length "5"^2*5 d Total Trip Time Runn-ing Time Stopped Time Average Speed Symbols of Delay Cause: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn PK - Parked Cnrs HP-Houhlc Parking T-General Congestion SPEED $ DELAY STUDY Trip No. Route TAAAMZA^L^- /^.OP* Direction & /fe> Trip started at Trip ended at • \ 7 •• ~) A.M. At c P.M. (Location) (Mileage) "^ '•-> 7 _ A.M. At V^Vtr>uVv_-O.(O(O P.M. Location C^CfiZ.Ofbsvo OCsg. & \ (St_C> •p.-p Tt2A<cJc£> / •'•• ' ^GPF6CS£jO 4, 3&S Pe-uoV rio *^e^O &D6»tA-^ ;.-^, _. .^, V\\t=,aU&>«oO Secon ds Stopped % ^? .-5" i \^^^y !' "\ * "* :3,r: ~! Cause Qj -*fe * -^5 "^ ^^> ^^ / Total Trip Length 5';'',?'S - Total Trip Time Running Time Stopped S ymb o 1 s o f Do 1 ay Ca u s e : (Location) (Mileage) Location -^^^r, f • i s c: <\ ,J"^- fv (!"• ^ 7 >•>-* ^ ' -7 ") ^ 1 i ^ •) )p jr-v'3' ( ; '2.M 1 \ T VI t 'Z'^riL \ •^- Cause / ^ . ^ "/ U . "5 ~) i ! •2,0 O rO" 0 i^ <—~ ' i • i ! ^ A '{A i Average Speed Time S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn PK' - I1, -irked Cars DP- Double I'arking T-General Congestion n c i t y SPEED a DELAY STUDY Trip No. Route Direction Trip started at Trip ended at_ A.M. At "P.M. A.M. At "P.M. Location Pvo "PiICO Seconds Stopped :> Cause Total Trip Length Uunn-ing Time i C -I. (Location) (Location) (Mi leage) (Mileage) Location Total Trip Time ":>. Cause Average Speed Stopped Time S >' inb o J s o I' D c I a >' C a u s c : S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn PK - Pnrkcd Crirs HP-noublc Parking T-General Congestion City SPEED a DELAY STUDY Trip No. Route Trip started at_ Trip ended at Direction A.M. At "P.M. A.M. At "P. M. Location 4 4o5 Seconds S topped Cause (Location) (Location) (Mileage) (Mileage) Locat ion Cause Total Trip Length ^52'Si- Total Trip Time Running Time Stopped Time Average Speed Symbols of Delay Cause: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn I'K - Pnj-kcd Cars DP-Double Parking T-General Congestion c i SPEED 5 DELAY STUDY Trip No. 'O Route TC*^ZACA<L. kGfc Direction VJ/fe Trip started at A.M. At Trip ended at \ l t\A\ i=* u L^o"O P.M. (Location) (Mileage) A.M. At Cc*2i<rt>^BO . P.M. Location U\<=»uu»o»o • Dc | i. _ . £*OcxTr±> P>0 ~Pieo <^ <5©5" Pfexo^ CSEtfH^^^-f* ki U , ,V\_. ' 12 12 npPj&r l£?S J^WLft^UO ' I'x3,-,_^,,<l (: Qc^j5*o15iao Seconds Stopped '"*> T^M.S= s • * ?> '~~> -?•(-, Cause c'~ ,: , } c;; ., u ,; |i ^ Total Trip Length 3"^?'^ a Total Trip Time Running Time Stopped Symbols of Delay Cause: (Location) (Mileage) Location 'i ! >ii ' ' ,' *^- ' "? "T • / '• i "~~ 1 ' i/ C. '2 //'> '"2 . s- v. Cause i ' . 1 Average Speed Time S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Le£t Turn PK - Parked (]nrs DP- Double Parking T-General Congestion , C i t y SPEED 5 UHLAY STUDY Trip No. Route Trip started at Trip ended at Locat i on CofiLrbfiSsi.^ O&2>!r\<SL.O "R.T3 "Tt2AxJCi> •u;\,^. . ' \,.^\:\-\, "Sfef^eeSaDO 4 4&5 FSOOV Pto "SHc^ £O6,feAT=s>,:x: i \^ V\\fc=jUuuN30 Seconds Stopped 4 ..--— T\M^* ^ •7J 3 , S" A.M. At P.M. A.M. At P . M . Cause ^ "^ft> * ^fe *0 ^2> -^>*^ c \(Location) (Location) Location / -^ — j ,_x i : c|«- t> i • ? i /^/ / 'Z-'oO -? ' ! '"1 '"") • > ' < "I (Mileage) (Mileage) Cause ' !] i ^_ 1 Total Trip Length Si^'Sl- Total Trip Time Running Time Stopped Time Average Speed Symbols of Delay Cause: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn I'K - 1',-irkcd Cnrs HP-double Parking T-General Congestion SPEED 5 DHLAY STUDY City (^CSZX-^E Route "Vc^C<\C^2 Trip started at Trip ended at Location Ui<b)Uu&*io P<~ i i ^i Pto "Pvco <L ^oS'Sfeui'J 3&f*=^T£6a4 ( ; V., u,c-..~. ! \ H- i , .- •• , , •••-. *&T2. TO*d£2> (3«^f=t<£UO Gc^czXt? fS«p%o b^vO jexLkL- fc • '? : Seconds Stopped "1- ^ Tv«M.e= — •'•""? I o MD£z Dir <"^. A.M. At P.M. A.M. At P.M. Cause * ei \ c Trip No. :tion ^4/^5 •\\6qlXl_JM3O. (Location) CbSSX-b^jCC) ( Locat ion) Location I '7 ^:, , .