HomeMy WebLinkAbout3001; LAGUNA DRIVE; DOWNTOWN PEDESTRAIN CIRCULATION STUDY; 1984-02-01:1
INTRODUCTION
The City of Carlsbad in conjunction with the Carlsbad Redevelopment
Agency, contracted with Wilidan Associates to conduct an evaluation
of pedestrian circulation in the downtown Carlsbad area. The study
area bounded, by Laguna Drive, Interstate' 5, Chestnut Avenue and the
Pacific Ocean, encompasses a mixture of land uses including residential,.
commercial, and industrial. The-study fócüsed on what public
facilities were existing and how these could be improved' or new
facilities added to encourage additional pedestrian activity and
safety in the study-area.,.'
This report summarizes the findings reached and provides- a
prioritized listing of recommended pedestrian facility improvements.
Also included are suggested policies, which could be considered
by the City's Transportation Advisory Committee for implementation
within the study àreaor throughout the City.
-
- ,
•
I
BACKGROUND
S - S
The first step towards-developing a plañ'-for'lmproving pedestrian circulation
Is to gain a fuller understanding of the characteristics of'pedestrián:
travel. In accomplishing this, we need to look at such characteristics as. '
the purpose of the, trip., 'whether the trip is made totally by walking, or '
isa combination of travel modes, the acceptable length of the pedestrian -
trip, and what factors influence the safety or perceived safety of the
pedestrian trip.
The-land uses within' the study area inc1ude residential, office, '
commercial and industrial uses Each of these will produce and attract
' different types of pedestrian trips. Residential areas'willproduce
trips between residences, to work or shopping, 'to transit st6ps,'and'
recreational trips. 'Business and comthercial.areas on the other hand'
'will attract a significant ,number of pedestrian trips between the
* place of business and another mode of' travel. There will also be
walking trips between businesses and, from thecocnmrcial areas to
residential areas. " . • ' . ' ' . ''
t S -
The length of a walking 'trip generally varies based on the reasonfor
the trip and the availability of other forms of transportation.
According to the Highway Research Board's'"Speci'al' Report 125,'
Parking Principals" the average distance walked from a parking place
is 350 feet for shopping and 410 feet for business This indicates
people will tend to walk further,5if it is done on .'a regular basis,
with a minimum .amount of packages and the length of stay at the ' ' -•
destination is lOnger. • • " S '
' ' - - '
S . , • - . - ' ' '
-
- - ' - 3
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The facilities addressed by this study to enhance pedestrian circulation
include: sidewalks, crosswalks, warning signs, pedestrian signals, and
exclusive pedestrians ways, such as pedestrian bridges. In addition to
the type of facility and the authority for their installation, we have
also identified potential locational constraints and desireable aesthetic
treatments.
SIDEWALKS I
Sidewalks and pedestrian ramps are constructed to provide an all-weather
surface separated from vehicular traffic for pedestrian travel. These
are generally constructed of Portland Cement concrete (PCC) because of its
durability. Occasionally, in temporary.situati.ons, asphalt concrete is used.
.The ,City's design standards require sidewalk with all new streets installed
as part of a subdivision. Ramps, which are required by state law, are
installed at all intersections where crossings are allowed to eliminate
barriers to those people in wheel chairs or who have difficulty walking.
In 'areas where sidewalks do not exist, pedestrians will often use the
edge of the paved roadway, particularly, bicycle lanes when they exist.
This providesa level area, for pedestrians to walk, but does not provide
a physical barrier from cars and often creates conflicts.with bicycles.
While this occurs, the use of bicycle lanes by pedestrians should not
be encouraged.
5 ', '
It is aesthetically pleasing to have.landscaping 'and view areas along
sidewalks This may Include yard landscaping In residential areas and
street trees Or landscaping around buildings in. commercial areas. It
may also be desireable to have windows from commercial developments
overlooking the street These type of treatments provide diversions for
pedestrians and generally enhance their walking experience
The landscaping and other amenities such 'a s street furniture, however,
needs to be carefully controlled so the walkway area is generally clear.
State law (Part 2, Title 24 California Administrative Code) requires new
construction to provide a minimum 48 inch wide walkway with an unobstructed
width of 36 inches The City can use this as a guide line for existing
sidewalks and undertake a program to relocate signs, street lights, fire
hydrants and utility poles outside of the sidewalk areas
Efforts should be made to reduce the number of points of conflicts
between vehicles and pedestrians This is best accomplished by reducing
the number of driveways and creating joint use driveways where feasible
Where this is not feasible, the City should attempt to improve sight
distance at the point driveways cross sidewalks This should include
provisions for reduced heighth of landscaping (30 inches maximum) and
to reduce or eliminate the number of locations (except single family
residential areas) where vehicles back across the sidewalk
6
CROSSWALKS '
The State Vehicle Code defines a crosswalk as:
UCROSSWALK is either:: "
(a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or,
connection of 'the' boundary lines of sidewalks at intersection
where the intersecting roadways:rneet at approximately right.
angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley
across a street.
(b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian
crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section,
there shall not 'be a crosswalk where local authorities have
placed signs indicating no crossing..."
This definition, however, is not generally understood by most people.
Many people feel it is only legal to cross in a painted crosswalk or
the pedestrian has more rights in a painted crosswalk
Pedestrians are given the right-of-way over vehicles by the State Vehicle
Code, but the code calls for caution in exercising this right.
"RIGHT-OF-WAY AT CROSSWALKS . (SECTION 21950): '
S •
' • •
(a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian
crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any
S • unmarked 'crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided
in this chapter.'
'S 75 5.
. .
_
The provisions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian from
the duty of using due. care for safety. No pedestrian shall
suddenly-leave acurb or other place of safety and walk or run
into the path of a vehicle which Is so close as to constitute an
imediate hazard. .
. . . .
The provisions of subdivision (b) shall not .rèlieve.a driver of a
vehicle from the dutyof excerising due care for the safety of any
pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any, unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection.,_-,
PEDESTRIANS OUTSIDE CROSSWALKS -: (SECTION '21954)
Every pedestrian upon a-. roadwy at any point other than within a
marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection :
shall yield-the right-of-way to all vehicles upon. the roadway so
near as-.to constitute an immediate hazard.
The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a
vehicle from the duty.to exercise due-care for the •safety of any.
pedestrianupon a roadway."
-
.• .
The -misconception-about where it is legal fo'r a pedestrian to cross or
how the pedestrian can exercise their right-of-way may be the cause of
a potential safety problem. This was noted in a report prepared by - -
Bruce F. Hems of theCity of San Diego titled "Pedestrian Crosswalk Study,
.. - Accidents in Painted, and Unpainted Crosswalks". In this study, it was
concluded there is an increase in the pedestrian accident rate at unsignalized
intersections where crosswalks are marked (painted.) as opposed to urinarked. -
- The assumed cause for this is that pedestrians may tend to' have a false
sense of se.cui'ity at painted crosswalks and leave the sidewalk without'
adequately observing traffic.--
8
The San Diego study, however, should net be interpreted 6 -mean crosswalks
should never be Painted. When roadway conditions cause crossings to be
safer on 'one side of an Intersection or the location to cross is unclear.,
consideration should be given.to painting a crosswalk. Typical sivation
where this may occur is at.offset intersections,. llhl intersections or
acute angle lnter'sections.. In. these cases, the Traffic Engineer andy
Traffic Advisory Committee should carefully review pedestrian volumes,
traffic volumes (including predominant turning movements) and sight
distancesfor both vehicles and pedestrians before deciding to paint
a crosswalk.
The San Diego study indicates painted crosswalks even with diagonal or
perpendicular stripes (zebra crosswalks) do not significantly, increase
the driver's perception of the crossing. The State Traffic Manual
however, provides pavement markings and advance warning signs which may
be used in combination with painted crosswalks to increase the driver's.
perception of the crossing. . '. . .
The Traffic Manual addresses school crosswalks in a slightly different
manner: . .
. .
"School crosswalks are for use along the 'Suggested Route toSchool.
They should only be marked where warranted by student-vehicular traffic
conflicts or where students could not otherwise recognize the proper place
to cross.. They may be used near schools of all grade levels."
School crosswalks are painted yellow, to'providè additional information to
the driver. Except at signal or stop'sign controlled intersections, they•
should be preceded with warning signs and pavement legends.