^•^±: "^ l^~ \ ' r • - ^ ~ r? M i : -^ -v- ! : U"^ '? ••' i •• -7 -, ,: '-:A - c \ 4v -• • (Mileage) (Mileage) Cause i i1 Total Trip Length Run.n-Lng Time d Total Trip Time Average Speed Stopped Time Symbols of Delay Cause: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stpp Sign LT-Left Turn PK - I1arked Cnrs llP-lloublc Parking T-General Congestion SPEED $ DHLAY STUDY Route Trip started at Trip ended at Trip No. Direction & A.M. At "P.M. ' A.M. At "P.M. Locati on Seconds Stopped Cause (Location) (Location) Location (Mileage) (Mileage) Cause Total Trip Length S52'S1 Total Trip Time Running Time Stopped Time Average Speed Symbols of Delay Cause: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn PK - Pnrkcd Cnrs HP-Double Parking T-General Congestion SPEED a DELAY STUDY Route Trip started at Trip ended at Trip No. Direction £: A.M. At "P . M . A.M. At "P . M . l.ocat i on Seconds Stopped • 7 Cause (Location) (Location) Locat ion '- 7, 7. / . / v-% (Mileage) (Mileage) Cause Total Trip' Length :S>5c'Si- Total Trip Time Running Time Stopped Time Average Speed S ymh o I s of DC 1 ay Ca u s e : S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn PK - Parked C:\rs HP-Double Parking T-General Congestion City SPEED 5 DHLAY STUDY Trip No. Route Direction Trip started at Trip ended at A.M. At ~P.M. ' A.M. At ~P.M. Location Seconds Stopped jja Cause (Location) (.Location) (Mileage) (Mileage) Location Cause Total Trip Length Runn-ing Time d. Total Trip Time Average Speed Stopped Time Symbols of Delay Cause: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn PK - Parked Cars IIP-Double Parking T- General Congestion SPEED $ DHLAY STUDY Trip No. Direction Trip started at Trip ended at A.M. At "P.M. . A.M. At "P.M. Location Seconds Stopped Cause (Location) (.Location) Location Total Trip Length Running Time ± Total Trip Time (.Mileage) (Mileage) Cause Average Speed Stopped Time Symbols of Delay Cause: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn PK - Parked Cars HP-Double Parking T-General Congestion SPEED a DELAY STUDY Route Trip started at Trip ended at Trip No. Direction & A.M. At "P.M. A.M. At "P.M. (Location) (Location) Locati on Seconds S topped Cause Location I Total Trip Length jSSc'S "V Total Trip Time Running Time • •••'""> •' : H-2. ,-f..i~i (Mileage) (Mileage) Cause Average Speed Stopped Time Symbols of Delay Cause: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn PK - Pnrked C'nr? DP-Double Parking T-General Congestion City SPEED 5 DELAY STUDY Trip No. Route Trip started at Trip ended at Direction A.M. At •P.M. A.M. At "P.M. Locati on Seconds Stopped Cause (Location) ' (Location) Location (Mileage) (Mileage) Cause Total Trip Length 55'Z'S- Total Trip Time Running Time Stopped Time Average Speed S ymb o1s o f DC 1 ay Ca u s c: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn PK - Pnrkcd C'n rs HP-Double Parking T-General Congestion City SPEED $ DELAY STUDY Trip No. Route "Vc^T<\fcC& Trip started at Trip ended at Location )A\<s)Vi Lfe»oO \":>, , } \ _. tocxrcb P»'o Pico <L 3©5"£kuo<j 3epf=^R66kl • M >/.., ^ _.s 'R'U TT2*«JiS> <~W,^ ^LO Gcx^-5^«%o J^o^L. fc Seconds Stopped / TV«M.^ 5 ^' •^ , s- 0.7 :a >*O£- Dii A.M. At P.M. A.M. At P.M. Cause T. c : •e \ C ction Vj| /^?i \N<=»vXl_^0'O (Location) .^vLVrb^jao (Location) Location '.- i O ; :-? ^ • s" / i oc; • / . / 7 i -- '} ^- j ,. Lj -^ ''.-• ' i • 1 . >• • I i * (Mileage) (Mileage) Cause i i i Total Trip Length Runn-ing Time Total Trip Time Average Speed Stopped Time S yml) u 1 s of DC 1 ay Cn u s c : S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn 'K - Parked Cnrs HP-Double Parking T-General Congestion SPEED $ DM LAY STUDY City <J^SZWr Route <^O-A Trip started at Trip ended at Location Uid^UU^OC ^10 VV/) [_/ 1 StSr^U-OOi-i Ne^v-SuvO Koo-^yEfLrr L^TAoj^ 4?. i2.,"\i2A:^ lAv:-W»-v Wy Ofl&tSj B&i} b^O •• "^ " - Seconds Stopped <q \ LIM.J5" Dii I '.? A.M. At -" P.M. A.M. At P , M . Cause t)S ~C S" ^> s ei Trip No. :tion ^O/t^) (Location) (Location) Location r"- -? --7 : H -^ 4 ' ' '• - •''")1 -' L...' / ' * / ( - i ' ~L. i ' - "^(.'