9
No specific research Is avialable as to the effectiveness of painted
crosswalks at signalized intersections Since crossings are regulated
by the signal itself there should be little impact on pedestrian safety
The City, however, should adopt a consistant policy for use throughout
the C1ty. In establishing this policy, the maintenance costs should be
considered as well as the number of intersections where crossings are
prohibited on one or more legs If painted crosswalks are not used,
care should be taken to paint the limit line at an appropriate point
to allow unimpeaded pedestrian traffic
PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS
The State Traffic Manual establishes warrants to be used when considering
the installation of a traffic signal One of these warrants considers the
amount of pedestrian activity. Others consider traffic volumes, accident
rates and progression of traffic It is, however, extremely unusual for
a location to only meet the pedestrian, volume warrant and a traffic signal
is usually installed for other reasons Traffic signals, of course, should
not be installed unless a signal warrant is met and only then if lesser
traffic controls are ineffective in efficiently assigning right-of-way.
When a traffic signal is installed the Traffic Manual indicates "pedestrian
signal faces should be provided, at all signals in urban locations". The
reason for this is pedestrians are better controlled with the WALK - flashing
DON 'T WALK - DON'T WALK system This system provides adequate crossing time
for pedestrians while allowing sufficient warning prior to the end of the
signal phase to allow the pedestrian to reach the safety of a sidewalk or
raised median
10.
. S
EXCLUSIVE PEDESTRIAN WAYS
Pedestrian paths are Important when the length.of alternate routes is
such that pedestrian travel is discouraged As discussed previously,
there is no clear definition as to how closely pedestrian ways should
be spaced. In residential areas where pedestrian activities are primarily
recreational in nature there is probably little need to be concerned about
spacing except when looking at such pedestrian traffic generators as
schools and parks
The spacing in commercial areas, however, is much more critical Since
the reported average walking distance from a parking place in a commercial
area is 350 to 400 feet, alternative pedestrian routes should be considered
when walking distances from one block to another significantly exceeds
this average distance. In the project area consideration should be given
to walkways between Roosevelt and Madison north of Grand and across the
AT & SF rail line
If midblock walkways or grade separations are to be installed, the
installation should, of course, include adequate lighting for nightime
use and should be visable from the street for safety reasons
f.
FACILITY DEFICIENCIES
For purposes of this analysts we have assumed the basic pedestrian, 'needs
are sidewalk, pedestrian signals face with all traffic signals, and' exclusive
pedestrian ways in commercial areas at a'maxirnum spacing of 500 feet.
Associated with these specific improvements are other facilities which either
allow the constructi'on'of the pedestrian facilities, such as curb and gutter
with sidewalks or right-of-way for exclusive, pedestrian ways, or facilities
which enhance the pedestrian atmosphere but are not essential for pedestrian
safety such as street' lighting or street furniture.'
The following Exhibit 2 lists the facility deficiencies by street for the
study area, along with the estimated construction cost to alleviate
those deficiencies. In preparing this listing, we have used the following
unit prices to calculated the. improvement costs: .
Sidewalk (5 feet wide) ' $10! Lineal Foot
Curb & Gutter
' $10, Lineal Foot
Right-of-Way-
' . $5 / Square Foot ,
Pedestrian Signals ' ' .
,
$5,000 I Intersection
In addition to the deficiencies listed in Exhibit 2, there are virtually
no pedestrian ramps except in the commercial areas along Grand Avenue
and Elm Avenue. These are extremely beneficial-for the elderly and
'
others who have difficulty walking.