.s _J '- ^ "1 I • ^:T/. -. "7. -o'-7 7. rJ/-77--V)/U/./ ,- (Mileage) (Mi leage) Cause • ^ Total Trip Running Time j ii. Total Trip Time Average Speed Stopped Time Symbols of Delay Cause: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn !'K - Parked Cars DP-Double Parking T-General Congestion SPEED 5 DELAY STUDY Trip No. Route (EXJA Direction <S//S Trip started at A.M. At Trip ended at P.M. (Location) (Mileage) A.M. At P.M. Location CeMA-b^i^ klr-^YuJ^ToU T?."e. -Tt^c nf> ~5T£rre vcory^j ^. V(5 L/r" M /I D \-5aJ ^Cf££#X*3U MA£.D!iL/6j%:; ... ^ i Ui<^u\_«>.^;^ Seconds Stopped Tl M^ \\ -< 0. ^ Cause S * "*"t ' <"'1 .„- ^ . T s -±f^ (Location) (Mileage) Location ' i 1 • 7 "< • "^?-_ A \ ••• *s L': -: ^9 V. ( c_. / ; ^ :r>. •2/Zcv ., . Cause • I I1i • 1ii Total Trip Length ^$Q \(w£.,i j^Total Trip Time Average Speed „ Running Time Stopped Symbols of Delay Cause: Time S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Le£t Turn PK - Parked Cnrs HP-Double Parking T-General Congestion SPEED $ DELAY STUDY Trip No. Route £>U*-A Trip started at Trip ended at Location UU^ULP-OO -plo v,^/o -pv-^-v. \!C— ^-••--^-•v'-Vv-- V-*P>\^— Ot Of £-1 $&?•?& (Vja\^- 'Mov^ \*SovO ^•oo-^y^ \ ) GiJT" "OTTXTi^ "^. 'R,Tr2^:«^> u^nr>U<. &.'. AOO CMLLA &&Q Seconds Stopped s <~ - __\ AJ^ t^j* ^ j Dii A.M. At P.M. A.M. At P , M . Cause tbS ,-, ? ,i v « ^ * •e :tion \-O/f^b (Location) (Location) Location C\ 1 '~. J ' ^ •i (.:' 4 -— .- -.' '' 7 . T.'- i : q o ! - S" \ i ..--* • ,> ^ '^-. • ('";• I •-7v ..x- -7 (Mileage) (Mileage) Cause X N • 1 1 Total Trip Lcngth'SOlO —Total Trip Time Running Time Stopped Time Average Speed Symbo 1 s of De1 ay Causc: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn 1'K - P.-rrked Cnrs DP-Double Parking T-General Congestion n SPEED § DELAY STUDY City C£*£XrS>T£ Route (ELM Trip started at Trip ended at Location Ci:va-l_.^v^ kLrt-^tjtjTou 1?.^L. ~t^<ie^ ^Dyxre V^-ory1' - P- Vt^ L/rx Mrvo\3oJ J$Gff>'/i<**4 MAf<iDiAj£i '\V-w.v,. ^.^ fco PiCO" - Ui<^ui_c>ov^ >PVW> Sec on ds Stopped ^^* T{ M^ i "2, . -C -O.1 Dii A.M. At P.M. A.M. At P.M. Cause S * * •-£.,., ^ A ^ ^^? e . Trip No. :tion CVVS ( Location) (Location) Location v -i M • ; 7 -•) • 'i a • ~( ^ * ^ 0 '• i -PL i ./< r. "Z ,: ,::: / -,-7. __, . ..- 1 (Mileage) (Mileage) Cause > j I j Total Trip Length -f Running Time ±.Total Trip Time Average Speed Stopped Time S ymb o i s of Do 1 ay Ca u sc: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn PK - Pnrkcd Cnrs !)!'-Double Parking T-General Congestion SPEED G DELAY STUDY Trip No. Route (ESlJA Trip started at Trip ended at Location U^^A-brUvrj W/^AHJ^TOU 1^. ~^t£$ ~5T&re 'iZorr^VtSuf MkDi-taJ oCff'^/^'Cor-J MA/^oi'J^ T~ • - fcv P> co V Ui6attL.&...:>» • i . s~~ ^" Seconds Stopped •s • s"' TIM^ '1 3 . -5' Dir A.M. At P.M. A.M. At P.M. Cause S * <v - ('' 1 tf*Z> e< ^ :tion ^/l^t (Location) (Location) Location : i >T -7 r- -~% /;_ ^\ u 1 - C'C' \ '• ( C 1 , iO/ 1 - ^ 1. C ' : £$•£} 2 • T, H- ^"l7'--? " (.Mileage) (Mileage) Cause i Total Trip Length l^unning Time ' j^Total Trip Time Average Speed Stopped Time Symbols of Delay Cause: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn J'K - Pnrkcd (].n rs HI'-Double Parking T-General Congestion SPEED a DELAY STUDYCity Trip No. Route D i re c t i on Trip started at Trip ended at _A.M. At P.M. _A.M. At ' P, M. Location Seconds Stopped Cause :njx,_ (Location) (Location) Location J— 'Total Trip Length ^Qi'o ±. Total Trip Time__ Running Time Stopped Time (Mileage) (Mileage) Cause Average Speed Symbols of Delay Cause: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn I'K - Pnrked Cnrs DP-llouhle Parking T-General Congestion Q SPEED § DELAY STUDY City Ci'Pv^-V^bTi Route EEA— ^A Trip started at Trip ended at Location C^v'X-br^uo \/J.:i^L\Hjf,TOd -j7^_ • -\-tec V£> ~5TAT^ ^r^pV6UT MkCM'vxi _jGfm^'a4 MA/Z,DI*J£I ?