. Each-ramp is estimated to cost $500
:12
.•
EXHIBIT 2 •
DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES DEFICIENCIES
Street Name Limits West Side Amount East Side Amo'.nt
Ocean St Mountain View to Pacific S/W $4,00() S/W (Sly, 1/3) $ 4,000
Pacific to Carlsbad Blvd C&G, .S/W 64,000 C&G, S/W 64,000
Garfield St Mountain View to Pacific S/W1 3,000 S/W 3,000
Cypress to Beech C&G, S/W 12,000 C&G, S/W (NLY½) 4,000
Beech to Cedar C&G, S/W 8,000 , C&G, S/W 8,000
Grand to Elm
S
C&G, S/W 3,000 CEJG&S/W
Midblock 4,000
Pine to Walnut None - 01 None 0
- 'Walnut-to Chestnut None 0 None 0
Carlsbad Blvd State to Beech C&G .S/W 36,000 C&G S/W 36,000
Beech to Cedar C&G, S/W (NLY 1/2) 4,000 C&G, S/W 8,000
Cedar to Grand None 0 - C&G (SLY ½)&S/W 3,000
Grand to Elm C&(,, S/V (SLY 1/4) 1,000 C&G, S/W(SLY 213.)3,00
Elm to Oak C&G(NLY½)&S/W 7,000 lonR C&Crslan 1,000I
C&G (SLY ½
Oak to Pine C&G, S/W (SLY½) 4,000 S/W (full length) 3,000
Pine to Chestnut C&G S/W 15,000 C&G, S/W 15,000
Lincoln Street Elm to Oak None 0 None 0
Oak to Pine S/W 4,000 C&G S/W(SLY 2/3) 6,000
C&G Curb 6 Gutter S/W Sidewalk NLY Northerly SLY Southerly
EL.. uT 2 Continued
Street Name Limits West Side Amount East Side Amount
Lincoln Street Pine to Walnut C&G, S/W $ 81000 C&G,S/W(SLY 2/3)$ 5,000
Walnut to Chestnut C6C,S/W 8,000 C&G, S/W 8,000
State Street Carlsbad Blvd to Laguna C&G, S/W (NLY¼) 4,000 C&G, S/W 10,000
Laguna to Beech None 0 None 0
Beech to Cedar None 0 None 0
Cedar to Grand None 0 None 0
Grand/State Ped Signal Face None 5,000 None 0
Grand to Elm C&G S/W (SLY ¼) 1,000 None 0
Elm/State Ted. Signal Face None 5,000 None 0
Elm to Oak None 0 None 0
S/W (Full length) Tyler Street C&G (SLY Of Oak) 14,000 None 0
R00bev2lt Street Laguna to Beech (NLY 1/3) 4,000 SlY 2,000 S/W
Beech to Chestnut None 0 None 0
Madison Street Laguna to Arbuckle 9,000 C&G, S/W 13,000
Arbuckle to Grand None 0 C&G, S/W. 8,000
Grand to Chestnut None 0 None 0
Jefferson Street Laguna to Home None 0 C&G S/W(NLY¼) 3,000
Home to Grand None 0 None 0
Grand to Elm None 0 S/W (Midblock) 1,000
CISC Curb& Cutter S/W = Sidewalk NLY Northerly SLY = Southerly
Street Name Limits West Side Amount East Side Amount
Jefferson Street Elm to Oak None $ 0 None $ 0
Oak to Pine C&G S/W (SLY¼) 2,000 None 0
Hope Street S/W 3,000 None 0
Harding Street Grand to Elm S/W (NLY 3/4) 3,000 None 0
Harding/Elm Ped Signal Face None 5,000 None 0
Elm to Chestnut None 0 None 0
Northside Southside
Mountain View Carlsbad to Garfield CM S/W (FL½) 5,000 5/W 7,000
Garfield to Ocean None 0 None 0
Pacific Avenue S/W 6,000 C&G , S/W 12,000
Laguna Drive State to Roosevelt C&G, S/W 3,000 C&G, S/v 81000
to Jefferson C&G' S/W (SoutRoosevelt 15 C et t; 11,000
Jefferson to Interstate 5 C&G, S/W (ELY 1/2) 15,000 S/W (ELY 1/2) 8,000
Cypress Avenue C&G, S/W 8,000 C&G, S/W 6,000
Beech Avenue Ocean to Garfield C&G, S/W (WLY 1/2) 1,000 C&G, S/W 3,000
Garfield to Carlsbad S/W 3,000 C&G, S/W 6,000
Carlsbad to R/R C&G, S/W (ELY ½) 3,000 c&c, S/W Hidblock 6,000
State to Roosevelt None 0 None 0
Arbuckle Place C&G, S/W 3,000 C&G, S/W 3,000
Cedar Avenue Ocean to Garfield C&G, S/W 3,000 C&G, S/W 3,000
Garfield to Carlsbad C&C,s/W (WLY 1/2) 3,000 C&G, S'V (WLY 1/2)3,000
ELY Easterly C&G Curb 6 Gutter S/W = Sidewalk NLY Northerly SLY = Southerly WLY-Westerly
EXH 2 (Continued)
Street Name Limits North Side Amount South Side Amount
Cedar Avenue Carlsbad to RIR $ 8000 c&G, S/W $ 8,000
Home Avenue Jefferson to Hope None 0 S/W 5,000
Hope to End S/W 3,000 S/W 4,000
Grand Avenue Ocean to Carlsbad C&C, S/W (WLY 2/3) 6,000 C&G, S/W(IJLY 1/3)3,000.