^v ^- --T /?/J /^/C/^ U»<i^uur>o^ Seconds Stopped ~T| K/\j^* '^ 'C' ^,,c" Dir A.M. At P.M. A.M. At P.M. Cause c^ • i'-., -i S; , ( 1 •±3^ e< ^ Trip No. : t i on SY/S (Location) (Location) Location r : ) c-, r "Z,i ••^i i- ^> <_.-• • L\ "}i 5 '"') i • , /i > i i . '/ 6 ' , '"i ";• ,•'7 • -. ' / (Mileage) (Mileage) Cause 1 1 I j i Total Trip Length Run n i ng Time jiTotal Trip Time_Average Speed Stopped Time S ymb oIs of Dei a y Ca use: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Le£t Turn 'K - Pnrkcd Car?'-Double Parking T-General Congestion City CvM"£X.'*b)1r Route &\Jl-<\ Trip started at Trip ended at Location <Al6=iUUxOO PI o "?,/•/ 3 T",, .-; - • ...-^ 1 \ ^ ' \ ^f^iz/^avJ (Mc\(j vSovO ^oo^^. \j Erur* *'^?TA.T(^ 4?. T2,tr2^<:A^ tOpfi>V\v OA \0v0i ^MjUb BfrQ SP>\^ ; Seconds Stopped s~\ ~tlMtt_ ^C~ Dii A.M. At P.M. A.M. At •P,M. Cause "5S _ ^- -. v. -C- r~^) i / , . , i .t ^ s •e Trip No. ztion \^O/i^> (Location) (Location) Location '-'••' V- I 0 >\ i . I '," ; -" ^ 1 - -> ( '- i M-o - (:'-',-/ ( •••..' ^ .— -~ri % / -. ^ ./" \ '2-. //7 *~Z_. (Mileage) (Mi leage) Cause •^ N Total Trip LcngthOOlU ±. Total Trip Time Running Time Stopped Time Average Speed Symbols of Delay Cause: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn I'K - Pnrkcd C.n rs DP-Double Parking T-General Congestion SPEED f, DELAY STUDY Trip No. Route £~,\^\ Trip started at Trip ended at Location A-VlGsiUU^OG -p,0 "vV,-) \ t . • UcaRJO.oi ^ Sgf^ (2/jO i J iMovC? v^ovO ^f-OO^yg- \J f?LTT *Or^Tt0 4s , 'P. , \\24^'^^) uW>V\v ^'' ^0>OS &MM&8&Q Seconds Stopped '?: N" ^?TM t5L / / 1/ '-'I Dii A.M. At P.M. A.M. At 1 P , M . Cause "SS * ~~~~> :/"""") v -- - '\ .- ,' *=* s e :tion uj/fcb (Location) (Location) Location A- ^ ^. (":.< I ') / -""-. ) 3 l. ') -A- L ! • S'l ' /. • c.-"': /I . () • / v\ '2 ':>/ (Mileage) (Mileage) Cause > s Total Trip Length "SQIO — Total Trip Time Running Time Stopped Time Average Speed Symbols of Delay Cause: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn I'K - Parked Cn rs DP-Double Parking T-General Congestion SPEED § DELAY STUDY Trip No. Route f;EX3A Trip started at Trip ended at Location Crv,,'t-b1*;iv-^ ^-r^ijsjts^^ 12.^. -~n^<i£5 ^DT/XT^ 'i2orrt--^\/(5U'T MkOl^oJ Jfer£^~/>cu MA.^CJ'J^L •y\. ^ . .... !_„ /?# ^/C^? j U^^U^OOvi' Second? Stopped •'('"") • ~TI M^ "^ ''"-S"' r^ " — Dii A.M. At P.M. A.M. At P.M. Cause c^ ; ^"-5 ' ) -±f^ e< ^ : t i on cF//2j (Location) (Location) Location '. -i K ' i L 9\ i* ; '(-•'• l ' J (' ': 1 1 : i 0 ' ; " s 7 : 1 ~J s """P C:& --7 (Mileage) (Mileage) Cause i Total Trip Length Running Time ±.Total Trip Time Average Speed Stopped Time Symbols of Delay Cause: S-Traffic Signals SS-Stop Sign LT-Left Turn I'K - Parked Cn rs PI'-Double Parking T-General Congestion . APPENDIX I TRIP GENERATION BY SUBZONE o. TRIP GENERATION LI ^>U Q 0 nU • nU 0 nL_/ nu nu 0 Q nu •n- SUB ZONE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 UNITS 2.86 119 111 11 11 32 64 16 61 30 29 56 7 32 11 112 48 120 18 23 30 52 142 121 22 24 17.6 11 81 63 20 10 AC DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU AC AC DU DU DU DU LAND USE C-l R-3 R-l R-l-10 R-l-15 R-l R-3 R-l-15 R-l R-l-15 R-l-15 R-l-15 R-T R-W R-l-10 R-l R-l R-l R-l R-l-10 R-l-15 R-l R-3 R-l R-l P-C 0-S 0-S R-l R-l R-l-15 R-l GENERATION •FACTORS 600/AC 8/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 8/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 8/DU 10/DU 10/DU 8/DU 50/AC 50 /AC 10/AC 10/AC 10/AC 10/AC GENERATED TRAFFIC 1,716 952 1,110 110 110 320 512 160 610 300 290 560 70 320 110 1,120 480 1,200 180 230 300 520 1,136 1,210 220 192 880 550 810 630 200 1,000 J SUB ZONE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 UNITS 92 8 54 34.7 16 20 165 70 60 144 23 68 5.2 98 18 70 48 144 285 22 107 215 137 110 152 24 730 49 74 269 362 15 143 176 DU DU DU AC DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU AC DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU DU LAND GENERATION USE FACTORS R-1&R-1-10 R-l-10 R-l 0-S R-l • R-l-10 R-l R-l-10 R-l R-3 R-3 R-l 0-S R-l R-l-10 R-l R-3 R-l R-A-10 R-l R-A-10 R-l R-l R-l-9 R-l-10 R-l- 15 P-C R-l-15 R-l-10 R-1-8&R-1-10 P-C 0-S R-A-10 R-l 10 /DU 10/DU 10/DU 50/AC 10/DU" 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 8/DU 8/DU 10/DU 50/AC 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 8/DU 10/DU 14/DU 10/DU 14/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU •10/DU 8/DU 10/DU 10/DU 10/DU 8/DU 50/AC 14/DU 10/DU GENERATED TRAFFIC 920 80 540 1,736 160 200 1,650 70 600 1,152 184 680 260 980 180 700 384 1,440 3,990 220 1,498 2,150 1,370 1,100 1,520 240 5,840 490 740 2,690 2,896 750 2,002 1,760 0nu 0 -nU 0- 0 nU ou nu 0 0 nu nu n SUB ZONE 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 UNITS 145 136 .37 24 25 1,038 606 14.5 964 12 369 45 23 138 8 242 7.8 138 1.4 39 21 646 110 .2 29 155 DU DU AC DU DU DU DU AC DU AC DU DU DU DU DU DU AC DU AC DU DU DU DU AC DU DU LAND USE R-A-10 R-l-9.5 C-2 R-l R-2 R-3 R-3 M R-3 0-S R-2 R-P R-l R-3 R-l RD-M 0-S R-2 C-l R-l R-2 R-3 R-l C-2 R-l P-C Beach C.P.O. GENERATION FACTORS 10/DU 10/DU 600/AC 10/DU 8/DU 8/DU 8/DU 78/AC 8/DU 50 /AC 8/DU 10/DU 10/DU 8/DU 10/DU 8/DU 50 /AC 8/DU 600/AC 10/DU 8/DU 8/DU 10/DU 600/AC 10/DU 8/DU GENERATED TRAFFIC 1,450 1,360 222 240 200 8,304 4,848 1,131 7,712 600 2,952 450 230 1,104 80 1,936 390 1,104 840 390 168 5,168 1,100 120 290 1,240 5,063 107,9 72 - 40,850 67,122 31,083 0 SUBZONES SUBTRACTED FROM TOTAL 20 23 27 30 34 37 40 43 21 24 28 31 35 38 41 44 22 25 29 32 36 39 42 J APPENDIX J NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT SCHEDULE 0 n J Carlsbad Local Route 21 Monday thru Saturday Service To: Downtown- Lanikai Mobile Homes Departs From: Minutes Past Hour :00 :05 :20 :23 :26 :30 Leucadia 0 Uke Shore Gardens Effective December 1976 Lake Shore Gardens Paseo Del Node & Camino Del Parque Tamarack & Pio Pico Harding & Elm Grand & Washington ® Harding & Elm Tamarack & Pio Pico Tamarack & Carlsbad Blvd. Los Robles & Cerezo Lan i kai Mobile Homes To: Downtown - Lake Shore Gardens Departs From: Minutes Past Hour Lanikai Mobile Homes :30 Los Robles & Cerezo :34 Tamarack & Carlsbad Blvd. :37 Tamarack & Pio Pico :40 Harding & Elm :43 Grand & Washington © :45 Harding & Elm :47 Tamarack & Pio Pico :50 Paseo Del Node & Camino Del Parque :55 Lake Shore Gardens :00 First bus leaves Lake Shore Gardens at 6:00 a.m. Last bus leaves Lake Shore Gardens at 8:00 p.m. First bus leaves Lan i kai Mobile Homes at 6:30 a.m. Last bus leaves Lan i kai Mobile Homes at 8:30 p.m. J J 0 Linel 0 0 Laguna Riviera Local Route 20 Monday thru Saturday Service To: Plaza Camino Real - Laguna Riviera Departs From: Minutes Past Hour Grand Ave. & Washington St. © ;45 Forest Ave. & Highland Dr. :52 Plaza Camino Real .00 Kelly Dr. & Hillside Dr. .'10 Chestnut Ave. & Monroe St. .'15 Tamarack Ave. & Pio Pico Dr. ':2Q Roosevelt St. & Chestnut Ave. :25 Grand Ave. & Washington St. :35 To: Laguna Riviera - Plaza Camino Real Departs From: Minutes Past Hour Grand Ave. & Washington St. © :i5 Roosevelt St. & Chestnut Ave. .-25 Tamarack Ave. & Pio Pico Dr. ,-30 Chestnut Ave. & Monroe St. 135 Kelly Dr. & Hillside Dr. -40 Plaza Camino Real :$Q Forest Ave. & Highland Dr. .-53 Grand Ave. & Washington St. :Q$ Estimate Time for In Between Locations First bus leaves Grand & Washington at 6:15 a.m. Last bus leaves Grand & Washington at 7:45 p.m. Effective December 1976 APPENDIX K LETTER FROM JACK P. WELCH, AREA MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 0 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION San Diego Coast Area P. 0. Box 38 Carlsbad, California 92008 (714) 729-8947 JUN 1 7 1976 B M S P ASSOCIATES June 15, 1976 Ref. BMSP #051-001 D 0 n o G Mr. R. Henry Mohle Principal Berryman, Mohle, Stephenson & Perry, Inc. 2030 East Fourth Street, Suite 230 • Santa Ana, California 92705 Dear Mr. Mohle: We have these answers to your questions regarding Carlsbad State Beach: summer months - 2.4 winter months- 1.9 iser is difficult to ; (3) hours. :ent to the Tamarack 1 :30 P.M. Walk-in Persons 27,165 68,104 38,968 55,888 6,408 4,389 5,519 8,943 11 ,486 25,122 24,709 39,946 1 . 2. 3. 4. Average number of Average number of Length of average determine. I woul people per car, people per car, stay for a day- d estimate thre Peak traffic congestion time adja intersection occurs approximately 5.Attendance : Date June, 1975 July, " Aug., " Sept. , " Oct., " Nov. , " Dec., " Jan. , 1976 Feb., " Mar. , " Apr., " May, Vehicle Persons 98,628 271 ,368 111 ,408 100,248 49,272 17,632 20,577 36,670 29,474 24,418 51 ,680 76,562 Totals I hope this information will any other questions, I'll be Si neerely, 787,937 help in your study happy to help. 316,647 If you have JACK P. WELCH Area Manager JPW:rc cc: Whitehead 0 ou nU 0 0 nu o APPENDIX L RIGHT OF WAY AND CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES 0 ALTERNATE 1 COST ESTIMATE TAMAEACK AVENUE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD TO 1-5 FREEWAY CITY OF CARLSBAD D U 0 n U 0 A.C. Paving & Excavation Clearing & Grubbing Tree Removal & Landscaping Curbs & Gutters Driveway Approaches Sidewalks Block Wall (Retaining) Drainage Utilities Relocation Street Lighting Traffic Striping & Signing Railroad Crossing Gates (Relocation) D QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 170,272 S.F. 1.00 $170,270 Lump Sum L.S. 10,800 Lump Sum L.S. 12,500 5,490 L.F. 5.00 27,450 33 Each 200.00 6,600 27,450 S.F. 1.00 27,450 170 L.F. 25.00 4,250 Lump Sum L.S. 25,000 Lunp Sum L.S. 200,000 17 Each 1,200.00 20,400 Lump Sum L.S. 2,000 Lump Sum L.S. 20,000 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $526,720 15% ENGINEERING 79,000 20% CCNTINGENCIES 105,350 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING $ 711,0 70 R/W (PER ASSESSOR) 108,502 150% ('REAL VALUE) * 162,750 SUBTOTAL R/W $271,255 SPECIAL COMPENSATION 43,500 TOTAL R/W $314,750 PROJECT TOTAL $1,025,800 nU 0 *1hese estimates are based on a comparison of Assessor's values and actual values of various parcels in the Carlsbad area. Unit prices based on January 1977. ALTERNATE 1 COST ESTIMATE TAMARACK AVENUE 1-5 FREEWAY TO HIGHLAND AVENUE CITY OF CARLSBAD 0 0 Q A.C. Paving & Excavation Clearing & Grubbing Tree Removal & Landscaping Curbs & Gutters Driveway Approaches Sidewalks Block Wall (Retaining) Drainage Utilities Relocation Street Lighting Traffic Striping & Signing G QUANTITY 41,485 S.F. Lunp Sum Lump Sum 2,550 L.F. 14 Each 12,750 S.F. 150 L.F. Lump Sum Lump Sum 9 Each Lump Sum CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 15% ENGINEERING 20% CONTINGENCIES TOTAL CONST! ENGINEERING R/W (PER ASSESSOR) 150% (REAL VALUE)* SUBTOTAL R/W SPECIAL COMPH TOTAL R/W PROJECT TOTAL UNIT PRICE 1.00 L.S. L.S. 5.00 200.00 1.00 25.00 L.S. L.S. 1,200.00 L.S. )TAL i US ?ICN & 50R) JE)* ;ATION AMOUNT $ 41,500 3,600 8,700 12,750 2,800 12,750 3,750 10,000 100,000 10,800 1,000 $207,650 31,150 41,530 $280,330 26,380 39,570 $ 65,950 2,448 $ 68,400 $348,730 *These estimates are based on a comparison of Assessor's values and actual values of various parcels in the Carlsbad area. 0 Unit prices based on January 1977. ALTERNATE 2 COST ESTIMATE TAMARACK AVENUE CARLSBAD BOULEVARD TO 1-5 FREEWAY CITY OF CARLSBAD D D u A.C. Paving & Excavation Clearing & Grubbing Tree Removal & Landscaping Curbs & Gutters Driveway Approaches Sidewalks Block Wall (Retaining) Drainage Utilities Relocation Street Lighting Traffic Striping & Signing Railroad Crossing Gates (Relocation) QUANTITY 170,272 S.F. Lump Sum Lump Sum 5,490 L.F. 33 Each 27,450 S.F. 170 L.F. Lump Sum Lump Sum 17 Each Lump Sum Lump Sum CONSTRUCTION TOTAL 15% ENGINEERING 20% CONTINGENCIES TOTAL CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING R/W (PER ASSESSOR) 150% (REAL VALUE)* SUBTOTAL R/W SPECIAL COMPENSATION TOTAL R/W PROJECT TOTAL UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1.00 $170,270 10,800 12,500 27,450 6,600 27,450 4,250 25,000 200,000 20,400 2,000 L.S. L.S. 5.00 200.00 1.00 25.00 L.S. L.S. 1,200.00 L.S. L.S.20,000 $526,720 79,000 105,350 $711,070 167,602 251,403 $419,000 15,000 $434,000 $1,145,070 *These estimates are based on a comparison of Assessor's values and actual values of various parcels in the Carlsbad area. D Unit prices based on January 1977. ALTERNATE 2 COST ESTIMATE TAMARACK AVENUE 1-5 FREEWAY TO HIGHLAND AVENUE CITY OF CARLSBAD 0 A.C. Paving & Excavation Clearing & Grubbing Tree Removal & Landscaping Curbs & Gutters Driveway Approaches Sidewalks Block Wall (Retaining) Drainage Utilities Relocation Street Lighting Traffic Striping & Signing QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 41,485 S.F. 1.00 $ 41,500 Lump Sum L.S. 3,600 Lump Sum L.S. 8,700 2,550 L.F. 5.00 12,750 14 Each 200.00 2,800 12,750 S.F. 1.00 12,750 150 L.F. 25.00 3,750 Lurtp Sum L.S. 10,000 Lump Sum L.S. 10.0,000 9 Each 1,200.00 10,800 Lump Sum L.S. 1,000 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $207,650 15% ENGINEERING 31,150 20% CONTINGENCIES 41,530 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING $2 80,330 R/W (PER ASSESSOR) 28,900 150% (REAL VALUE)* 43,350 SUBTOTAL R/W $ 72,250 SPECIAL COMPENSATION , 2,448 TOTAL R/W $ 74,700 PROJECT TOTAL $355,000 *These estimates are based on a comparison of Assessor's values and actual values of various parcels in the Carlsbad area. D Unit prices based on January 1977. APPENDIX M DISCUSSION OF ONE-WAY COUPLET, TAMARACK/CHINQUAPIN 0 D MOHLE, PERRY & ASSOCIATES May 18, 1977 Mr. Tim Flanagan City Engineer City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Tamarack Alignment Study - Consideration of One-way Couplet Utilizing Tamarack Avenue and Chinquapin Avenue Dear Mr. Flanagan: . At the May 4 public meeting concerning the Tamarack Avenue alignment alternatives, members of the audience requested that consideration be given to the possibility of a one-way couplet scheme utilizing Tamarack Avenue and Chinquapin Avenue as an alternative to the widen- ing of.Tamarack. In accordance with your request, the following comments are intended to enumerate some of the main conclusions re- sulting from our cursory review of the proposed couplet scheme. Circuity of Travel Assuming that Tamarack was converted to a one-way street in the westbound direction and Chinquapin was one-way in the eastbound dir- ection, circuity of travel for circulation within the area would be significantly increased over two-way operation. For example, a motorist originating from property northerly of Tamarack Avenue on Jefferson Street wishing to utilize the freeway for a southbound trip would travel approximately 800 feet on Jefferson from Tamarack to Chinquapin, then easterly on Chinquapin some 1,400 feet to Adams, then northerly on Adams approximately 800 feet to Tamarack, and finally westerly 1,000 feet on Tamarack to the southbound on-ramp. This is a total distance of 4,000 feet compared to a travel distance of 400 feet if the motorist could have gone directly from Jefferson to the on-ramp by way of Tamarack. On his return trip from the south his travel distance would be the same as with the two-way operation. If the one-way couplet were reversed in direction, the motorist would have no additional travel distance in getting to the southbound on-ramp; however, his return trip would be approximately 2,800 feet longer than with two-way /j operation. MUNICIPAL AND TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 505 N. Tustin Ave.. Suite 121, Santa Ana, CA 92705 • [714] 834-0541 6055 E. Washington Blvd., Commerce, CA 90040 • (213) 723-1452 Mr. Tim Flanagan May 18, 1977 Page 2 Many other