Carlsbad to R/R None 0 None 0
R/R to Madison None 0 None 0
Madison to Jefferson l½.ength) 5,000 C&G, S/W(ELY ½) 3,000
Jefferson to Harding None 0 None 0
Harding to Hope None 0 None 0
Hope to Freeway C&C, S/W 91000 S/W (50ft+) 1,000
Elm Avenue Ocean to Garfield C6G, S/W 3,000 C&C, S/W- 3,000
Garfield to Carlsbad None 0 C&C, S/W 7,000
Carlsbad to RIR S/W (WLY 1/2) 2,000 None 0
R/R to State IL °te)
1,000 None 0
State to Freeway None 0 None 0
Oak Avenue Ocean to Carlsbad None 0 S/W 2,000
Carlsbad to Lincoln C&C, S/W 1,000 C&G, S/W 4,000
Lincoln to R/R S/W (ELY ½) 2,000 C6G, S/W 9,000
C&C Curb -& Gutter S/W Sidewalk ELY Easterly WLY - Westerly
EX' 1T 2 (Continued) 0
Street Name Limits Northside Amount Southsjde Amount
Oak Avenue R/R to State : C&G, S/W $ 6,000 6s '/R $ 4,000
State to Roosevelt C&G, S/W 6,000 None 0
Roosevelt to Freeway S/W (ELY ¼) 4,000 None 0
Pine Avenue Carlsbad to Garfield S/W 2,000 S/W 2,000
Garfield to Lincoln C&G, 51W • 4,000 None 0
Lincoln to R/R - c&c,'s/w 9,000 C&G, S/W(ELY½) 6,000
Tyler to Freeway None 0 ; None 0
Walnut Avenue Carlsbad to-Garfield •• C&G S/W (WLY ½) 4,000 ; None 0
Garfield to R/R eMidtlock) 10,000 C&G, S/W 12,000
Tyler to School None 0 None 0
Chestnut Avenue Carlsbad to Garfield • S/W 4,000 None • 0
Garfield to Roosevelt C&G, S/W 29,000 C&G, S/W • 28,000
Roosevelt to Freeway None 0 None 0
• ; •
C&G • Curb & Curtpr 51W • Sidewalk ELY Easterly WLY- Westerly
EXHIBIT (Continued)
Exclusive Pedestrian Ways
Under Carlsbad Blvd at R/R 1 Crossing $ 30,000
Madison to Roosevelt North of Grand 2 Crossings 36,000
State to Roosevelt North of Beech 1 Crossing 18,000
Extension of Beech Across R/R At Grade Crossing
V/Crossing Protection 20,000
W/Crade Separation 150,000
Extension of Oak Acrsa R/R At Grade Crossing
W/Crossing Protection 25,000
V/Grade Separation 155,000
I
Extension of Chestnut Across R/R At Grade Crossing
W/Crosaing Protection 25,000
V/Crossing Protection 155,000
TOTAL $1,001,000
V/Grade Separation $19391,000
- 4
_ T
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND
CROSSWALK II II
SIDEWALK
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 0
PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL ®
PROJECT eo&w4oARy .
en....
1........j I.
R003tWT I
all a
EI1I1
Fv"l
CANUSAD SL
OSAN• ST
-
PACWK OCLAM
JL. liL._IL ij : r.
St
Ev
EXHIBIT 3
J EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES w,u,m *uoa
H
IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES
Due to the magnitude of the facility deficiencies, It is:not practical
to construct all of the needed facilities atone time. It is therefore,
Important to establish priorities so the facilities serving the most'
important needs can be installed first.
To establish priorities,we have looked at the areas of high 'pedestrian
activity, the location of pedestrian accidents,' and the location of
existing facilities.
Pedestrian activities appear to be concentrated in three areas. The,
major one is the downtown commercial area' along Grand and Elm generally
east of the AT&SF railroad. Another significant area is 'at the southeast
corner ,of the study area along Harding Street where there is i community
center along with a public and parochial' elementary school . The final
area is the Beach area generally west of Carlsbad Boulevard.
There were 17 reported pedestrian ac'cidents during the period 'for • • ,
January 1979 through December 1982. These accidents were scattered
'throughout the study area and do not point out any specific problem
locations.
With respect to existing improvements we have surveyed the study area
and delineated the pedestrian facilities. on Exhibit 3. By looking at
this exhibit,. we 'can identify areas where a small amount of construction
can' complete .a pedestrian link.
' '20 ' ' '
We have then divided the pedestrian improvements into 'four. categories
labeled A thruD. Category A, represents improvements with the highest
priority,, which serve major pedestrian generators or complete needed
links. Category B represents improvements which.will also be highly
beneficial but represent either a, significant amount of new construction
or areasof lesser pedestrian activity. Categories C and Drepresent
lesser priorities ~where .we have grouped improvements for construction
cost savings. These priorities are listed in Exhibit 4 and shown on
• Exhibits 5 thru 7. • • '
S
• :• • S
•
21 •
• .
EXHIBIT
Improvement Priorities
CATEGORY A
Street
-
Limits Justification
Carlsbad Blvd.:,Cedar to Grand Completes Link /
Grand to Elm . Completes Link 7&s
State Street Grand Ave Ped Signal Paces Ped crossing to parking lot
Grand to Elm -ite&4r!k
Elm Ave Ped Signal Faces Major commercial area
/ Madison Ave Arbuckle to Grand Commerical area & large parking
to ft. South'Completes / Jefferson Ave Laguna 100 . Link 7 Grand to Elm
Oak to Pine
Completes LipkV.. . Near School cc
Harding St.: Grand to Elm
Elm Ave Ped Signal Faces Commercial area
Grand Ave Madison to Jefferson Commercial area
Jefferson to Harding .
-
Commercial area
Elm Ave.: Carlsbad to R/R Commercial area
R/R to State Commercial area V
Oak Ave State to Roosevelt Boys Club V
TOTAL COST $61,000
CATEGORY B
Street Limits Justification
Ocean Street Mtn View to Pacific Beach access
Pacific to Carlsbad Blvd. Beach access
Carlsbad Blvd State to Beech Major street /)v
Ped. undercrossing @ RfR . Beach access major street .&
Beech to Cedar Major, street1'1
Elm to Oak ' .. Mjøs-t.t.t jU,,'--12--
Oak-to Pine : • • • " Beachaccess & major street
Pine to Chestnut • Beach access & major Street
Lincoln: • ,• '. Oak to Pine • .. • Traffic' volume
• Pine to Walnut • • Traffic volume -
Walnut to Chestnut Traffic volume
•
- - - 22 -
I
CATEGORY B .(cont'd). -
-
Street Limits Justification
State: CarlSbad Blvd. to. Laguna - Beach/Park access
Roosevelt Ave. Laguna to Beech Completes link
Madison Ave. Laguna to Arbuckle Access to commercial
Pacific Mtn. View to Ocean'' Beach access
Laguna: State to:Roosevelt (south 'Traffic Volume
side) S
Roosevelt to Jefferson Traffic Volume
(southside) :.
Beech Ocean to 'Garfield Beach access -
(northside)
Garfield to Carlsbad Blvd. Beach access
(northside) '
Cailsbad Blvd. to R/R' Army/Navy Academy
(northside)
Cedar: Ocean to Garfield , Beach'access
(one side)
- Garfield to Carlsbad , Beach access
-
(one side)
Grand Ave Ocean to Carlsbad Blvd Beach access
Elm Ave.: Ocean to Garfield ' Beach access
- Garfield to Carlsbad Blvd. Beach access
Oak Ave.: Ocean to Carlsbad Blvd. Beach access
Carlsbad Blvd. to Lincoln Beach access
• Lincoln to Tyler Beach access
Chestnut Ave.: , Carlsbad Blvd.-to Garfield Traffic volume'& beach
- access
Garfi10-to Roosevelt Traffic volume
-
Madison to Roosevelt Pedestrian way (1 of. 2) , Commercial area
Beech St. R/R crossing at grade Access to Army/Navy Academy
Oak St. R/R crossing at-grade - ' •-' - Beach access
Chestnut St. R/R crossing at grade . - Beach access
TOTAL COST ', $634,000
CANISIAD OIL
Pico on.
TEjIsTt
\tk
Hr
L_l NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND
CROSSWALK II II
SIDEWALK
TRAFFIC SIGNAL ()
PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL
PROJECT BOUNDARY U U -
CATEGORY A
IMPROVEMENTS
.SAkAik1.&fl AAS&ASSS 11hLhflht
lIJITTYrTI
im"
TTYTTTTT
Lrhllljll ilIIUQi
TYLER ET
at S tr NA
l;I Il I U
LINCOLN ST II ii
GAIELO ST
., - I --
-A • SI I I I • lv—-.r-u-- —
CATEGORY A IMPROVEMENTS
EXHIBIT 5
A.
'p.
PL
dp 4••
MIUCI
• ass...... S •S M •• .......s......j
S •pa....a•...I..IS.pp S...
"CO
S
11 1 Ito
S••S•••Se5•sSS•SS -
NOT TO SCALE
ri r.g•555•'51 LEGEND
coSswALNROOSIEVELT ST. II .....n.1 L.....•s sea.....
TRAFFIC SIDEWALK
SIGNAL
I P(OESTR,Ap. SIGNAL
::::;:: - - -
IN IMPROVEME14TS
cAu.Ao BLVD. p 4.,ST.- iT.0
~IA cl
C~
iIII Ei
OCE*N$T
.ittti
_
PACIFIC OCCA
CATEGORY 8 IMPROVEMENTS
EXHIBIT 6
w,u.m *uoa*v
4
ce, • ________
&ASUCKLE PL
....,•_!J.•..•..•_.___
:::::::::::: f
• I_I
r1r11T
jZn1j1flT117flTTi tlllllllfl flhllillil
I 1_J1 11 11 JlJ I J( II "1111101
-
r4
ft iE 'CO Do.
s
NOT TO SCALE JIF ERMN IT
%UO#5001 ST
LEGEND FIIII CROSSWALK loll
oosvtT •i SIDEWALK •••••••
TPMclC SIGNAL 0
PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL
PROJECT BOUPiDAAy U U -
AT S tF R CATEGORY c a I) IMPROVEMENTS 1._p
rn
U
U
--------------- _I - -- CARLOAD •L#O (
fl[J
IjlI-
________ -'
PACIFIC Oct"
LINCOLN IT
E
EXHIBIT 7
CATEGORY C a o IMPROVEMENTS mu.m *uocwn
I
RECOMMENDATIONS '.
The City of Carlsbad and the Redevelopment Agency have several oportunities
to enhance pedestrian activities within the study area. This can be
accomplished with the adoption Of certain policies to provide improved
pedestrian facilities with new developments or redevelopment and with various
construction programs. As a result of this study, we recommend the adoption
of the following policy statements: '
'1. All new construction and significant additions or remodeling
shall provide sidewalks along the site frontage with sufficient
off site extensions to forma completed pedestrian link.:
2. Adequate on-site pedestrian walkways 'shall be provided t0 4
connect the-main building entrance with the public sidewalk '
- and off street parking areas.- '
Landscaping adjacent to driveways shall bekept below 30
inches or above 72 inchesin height for a distance of 25 ,
feet on each side of the driveway and ten feet behind the
race of curbY
, Pedestrian serving uses such as sidewalk' cafes, shall be
encouraged in the commercial1 areas'along with adequate . .
streetscaping.
A pedestrian education program should be undertaken emphasising
the findings of the City of San Di egg' Crosswalk Study and
describing the Walk-Flashing Don't. Walk-Don't Walk pedestrian
signal system. This .program should be. directed towards
25 .
-
'elementary and junior high students and senior citizens as
these groups compose a V greater portion of the pedestrian
traffic, because they are less able to use other individual
forms of transport,' such as automobiles.
No modification to the City's design standards for sidewalks
are recommended. Sidewalk areas should have a minimum four
foot clear area, with all signs, fire hydrants, street light
and traffic signal poles located' behind the sidewalks where
feasible.
All new traffic signals within the study area shall have
pedestrian signal faces.
' Crosswalks shall be painted at signalized intersection and V V
V consideration should be given to'prohibiting crossing on one
side 'of the intersection if there is a significant turning
movement. V VV V VV
• V' • V
• •V
• Adequate street lighting- shall be provided for all exclusive V
pedestrian ways and at painted crosswalks.
10. New developments shall be.required to provide midblock pedestrian
walkways where alternative walkways are more than 500 feet away.
V
V
It is further recommended: • •
V
V
•
' 'V V
•
• V V
V
1. The City undertake the construction ofthe Category A projects in the
near future and. the lesser priority projects as funding becomes available.
2.' Pedestrian ramps should .be installed withinthe study area starting in
V the commercial area then the beach area and finally the residential areas.
26 • V
V • V