examples of typical trips could be illustrated; however, the net result would be that because of the rather wide separation of 800 feet in the legs of the couplet, the cumulative added travel distance necessitated by utilization of the couplet scheme would be extremely significant in our opinion and especially considering the increased emphasis on fuel conservation. Street Classification The conversion of Chinquapin to one of the legs of a. one-way couplet would have an effect on the character of the street as far as residents are concerned. At the present time Chinquapin is a local collector street compared to arterial status, which Tamarack has had for many years. The change in utilization of Chinquapin would be a very important consideration in conversion to one-way operation. It is our opinion that the residents on Chinquapin would not be fully receptive to utilization of their street for arterial traffic service. Construction and Right of Way Considerations At the present time Chinquapin does not cross the AT&SF railroad tracks. There is also an approximate 170 foot jog in the alignment of Chinquapin at the railroad tracks. If Chinquapin were to be converted to one-way operation, a crossing of the railroad tracks would be needed and, based on our understanding of the Public Utilities Commission's rulings as well as the feelings of the railroad, a grade separation crossing would be. required, which would cost in excess of one million dollars. In addition to the acquisition of right of way for the installation of the grade separation, right of way would be required to eliminate the jog situation. Because of the grade problems and the minimum distance to the Carlsbad Boulevard bridge over the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon Inlet, it is considered not practical to connect Chinquapin to Carlsbad Boulevard. This would present a definite limitation in the service that the one-way couplet could achieve if the connection were practically poissible. Without this connection Garfield would have to be used as the connecting street to Tamarack and Tamarack, between Carlsbad Boulevard and Garfield, would by necessity operate as a two-way street. Width and Interchange Considerations Chinquapin is currently 60 feet wide in right of way and has only a separation at the freeway. Recognizing the importance of the State Beach to regional traffic and the fact that the freeway interchange design is for Tamarack only, it is our conclusion that from a freeway operation and regional transportation viewpoint the consideration of the one-way couplet scheme has definite limitations for use by persona Mr. Tim Flanagan May 18, 1977 Page 3 outside the immediate area. Use of two-way operation along Tamarack is much simpler from a traffic operations point of view than con- sidering the one-way couplet scheme, especially because of the design of the existing interchange. Conclusions It is concluded that while the one-way couplet scheme could reduce the right of way and construction costs on Tamarack, the construction and right of way problems together with street classification and land use considerations of converting Chinquapin to arterial use are factors that cannot be overlooked. In total, it represents a situation that, based on this review, clearly indicates that the one-way couplet scheme has many more disadvantages than advantages; and therefore it cannot be recommended as a viable alternative to the widening and improvement of Tamarack Avenue as a two-way street. I would be happy to discuss these comments with you in more detail at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, MOHLE, PERRY & ASSOCIATES R. Henry Mohle Vice President RHM:jh APPENDIX N RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT AND FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY f?S!^ V?. '. CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD