HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP 181H; Home2 Carlsbad Suites; FOCUSED TRAFFIC STUDY; 2016-02-18Darrell' &Associates, Inc.
· TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
February 18, 2016
KoongCho
Royal Hospitality Carlsbad, LLC
P.O. Box 3872
6560 Poco Lago,
Rancho Santa Fe, California 92067 D&A Ref No: 150801
Subject: Revised Focused Traffic Study for the Proposed 142 Room Home2 Suites by Hilton located at
the Northeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Palomar Oaks Way, Carlsbad, California.
Dear Mr. Cho:
Darne11 & Associates, h1c (D&A) has prepared a circulation Impact Analysis of the proposed 142 Room
Home2 Suites Hotel with 158 on-site parking spaces. Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the project
location at the northeast corner of Palomar Airport Road and Palomar Oaks Way. Figure 2 is a copy of
the site plan. The City of Carlsbad Development Pennits P-2 Section ll.H identify the requirement to
prepare an analysis of projects impacts to all intersections and road segments identified as impacted
within the Local Growth Management Plan. The limits of the traffic study are based on the criteria of the
SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies. The report has been revised to respond to the City
of Carlsbad January 25,2016 comments.
The Home2 Suites by Hilton is estimated to generate 994 daily vehicle trips, 80 AM peak hour trips and
90 PM peak hour vehicle trips. Table 1 summarizes the SANDAG Trip Rates and Project Trip
Generation.
Land Use
994 80 90 36
The SANTECIITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) identifies the need to analyze roadway
segments and intersections that the project will add 50 or more peak hour trips. Based on this criteria the
project traffic presented on Table 1 was assigned to the smTounding roadways. Figure 3 presents the
focused trip disttibution to Palomar Airport Road and surrounding intersections. Review of Figure 3
shows the project adds less than 50 peak hour trips to Palomar Airport Road east of Palomar Oaks Way
and to the College Boulevard/ A viara Parkway intersection.
The next step in the analysis requires the assembly of existing traffic data on Palomar Airport Road
intersection at College Boulevard/ A viara Parkway and Palomar Oaks Way. Additional existing traffic
data was obtained from the Traffic Study for the Aqua Hediona South Shore Specific Plan dated May 7,
2015 prepared by Fehr & Peers and Figure 4 presents the existing traffic volumes to be analyzed and
Figure 5 presents the existing lane geometries and traffic controls. The traffic count data is included in
Appendix A.
4411 Mercury Street, Suite 207 A, San Diego, CA. 92111
619-233-9373/ office@darnell-assoc.com
(f)
:::.::::
<(
0
PALOMAR
' ~
~
Dar11ell & AssociATEs, rNc, I
150801-AC 11/3/2015 JAM t
0::::
<(
2
0 _j
<(
Q_
2
WRIGHT PLACE
~
AIRPORT ROAD
FIGURE 1
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT
SITE
w
S.:'-3~1"·tn bvCk!Ql rGr:Ja• ,.
.~ .... ----
q,......,. ;:c...n--::.rln:-e 1nd rcoo'
-_---:· .... ,.,! .... ,,
~«
~....;. ... ..;;.-
-·~
~~ •....e'-'!r.--'~ ( .;:... ...... -
N~
rvr~.
(;' ,_, ...... .......... .__..
-~ -..,.i,--
!('.,~,. ... ~--
------------
W right Place ---------------~----
""' ~
i
J cf'
·\
1 f l f
V'CCH!I't·~ l,t;t --------(=~==:::-:.~~"
""tt;!H.k ':""~!:.,. -I.-.~.--;-; -::::..~---:-ITL_ .··, --~----.---·------
'·-
r--
;
---....
-.-, --;-. ·~ ~~: .""""·~-c::=::---==:::J .....-... __ •,, . -~-~---....... ----------;.~.-r-"_. :._ __ --.:...:::-~~ '> '·
:....::: r PROPOSED I : _ _j
....J HOME2 HOTEL BY HILTON
l
I
1.
·, __ . 1
~~~
I :: -~ , ; I
t f .. : --.. ~~
t J_,-
,~~
'! i --
~~~
i·--1;-
I •• ______~
T:,..~-I -
_, j""""T I I~
··~ . '---
--.--:.:-:. ~-.:--~ --=-~-~~ , , .-, rt" r ·1 J-~--,--,..:1,-, 11.-,--1
..) , I --
-~-..i..J ---' ..: --'} L' J, ..__,.I_. ,--. I' '""I
' .!. -·-'-
-!t)Cretc~
-------------····-'<: .. :: __ :_=~==-:.:._:_::.: ptCD!!:R1 ~ ---------
Palomar A irport Road
., __ _
~
:::;:;:!
! ~ i
~ ~·
!0
i ;;,
PAOJ£.C"f
srn su•.·v....._qy
v -.~,.:..o.:~UO--"'«""'!'S·¥ •c
~~-~ ·-· ... -"":Cot!'
':..=' ., '-J~ •• _...,.~,.
--~ 1"-'.l';'l"• --._ ;"'l· .... ~---;,. AP' -. .,_ ·~ •:o•·1'·:~·-···
~· .. :'-""."'r-'1. .. 1 ~ ... ~ (
~ -r-~' ...0... .:.::.-· -.. ·.:·:'!:
VT1UT1£.S
...;.,--;-~·::--
sc...ooc. O<SlAfC"'
~~·-~ ~~ ..... ~CI'"""'"·-~ ~~:~·;;;~~-----
Darnell & ASSOCIATES, INC. FIGURE 2
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
SITE PLAN
150801-AC 11-3-20\5 JAM
..:..=~-:...-:;.; --
Q ,..
' '/'...-
'0 ~ (.)'
"'~ e ~ 0 < ::c ~
(.) ~s: ti ~ ... .c ' -~~
(.)~ ~~ ·a ~· o -:r:l! ~~ a::
A-1
-718 --22/17
10/25--30% (298) 14111---AIRPORT ROAD
~
~ ~
~ ~ I
I
\
I ~ \
N ~ ""-..:~~
(
N"-..._ ""-.. j~E_ L7;1s
\
\
~
~
I ~ --........._ \ 15/36_j
'~/ ~ ~
I s ~1!7,7 \ ~ L r-7/s -
( 10125--1 \
~ ~ )
LEGEND ~ I
~-PROJECT SITE ~ / ----XX% -TRIP DISTRIBUTION PE.RCENTAGE
G Z,ZZZ -AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
XX/YY -AM/PM
F~GURE 3
I
/
Dari'1ell & AssociATEs, INc
150801-AC 11/3/2015 JAM PROJECT TRAFFIC AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION
4
\
)
o! WRIGHT PLACE
~
PROJECT
SITE
-1172/1981 -1020/1988
2247/1695---h 1867/1471--PALOMAR / -vL.: 1600/1591--AIRPORT ROAD
I
I
~ 0::: ~ ~ Y" 0
{
\
LEGEND
\
\
~
~
~ -PROJECT SITE
XX/YY -AM/PM TURN VOLUMES
e Z,ZZZ -AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
---DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
Darnell & AssociATEs, mc.
150801-AC 11/3/2015 JAM
-' <( ~ -----0:..
y a> ""'
I ~z~ L129/9 \ ~N~ -1070j1533
_j L (17/4 \ ~ ---.__ { 268/23 _j 1 t 1
/ ~to ""' ~1582/1492---r---L(") ~ J L(")~t') L 58/81 ~ ~ "'-
! ~~-t2_ 67/91 ~ . ' ~ r---_)~~~ -794/,1677 \\ 1 L F\,/218 I"'
r 566/141 _) J j 1 \ "---_ ----/
1553/1299---0 o a> I
\ 128/2551 ~ ~~
f 0'-ooo
-
~r---r---I N ~N
FIGURE 4
EXISTiNG TRAFFIC VOLUMES
5
LEGEND
~ -TRAFFIC SIGNAL
ol -STOP SIGN
---DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
Darnell & AssociATEs, INc.
150801-AC 11/3/2015 JAM
~ I
ol WRIGHT PLACE
0::::
<(
2
0 _J
<(
(L ~ t
6
---
~
~
>-i:"
I - \ I _jjL r=-\
\ ~~~---/
~ T / --___.-/
F~GURE 5
EXISTING CONDITiONS
Koong Cho
Royal Hospitality Carlsbad, LLC
February 18,2016
Page 7
Significall1!t Impact Criteria
The analysis of Year 2015 Conditions compares baseline conditions (without the project) to conditions
with full buildout and occupancy of the project to determine whether or not the new traffic is expected to
significantly impact the surrounding roadways and intersections.
Per The City of Carlsbad Growth Management Plan, the minimum acceptable operating standards for all
roadways is LOS D and the minimum acceptable operating stands for all intersections is LOS D during
peak hours and LOS C during non-peak hours. If the addition of the projects traffic is expected to
degrade desirable service levels (LOS D or better) to more congested service levels (LOS E or F) at an
intersection, then the project is considered to have a significant direct impact. Alternatively, if the LOS
of any intersection without the project is already LOS E or F and the project adds traffic to this location,
causing the delay to increase by more than two seconds, then this is characterized as a significant impact.
The City's LOS standards and significant impact criteria are considered acceptable within the San Diego
Region and consistent with the information presented in the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact
Studies (TIS) in the San Diego Region.
Based on the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) in the SAN Diego Region, LOS
D or better is used in this study as the threshold for acceptable freeway operations. A significant impact
is defined to when the project causes: -
1. A segment operating at LOS D or better (under baseline conditions without the proposed project)
to degrade to LOS E or F, or
2. An increase in per lane V/C ratio is greater than 0.2 (2%) for segments already operating at LOS
EorF
The roadway and intersection traffic volumes were analyzed based on City of Carlsbad SANTEC/ITE
criteria. Table 2 presents the results of the roadway analysis and Table 3 present the intersection analysis.
Review of Table 2 shows each roadway operates at LOS A.
Roadway Segment
Palomar Airport Road from
College Boulevard/ A viara
Parkway Palomar Oaks Road
Palomar Airport Road East of 5400
Palomar Oaks Road 5400
VEH= Peak hour Vehicles; LOS= Level of Service
The analysis of the existing AM/PM peak hour intersection volumes presented on Figure 4 was analyzed
using Synchro Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) software. The results of the analysis are presented in
Table 3. Review of Table 3 shows the Palomar Airp01i Road/College Boulevard-Aviara Parkway
intersection to operate at LOS D in the AM and the PM peak periods. The Palomar Airpmi Road at
Palomar Oaks Way intersection operates at LOS B in the AM and PM peak periods. The HCM
Worksheets are presented in Appendix B.
Koong Cho
Royal Hospitality Carlsbad, LLC
February 18, 2016
Page 8
Table 3-Sum
Intersection
Palomar Airport Road at
College Blvd./Aviara
Parkway
AM Peak
Delay
Sec/veh
39.1
14.8
D
B
'tions Intersection Levels of Service
Delay
Sec/veh
37.3
15.2
PM Peak
LOS= Level of Service, V/C =Delay is measured in seconds/vehicle; VEH =Peak hour Vehicles,
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Roadway Segment Analysis
LOS
D
B
To determine the project roadway impacts, project traffic volumes presented on Figure 3 were added to
the existing traffic volumes presented on Figure 4. The results are presented on Figure 6. The Figure 6
traffic volumes were analyzed and Table 4 presents the results of the analysis of the roadway segments.
Review of Table 4 shows each roadway segment operates at LOS A. Therefore the project does not
create any impact that requires mitigation.
Existing Plus Project Impact Analysis
The next step in the analysis of the Palomar Airport Road intersections for the Existing Plus Project
Conditions presented on Figure 6. Each intersection was analyzed using the Synchro HCM Software.
Table 5 presents the results of the analysis and the projects impacts.
Review of Table 5 shows each intersection to operate at LOS D or better. Further review of Table 5
shows the addition of project traffic to the existing traffic volumes does not create any significant impact.
WRIGHT PLACE
~
PROJECT
SITE
-1194/1998 --1052/2012 --1223/1565
2257 /172D---I PALOMAR v£ 1882/1507--
~
0::::
<(
1614/1602 -
I
I
I
\
\
\
~ v
~
0
.....J
<(
(L
( 283/59 _j 1 t 1
\
1582/1492-----r--(!) '<:!-~ --..._ 58/81 ~ -;;;-"-
/
O>r;; ~ l s r--
r---.::t(!) L \ ~~!:2.. 70/93 \ "' 1 ~~r;:; -816/1694 ~
~
~
_J L F115(!223
I 566/141 _) I j I 1
1563/1324---0 or--j
-----
LEGEND
~-PROJECT SITE
XX/YY -AM/PM TURN VOLUMES
e Z,ZZZ -AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
--DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
Darnell & AssociATEs, INco
150801-AC 11/3/2015 JAM
128/2551 ~ ~~ l -......_o~ (!) r--co
N-.::f-N I
~ / -----
FIGURE 6
EXISTING PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
9
\
J
I
'i:l ~
0
Roadway
Segment
Palomar Airport
Road from
College
Boulevard/ A viara
Parkway Palomar
Oaks Road
Palomar Airport
Road East of
Palomar Oaks
Road
Palomar Oaks
Road Nmih of
Palomar Airport
Road
Table 4 -Summary of Existing Plus Project Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service
Capacity II Direction
Sign.
No
5400 Eastbound 0.35 A No
5400 Westbound 0.23 A No
5400 Eastbound No
1800 Northbound II 399 II 0.22 A 37 No
1800 Southbound 75 0.04 A 313
LOS= Level of Service, V/C =Delay is measured in seconds/vehicle; VEH =Peak hour Vehicles, Sign. = Significance, NB = Nmihbound Approach; SB = Southbound
Approach; EB =Eastbound Appro~ch; WB.:==_Westboun_tlb.pproach; NB =Northbound Approach; SB = Southbo_!!nd ~pproach,
Table 5-Summary ofExistin Plus Proj_ect Intersection Levels of Service
Existing
Existing Conditions Plus
Conditions Pro·ect
Traffic Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS ~in
Intersection Control Hour (a) (b) (a) (b) Delay Sig? (c)
College Blvd/Aviara Pkwy@ Signal AM 39.1 D 39.3 D 0.2 No
Palomar Airport Rd PM 37.1 D 37.3 D 0.2 No
Palomar Oaks Way@ Signal AM 14.8 B 16.7 B 1.9 No
Palomar Airport Rd PM 15.2 B 17.6 B 2.4 No
(a) Delays are reported as the average control delay for the entire intersection at signalized intersections and the worst movement at unsignalized
intersections, (b) LOS calculations are based on the methodology outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and performed using
Synchro 8, (c) Project impact is considered to be significant if the increase in delay is greater than 2.0 seconds at intersections operating at LOSE
or LOS F. ---·· -
Koong Cho
Royal Hospitality Carlsbad, LLC
February 18,2016
Page 11
FUTURE YEAR 2035 CONDITIONS
Future 2035 Traffic volumes were assembled from the Aqua Hediona South Shore Specific Plan Traffic
Study. The 2035 daily and peak hourly traffic volumes for Palomar Airport Road and the Palomar
Airport Road/College Boulevard/Avira Parkway intersection is presented on Figure 7. The Future 2035
Traffic Volumes for Palomar Airport Road and Palomar Oaks Way intersection were estimated. Figure 7
presents the Future 2035 Traffic Volumes. The proposed project traffic volumes were then added to the
2035 traffic volumes presented on Figure 7. Figure 8 presents the 2035 Plus Project Traffic Volumes.
Year 2035 Roadway Segment Analysis
The roadway segments and daily traffic volumes on Figures 7 and 8 were analyzed based on the existing
transportation conditions presented on Figure 5.
Table 6 presents the analysis of Year 2035 Future Conditions without the project and with the project.
Review of Table 6 shows each roadway segment will operate at LOS A or better and will continue to
operate at LOS A with the addition of project traffic. Further review of Table 6 shows the project does
not create a significant impact that requires mitigation.
Year 2035 Intersection Analysis
The peak hour traffic volumes presented on Figures7 and 8 were analyzed based on the intersection
geometries presented on Figure 5 using Synchro Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Software. The
results are presented on Table 7. Review of Table 7 shows the Palomar Airport Road/College Boulevard-
A vira Parkway intersection will operate at LOS F without and with the project. Further review of Table 7
shows the projects impact of additional dday in the AM peak hour is 0.4 seconds per vehicle and 0.2
seconds per vehicle in the PM peak hour. Further review of Table 7 shows Palomar Airport Road
intersection at Palomar Oaks Way will operate at LOS Bin the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak
hour without and with the project. These increases are less than the 2.0 seconds per vehicle identified in
the City of Carlsbad and SANTEC/ITE Guidelines. Therefore the project will not create a significant
impact on Future 2035 Conditions.
Palomar Airport Road between I-5 and Palomar Oaks Way was determined to be exempt from LOS "D"
Standard as part of the approval of the General Plan. As mitigation for the exempt roadway section, the
General Plan EIR calls for Travel Demand Management and Traffic System management Programs to
mitigate forecasted traffic congestion. To be consistent with this finding the project will participate and
financially contribute towards the Travel Demand Management and the Traffic System management
Programs.
-1602/3108 -1306/2432
(/')
~
<(
0
ol WRIGHT PLACE
~
PROJECT
SITE
-1357/2317
3000/2419-
/
PALOMAR v£ 2182/1912--0:::
<(
::::?;
0 _j
1809/1943-
~ AIRPORT ROAD
I
I
I
\
~ ~ v <(
o_
\
\ /~ ""
I S.:z~ L136/27 \ g;N:: I L~ -1204/2286
__; ,17/4 \:
( 283/60 _j 1 t 1
\
1791/1844--r---I.!)'<!-J ~ --...... 58/8, ~ ~~
\
\
/ ~~0 L "" \ ~ I
I ci-~.Z 120/160 \
Jo ~ ~ -1 0~1J,:2017 L F18J525o ~
~ { 960/320 _j 1 t 1
1882/1712---~ 0 0
\
J
I
LEGEND
~ -PROJECT SITE
XX/YY -AM/PM TURN VOLUMES
e Z,ZZZ -AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
--DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
I
Dar11ell & AssociATEs, me.!
150801,~.~~ •• 1~/3/2015 JAM I
158/3871 ~ ~ ~ l '-...'-..,0 0 0 I.!)
t<"l ~N
FIGURE 7
2035 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
12
WRIGHT PLACE
~
PROJECT
SITE
-1625/2596 ---1338/2456
3011/2444------~ 1823/1954--
~
~ //( ~~
\! ~~ L143/45 \ ~I"")~ --1204/2286
_j L t17/4 \.
{ 298/96 _j 1 t 1 ·
\
1792/1844 --r---co "<;)-/ ~ ~ 58/8l ~ ::;:;-"-T o r---
/gS ~ ~ ~~z L123/162 \ \ I / Jo ~Lei -10~3i2034 ~ / L F1JiJ5255 ---
! 960/320 _j I I I \
1892/1737---~ 0 /
LEGEND
~-PROJECT SITE
XX/YY -AM/PM TURN VOLUMES
5 Z,ZZZ -AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
___,._-DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
D!arnell & AssocxArEs, INc.
150801-AC 11/3/2015 JAM
158/387l ~ ~ ~ ' ......__...._,_,_~ ~ 0 "'
01.()1'0 I 1'0r---~
~ / ---
FIGURE 8
2035 PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
13
-.j:;o.
Table 6 -Summary of Year 2035 Future Roadway Peak Hour Levels of Service
Year 2035 Conditions
§ t apact tree 1on r:::-J~~r::::J~r-:-= Roadw~y l::J"ty D" t" I AM Peak II PM Peak
egmen ~~~~~~
~~l~::r~~irport II 5400 ~Westbound ~~~~12432 r~:~~
College
Boulevard/ A viara
IL__JL II
Sign.
=
No II II II II II
Parkway Palomar II 5400 II Eastbound II 2182 II 0.40 II A II 1912 II 0.35 II A Q o.oo II No II 1948 II 0.36 II A li O.Ol II No
Oaks Road I :
Palomar Airport II 5400 II Westbound II 1357 II 0.25 II A II 2317 II 0.43 II A l~lo;l~o II 2335 II 0.43 II A II o.oo II No
Road East of
Palomar Oaks
Road II 5400 II Eastbound II 1809 II 0.34 II A II 1943 II 0.36 II A
~~~~~~~~f II 1800 II Northbound II 418 II 0.23 II A II 55 II 0.03 II A
~~~~nar Airpott II 1800 II Southbound II 76 II 0.04 II A II 302 II 0.17 II A II 123 II O.D7 No
OS= Level of Service, V/C =Delay is measured in seconds/vehicle; VEH =Peak hour Vehicles, Sign.= Significance, NB =Northbound Approach; SB =Southbound
roach; EB = Eastbound Approach; WB = Westbound Approach; NB =Northbound Approach; SB = Southbound Approach,
Table 7 -Summa
Intersection
Airport Road at College Blvd./ Aviara Parkway
d
Delay
Sec/Veh(a)
85.5 = 13.7 B 26.1
vel of Service, V/C =Delay is measured in seconds/vehicle; VEH =Peak hour Vehicles, Sign. = Significance, (a) Delays are reported as the average control dela·
at signalized intersections and the worst movement at unsignalized intersections, (b) LOS calculations are based on the methodology outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity
ed using Svnchro 8, (c) Project impact is considered to be significant if the increase in delay is greater than 2.0 seconds at intersections operating at LOSE or LOS F.
KoongCho
Royal Hospitality Carlsbad, LLC
February 18,2016
Page 15
Fmiher review of Table 7 shows that the Palomar Airp01t Road intersection at Palomar Oaks Way will operate
at LOS B in the AM and LOS C in the Pm peak hours without and with the project.
Summary
• The 142 Room Home2 Suites by Hilton is estimated to generate 994 daily vehicle tlips, 80 AM peak
hour trips and 90 PM peak hour vehicle ttips.
• The analysis of Existing and Existing Plus Project roadway conditions found the roadways to operate
at LOS A in the AM and PM peak hours with and without the proposed project.
• The analysis of Existing and Existing Plus Project intersection conditions found the intersection to
operate at LOS D or better in the AM and PM peak hours with and without the proposed project.
• The analysis of Future Year 2035 and Futw-e Year 2035 Plus Project roadway conditions found each
roadway segment to operate at LOS A in the AM and PM peak hours with and without the proposed
project.
• The analysis ofFuture Year 2035 and Future Year 2035 Plus Project intersection conditions found:
a) Palomar Airport Road at Palomar Oaks Way to operate at LOS Bin the AM peak period and
LOS C in the PM peak peliod without and with the project.
b) Palomar Airpmt Road/College Boulevard-Avira Parkway intersection will operate at LOS F
without and with the project. The addition of project traffic to the intersection results in
additional delay of 0.4 seconds per vehicle in the AM peak hour and additional delay of 0.2
seconds per vehicle in the PM peak hour. These increases are less than the 2.0 seconds
allowed by the City of Carlsbad thresholds.
• Based on the City of Carlsbad thresholds, the development of the proposed project does not create a
significant impact that would require mitigation.
• To be consistent with the General Plan EIR, the project will pa1ticipate and fmancially contribute
towards the Travel Demand Management and the Traffic System management Programs.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional infonnation.
Sincerely,
DARNELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
~g
Bill E. Damell, P .E.
RCE: 22338
2118/2016
Date
ATTACHMENT A
• Traffic Counts
• HCM Worksheets:
~ Existing Conditions
~ Existing Plus Project Conditions
~ Year 2035 Future Conditions
~ Year 2035 Future Plus Project Conditions
NOTES:
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS
PREPARED BY: PACIFIC TECHNICAL DATA
LOCATION:
NORIHt& SOUTH:
EAST & WES\Ti:
CARLSBAD
PALOMAR OAKS
PALOMAR AIRPORi
PROJECT#:
LOCATION #:·
CONTROL:
POT15·0814·04
1
SIGNAL
s
T
LANES: ~L 'f ~R WL T' ~R TOTAL
U·TURNS
NB SB EB WB TIL X X X X
l;)!;:JO_AJVI _ 0 . 0 '-'~!J----J--i<-()---t----;0<------I--T--6 7 + _ __,1~8 1!17 8 ~12 9 441 1_ ~-J-.-__ 1_g__
1 __ __,6~~5i~AM __ ~_-7-24-~·o __ 1~-~o-~---;3~+-~o~--~6'~-~3B_+~z~7:'7~1~t~s~-~~~~~~-~~~--~~i2~9~ 1 1 7:10P.M 1 0 :;_ 0 5 31 234 13 ~3' i41 0
7: !AM 5 jl_ 0_ 10 S6 ~02 2 JQ_ '5; §67 1 1
7:~ i AM 2 0 0 16 l 54 386 0 17! '7f 1 1
7:' :AM 2 1 d 1 20 75 t01 9 ~ !8( 85~ 0
8:{ i AM 3 1 l' 1 13 58 412 5 240 3' 78' 0
I~ 8:: ; AM j u 0 L3 8l ;!!3 2 ;a: 3' 80~ 1 1
l~e~m~~lj_% 5~~ 6~ 3~~ l~A> 2~o .. a'?o/; 1~~ ~~: ~~-i~ 29~;,: ~% ~.'t~b u ~ 4
lT 32 I 591 109 I 150 3, 102 I 2,612 2,253 I 2,143 o
lJ
4 ts M_ 0
10 M
)0 1 2
l 0
J
J
4~
I
S] 4:4;PM
IAPI~ROACH % 75% 7%
3!19
14 85
18% 27%
2
3%
0.815
0
0
2
0
0
2.
62
83%
'7
i'l
i2
224
72%
268 1,582
14% 0~~;:
08
7
17
9 9 •
58
3%
ou
8
1%
. 17
1o/o
16
1,070
o~:~
4 1,5.'33
129
11%
1"12
6
9
1%
._ ~CTOR /b 0.760
4
1%
Q.73S
lb
Oo/o · 99%
0.869
L,!>'lb
:.: <
--
--
:t c. --
I PALOMAR OAKS I
-------:-J-NORTH SIDE--+ 1-:------· t i
PALOMAR AIRPORT WEST SIDE I:AST SIDE PALOMAit AIRPORT
6:30AM
6:45AM
7:00AM
7:15AM --7:30AM
7:45AM
8:00AM
8:15AM
TOTAL
4:00PM
4:15PM ---4:30PM ··-4:45PM
5:00PM --5:15PM
5:30PM
5:45PM
TOTAL
! ! -------.,-soUTH sroe-~----~-
PALOMA!t OAKS
P DESTRl AN ACTIVATit S
N SIDE S SIDE E SIDE W SIDE TOTAL
0
1----+---~--~---1---~ ==J-----+,~_-_:__--1+~----~--------1---.';g--1-
0 o I o ' o o o
3,218
n6
)5
19
!8
HO
717
b,<J<I!:I
3,458
0.919
0
1
1 1
0
1
0
1 1 2
1 l 2 u 4 ;:!_
BICYCL~CROSSINGS
NS SS ES WS TOTAL
0
0
0 ___ I__ o
0
0
0
0
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2015
PALOMAR OAKS NORTH OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
M~~~ $ ~ ~
00:00
00:15
00:30
00:45
01:00
01:15
01:30
01:45
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0 0
6
1
02:00
02:15
02:30
02:45 1 2 0 1
2 0
2 2
3 1
03:00
03:15
03:30
03:45 9 16 2 5
4 0
3 0
10 1
04:00
04:15
04:30
04:45 12 29 5 6
16 2
8 0
15 2
05:00
05:15
05:30
05:45 31 70 5 9
19 4
24 7
27 6
06:00
06:15
06:30
06:45 47 117 10 27
07:00 41
07:15 76
07:30 70.
8
12
23
07:45 112 299 22 65
oa:oo 96 13
08:15 118 18
08:30 77 21
08:45 . 81 372 19 71
09:00 74 20
09:15 53 23
09:30 36 27
09:45 53 216 29 99
10:00 46 38
10:15 36 31
10:30 41 23
10:45 36 159 33 125
11:00 34 38
11:15 28 44
11:30 41 62
11:45 38 141 67 211
Total Vol.
Split%
Peak Hour
Volume
P.H.F.
1423
69.4%
07:45
403
0.85
626
30.6%
11:30
242
0.89
AM
CITY: SAN DIEGO
PM Period NB SB
7
2
3
21
35
79
144
364
443
315
284
352
2049 ~'
48.8%
07:45
477
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
21:30
21:45
2.2:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
o.ss A""2
43
36
63
68
45
44
47 189 41 198
43 52
45 40
35 47
37 160 42 181
29
29
37
53
17 60
12 87 32 182
16 41
20 31
12 49
7 55 43 164
9 83
24 85
15 61
11 59 66 295
10 lOS
6 70
7 61
8 31 55 291
9 40
4 33
3 27
3 19 9 109
5
0
3
3
3
1
1
2
1
0
1
3
0
2
1
3
0
2
0
1
11
7
5
6
3
632
NB
2055
29.5%
12:30
198
0.78
12
7
11
5
5
8
1
3
4
5
2
1
4
3
35
17
12
10 18
1
5
4
2 12
1514
SB
2140
70.5%
16:15
317
0.75
PACIFIC TECHNICAL DATA
PROJECT: PTD15-0814·04
EB WB
Daily Totals
EB WB
PM
387
341
269
219
354
322
128
46
24
17
24
15
2146
Combined
4195
51.2%
12:00
387
0.87
Wednesday, September 9, 2015 CnY: SAN DIEGO
PALOMAR AIRPORT EAST OF PALOMAR OAKS
AM Period NB SB EB WB PM Period NB
00:15
00:30
00:45
01:00
01:15
01:30
01:45
02:00
02:15
02:30
02:45
03:00
03:15
03:30
03:45
04:00
04:15
04:30
04:45
05:00
05:15
05:30
05:45
06:00
06:15
06:30
06:45
07:00
07:15
07:30
07:45
08:00
08:15
08:30
08:45
09:00
09:15
09:30
09:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
1Q:45
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
Total Vol.
Split Ofo
Peak Hour
Volume
P.H.F.
38
19
16
14
15 91 17 62
13 7
19 13
8 6
16 56 4 30
11
9
8
10
6
5
11 39. 8 29
11 6
5 4
19 21
12 47 30 61
18
19
25
16
17
28
153
86
68
108
45 107 44 105 212
51 47
66 74
99 92
151 367 115 328 695
116 129
143 144
184 221
273 716 284 778 1494
220 241
291
372
284
285
401 1284 322 1132 2416
415 287
368 310
342 264
381 1506 240 1101 2607
288
270
268
288
271 259
27$ . 1104 344 1159 2263
248 273
232 279
265 311
291 1036 317 1180 2216
245
285
308
331
265 334
267. 1062 354 1327 2389
7415
AM
50.4%
7292 :1.4707 '"
49.6% 39.4%
01:30
2760
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:'15
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
07:30
1556
0.94
11:30
1400
0.98 ::~IF~E~NICAL DATA
SB
NB SB
PROJECT: PTD15·0814·04 .
EB WB
302 356
320
355
356
280
309 1286 293 1285
341 319
307 327
292 253
363 1303 286 1185
293
318
318
313
274
344
298 1227 285 1216
329 322
306 305
346 323
355 1336 300 1250
351
333
418
333
318
284
451 1553 362 1297
380 418
366 338
388 419
374 1508 288 1463
338 320
300 266
273 266
255 1166 251 1103
247 218
206
224
179
166
223 900 126 689
233 136
214 121
176 126
180 803 92 475
137
117
107
74
103 78
81 438 69 328
81 83
64 62
74 57
76 295 43 245
57
47
33
32
42 29
29 175 29 123
11990 10659
Daily Totals
EB WB
19405 17951
PM
2571
2488
2443
2586
2850
2971
2269
1589
1278
766
540
298
22649
Combined
37356
52.9% 47.1P/o 60.6%
16:30
1615
0.90
16:45
1537
0.92
16:45
3:1.22
0.96
Wednesday September 9, 2015 CITY: SAN DIEGO
PALOMAR AIRPORT WEST OF PALOMAR OAKS
AM Period NB
00:00
00:15
00:30
00:45
01:00
01:15
01:30
01:45
02:00
02:15
02:30
02:45
03:00
03:15
03:30
03:45
04:00
04:15
04:30
04:45
05:00
05:15
05:30
05:45
06:00
06:15
06:30
06:45
07:00
07:15
07:30
07:45
08:00
08:15
08:30
08:45
09:00
09:15
09:30
09:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
TotaiVol.
Split%
Peak Hour
Volume
P.H.F.
SB EB
22
37
20
WB
15
14
17
14 93 18 64
14
19
8
13
9 7
17 59 4 32
12 9
10 6
8 5
12 42 9 29
15 6
7 4
27 20
22 71 28 58
22 16
27 18
,33 26
157
91
71
129
66 148 48 108 256
71 48
78 72
119 86
192 460 122 328 788
151 125
173 144
210 218
330 864 265 752 1616
262 230
371 268
431 278
487 1551 293 1069
462 265
453 267
406 256
444 1765 233 1021
339 253
306 281
319 269
302 1266 347 1150
294 307
243 290
297 324
309 1143 337 1258
272
305
328
361
271 348
2786
2416
2401
302 1150 409 1446 2596
8612
AM
54.1%
7315 15927 .-
45.9% 39.90/o
07:30
2936
PM Period NB
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
2:!:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
07:30
1833
0.94
11:30
1524
0.93 0.94 fl. li PACIF~i1JNICAL DATA
SB
NB SB
PROJECT: PTD15·0814-04
EB WB
292
342
400
377
390
293
345 1379 328 1388
384
335
335
343
310 281
383 1412 298 1257
323 352
327 288
312 375
303 1265 312 1327
344 358
325 324
345 363
352 1366 335 1380
344 415
318 388
410 328
429 1501 428 1559
366 519
351 388
384 449
362 1463 329 1685
335 352
302 291
284 269
250 1171 255 1167
253 221
243 195
220 177
231 947 129 722
245 135
224 127
185 126
186 840 97 485
148 106
115 89
108 77
83 454 67 339
89 84
65 61
80 62
83 317 54 261
61
47
36
36
44 30
30 182 34 136
12297 11706
Daily Totals
EB WB
20909
PM
19021
2767
2669
2592
2746
3060
3148
2338
1669
1325
793
578
318
24003
Combined
39930
51.2% 48.8% 60.1%
16:30
1556
0.91
16:45
1784
0.86
16:45
3314
0.94
Homes2 Suites
1: Aviara Pkwy/Colle~e Blvd & Palomar Aireort Rd
~ -+ "'\ lj; .,.. ......
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 566 1553 128 i 158 794
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
'r otal LgsttirM (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Uti!. Factor '0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91
Prt 1.00 1.00 0:8!> 1.0@ tOO
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.flow merm) • 'll '~:· ;, . 3433 5085· . 1583 .. 3433 5085 .··;:-.,::
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Flow ~vphl :::i:r 615 1€i88 139 1 172 863
RTOR Reduction (vph} 0 0 51 0 0 0
L$ne eroue f'low~~h!/ 615 .· 16.88.' . 88 . 0 1.73 863
Tum Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA
Protfi!¢1~d Ph~ses 5 2 1 1 6
Permitted Phases 2 Actllat~.d §~en, G (s)·.,;).\; 33.1 64.1 64.1 6} 37.7
Effective Green, g (s) 33.1 64.1 64.1 6.7 37.7
Actuetedg/G Ratio· .. 0:28 0.53 0:53 0.06 0.31
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Velllcle Extension {s~ ;y. · 3;0 .· 3.0 3,() 3.0 ·3.0.
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 946 2716 845 191 1597
v/s Ratio Prot ;•\: 0.18 c0;33 c0;05 0.17
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06
v/cRatlo 0.65 0.10 0.91 0.54
Uniform Delay, d1 38.3 13.8 56.3 34.0
Progression Factor ·'•' 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.62
Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.2 37.2 1.2
Delay(§) ··:r:. 40.0 14.0 79.9 22.3
Level of Service D B E c
Approach Del~ (s) ·,:.!l:i 32.1
Approach LOS c
HCM 2000 Control Delay
HCM 2000 Volume to ~pacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group.
EXAM.syn
-\.. " t
67 . ~'16 '470
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.~ 4;5
1.00 0.97 0.95
0.85 1.Qf;' f.()()
1.00 0.95 1.00
'1583 3433 3539
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 3433 . ····35.3.9 .
0.92 0.92 0.92
73 235 .. 511
50 0 0
. 23 :235 .· .· Mt
Perm Prot NA
. '3 . 8
6
37;7 s.s. 27;~
37.7 6.5 27.2
0.31 0;05 0.23
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3;0 3.0
497 185 802
c0.07 c0.14
0.01
0.05 1.27 0.64
28.6 56.8 41.9
1.20 1.00 1.00
0.2 157.0 1;7
34.5 213.8 43.6 c F D
81.1
F
18.0 c
Existing
Timing Plan: AM Peak
;+-\. J,
278 .3~ 109
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 1.00 1.00
(),85 1.00 1.QO
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 1770 18.63
1.00 0.95 1.00
. 1$3·· m·o. ·1863
0.92 0.92 0.92
SOG 39 118
129 0 0
113 39 .. J18
Perm Prot NA
7 4
8
27.2 4.e 24.7
27.2 4.0 24.7
0.23' o.oa 0.21
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
358 59 383
0.02 0.06
0.11
0.48 0.66 0.31
40.3 57.3 40.4
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.0 24.4 0.5
41.3 81.7 40.9
D F D
33.3 c
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Homes2 Suites
1: Aviara Pkwy/College Blvd & Palomar Airport Rd
Configurations
Volume (vph) ·
Ideal Flow {vphpl)
Total Lost tim!l (~)
Lane Uti!. Factor
Frt
Fit Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Fit Permitted
SC1td. Flow (perm) · •:'if
Peak-hour factor, PHF
Adi. Flew (¥ph) .
RTOR Reduction (vph}
. Lane Gto\!1? Fli;~w (yPfi~;::
TumTxpe
Prot.ettijd':Ptt~ses :·:.·~~~
Permitted Phases
Aetu~~~~ Greeh; e (s)g!i
Effective Green, g (s)
Aqtuatedg/C Ratio ·
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s) ...
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s}
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s) · '·
Approach LOS
162
1900
4.5
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.92
176
49
127
pm+ov .. 5
4
57.8
57.8
OA8
4.5
3.0
821
0.04
0.04
0.15
17.4
1.00
0.1
17.5
8
Existing
Timing Plan: AM Peak
--:
EXAM.syn Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Homes2 Suites
1: Aviara Pkw~Colle~e Blvd & Palomar Aiq~ort Rd
~
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph} 141
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.97
Frt 1.00
Fit Protected 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot} 3433
Fit Permitted 0.95
Satd. Flow (~erm) 3433
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 153
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Groue Flow {vehl 153
Tum Type Prot
Protected Phases 5
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 8.8
Effective Green, g (s) 8.8
Actuated gfC Ratio 0.07
Clearance Time (s) 4.5
Vehicle Extension (sl 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 251
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04
vfs Ratio Perm
vfcRatio 0.61
Uniform Delay, d1 53.9
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 4.2
Delay(s) 58.1
Level of Service E
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
HCM 2000 Control Delay
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
EXPM.syn
11/2/2015
-If. 't
1299 255
1900 1900
4.5 4.5
0.91 1.00
1.00 0.85
1.00 1.00
5085 1583
1.00 1.00
5085 1583
0.92 0.92
1412 277
0 152
1412 125
NA Perm
2
2
45.9 45.9
45.9 45.9
0.38 0.38
4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0
1945 605
c0.28
0.08
0.73 0.21
31.7 24.8
1.00 1.00
2.4 0.8
34.1 25.6 c c
34.8 c
37.1
0.86
120.0
79.8%
15
; ljj; -(" ._. '
2 218 1677 91
1900 1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
0.97 0.91 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
3433 5085 1583
0.95 1.00 1.00
3433 5085 1583
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
2 \ 237 1823 99
0 0 0 57
0 239 1823 42
Prot Prot NA Perm
' 1 1 6
6
10.8 47.9 47.9
10.8 47.9 47.9
0.09 0.40 0.40
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
308 2029 631
0.07 c0.36
0.03
0.78 0.90 0.07
53.4 33.8 22.3
0.87 0.79 0.85
10.5 6.2 0.2
56.9 32.9 19.1
E c 8
35.0 c
HCM 2000 Level of Service
Sum ot lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
'\ t
150 140
1900 1900
4.5 4.5
0.97 0.95
1.00 1.00
0.95 1.00
3433 3539
0.95 1.00
3433 3539
0.92 0.92
163 152
0 0
163 152
Prot NA
3 8
6.7 41.3
6.7 41.3
0.06 0.34
4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0
191 1218
c0.05 c0.04
0.85 0.12
56.2 27.0
1.00 1.00
29.0 0.0
85.1 27.0
F c
47.3
D
D
18.0
D
Existing
Timing Plan: PM Peak
,... \. ~
139 33 457
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.85 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 1770 1863
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 1770 1863
0.92 0.92 0.92
151 36 497
99 0 0
52 36 497
Perm Prot NA
7 4
8
41.3 4.0 38.6
41.3 4.0 38.6
0.34 0.03 0.32
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
544 59 599
0.02 c0.27
0.03
0.10 0.61 0.83
26.7 57.2 37.7
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.1 17.2 9.3
26.8 74.5 47.0 c E D
42.8
D
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
(,
Homes2 Suites
1: Aviara Pkwy/College Blvd & Palomar Airport Rd
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Fit Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Fit Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF
Adj. Flow (vph)
RTOR Reduction (vph)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Tum Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
vis Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s}
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EXPM.syn
11/2/2015
154
1900
4.5
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.92
167
57
110
pm+ov
5
4
47.4
47.4
0.39
4.5
3.0
684
0.01
0.06
0.16
23.4
1.00
0.1
23.6 c
Existing
Timing Plan: PM Peak
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Homes2 Suites
2: Palomar Oaks W~ & Palomar Aireort Rd
.)' _,. "').
""'
<li-......
Lane Configurations
Volume (\tph) 268 1582 58 17 1'070 129
Ideal Row (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Losttime (s) 415 4.5 4.:; 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0;98
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5058 1770 5003
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
.Satd.FioW(eerm). -._ ~ ~ i '~ 1770 5058 1770 5003
Peak-hour factor, PHF · 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. Plow ~vph)-'it'; 291 1720 63 18 1163 140 \'!j,
RTOR Reduction (vph) · 0 2 0 0 8 0
Lane eroum Flaw{Vehf" 291-. 1781 0 18 1295 0
Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA
Pl't!lteG\ed fiihases 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Actuateg Green; G(s)i;.,t 26;2 . 84.6 3; 1 61.9
EffectiveGreen, g (s) 26.2 84.6 3.1 61.5
Actuate~ g/0 Ratio 0.22 0.70 0.03 0.51
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Sx~nsion {s} I;' I 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 386 3565 45 2564
v/s RatioPr0t ·.:1 c0.16 0.35 0.01 c0.26 'h
v/s Ratio Perm
v/cRatio (', 0.75 0.50 0.40 . 0.50
Uniform Delay, d1 43.9 8.1 57.5 19.2
Progression ractor i,·: 0.67 0.27 1.00 1.00 ' Incremental Delay, d2 6.8 0.4 5.7 0.7
Deltly(s) ... 36.1 2.6 63.3 20.0
Level of Service D A E 8
Approach Delay (s) 7.3 20.5
Approach LOS A c
HCM 2000 Control Delay
HCM 2000 Volume to,Qapacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s} Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection Capacity UUiization ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group'
EXAM.syn
'\ t I"
t.-
1.6 2 7
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5
1.00 1.00 1;oo @.88
0.95 1.00
1770 1639
0.95 1.00
17"10 1639
0.92 0.92 0.92
11 2 a
0 7 0
11 3 0
Prot NA
3 8
0.8 12.7
0.8 12.7
0.01 0.11
4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0
11 173
0.01 0.00
1.00 0.02
59.6 48.1
1.00 1.00
271.4 0.0
331.0 48.1
F D
196.3
F
18.0
B
Existing
Timing Plan: AM Peak
\. ~ -cl
11 2 95
1900 1900 1900
4;5 4.5 4.5
1.00 1.00 1.00 -. 1.00 i.OO 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
1770 1863 1583
0.95 1.00 1.00 nzo. 18'6.3 -1583
0.92 0.92 0.92
12 2 103
0 0 91
1.2 2 12
Prot NA Perm
7 4
4
_1._6 13;5 13.5
1.6 13.5 13.5
Mt 0.11 o. 11
4.5 4.5 4.5
3;0 3.0 3.0
23 209 178
C0i01 o.oo
c0.01
0.52 0.01 0.07
58.8 47.3 47.6
1.00 I 1.00 1.00
19.7 0.0 0.2
78.5 47.3 47.8
E D D
50.9
D
Synchro 8 Report
Page 3
Homes2 Suites
2: Palomar Oaks W~ & Palomar Aireort Rd
,;. -+ "). (" +-'
Lane Configurations
Volume (\!ph) 23 1492 8 4 1533 9
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lest time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
satcLFiow (prot) 1770 5081 1770 5081
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd: FloW ~~Br'ml 1770 508.1 1770 5081
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Adj. FII)W {ypb) 25 1622 9 4 1666 10
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lan~ G!i>ue Elow.Neol .·· 25 1631 0 4 1676 0
Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA
protepfe~'@h~~es 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Actllated ~~a~. G (s) 4.5 73.4 1.3 70.2
Effective Green, g (s) 4.5 73.4 1.3 70.2
Aot~ateWglQ R~tio · 0.04 0.61 0.01 o.59
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension {~>l· . M 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane GrpCap (vph} 66 3107 19 2972
v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.32 0.00 c0.33
v/s Ratio Perm
v/oRatlo 0.38 0.52 0.21 0.56
Uniform Delay, d1 56.4 13.3 58.8 15.4
Progression Factor 0.52 0.22 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 0.5 5.5 0.8
Delay (s) 32.0 3.5 64.3 16.2
Level of Service c A E 8
Approach IDelay (s} 3.9 16.3
Approach LOS A B
HCM 2000 Control
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s) Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.8% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
EXPM.syn
"' t I"
57 5 14
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.89
0.95 1.00
1770 1653
0.95 1.00
1770. 165.3 '''
0.92 0.92 0.92
62 5. 15
0 13 0
62. 1 0
Prot NA
3 8
7.1 17.6
7.1 17.6
0.06 o.15
4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0
104 242
0.04 0.00
0.60 0.03
55.1 43.9
1.00 1.00
8.9 0.1
63.9 43.9
E D
59.0
E
18.0
B
Existing
Timing Plan: PM Peak
\. ~ .,/
85 ·;c 4 249
1900 19oo 1900
4.5 .:,:~:5 4,5
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 ·,:1i1fl~ 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
1770 i8.6~ 1583
0.95 1.00 1.00
1710 .. '1$~3 1583
0.92 0.92 0.92
92 .. :.:·4 211
0 0 126
92'. ';(:4 145
Prot NA Perm
7 ''\;/;/.4'
4
9;7 .. ~Q~ 2~.2
9.7 20.2 20.2
0.08 ,A:17 0.17
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 AM 3.0
143 313 266
o0.05 0.00
c0.09
0.64 O:Q1 0.55
53.5 41.6 45.7
1.00 1.(:10 1.00
9.5 0.0 2.3
63.0 41.6 48.0
E 0 D
5.1 .• 7
D
Synohro 8 Report
Page 3
Homes2 Suites
1: Aviara Pkwy/ColleQe Blvd & Palomar Aireort Rd
...;.
Lane Configurations
VolUMe (\iph) 566
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5
Lane Uti!. Factor '0.97
Frt 1.00
Fit Protected 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433
Fit Permitted 0.95
Satd •. Fiow.(l!ei:ml 3433
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) · 615
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane GroupJJow {veh} 615
Tum Type · Prot
Profepted Pllases 5
Permitted Phases
Actuated Greell, G (s) 33.1
Effective Green, g (s) 33.1
Actuated gfC Ratio 0.28
Clearance Ttme (s) 4.5
Vehicle Extension (sl 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 946
v/s Ratio Prot 0.18
v/s Ratio Penn
v/cRatlo 0.65
Uniform Delay, d1 38.3
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.6
Delay (s) 40.0
Level of Service D
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
2000 Control Delay
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
lntersecUon Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
EXAMWP.syn
11/2/2015
-+·
1563
1900
4.5
0.91
1.00
1.00
5085
1.00
5085
0.92
1699
' 0
1699
NA
2
64.1
64.1
0.53
4.5
3.0
2716
c0.33
0.63
19.6
1.00
1.1
20.7 c
25.1 c
"" Iii= ""'
..;-
128 1 165 816
1900 1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 0.97 0.91
0.85 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 3433 5085
1.00 0.95 1.00
158.3 3433 5085
Q.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
139 1 179 887
50 0 0 0
89 0 180 887
Perm Prot Prot NA
1 1 6
2
64.1 6.7 37.7
64.1 6.7 37.7
O.fl3 0.06 0.31
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
845 191 1597.
c0.05 0.17
0.06
0.10 0.94 0.56
13.8 56.5 34.2
1.00 0.75 0.61
0.2 45.9 1.3
14.0 88.5 22.2
B F c
33.0 c
39.3
0.70
120.0 Sum of lost time (s)
70.7% ICU Level of Service
15
... ~
70 216
1900 1900
4.5 4.5
1.00 0.97
0.85 1.00
1.00 0.95
1583 3433
1.00 0.95
1583 ·3433
0.92 0.92
76 235
52 0
24 235
Perm Prot
3
6
37.7 6.5
' 37.7 6.5
0.31 0.05
4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0
497 185
c0.07
0.02
0.05 1.27
28.7 56.8
0.96 1.00
0.2 157.0
27.8 213.8 c F
Existing With Project
t
470
1900
4.5
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539.
0.92
511
0
511
NA
8
27.2
27.2
0.23
4.5
3.0
802
c0.14
0.64
41.9
1.00
1.7
43.6
D
81.0
F
18.0 c
Timing Plan: AM Peak
I" \.. i
281 37 109
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.85 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 1770 1863
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 1770 1863
0.92 0.92 0.92
305 40 118
128 0 .0
177 40 118
Perm Prot NA
7 4
8
27.2 4.0 24.7
27.2 4.0 24.7
0.23 0.03 0.21
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
358 59 383
0.02 0.06
0.11
0.49 0.68 0.31
40.4 57.4 40.4
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.1 26.7 0.5
41.5 84.0 40.9
D F D
33.7 c
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Homes2 Suites
1: Aviara PkytY/College Blvd & Palomar Airport Rd
Volume
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Totallo13t time (s)
Lane Utll. Factor
Frt
Fit Protected
Sa!d. Flow {prot)
Fit Permitted
Satd. FIOW.(perrn)
Peak-hour factor, PHF
Adj;Fiow (vph)
RTOR Reduction {vph)
Lane Group Flow(vpbl
Tum Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
ActuQted Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay(s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
162
1900
4.5
1.00 o.as
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.92
176
49
127
pm+ov
5
4
57.8
57.8
0.48
4.5
3.0
821
0.04
0.04
0.15
17.4
1.00
0.1
17.5
B
Existing With Project
Timing Plan: AM Peak
, ____ .
EXAMWP.syn
11/212015
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Homes2 Suites
1: Aviara Pkw~/Colleae Blvd & Palomar Aireort Rd
./-
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 141
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.97
Frt 1.00
Fit Protected 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433
Fit Permitted 0.95
satd. Flow~eerm}. 3433
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92
Adj. Flow (vph) 153
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Groue Flow (vph} 153
Tum Type Prot
Protected Phases 5
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s} 8.8
Effective Green, g (s) 8.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07
Clearance Time (s) 4.5
Vehicle Extension {s) 3.0
Lane Grp Cap {vph) 251
v/s Ratio Prot 0.04
v/s Ratio Perm
v/cRatlo 0.61
Uniform Delay, d1 53.9
Progression Factor 1.00
·Incremental Delay, d2 4.2
Delay {s) 58.1
level of Service E
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
M1
HCM 2000 Control Delay
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s}
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
EXPMWP.syn
11/2/2015
-+
1324
1900
4.5
0.91
1.00
1.00
5085
1.00
5085
0.92
1439
0
1439
NA
2
47.2
47.2
0.39
4.5
3.0
2000
c0.28
0.72
30.8
1.00
2.3
33.1 c
33.9 c
" lj; .,. ·Ill-
255 2 223 1694
1900 1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 0.97 0.91
0.85 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 3433 5085
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 3433 5085
0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
277 2 242 1841
149 0 0 0
128 0 244 184.1
Perm Prot Prot NA
1 1 6
2
47.2 9.5 47.9
47.2 9.5 47.9
0.39 0.08 0.40
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3~o
622 271 2029
0.07 c0.36
0.08
0.21 0.90 0.91
24.0 54.8 34.0
1.00 0.85 0.76
0.8 27.3 6.5
24.8 74.0 32.3
c E c
36.4
D
.3
0.87
120.0 Sum of lost time (s)
80.1% ICU Level of Service
15
' ""\
93 150
1900 1900
4.5 4.5
1.00 0.97
0.85 1.00
1.00 0.95
1583 3433
1.00 0.95
1583 343.3
0.92 0.92
101 163
57 0
44 163
Perm Prot
3
6
47.9 6.7
47.9 6.7
0.40 0.06
4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0
631 191
c0.05
0.03
0.07 0.85
22.3 56.2
0.95 1.00
0.2 29.0
21.2 85.1 c F
Existing With Project
t
140
1900
4.5
0.95
1.00
1.00
3539
1.00
3539.
0.92
152
0
152
NA
8
41.3
41.3
0.34
4.5
3.0
1218
c0.04
0.12
27.0
1.00
0.0
27.0 c
46.9
D
18.0
D
Timing Plan: PM Peak
r \. ~
147 36 457
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.85 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 1770 1863
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 1770. 1863
0.92 0.92 0.92
160 39 497
105 0 0
55 39 497
Perm Prot NA
7 4
8
41.3 4.0 38.6
41.3 4.0 38.6
0.34 0.03 0.32
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
544 59 599
0.02 c0.27
0.03
0.10 0.66 0.83
26.7 57.3 37.7
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.1 24.4 9.3
26.8 81.7 47.0
c F D
42.7
D
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Homes2 Suites
1: Aviara Pkwy/College Blvd & Palomar Airport Rd
Volurne
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Fit Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Fit Permitted
Satd.Fiow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF
Adj. Flow (vph)
RTOR Reduction (vph)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Tum Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Gre!m, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s}
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance 1ime (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
vis Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/cRatlo
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
179
1900
4.5
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.92
195
57
138
pm+ov
5
4
47.4
47.4
0.39
4.5
3.0
684
0.01
0.07
0.20
23.9
1.00
0.1
24.0 c
. ··1111·g· DIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
EXPMWP.syn
11/2/2015
A·~14
Existing With Project
Timing Plan: PM Peak
Synchro 8 Report
Page2
Homes2 Suites Existing With Project
2: Palomar Oaks Wy_ & Palomar Air12ort Rd Timing Plan: AM Peak
..J--+ "\-(" ..... ' oCI\ t !"' \.. + ./
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 283 1582 58 17 1070 136 10 3 7 25 3 127
Ideal Flow (vphpl} 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane U!ll. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 0.85
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd, Flow (prot) 1770 5058 1770 4999 1770 1660 1770 1863 1583
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (eerm! 1770 5058 1770 499.9 1770 1660 1770 1863 1583
Peak•hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
A~j. Plow (vph) 308 1720 63 18 1163 148 11 3 8 27 3 138
RTOR Reduction (vph) · ' 0 2 0 0 10 0 0 7 0 0 0 121
Lanli! Groue Flow ~~h)· 308 1781 0 18 1301 0 11 4 0 27 3 17
Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 8 7 4
Permitted Phases 4
Act.ua~ed Green, G (s) 26.2 82.9 3.1 59.8 0.8 13.6 2.4 15.2 15.2
Effective Green, g (s) 26.2 82.9 3.1 59.8 0.8 13.6 2.4 15.2 15.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.69 0.03 0.50 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.13 0.13
Clearance Time (s} 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension {s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 386 3494 45 2491 11 188 35 235 200
v/s Ratio Prot c0.17 0.35 O.o1 c0.26 0.01 0.00 c0.02 0.00
v/s Ratio Perm c0.01
vic Ratio 0.80 0.51 0.40 0.52 1.00 0.02 0.77 0.01 0.09
Uniform Delay, d1 44.4 8.9 57.5 20.4 59.6 47.3 58.5 45.8 46.3
Progression Factor 0.68 0.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 9.2 0.4 5.7 0.8 271.4 0.0 67.0 0.0 0.2
Delay(s} 39.2 2.9 63.3 21.2 331.0 47.3 125.6 45.9 46.5
Level of Service D A E c F D F 0 D
Approach Delay (s) 8.3 21.8 189.1 59.2
Approach LOS A c F E
----~'-'1-·111111181111• HCM 2000 Control Delay
HOM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
EXAMWP.syn
11/2/2015
16.7
0.54
120.0
58.7%
15
HCM 2000 Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
B
18.0
B
Synchro 8 Report
Page 3
EXPMWP.syn
11/2/2015
Synchro B Report
Page 3
llfomes2 Suites
1: Aviara Pk~/Colle~e Blvd & Palomar Aireort Rd
~ ...... " lj; ("' .;!-.......
ll.iilm'e Configurations
~(vph) 960 1882 158 5 180 1001 120
~Row {vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
'If.~ l.pst time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
fl2ioo UHI. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 ~:I,·, 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
RProtected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
~~·Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583
ffl: Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
~'Row {Rerm) 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085 1583
Pmk-hourfactor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
ft;'flow (vph) 1011 1981 166 5 189 1054 126
RlfOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 ! 75 ' 0 0 0 90 ~Groue Flow {vehl 1011 1981 91 0 194 1054 36
TemType Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA Perm
~f.~ Phases 5 2 1 1 6
IP'emlitfed Phases 2 6
.te(IGreen, G (s) 24.8 53.5 53.5 5.5 34.2 34.2
Bieelive Green, g (s) 24.8 53.5 53.5. 5.5 34.2 34.2 ~ted g!O Ratio 0.21 0.45 0.45 0.05 0.29 0.29
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
W.ifde Extension (s! 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
lane Grp Cap (vph) 709 2267 705 157 1449 451
~ lliltio Prot c0.29 c0.39 c0.06 0.21
lfs Ratio Perm 0.06 0.02
~~tio 1.43 0.87 0.13 1.24 0.73 0.08
llkti!lorm Delay, d1 47.6 30.2 19.5 57.2 38.7 31.4 ~sion Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.75 1.49
immental Delay, d2 199.8 5.1 0.4 145.6 2.9 0.3
l)elay (~) 247.4 35.2 19.9 193.2 32.0 47.1
[evel of Service F D B F c D
ljuoach Delay (s) 102.4 56.2
ltflproach LOS F E
,· ":;;'"':!'\''""-
lOA 2000 Control Delay HCM 2000 Level of Service
~ 2000 Volume to Capacny ratio
~ted Cycle length (s) Sum of lost time (s)
llltefsectlon Capacity Utilization 85.8% IOU level of Service
J!WaJysls Period (min)
d ,'Critical lane Group
15
2lile6AM.syn
"\ t
301 750
1900 1900
4.5 4.5
0.97 0.95
1.00 1.00
0.95 1.00
3433 3539
0.95 1.00
3433 3539
0.95 0.95
317 789
0 0
317 789
Prot NA
3 8
7.5 36;2
7.5 36.2
0.06 0.30
4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0
214 1067
c0.09 c0.22
1.48 0.74
56.2 37.7
1.00 1.00
240.0 2.7
296.2 40.4
F D
98.2
F
18.0
E
2035 Baseline
Timing Plan: AM Peak
I" \. J,
250 50 140
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.85 too 1.00
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 1770 1863
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583. 1770 1863
0.95 0.95 0.95
263 53 147
96 0 0
167 53 147
Perm Prot NA
7 4
8
36~2 6.8 35.5
36,2 6.8 35.5
0.30 0.06 0.30
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
477 100 551
c0.03 0.08
0.11
0.35 0.53 0.27
32.7 55.0 32.3
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.4 5.3 0.3
33.2 60.4 32.6 c E c
26.4 c
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Homes2 Suites
1: Aviara Pkwy/College Blvd & Palomar Airport Rd
300
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Tofa!l.i!sttime (s) 4.5
Lane IJ!!il. Factor 1.00
Frt. 0.85
Fit Prolecled 1. 00
Sala,.J!klw (prot} 1583
At Pemlitted 1.00
Sate,. RoW (perm) 1583
Peat-boor factor, PHF 0.95
AdfflOW(\iph} 316
RTORReduction (vph) 47
Lane !Que Flow (vph) 269
Tt.m Type pm+ov
P~Pnases 5
Pemlilled Phases 4
~~n. G (s) 60.3
Etredive Green, g (s) 60.3
~g/C Ratio 0.50
Clealmce Time (s) 4.5
Vel@! Extension (s) 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 854
v/sR.imoProt 0.06
v/s Ra1ID Perm 0.10
VIC~ 0.31
Uniform Delay, d1 17.6
P~nFactor 1.00
lncremenlal Delay, d2 0.2
Delay{S} 17.9
Lew!! of Service B
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
2035 Baseline
Timing Plan: AM Peak
2il35AM.syn Synchro 8 Report
Page2
Homes2 Suites
2~ Palomar Oaks W~ & Palomar Aiq~ort Rd
.)o -II« "\· -("' ....... ...... ... ,
Lane COIJJiguml.ions
Volume (vpb} ' , . 283 1791 58 17 1204 136 10
Ideal Flow (vpilpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lostliffia(s) · 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Ubl Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00
FltProteded 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Satd. Fl01i;r (prot) . 1770 5061 1770 5008 1770
Fit Pei'ITliUed 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95
Satd. FlOW (PE!rin) 1770 5061 1770 5008 1770
Peak·hOUI'facfar, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow {vphj :: 298 1885 61 18 1267 143 11
RTOR Reduclfoo (vph) · 0 1 0 0 8 0 0
Lane GttXJPR!iW{vehl 298 1945 0 18 1402 0 11
Tum Type Prot NA Prot NA Prot
Protected Pfl&se1! . 5 2 1 6 3
Permitted Phases
Aci!Jated Green, G (s) 25.2 84.6 3.1 62.5 0.8
Effective Green, g (s) 25.2 84.6 3.1 62.5 0.8
Actuated itt tiaiio 0.21 0.70 0.03 0.52 0.01
Clearance Ttme (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle~ (sl 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane GrpCap{vph) 371 3568 45 2608 11
v/s Ratio Prot · c0.17 c0.38 0.01 c0.28 0.01
v/s Rafio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.54 0.40 0.54 1.00
Uniform Delay, d1 45.0 8.5 57.5 19.1 59.6
ProgressiOn Factor 0.48 0.22 1.00 1.00 1.00
lncremeniDl Delay, d2 7.2 0.3 5.7 0.8 271.4
Delay (s) 28.9 2.2 63.3 19.9 331.0
LevelofSelvice c A E B F
Approach Delay (s) 5.8 20.5
Approach LOS A c
HCM 2000 Ctlnfrol Delay 13.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service
HCM 2000\loWme to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycl& Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection capacity Utilization 60.5% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critica!il.aoo Group
2035AM.S}'Tl
t I"
2 7
1900 1900
4.5
1.00
0.88
1.00
1645
1.00
1645
0.95 0.95
2 7
6 0
3 0
NA
8
12.7
12.7
0.11
4.5
3.0
174
0.00
0.02
48.1
1.00
0.0
48.1
D
203.7
F
18.0
B
2035 Baseline
Timing Plan: AM Peak
\.. ~ .I
11 2 92
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
1770 1863 1583
0.95 1.00 1.00
1770 1863 1583
0.95 0.95 0.95
12 2 97
0 0 86
12 2 11
Prot NA Perm
7 4
4
1.6 13.5 13.5
1.6 13.5 13.5
0.01 0.11 0.11
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
23 209 178
c0.01 0.00
c0.01
0.52 0.01 0.06
58.8 47.3 47.6
1.00 1.00 1.00
19.7 0.0 0.1
78.5 47.3 47.7
E 0 D
51.1
0
Synchro B Report
Page 3
Homes2 Suites
1: Aviara Plwy/Colle!ile Blvd & Palomar Aireort Rd
.)--+ "'\-fj; .(" ..__
Lane Conftgurall'ms
Volume (vph) _!!· · ' · 320 1712 387 5 250 2017
Ideal Flow {vphpt~ 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time M · · 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Uti!. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (proQ· .' · 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow {eenml .. '' ·• · · 3433 5085 1583 3433 5085
Peak-hour fackllr, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph(:.· 337 1802 407 5 263 2123
RTOR Reductill1 (vph) 0 0 113 0 0 0
Lane Graue FIDib.f~hl 337 1802 294 0 268 2123
Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot Prot NA
Protected Phase$.'•: •·· 5 2 1 1 6
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, ~;(s) 8.0 45.6 45.6 6.5 44.1
Effective Green, f (s} 8.0 45.6 45.6 6.5 44.1
Actuated g/C ~ ·< · 0.07 0.38 0.38 0.05 0.37
Clearance Time(!) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Exten-'(sl 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap {~) 228 1932 601 185 1868
v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.35 0.08 c0.42
v/s Ratio Perm 0.19
v/c Ratio 1.48 0.93 0.49 1.45 1.14
Uniform Delay, df 56.0 35.7 28.3 56.8 37.9
Progression F• • · 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.24 1.3.6
Incremental Del'ay,d2 237.3 9.8 2.8 220.7 66.3
Delay (s) 293.3 45.5 31.2 291.0 117.9
Level of Service F D c F F
Approach Delay ts} 76.0 131.7
Approach LOS E F
HCM 2000 Confml Delay 102.7
HOM 2000 Vol•~ to Capacity ratio 1.19
Actuated Cyclelsnglh (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection C~ Utilization 109.1% ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period 6min) 15
c Critical lane Gpmp
2035PM.syn
' "'\ 1'
160 261 250
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 0.97 0.95
0.85 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 3433 3539
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 3433 3539
0.95 0.95 0.95
168 275 263
72 0 0
96 275 263
Perm Prot NA
3 8
6
44.1 6.5 45.8
44.1 6.5 45.8
0.37 0.05 0.38
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
581 185 1350
cO.OB 0.07
0.06
0.17 1.49 0.19
25.6 56.8 24.8
2.04 1.00 1.00
0.4 245.4 0.1
52.5 302.2 24.9
D F c
132.7
F
18.0
H
2035 Baseline
Timing Plan: PM Peak
I" \. +
160 40 610
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.85 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 1770 1863
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 1770 1863
0.95 0.95 0.95
168 42 642
92 0 0
76 42 642
Perm Prot NA
7 4
8
45.8 4.1 43.4
45.8 4.1 43.4
0.38 0.03 0.36
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
604 60 673
0.02 0.34
0.05
0.13 0.70 0.95
24.1 57.3 37.3
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.1 30.0 23.7
24.2 87.4 61.1 c F E
85.1
F
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Homes2 Sue
1: Aviara Pk!y!College Blvd & Palomar Airport Rd
Conffguranom
Volume (vph) 830
Ideal Flow (vphpO 1900
Total Losttime (s)' ;, ·:: 4.5
Lane U!il. Factor 1.00
Frt 0.85
Fit Protected 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) ·. :.. 1583
Flt Permitted 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)":'.,'./, 15.83
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) . . 87 4
RTOR Reduction(.) 54
Lane Groop Fiow (!JJb); 820
Tum Type pm+ov
Protected Phases <'', 5
Permitted Phases 4
Actuated Green, Q{sJ,I,•:; 51.4
Effective Green, g(s) 51.4
Actuated g/C Rafili·, 0.43
Clearance Time (s) 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s}. ; ' 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vpb) 737
v/s Ratio Prot ·• · · c0.07
v/s Ratio Perm 0.44
v/c Ratio 1.11
Uniform Delay, d1 34.3
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 68.4
Delay (s) 102.7
Level of Service F
Approach Delay (sj
Approach LOS
2035PM.syn
2035 Baseline
Timing Plan: PM Peak
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Homes2 Suits
2: Palomar Oab W~ & Palomar Aireort Rd
.)--10· ""' (" oil-'
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 60 1844 8 4 2266 27
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) ~·>.·· 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane UIH. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91
Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5082 1770 5077
Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. FloW (~erm) r··, .I,· 1770 5062 1770 5077
Peak-hour factor, PH'F 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj, Flow (vph) Jt,' 63 1941 8 4 2406 28
RTOR Reduction (vplfi 0 0 0 0 1 0
Lane Groue Flow {vlilif 63 1949 0 4 2433 0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA
Protected Phases 5 2 1 6
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (~f\· 8.1 77.7 1.3 70.9
Effective Green, g (s) 8.1 77.7 1.3 70.9
Actuated g/C Ratio · · f' 0.07 0.65 0.01 0.59
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension {sF>i 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 119 3290 19 2999
v/s Ratio Prot ·., 0.04 c0.38 0.00 c0.48
v/s Ratio Perm
v/cRaUo 1''' .i'; 0.53 0.59 0.21 0.81
Uniform Delay, d1 54.1 12.1 58.8 19.3
Progression Factor '! 1.22 1.32 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, dl 2.1 0.4 5.5 2.5
Delay (s) 68.1 16.4 64.3 21.8
Level of Service E B E c
Approach Delay (s) ·' 18.0 21.9
Approach LOS B c
Control !lilly
HCM 2000 Volume ll!l~paclly ratio
Actuated Cycle Len!)fil(s) Sum of lost time (s)
Intersection Capaclty~llzation ICU Level of Service
Analysis Period (mi~
c Critical Lane Gr<ll!ll
2035PM.syn
" t r
ft
57 5 14
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.89
0.95 1.00
1770 1653·
0.95 1.00
1770 1653
0.95 0.95 0.95
60 5 15
0 13 0
60 7 0
Prot NA
3 8
4.9 17.5
4.9 17.5
0.04 0.15.
4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0
72 241
0.03 0.00
0.83 0.03
57.1 44.0
1.00 1.00
53.2 0.1
11D.4 44.0
F D
93.8
F
c
18.0
D
2035 Baseline
Timing Plan: PM Peak
\. J, ~
85 4 249
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4,5 4.5
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
1770 1863 1563
0.95 1.00 1.00
1770 1863 1583
0.95 0.95 0.95
89 4 262
0 0 115
89 4 147
Prot NA Perm
7 4
4
5.5 18.1 18.1
5.5 18.1 18.1
0.05 0.15 0.15
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
81 281 238
c0.05 0.00
c0.09
1.10 0.01 0.62
57.2 43.4 47.7
1.00 1.00 1.00
129.4 0.0 4.7
186.6 43.4 52.4
F D D
85.9
F
Synchro 8 Report
Page 3
Homes2 Suites
1: Aviara Pk~/Colle~e Blvd & Palomar Ai!]Ort Rd
/
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 960
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5
lane Ufil. Factor 0.97
Frt 1.00
Fit Protected 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433
Fit Permitted 0.95
Satd. Flow. (Eerm} 3433.
· Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 1011
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
lane Groue Flow {veh! 1011
Tum Type Prot
Protected Phases 5
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 24.8
Effective Green, g (s) 24.8
Actuated giC Ratio 0.21
Clearance Time (s) 4.5
Vehicle Extension {sl 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 709
vis Ratio Prot c0.29
v/s Ratio Perm
v/cRatio 1.43
Uniform Delay, d1 47.6
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 199.8
Delay (s) 247.4
Level of Service F
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
~
HCM 2000 Control Delay
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical lane Group
2035AMWP.syn
11/2/2015
-+
1892
1900
4.5
0.91
1.00
1.00
5085
1.00
5085
0.95
1992
. 0
1992
NA
2
53.4
53.4
0.44
4.5
3.0
2262
c0.39
0.88
30.4
1.00
5.3
35.7
D
102.4
F
'""' I; ("' olE-'
158 5 187 1023 123
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00
0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85
1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
1583 3433 5085 1583
1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00
1583 3433 5085 1583
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 . 0.95
166 5 197 1077 129
·75 0 0 0 92
91 0 202 1077 37
Perm Prot Prot NA Perm
1 1 6
2 6
53.4 5.5 34.1 34.1
53.4 5.5 34.1 : 34.1
0.44 0.05 0.28 . 0.28
4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
704 157 1444 449
c0.06 0.21
0.06 0.02
0.13 1.29 0.75 0.08
19.6 57.2 39.0 31.5
1.00 0.82 0.74 1.30
0.4 165.0 3.2 0.3
20.0 212.0 31.9 41.1
8 F c D
58.6
E
85.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service
0.98
120.0 Sum of lost time (s)
86.2% ICU level of Service
15
"'\ t
301 750
1900 1900
4.5 4.5
0.97 0.95
1.00 1.00
0.95 1.00
3433 3539
0.95 1.00
3433 . 3539
0.95 0.95
317 789
0 0
317 7.89
Prot NA
3 8
7.5 36.2
7.5 36.2
0.06 0.30
. 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0
214 1067
c0.09 c0.22
1.48 0.74
56.2 37.7
1.00 1.00
240.0 2.7
296.2 40.4
F D
98.1
F
F
18.0
E
2035 With Project
Timing Plan: AM Peak
/"' \. ~
253 51 140
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.85 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 1770 1863
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 1.770 186.3
0.95 0.95 0.95
266 54 147
96 0 0
170 54 147
Perm Prot NA
7 4
8
36.2 6.9 35.6
36.2 6.9 35.6
0.30 0.06 0.30
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
477 101 552
c0.03 0.08
0.11
0.36 0.53 0.27
32.8 55.0 32.2
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.5 5.4 0.3
33.3 60.3 32.5 c E c
26.4 c
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Homes2 Suites
1: Aviara Pk't!)'/College Blvd & Palomar Aireort Rd
Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s}
Lane Uti!. Factor
Frt
Fit Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Fit Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF
Adj. Flow (vph)
RTOR Reduction {vph}
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Tum Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s}
Actuated gfC Ratio
Clearance Time (s}
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
vis Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
300
1900
4.5
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.95
316
47
269
pm+ov
5
4
60.4
60.4
0.50
4.5
3.0
856
0.06
0.10
0.31
17.6
1.00
0.2
17.8
B
2035 With Project
Timing Plan: AM Peak
~~-~·~~~-----ijll&lllj"
2035AMWP.syn
11/2/2015
Synchro 8 Report
Page 2
Homes2 Suites
1: Aviara Pk~/Colle~e Blvd & Palomar Aiq;!ort Rd
..J
Lane Configurations
Volume {vph) 320
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Losttime (s) 4.5
Lane Util. Factor . 0.97
Frt 1.00
Fit Protected 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 3433
Fit Permitted 0.95
satd. Flow'{ilermJ 3433
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95
Adj. Flew (Vpti} 337
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Groue Flow {v~h! 337
Turn Type Prot
Protepted Phases 5
Permitted Phases
Actuated G~en, G {s) 7.5
Effective Green, g (s) 7.5
Actuate~ g/C Ratio 0.06
Clearance Time (s) 4.5
Vehicle Ex1enslon (sl 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 214
vis Ratio Pro.! c0.10
vis Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 1.57
Uniform Delay, d1 56.2
Progression Factor 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 279.9
Delay(s) 336.2
Level of Service F
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
HCM
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
2035PMWP .syn
11/2/2015
....
1737
1900
4.5
0.91
1.00
1.00
5085
1.00
5085
0.95
1828
0
1828
NA
2
45.1
45.1
0.38
4.5
3.0
1911
0.36
0.96
36.5
1.00
12.6
49.1
D
83.8
F
"" I; ("' 41-
387 5 255 2Q34
1900 1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 0.97 0.91
0.85 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 3433 5085
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 .. 343.3. 5,085
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
407 5 268 2141
134 0 0 0
273 0 273 2141
Perm Prot Prot NA
1 1 6
2
45.1 6.5 44.1
45.1 6.5 44.1
0.38 0.05 0.37
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3,0
594 185 1868
0.08 c0.42
0.17
0.46 1.48 1.15
28.3 56.8 37.9
1.00 0.90 0.85
2.6 231.5 70.2
30.8 282.8 102.6 c F F
117.2
F
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
' "' t
162 261 250
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 0.97 0.95
0.85 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 3433 3539
1.00 0.95 1.00
15.8.3 3433 3539
0.95 0.95 0.95
171 275 263
86 0 0
85 275 263
Perm Prot NA
3 8
6
44.1 7.9 46.3
44.1 7.9 46.3
0.37 0.07 0.39
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
581 226 1365
c0.08 O.D7
0.05
0.15 1.22 0.19
25.4 56.0 24.4
1.39 1.00 1.00
0.3 130.9 0.1
35.7 186.9 24.5
D F c
86.9
F
18.0
H
2035 With Project
Timing Plan: PM Peak
I'' \. ~
168 43 610
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.85 1.00 1.00
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 1770 1863
1.00 0.95 1.00
1583 1770 1863
0.95 0.95 0.95
177 45 642
90 0 0
87 45 642
Perm Prot NA
7 4
8
46.3 4.1 42.5
46.3 4.1 42.5
0.39 0.03 0.35
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
610 60 659
0.03 0.34
0.06
0.14 0.75 0.97
24.0 57.4 38.2
1.00 1.00 1.00
0.1 40.4 28.5
24.1 97.8 66.7 c F E
117.9
F
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Homes2 Suites
1: Aviara Pkwy/College Blvd & Palomar Airport Rd
Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost ftme (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Fit Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Fit Permitted
Satd. Flow (pprm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF
Adj. Flow (vph)
RTOR Reduction (vph)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Aotu~ted Greefl, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Vehicle Extension (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
vis Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
830
1900
4.5
. 1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.95
874
55
819
pm+ov
5
4
50.0
50.0
0.42
4.5
3.0
659
cO.OB
0.44
1.24
35.0
1.00
121.5
156.5
F
2035 With Project
Timing Plan: PM Peak
---···-~·
2035PMWP.syn
1112/2015
Synchro 8 Report
Page2
Homes2 Suites
2: Palomar Oaks Wy_ & Palomar Aireort Rd
..}
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 298
Ideal Flow (vphpl} 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5
Lane Uti!. Factor . 1.00
Frt 1.00
Fit Protected 0.95
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770
Fit Permitted 0.95
Satd. Flow ~eerm) 1770
Peak-hourfactor, PHF 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 314
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Groue Flow {vf!!} 314
Tum Type Prot
Protected Phases 5
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s) 25.2
Effective Green, g (s) 25.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21
Clearance Time {s) 4.5
Vehicle Extension Is) 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 371
v/s Ratio Prot c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm
v/cRatio 0.85
Uniform Delay, d1 45.5
Progression Factor 0.49
Incremental Delay, d2 10.0
Delay (s} 32.1
Level of Service c
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
HCM 2000 Control Delay
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
2035AMWP.syn
11/2/2015
__..,
1792
1900
4.5
0.91
1.00
1.00
5061
1.00
5061
0.95
1886
2
1945
NA
2
82.9
82.9
0.69
4.5
3.0
3496
0.38
0.56
9.3
0.22
0.4
2.4
A
6.5
A
"' .(" "'I-...... "
58 17 1204 143 10
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 0.91 1.00
1.00 0.98 1.00
0.95 1.00 0.95
1770 5004 1770
0.95 1.00 0.95
1770 5004 1770
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
61 18 1267 151 11
0 0 8 0 0
0 18 1410 0 11
Prot NA Prot
1 6 3
3.1 60.8 0.8
3.1 60.8 0.8
0.03 0.51 0.01
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
45 2535 11
0.01 c0.28 0.01
0.40 0.56 1.00
57.5 20.3 59.6
1.00 1.00 1.00
5.7 0.9 271.4
63.3 21.2 331.0
E c F
21.7 c
15.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service
0.57
120.0 Sum of lost time (s)
62.3% ICU Level of Service
15
t ,....
3 7
1900 1900
4.5
1.00
0.90
1.00
1667
1.00
1667
0.95 0.95
3 7
6 0
4 0
NA
8
13.6
13.6
0.11
4.5
3.0
188
0.00
0.02
47.3
1.00
0.0
47.3
D
195.9
F
e
18.0
8
2035 With Project
Timing Plan: AM Peak
\, ~ -I
25 3 124
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
1770 1863 1583
0.95 1.00 1.00
1770 1863 1583
0.95 0.95 0.95
26 3 131
0 0 114
26 3 17
Prot NA Perm
7 4
4
2.4 15.2 15.2
2.4 15.2 15.2
0.02 0.13 0.13
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
35 235 200
c0.01 0.00
c0.01
0.74 0.01 0.08
58.5 45.8 46.2
1.00 1.00 1.00
58.7 0.0 0.2
117.2 45.9 46.4
F D D
57.9
E
Synchro 8 Report
Page 3
_j
, ___ I
-----
'
Homes2 Suites
2: Palomar Oaks W~ & Palomar Airport Rd
.)-
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph) 96
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900
Total Lost Urns (s) 4.5
Lane Uti!. Factor 1.00
Frt 1.00
Fit Protected 0.95
Said. Flow (prot) 1770
Fit Permitted 0.95
Satd. Flow ~Perm} · 1770
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95
AdJ. Flow (vph) 101
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0
Lane Grouef.Jowt¥Pil! 101
Turn Type Prot
Protected ~~ases 5
Permitted Phases
Actuat~d Green1 ~ (s) 8.0
Effective Green, g (s) 8.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07
Clearance Time (s) 4.5
Vehicle Extension !s} 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 118
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio 0.86
Uniform Delay, d1 55.4
Progression Factor 0.52
Incremental Delay, d2 23.6
Delay(s) 52.4
Level of Service 0
Approach Delay ($)
Approach LOS
HCM 2000 Control Delay
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
2035PMWP.syn
11/212015
-II>•
1844
1900
4.5
0.91
1.00
1.00
5082
1.00
5082
0.95
1941
0
1949
NA
2
76.1
76.1
0.63
4.5
3.0
3222
0.38
0.60
13.0
0.13
0.4
2.1
A
4.6
A
-,. ~ ,..._ '
8 4 2286 45
1900 1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5
1.00 0.91
1.00 1.00
0.95 1.00
1770 5071
0.95 1.00
1770 5071
0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
8 4 2406 47
0 0 1 0
0 4 2452 0
Prot NA
1 6
1.3 69.4
1.3 69.4
0.01 0.58
4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0
19 2932
0.00 c0.48
0.21 0.84
58.8 20.7
1.00 1.00
5.5 3.0
64.3 23.7
E c
23.7 c
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
"\ t I"
57 6 14
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5
1.00 1.00
1.00 0.89
0.95 1.00
1770 1663
0.95 1.00
1770 1663
0.95 0.95 0.95
60 6 15
0 13 0
60 8 0
Prot NA
3 8
4.9 19.1
4.9 19.1
0.04 0.16
4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0
72 264
0.03 0.01
0.83 0.03
57.1 42.6
1.00 1.00
53.2 0.0
11D.4 42.7
F 0
92.8
F
c
18.0
D
2035 With Project
Timing Plan: PM Peak
"'" ~ .,;
96 5 273
1900 1900 1900
4.5 4.5 4.5
1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 0.85
0.95 1.00 1.00
1770 1863 1583
0.95 1.00 1.00
1770' 1863 1583
0.95 0.95 0.95
101 5 287
0 0 114
101 5 173
Prot NA Perm
7 4
4
5.5 19.7 19.7
5.5 19.7 19.7
0.05 0.16 0.16
4.5 4.5 4.5
3.0 3.0 3.0
81 305 259
c0.06 0.00
c0.11
1.25 0.02 0.67
57.2 42.0 47.1
1.00 1.00 1.00
180.3 0.0 6.4
237.5 42.1 53.5
F D D
100.7
F
Synchro B Report
Page 3
--------
ATTACHMENT B
• SANTEC/ITE Guidelines For Traffic Impact Studies
• Excerpts from the City of Carlsbad 2014 Traffic Monitoring Program
Excerpts from the Traffic Study for Aqua Hediona South Shore Specific Plan
dated May 7, 2015
SANTEC liTE GUIDEUNES FOR TRt.\JFFIC
KMPAC"'f' STUDIES [TIS] IN THE
SAN DHEGO REG~Of~
i. BACKGROUND
ll.
In September 1998, the San Diego Regional Traffic Standards Task. :Force gatherecl ibr
the ilrst time to promote "cooper;.ltion among the Cities, Caltrans. and the County of San .
Diego to cre;ite a ~gion-w1de stan~ for determining traffic impacts in environmental
reports.'' Ulti.tmltely the San Diego.~ Bn$hleers•· Council (SI\N'l'BC) and the Insti-
tute ot Transportation Engineers (lTE -Ql]jfornia Border Section) were requested to
prepare guidelin~ for traffie itnpact stu(iies m$] tb.llt could be reviewed by the Tas.k
Force and other appropriate gro1.1ps. Tbe pritnary dooo~ts used to help p..-epare these
guidelines. were S,ANDAG's COngestion ~~Imnt ~·and. Irifllc G~tneratots
manual, City of San D!<mo~sl'tAffie ga:ct Study Mal!ual and Trip Genettl,tion Manual,
and caltrans' Dr.llft Guide for fue Prepgion 9f'1Ditic lmpapt Studies. ·
PURPOSE OF TRAFFIC IIVIPACT STUDIES [TISJ
Traffic itqpact studies forecast. describe, and anal~ the traffic and transit effeots a
developme.nt will have on the e)Cisting and future circulation ~ture. The purpose
of the TIS .is to assist engineexs in both the development coi'UllJUD,ity SJUi. public agencies
when making land use and other development decisions~ A 'I'tS qua.utifies the changes in
traffic levels .and translates these changes into traDSpottation sy$teltl impacts in 'tbe
~efuftyofaproj~. ·
TIS require1llents ~ U$Ually outllned as ).)art of any e.nviromnen.tal (CEQAJ project
review proeess; and, in order to monitor effects by these req\lirements1 Notices of Prepa ..
ration must be submitted to an affected. agencies.
Ill. OBJECTIVES OF TIS GUIDELINES
The ibllow.ing guidelines were prepared to assist local agencies througbtlut the San Diego
Region in promoting consistency and unifunnity in traffic impact studies. All Circuht-
tionfCommunity Element roadways. all State routes and freeways (including mete!ed and
nnmetered ramps), and all transit facilities that are fp,w.~oted should be included in each
swd~ ·
In general, the region-wide goal for atfacceptabie lewl...of-Sfi?qlee (LOS) ou all freeways.
roadway segments. and lmersections is "D." For undeveloped or not densely developed
locations, as determined by an;.r !ocal jurisdiction~ the gom may be to achieve a level-'Of-
..,;ervice of "C.'· lndividuallocai jwisdictions. as well as Calttans, have sllgb.tly different
3
•·.·
.···. LOS objectives, For example. the Regional Growth Man~ment Strategy for San Diego
has a livel-..of-service objective of "D;" while the Congestion Management Program has
est~blished a minimum ievel..'of~service of "'E", or "F" if tlmt is the existing 1990 base
year LOS, rn other words. if the existing LOS is "D" or worse. preservation of the exist-
ing LOS must. be maintained or acceptable mitigation must be identified.
These guide~es do not establish a legal standard for these functions, but are intended to
supplement anY individual TIS ll}a11uals or ievel ... ofMserv1ce objectives for t:he Va.rious
jurisdictions. The$e guidelirles attempt to consolidate regional efforts to identity when a
TIS is needed, what professional procedures should be foJ.fowed; and what constitutes a
sigmficant traffw impact,
The :instructions outlined 5n these gnidelltles ~ subj~ to update as future conditions
and experience become availablC. SpecM ~ltuat:ions may call fur varhi,tion :from these
guidelines. Oiltl1ms and lead agencies should ·agree. on the specific m~pds. used in
traffic impact studii'S involving any State Route t}l.clJities, including m~red and un-
meteted freew~y .ramps.
IV. NEED FOR A. STUDY
A tts should be prepared for mi projects which geiiorate tra.fiic gr~tet tba.n 1,000 total·
average daily trips (ADT) or·lOO ~ .. hour flips. ·If a proposed project :is not in eoomr-
mance wlth the land U$e and/or; transpQttation element ofthe general or comm1nuty p~
nse-~hold rates of SOD ADT: or 50 peat-hour trips. J!arJ.y consultation with any
affected jurisdictions is st:ro.ngly encolll.'ll8ed since a 'lfoeused'' or ttabhJ:eviated" TIS roay
stm be required..., even if the above threshold rateS are not met.
~:ntly~ a Congestion Management .P,rognun (CMP) atlalysis is required ft>r all large
projects, which are detltled as generating· 4400 or more aveJ:'tlge daily trips or :zoo or
more peak-hour trips~ This size o( study would usually include comp11ter~ long-range
fOrecasts and select ~ne assignment$. Please refer to the fullowing flow Cllart (Figlite 1)
for TtS~meiltS.
The geograpbic area examined in the TIS ~st include the following:
• All local:t:Qadway segments (including all State S}ll:fuee toutes). intersections. and
mainline freeway locations where the proposed project will add 50 or ,more peak·hour
trips in either direction to the existing roadway traffic. ·
., All freeway entrance and exit ramps where the proposed project wm add a s.ignificant
naiiJ.ber of peak-hour trips to cause any traffic queues to ~®eel tamp stoJ:age capaci-
ties (see Figure 1). (NOTE:· Care must be blken t~{include ~ramps and inter-
sections tbat may receive project traffic diverted as a result of already existing, or
project causing congestion at freew~y entrances and exits.)
4
8-2
\'l·~~<: .. · .
• <Sj
'•
.
"S Figure 1
FLOW CHART FOR TRAFFIC rMPACT STUDY REQUIREMENTS
· · ·· P roje~'traffi(l}-:>~2~400, AOTti or Yes
_!\.,. TIS required, plus meet all
200 peak .. hOur trlps? Cllf'DJ' requirements
No
' ' D9~ proje6t®promno tl,te Land Use & Yes Project traffic > 1,000 ADT. or ... 1·· TraJiSpo_ttfi~io!l .. Jilements of the OeneraJ.t · · , .. 0 ,,J,OO,pe.ak~harml;1ifips? . . Co~tyJPJant .... ... :
No Yes
No .... Yes ~ Project traffic > 500 ADT, or .J TIS required 50 pefik .. hour trips? r
'Wil\~r&jrm···a.Oi3320•or'more"J.)et»•hour
trips to any existing .on-or off .. ramp *? .
No ~ ,
TIS probably not TIS may not be
required. A reqtdred. ** freeway/ramp meter
c'focused" TIS analysis
might suffice. Consult
lead agency and
·Caltrans. *
* Check with Caltrans for current ramp metering rates and ramp storage capacities. (See
Attachment B -Ramp Met~rlng Allalysis)
** However, for health and safety reasons, and/or local and residential street .Jssues, an
''abbreviated'' or "focused" TIS may still be requested by a local agency. (For example.
this may include traffic backed up beyontl an off-ramp's storag~. capacity, or may 'include
diverted traffic through an existing neighborhood.)
·s
Revised 2128/00
&..
~
~ CITY OF
CARLSBAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM
SUMMER2014
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Intersection Number: 17
Intersection Location: Palomar Airport Road &
College Boulevard
Contents: A.M. Peak Hour ICU Analysis and Page 1
Turn Movement Diagram
P.M. Peak Hour ICU Analysis and Page 2
Turn Movement Diagram
A.M./P.M. Peak Period Intersection Page 3
Turning Movement Count Data
B-4
L
Company
Palomar Airport Road at College Boulevard/ A viara Parkway
Lane Con:ligpration for Intersection CapaCity Utilization
Pk. Hr. Time Period :
7:45AM to
8:45AM
South ARQr (NB) North Appr (SBL West Appr @) East Appr (WB)
Lane
Config-
urations
Inside
(left) 2
3
4
5
6
Outside 7
Free-flow
Lane Settings 2 2
Capacity 3600 4000
Are the North/South phases split ('!IN)?
Are the East/West phases split ('!IN)?
Efficiency Lost Factor 0.1 0
Hourly Volume 216 470
AdjuSted Hourly Volume 216 470
Utilization Factor 0.06 0.12
Critieal Factors
ICU Ratio = 0.56
1 1 1
1800 1.800 2000
N
N
228 .36 109
228 36 109
0.13 0.02 0.05
0.13 0.02
LOS= A
1
1800
162
0
o.oo
1
1
2
3600
613
613
0.17
3
6000
1621
1621
0.27
0.27
1 2 3 1
1800 3600 6000 1800
132 159 794 67
132 159 794 67
OJ)7 0.04 0.13 0.04
0.04
I
Turning Movements at Intersection of: Palomar Airport Road and CoJI{lge Boulevard! A viara Parkway
w
e
s
t
A
p
p
r
Time : 7:45 AM
to 8:45AM
Date: 07/22/14
Day : 'fuesday
Name:FDS
Sub-
Totals totals
1569
3935 0
2366
Subtotals
Total
North Approach
162
J
__f 613
1621~
132
458
216
0
1372
South Approach
e .. s
.307
109
~
i
North
i
470
914
880
0
36
L
r
228
College Boulev~d/ Aviara ParkWay
573
t_ 67
~ 794
+ 159
Total
Subtotals
Sub-
totals Totals
1020
1 3027
2007
Palomar Airport Road
Note : Left-tum volumes include
U·turns. U-tums i11 bold.
B
a
s
t
A
p
p
r
Palomar Airport Road. at College Boulevard/ Aviara Parkway
Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Util~tion
Pk. Hr. Time Period : South Appr iliB) North AP!:ir ($B) West Appr (EB) East .AJmr (WB)
4:30PM to
5:30PM
Lane
Config-
urlltions
Inside
(left) 2
3
4
6
Outside 7
Free.-flow
Lane Settings 2 2
Capacity 3600 4000
Are the North/South phases split (YIN)?
Ate the l3ast/West phases spilt (YIN)?
Efficiency Lost Factor 0.10
HoutlyVcilume 159 140
Aqjusted Houdy Volume 159 140
Utilization Factor 0.04 0.04
CritiCl!l Fat:tors .0. 04
1800
N
N
139
1.39
0.08
1 1 1 2
1800 2000 1800 3600
33 4$7 541 141
33 457 4705 141
0.02 0.23 0.26 0.04
0.26 0.04
lCU Ratio = 0. 70 LOS= B
Turning Movements at Intersection of;
w
e
s
t
A
p
p
r
Time : 4:3() PM
to 5:30PM
Date: 07/22114
Day: TUesday
Name:FDS
Sub-
Totals totals
2242
3854 0
1612
Subtotals
.lli!L
Pqlomar Mrport Road
Notth Approach
1295
1031
(I
541 457 33
j ~ L
_j 141
1216 _____,.,
255 i
North
t r
159 140 139
0
873 438
1311
South Approach
e .. 6
3 1 2 3 1 I
6000 1800 3600 6000 1800
1216 255 220 1560 91
1216 255 220 1560 91
0.20 0.14 0.06 0.26 0.05
0.~6
and CoUege Boulevard/ Aviara Parkway
Ctlllege Boulevard! A viara Parkway
264
L 91
'<€-1560 r 220 2
Total
Subtotals
Sub-
rotals
1871
1573
Palomar Airport Road
Totals
3444
Note : Left-turn volumes include
U-turns. U-turns in bold.
E
a
s
t
A
p
p
r
ELD DATA SERVICES OF ARIZONA, INc.
520.316.6'145
N-S mEET: ~~ ~'' "' DATE: t01el2rc/4(l)ll.4 LOCATION: c(a~~~s~~~· '
/·.'T ;\~i~~r\:~~~.~;r;;·,::
DAY: TUESDAY PROJECT# ·l:4-~2~4;6~7 ;;~ All: MtiVe E~W STREET: ;:,:.-::~·~ . . .
CONTROL: .· ... ·.... ~. ,. .·.·
Af"i NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
LANES: 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1
6:30AM 27 18 30 5 27 29 44 206 14 20 185 7 612
6:45AM 28 39 35 10 22 37 75 315 22 29 191 5 808
7:oo ArVi 20 43 35 6 16, 35 98 245 31 21 184 10 744
7:15AM 41 55 44 9 70 33 105 303 15 25 180 14 894
7:30AM 38 79 45 9 48 17 177 375 43 28 200 8 1067
7:45AM 71 125 71 10 35 46 161 390 33 39 227 19 1227
8:00AM 42 116 53 8 30 31 173 436 35 32 152 18 1126
8:15AM 48 122 56 14 18 34 154 388 33 46 221 17 1151
8:30AM 55 107 48 4 26 51 125 407 31 42 194 13 1103
8:45AM 38 116 58 15 30 55 150 387 26 41 262 20 1198
9:0QAM 39 82 37 13 19 43 125 311 48 23 222 15 977
9:15AM 50 64 47 9 29 38 63 272 35 25 210 16 858
Volumes 497 966 559 112 370 449 1450 4035 366 371 2428 162 11765
Approach% 24.58 47.77 27.65 12.03 39.74 48.23 24.78 68.96 6.26 12.53 82.00 5.47
App/Oepart 2022 l 2578 931 I 1107 5851 I 4706 2961 I 3374
Peak Volumes 216 470 228 36 109 162 613 1621 132 159 794 67 4607 ., Approach% 23.63 51.42 24.95 11.73 35.50 52.77 25.91 68.51 5.58 15.59 77.84 6.57
Pk Hr FACTOR: 0.86 0.84 0.92 0.89 0.9387
AM PkHrat: 746
PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
3:30PM 45 30 40 6 49 79 39 312 57 44 362 16 1079
3:45PM 52 30 32 6 50 91 37 285 54 38 317 17 1009
4:00PM 45 41 34 9 69 98 44 309 50 43 359 23 1124
4:15PM 34 34 22 13 59 90 33 305 57 57 314 16 1034
4:30PM 42 35 31 9 78 119 41 303 76 42 348 21 1145
4:45PM 45 35 29 11 98 108 35 284 64 39 354 18 1120
5:00PM 34 30 36 7 139 157 33 319 51 65 406 24 1301
5:15PM 38 40 43 6 14t 157 32 310 64 74 452 28 1386
5:30PM 44 31 36 8 103 145 27 261 62 58 355 10 1140
5:45PM 42 24 18 11 85 106 31 294 60 67 351 17 1106
6:00PM 49 35 23 1 73 125 33 282 62 66 316 16 1081
6:15PM 38 18 31 2 sa 90 29 250 67 52 321 7 963
Volumes 508 383 375 89 1003 1365 414 3514 724 645 4255 213 13488
Approach% 40.13 30.25 29.62 3.62 40.82 55.56 8.90 75.54 15.56 12.61 83.22 4.17
App/Depart 1266 I 1010 2457 I 2372 4652 I 3978 5113 I 6128
Peak Volumes 159 140 139 33 457 541 141 1216 255 220 1560 91 4952
Approach% 36.30 31.96 31.74 3.20 44.33 52.47 8.75 75.43 15.82 11.76 83.38 4.86
Pk Hr FACTOR: 0.90 0.85 0.96 0.84 0.8932
PM PkHrat: 430
s .. 7
, CITY OF
CARLS D
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM
SUMMER2014
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Intersection Number: 18
Intersection Location: Palomar Airport Road &
Yarrow Drive
Contents: A.M. Peak Hour ICU Analysis and Page 1
Turn Movement Diagram
P.M. Peak Hour ICU Analysis and Page 2
Turn Movement Diagram
A.M./P.M. Peak Period Intersection Page 3
Turning Movement Count Data
Company
B-8
Palomar Airport Road at Yarrow Drive
Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization
Pk. Hr. Time Period : South AQIJr <NB) North Appr (SB) West AQPr @}
7;45AM to
East Appr (WB}
8:45AM Left Thru Right . Left Thru ~ . Left TI1111 Right Left TI1l1l Right
Lane Inside 1 1 1 J 1 1 1
Con:flg-(left) 2 l l 1
urations 3 I 1 l
4 1 1 1 1
5
6
Outside 7
Free-flow
Lane Settings 1 1 1 J 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 I
Capacity 1800 2000 1800 1800 0 0 1800 6000 0 1800 6000 0
Are the North/South phases split (Y(N)? N
Are the East/West phases split (YIN)? N
Efficiency Lost Factor 0.10
Howiy Volume 40 9 53 29 3 19 64 1059 175 271 1295 110
Adjusted Hourly Volume 40 9 53 51 0 0 64 1234 0 271 1405 0
Utilization Factor 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.21 0.00 0.15 0.23 0.00
Critical Factors 0.03 0.03 0.21 0.15
ICU Ratio = 0.52 LOS= A
Turning Movements at Intersection of: Palomar Airport Road and Yarrow Drive
Time: 7:45AM
to 8:45AM North Approach
Date: 0712'1.114
Day : Tues<lay
Name:FDS 51
Sub-19 3
T~ totals j ~ w
e 1377 _j s 2675 1 64
t 1298 1059 __.... i 175 + A North
p
p I j r
40 9
0
Subtotals 223 102
Total 325
South Approach
8-9
Yarrow Drive
200
149
0
29 L
L 110 +--1295 r-271
r·
53
Total
Subtotals
Sub·
~ Totals
1676
5 3054
1378
Palomar Airport Road
Note : Left-tum volumes include
U-tums. U-tums in bold.
E
a
s
t
A
p
p
r
Palomar Airport Road at Yarrow Drive
Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization
Pk. HL Time Period :
4:;:\0PM to
South Appr (NB) North APP!' (SB) __ W:..:..· e::::s.:..:t A:..::Pt:.tP:;:..r.J.;(E::.:B:::..~.)_11_..::E:=as::.:t"'"'A""pJ:.:pr""'(...:;WB=)-
5:30PM
Lane
C.onfig-
urations
Inside
(left) 2
3
4
5
6
Outside 7
Free-flow
Lane Settings 1 1 1 0
Capacity 1800 2000 1800 1800 0
Are the North/South phases split (YIN)? N
Are the East/West phases split (YIN)? N
Efficiency Lost Factor OJ 0
HourlyVolume 150 14 277 100 13
A(ljusted Hourly Volume 150 14 277 181 0
Utilization Factor 0.08 0.01 0.15 0.10 0.00
CriticalFactors 0.15 0.10
ICU Ratio = 0.68 LOS= B
0 1 3 0
0 1800 6000 0
68 33 1592 55
0 33 1647 0
0.00 0.02 0.27 0.00
0.27
1 3
1800 6000
109 1105
109 1164
0.06 0.19
0.06
o I
0
59
0
0.00
Turning Movements at Intersection of: Palomar Airport Ruad and Yarrow Drive
Time : 4:30 PM
to 5:30PM North Approach
Date: 07/22/14
Day : Tuesday
Name: FDS
Sub-68
To.!!!!L_ totals j w
e 1201 _j s 2881 s 33
t 1680 1592 ....._....
55 + A
p
p I r
150
0
Subtotals 252
Total 693
South Approach
359
181
0
I3 100
~ L
i
North
j r
14 277
441
Yarrow Drive
178
L 59 ....... 1105 r 109
Total
Subtotals
Sub-
totals Totals
1273
34 3217
1944
Palomar Airport Road
Note : Left-tum volumes include
U-tums. U-turns in bold.
E
a
s
t
A
p
p
r
LD DATA SERVICES OF ARIZONA, INC.
520.316.6745
N-S STREET: ''''":L:;;:, _,..,. DATE: ;f/1.Ji?i2t2f;l'J.4 -~~t''' E-W STREET: · : DAY: TUESDAY
CONTROL: .· -· (ct __ ; '-
Ar~ NORTHBOUND SOUIHBOUND
NL NT NR SL ST SR EL
LANES: 1 2 0 0 1 0 1
6:30AM 6 0 7 1 o-1 5
6:45AM 1 0 14 3 0 3 4
7:00AM 5 0 10 0 o. 1 11
7:15AM 5 2 14 2 Q; 4 10
7:30AM 27 2 10 8 2 2 8
7:45AM 12 1 10 2 1 2 20
8:00AM 7 3 15 6 1 2 22
8:15AM 6 2 15 12 1 9 11
8:30AM 15 3 13 9 0 6 11
8:45AM 10 3 16 2 0 5 15
9:00AM 11 2 19 3 1 6 9
9:15AM 14 2 15 7 0 6 14
Volumes 119 . 20 168 55 6 47 140
Approach% 40.07 6.73 53.20 50.93 5.56 43.52 4.38
LOCATION: l~rd§Q?Ji~
PROJECT# ··:t4i?2~;,;Q:ta+ AlliTYit?v~
EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL
3 0 1 3 0
168 18 44 222 8 480
170 25 56 320 6 602
164 19 54 244 12 520
209 28 61 307 28 670
222 36 70 307 33 727
276 50 65 357 36 832
239 39 82 293 34 743
271 40 71 329 18 785
273 46 53 316 22 767
250 31 64 290 25 711
223 29 4-8 240 17 608
208 24 48 263 19 620
2673 385 716 3488 258 8065
83.58 12.04 16.05 78.17 5.78
App/Dil!part 297 I 418 108 I 1107 3198 I 2886 4462 I 3654
Pll!ak Volumes 40 9 53 29 3 19 64 1059 175 271 1295 110 3127
Approach% 39.22 8.82 51.96 56.86 5.88 37.25 4.93 81.59 13.48 16.17 77.27 6.56
Pk Hr FACTOR: 0.82 0.58 0.94 0.91 0.9396
AM PkHrat: 746
PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
3:30PM 25 0 68 18 3 21 s 342 17 24 261 15 799
3:45PM 20 2 30 14 2 17 10 339 11 21 263 15 744
4:00PM 31 3 63 14 7 14 10 367 11 27 240 9 796
4:15PM 31 2 62 20 3 21 1l 341 11 33 249 14 798
4:30PM 43 4 135 24 3 17 12 372 22 37 249 13 881
4:45PM 32 1 73 23 4 13 5 378 lJ 29 264 18 853
5:00PM 46 9 69 28 s 17 8 411 14 13 272 9 901
5:15PM 29 0 50 25 1 21 8 431 6 30 320 19 940
5:30PM .26 :1 52 21 9 7 5 339 13 20 277 7 777
5:45PM .24 1 46 14 0 7 8 313 12 15 288 12 740
6:00PM 14 1 33 9 4 9 3 297 10 12 228 4 624
6:15PM 17 3 31 10 3 9 6 320 8 12 262 10 691
Volumes 338 27 662 220 44 173 91 4250 148 273 3173 145 9544
Approach% 32.91 2.63 64.46 50.34 10.07 39.59 2.03 94.68 3.30 7.60 88.36 4.04
App/Depart 1027 I 263 437 I _465 4489 I 5132 3591 I 3684
Peak Volumes 150 14 277 100 13 68 33 1592 55 109 1105 59 3575
Approach% 34.01 3.17 62.81 55.25 7.18 37.57 1.96 94.76 3.27 8.56 86.80 4.63
Pk Hr FACTOR: 0.84 0.91 0.94 0.86 0.9508
PM PkHrat: 430
A_gua f-iedio11:cla South Shore Specific
Plan for 85% O-pen Sp-ace .and 15% Retail
in· Carlsbad& California
Prepared for:
Dudek
606 Third Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
And
Caruso Acquisition Co. II, LLC
701 Palomar Airport Road Suite 130
Carlsbad, CA 92011
B-12
May 7, 2015
SD14-0l54
FEHR,fPEERS
401 West A Street, Suite 900
San Diego, CA
(619) 234-3190
_j
2.4.5 FREEWAY f\AMP OPERATIONS
Ramp metering analyses to calculate del<>ys at the study area freeway on-ramps were conducted based
upon procedures outlined in the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies (TfS) in the San Diego
Region. Ramp meter delays were calcuLated by dividing the Excess Ramp Demand (Ramp Demand -Ramp
Meter Rate) by the most restrictive meter rate provided by Caltrans, and multiplying the rewlt by 60
minutes/hour (Delay = Excess Demand/Ramp Meter Rate x 60 minutes/hour). Ramp queue lengths are
ci;IIcufated by multiplying the Excess Ramp Demand by the aw.m,'lge car length of 29 feet.
2.4.6 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA
ihe analysis of Vear2019 or NE!ar-Term conditions compares baseline conditions (without the Specific Plan)
to conditions with full buildout and occupancy of the Specific Plan area to determine whether or not the
new traffic is expected to significantly impact the .surrounding roadways and intersections.
Per The City of Carlsbad Growth Management Plc;m, the minimum acceptable operating standards for all
roadways is LOS D and the minimum acceptable operating st<:~nds for all intersections is LOS D during peak
hours and LOS C during non-peak hours. If the addition of the Specific Plan's traffic is expected to degrade
desirable service levels (LOS D or better) to more congested service levels (LOSE or F) at an intersection,
then the Specific Plan is considered to have a significant direct impact. Alternatively; if the LOS for any
intersection without the Specific Plan is already LOSE or F and the Specific Plan adds traffic to this location,
causing the delay to increase by more than two seconds, then this is characterized as a significant impact.
These City's LOS standards and significant impact criteria are considered acceptable within the San Diego
R,egion and consistent with the information presented in the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact
Studies (T)S) in the San Diego Region.
. --
Based on the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies {TIS) in the San biego Region, LOS D or better
is used in this study as the threshold for acceptable freeway operations. A significant impact to freeway
mainline lanes is defined to when the Specific Plan causes:
1. a segment operating at LOS D or better (under baseline conditions without the proposed
Specific Plan) to degrade to LOS E or F, or
2. an increase in per lane V/C ratio greater than 0.1 (1%) for segments already operating at LOSE
or F
Ramp meter delays greater than 15 minutes are considered undesirable when the ramp is accessing a
freeway segment operating at LO$ E or F. If a ramp meter is operating unacceptably (i.e. delay is 15 minutes
or greater) and the Specific Plan adds traffic to the on-ramp, causing the delay to increase greater than two
16
8"'13
seconds, the this would pe characterized as a si!:Jnificant impact. Table 4 summarizes the impact thresholds
as identifieo by the SANTEC/ITE guidelines.
lOS D, E, & F (orf?riip
riJeter delpyS ~bi)ve
15 min.) :.;
Notes:
TABLE 4 -MEASURE OF S:lGNIFCANT TRAFFIC Ir\IIPACTS
O,Ql -"; :0.02 1 2 2
* Alllevl!ll of service (LOS) measurements are based upon HCM procedures for peak-hour ~onditions. However, vehicle to capacity (VJC)
ratios for R-oadl\faY Segments maybe estimlltecl on lln AO't/;14-hi:>ur traffic volume basis (u~ing Table 2.1 qr a similar lOS chart for
eachjurjsclict[011). The acceptable LOS for freeways, roadwlly$, and intersections is generaHy ·o• {"C" ftlr undev~:b::>ped or not densely
developed l~ations per jurisdir;tion definitiqns), For metered freeway ramps, LOS does not apply. However, ramp meter delays above
15 minut~ are C()n~idered excessive.
** If the Spedfk Plan's traffic causes the values shown in the table to be exceeded, the impacts are determined to be signific~;~nt. These
impact chariges may be measured from l;jppropriate computer programs or expanded manual spreadsheets. The Specific Plan
developer shall then identify feasible EPFS (Within the Traffic ImpaCt Study report) that will maintain the traffic facility at an acceptabie
LOS. If the LOS with the Specific Plan becomes LOSE or F {see above* note), or if the Specific Plan adds a significant amount of peak·
hour trips to cause any traffic queues to exceed ori~ or off-ramp storage capacities, the Specific Plan developer shall be responsible
for significantly reducing significaht Impact changes.
Source: SANTECIITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) in the San Diegq Region (20QO)
The City of Carlsbad does not have adopted impact criteria for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit impacts. For .
this study, however, these impacts are generally evaluated based on whether the proposed Specific Plan
would: 1) conflict with existing or planned pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities, or 2}. create walking,
bicycling, ortransit use demand without providing adequate and appropriate facilities for non-motorized
mobility, The existing amenities for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit users vvere inventoried to evaluate the
quality of the facilities in place today. The assessments of planned facilities outlined in planning documents,
such as the San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan, were used to evaluate future conditions for non-automobile
modes. Fot these modes, if the Specific Plan is exp:cted to conflict vvith existing or planned improvements
to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or if the Specific Plan is expected to generate a substantial demand vvhich
could warrant additional transit service, then the Specific Plan is expected to have a direct impact It is
important to note that the City's draft General Plan Mobility Element update includes specific
methodologies for analyzing operating levels and impacts for all non-automobile travel modes.
17
8 ... 14
'• 3.2 EXISTING NETWORK AND INTERSECTION VOLUMES
The operations of the 33 study intersections were evaluated during weekday morning (6:30 to 9:30AM) and
weekday evening {3:30 to 6:30 PM) peak period conditions. Traffic counts were initially obt;;;ined from the
Ciiy of Carlsbad 2014 Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP). The TMP collected traffic data during the summer
of 2014, which include data on Carlsbad Boulevard, Cannon Road, 1:1 Camino Real; and P13lomar Airport
Road; Of the Specific Plan's 33 existing study intersections, 22 intersections were included in the TMP. For
the 11 intersections not included in the TMP, new intersection counts were conducted in mid-November
2014 on a typical weekday when local schools were in session.
Prior to conducting the existing intersection analysis, the raw traffic data collected was adjusted and
modified to account for the following:
• The 2014 TMP summer counts were cornp.ared to the mid-November 2014 counts on Cannon
Road to determine if there was a notable difference between the, fall {November) .and summer
{July) counts, The volume comparison was made at adjacent intersections and revealed that the
summer and fall counts were dose in magnitude. The summer volumes on Cannon Road were
marginally higherthan fall counts; thus, fall counts were adjusted by increasing the thru volumes
on Cannon Roa.d by 5% to consistently reflect peak Se\'lson demand.
fi During both the 2014 TMP summer counts and mid-November 2014 counts, the number of travel
lanes on Cannon Road between LEGOLAND Drive and faraday Avenue was affected by the Cartsb<:Jd
desalination plant and pipeline construction activities. Doring both count periods, the number of
through lanes on Cannon Road on these segments was reduced to one lane in each direction. To
determine the potential effect of construction and the reduced number of lanes, the 2014 pe9k
hour roadway counts were to,:npared to 2013 counts for segments of Cannon Road and ~aLor!.lar
Airport Road, between El Camino Real and I-5. Our evaluation revealed that peak hour volumes
were generally the same from 2013 to 2014, where peak hour volumes on Cannon Road were
slightly less (between S and 7%) in 2014 than 2013. Given that the volume differen.ce between the
two years was nominal and within the normal daily variation of traffic volumes, it was concluded
2014 volumes were appropriate for use in the analysis.
Existing lane configurations and signal controls were obtained through field observations. Figure 5
presents the study area's existing AM and PM peak-hour :turning movement volumes, corresponding lane
configurations, and traffic control devices. The unadjusted or raw traffic count data sheets are provided in
Appendix A.
27
m I
~
0')
\.
\
I " ~ \,
/
:~t8Tt;~:c¥li;!\~~eil~·8M!!'iV1~;$f~mlh~!t!!\ljllifa(lii(iiy;A~i•';j•o;;P.iifQmli<:,i,i~t'itdi~.>venl<!~·ll~l~;;~>atilma<Air!lq•i Bfmcss8Riimp.o4~1riii?il,pQ~~~
--I """' H I ' !I l ~t!.~.& .,._!ll!ll!3) '*;=3;l(2S) r41t2n
~-;;:;: ilti:; :;:~~ ~-m~ . 1~ e.e.::;: .._ 309(3~'2! . -f'l; ,1o__at9(1·,005\ ~~-0<1(94fJJ . ~17D!$Hf ~~~~:l: . '\ _.f·/'"'-. ----~ ..... :~:--._: )~
x·~ ,.....-~ .Q' ,..,....,~~~ .. .,.. -~-----• \ <:~~/· . \\ { ... ---,~~~ -\
. I gi ..
,____ ·--JJ.lllt-• <ltitl'
l!H:::: ";;::;"'~. I!W3J
1
ii lJI +=:sssr;so) · I . t•11tMB5l Jj.l. 3S0(2!!1l • .J~!. " . . . i
-<O{!B)_,. _:~11' • I' 38S(B901::::: 'I ,., .... ~ ,..;:.,
J!lll<ll"
1~i=-;; .~~m=~. l ~~tt
·~~. ,,_
... / ----.,i:Z·'""<.,..,. ;.;(< --~~{-, ~. . · . -~--~· ~:·.fl~~~~~t!Pdrt;~as~.o~t~# r2~:,~afp~t?Ar$~rt!B.d~~!n1itdJ!,or~ 2s~#]~M,Alipo~·Rd!Hitfden,V~~J?s. ?atoni3t Airport Ad!Ci:it~OOffif.:~~~;C~.tftt~~\~~-~:
i ! . . l I ~ ; ·.. I ·-. i\j."' --. -i ""' i I ""'""' l ,· \ ....... gr!! ... i::'~T1(209) ~-'i'~ .·'-n6(13r Jrn~ ! .(!t._t!BtfOS) · ;.~g · .. ~&r(!ltl ~:~!-.:. t4~3231 / ·Cl·: --~·· ~~~-' .. ::::~~~'i:9i . ~_iH! E~BB(~3<!) i~;: -:::1.1J41l2.1L,l $!~~ :;:::~.~:'_~;~77} I :;:~i-* E.t.235(95B) J1J -'"··,·· '\ ·-r JJ~• ~ .. ~~ , I Jtl.l. .... ~ 9\ ""' J~~ .-'"""'' I ""'"'~ ; ;;;,,., l I --· 1iUW' ~"''''"'l
/ -'\ 1so~e: !~!. 1a~~~~ 1 l".!r 15!511:,. _y~ "~ .. ,1.,,:::_ 1 :_>lt~ r--. 1 .. ,.,.,::a_ .JJ:!1!!'! ./ '.__ 2155(11541=:. ~~~-.2.l42tt.2um-i3~i 2,11s(1,~~::;: :;t:~ ,l.:J.:J.3n.2s!:l)_ · ~~~ I/ arbt1.-'~SH_-...· ~Gl~:i
-~~-~ l:(l;t'~ !
,204~8}~-tiE'-§' 61{Z:SPJ~.. ', 1,184{1,02~)=: ~t?s_ 51(·~~ we:;. i _ ~I iE g
<lp ~.............,I 1 ~::!-12{2$)~· ~t8S1}:::t $-t!-:s;, r. ~~m
._(!1) ' ·;,._ / ... /--CARLSBAD /""\ . 1:!!lh7<J--.'" ~-if~ 14£(135)=:-I ~i;~ !32(1 -.. : ~"'];' J 12SI2Slil:;t' ~ ~~-~ ' 13<111'1)"'>"" ;:;~iil&.
'-'·";-, '\,; -_,.Ai!!r~--....___ .// .[ ·:.2l!cPOinS!!maiiin-s5aRamjif;'.; :-~~P~i!Y!ii;i;N!j;i:!airlJ;ii;,c :3o:.ti6i_rt~e.~nii'il<iiO'IimNo~ii'\.' a1:Pilinse!lliitliiMiiliii.i'l\iiiY·o· .iliercam:""•~Ko\e(!l~~illlt1iii
~~~---:, · ''·· / ~-:_ ,:;--1 :;, I ~~,;; ~ ' ~-~ ~.:. ~H -: ': ··~~r.l.t~NHt~;\ .~/ S! a t:i ;;t;' ! ; -~ ~S iE'ts'~-;;. 9?(113}
\. \_ ~:: ~ ~-· • ---~ ".-•• • 4 tfs tas'll(~1l ~3li!l2hn ~~e "' .4'fi.-~1.(HJ~ ' ~~* .;s....rotnot *'_gc~ ::afittml , .-··+-. ;;_ ). / -~~ .-""'~""! tlilr.!(1,lll'Zl ~::c'l .o;::aM(G69J j _ -~ <;::288[303) ! --'!'!"' ..-.,,10,3! \ . 1, i!lli!ll .. ,,., : ·::, ..... / Jj.4 .-.JJ. 1!(15) I •U\· '"''"I ' J.HW ""stzJ
< '!;1f ,. \• • -· T 1"-c'><• • j-= \ · • ·.. ·" '-.. . , in ,!0),.. ~t . T ')rt ---,.~.... ,,m· ·\· :, . r----...._ . ·-, 5~{89 -12."111$4)_,., _ _;,....,. ID\~31!]}-'"' -..---. -3(1~{1!.l2l::,.. 1 ...:___ j B9{HIOJ-"'" ---,_'-~ ,._,. ,_ , \ \ • .-•s•ta,~=:-!!Ollie!!;)~ re*lil 1.•••r,.,l!l= ili*"-l ~~~~~,=;;:-1 il ~Pl. j ,.,,.,::::: \l'wl1l · ':. v· ~~--it;' iOj .27;(00}-.... ~ Fa --i<r;;:;'~ ;:!92{!f29)'..... til.:>=" {~~,;<'' '<-~·< . . \ ~'~ '"~"" .,._...,..:.,:.,.,, . I .'.'___ · "!" I
. ,•,.•1, ·• '•/. "l'"r'. gm;_,..__17ej.j,SJ
•• \ "'• 1:, ' ~ • / • 'l· , 'i~~~ ~S{13} ' ·:.. ~ ' ; .(}!\It . ..,., •• ,2921
:".•t:t:..t'~tri
~ Study tl'lf(Jf'$t(fi¢r:
UCW SptQfic ~l;m OI'We.Wit)l -~J! it··
~,mr
g~fi! ~ !g.
lntatseodonOoe• NotEl<ist Under This· Scenario
-Ft1\ut~ Ro.:u:.tw~ ..
;~=: Stv:tiltt ntM Sit1~
f'o\~,\JiJo-11•
!I
~""-
~t()(t~ \_A
\ ""n'·
"----·
10{15)-"' "S(9}~ >)lSI..,..
Figure 5
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. and Lane Ctmflgurat!ons
Existing Conditions
$.3 EXISTING INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
Existing peak-hour volumes and lane configurations were used to calculate levels of service for each of the
study intersections. The results of the existing LOS analysis are presented in Table 5 and the corresponding
LOS calculation sheets are included in Appendix B.
The JCIJ analysis results indicate that all 33 existing intersection are operating at LOS D or better undt:!r
Existing Conditions.
TASLE 5 -lEXISnNG INTERSECTiON LEVEl, OF SERVICE
AM 0.57 B 1. Carlsbaq Blv<:l /Tamarack Ave PM 0.59 B
1,5 ss· Ramps I Tam!:lrack Ave AM 0.65 c 2. PM M3 · B
s. AM 0.65 c I-5 NB Ramps I Tamarack Ave PM 0.63 B
AM 0.60. B
4. Tamarack Ave I El Camino Real PM 0.55 B
AM 0.49 A 5. Cannon Rd 1 Carlsbad Blvd
PM 0.69 c
Cannpri Rd 1 Avenida Encinas AM 036 A 6. PM 0.46 A
AM DAB A 7. I-5 SB Ramps I Cannon Rd
PM 0.70 c
AM 0.48 A 8, I-5 NB Ramps I Cannon Rd PM 0.70 c
AM 0.56 B 9. Cannon Rd I Paseo Del Norte PM 0.57 B
AM 0.52 A 10. Cannon Rd I Car Country Dr PM 0.58 B
AM 0.39 A 11. Cannon Rd I Armada Dr PM 0.44 A
AM 0.35 A 12. Cannon P.d 1 Grand Pacrfic Dr
PM 0.46 A
AM 0.47 A
13. Cannon Rd I Faraday Ave
PM 0.58 B
30
T'ABlE 5-EXISTrNG INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERV!CE
AM 0.68 c
14. Cannon Rd 1 El Camino Real PM 0.80 D
AM 0.40 A
15. Paseo Del Norte I Car Countty Dr PM 0.38 A
AM 0.26 A 16. Paseo Del Norte I Outlets Dwy PM 0.41 A
AM 0.44 A
17. College Blvd I Faraday Ave PM 0.54 A
AM 0.60 e lB. College BlVd'/ El C.amino Real PM 0;62 B
AM 0.66 c 19. El Camino Real I Faraday Ave PM 0.66 c
AM 0.56 B 20. P<Jiorna~ Airport Rd I Avenida Encinas PM 0.62 B
AM 0.49 A 21. 1-5 SB Ramps 1 Palomar Airport Rd PM 0.49 A
AM 0.75 D
22. I-5 NB Ramps 1 Palomar Airport Rd PM 0,6.6 c
AM 0.71 c
23. Palornar Airport Rd I Paseo Del Norte PM 0.70 c
AM 0.69 c 24. Palomar Airport Rd I Armada Dr PM 0;69 c
AM 0,66 c
25. P£ilomat Airport Rd 1 Hidden Valley Rd PM 0.70 c * c~~;}tAinoort Rd I Co!~e Bl~ . AM 0.68 c
PM 0.82 D
AM 0.62 B . 27. Palomar Airport Rd 1 El Cammo Real PM 0.77 D
AM 0.52 A 28. I-5 SB Ramps I Poinsettia Ln PM 0.69 c
AM 0.52 A
29. 1-5 NB Ramps/ Poinsettia l,.n PM 0,99 c
AM 0.70 c 30. Poinsettia Ln 1 Paseo Del Norte PM o.n c
AM 0.55 B
31. Poinsettia Lnl Aviara Pkwy PM 0.68 c
AM 0.60 B
32. ,Alga Rd-Aviara Pkwy I El Camino Real PM 0.67 c
31
8"'18
Ill
I
~
<0
TABI.E 6 -IOOSI'JNG CONDl)lONS ROADWAY PEAK .HOUR VOLUMES AND l.ML Ol'SERW:E
1-5 SB ruJmpsto !-5 NB Ramps Wll 2 3.600
Ell 2 3,600 1.295 949 0.36 0;26 A A
l-5 NB Ramps to Paseo Del Nort• WB 3 5.400 684 1.714 0.13 0.32 A A
EB 2 3,600 1.040 799 0.29 0,22 A A
PoseoDeiNortetoCarcountry Wf! ·2 3,G()O 610' 1;2!:12 0.17 036 A A
EB 2 3.600 913 829 0.?5 0.23 A A.
Car Cmmtry Dr to Armada Or WB· 2 3;6(10 636 1.211 0.18 0.34 A A
Efl 2 3;600 574 900 0.16 028 A A
Armad~ Dr to Grand Pacific Dr ' ViiS 2 il.600 -8S6 909 0.~4 0.25 A A
EB 2 3",600 542 !l89 0:15 0.27 A A
GrandPadfjtOrtoFaradayAve WB 2 3,600 B71 '903 024 0.?.5 A A
EB 2 MOO 195 -· 952 0.05 0;26 A A
F•raday Ave to E1 Olmlno Real . WB· 2 . _ 3.600. 762 318· 021 :~~·~arac~~AV~n!Je=.~:.:~7:::~''·.~'.:r ~:~~f=i:r;l!,~~.A~;\':f'Mt~~~;;~:&rJ.;~Jf~~~;Y;:tri;,r?.tJ'"F-!")~.r::~~~!Wf.?.:i%'!!'f,,~~W~M$:~~m_~rrd~~~~{~¥!'X:;mbi:fi~W;~~~~-mf$t*¥tl;\~Y-U~s~~!~~-~·if:::~~-~:7:r:t:F;):7
'i>~i6;;;~;-Ai;~o.ti!ib~IF~"
-*-· *
;
EB l l.llOO 712 356 0.40
Carlsbad Blvd to l-5 S8 Romps WB 1 l.BllO 525 199 0.29
EB 2 3 •. 600 487. 643 0.14
1-5 SB Ramps lo 1-5 MB Ramps Wll .Z · 3.600 7B4 668 0.22
EB 2
WB ·---·--~'!: ... -------
Ell 3
Pasec Del Norte to Armada Or WB 3
t;B 3
Attn a-da Dr to The Crossing~ D.r WB 3
Ell. 3
T~~ Crossings Or to College ·Bhld WB 3
ea 3
Colleg~ Blvd to El Olinlno R~al WB 3
EB/N.B 2·
P<!lomar Airport Rtt to ·Faraday Ave WB/Sll l
3.£00
3jGOO
5;400
5.4!10
5.40tl
5.400
5,400
5;400
5,400
3.600
1,8'00
292
211
2;465
1,140
:1.283
1.172
2247
1.103
307
870
!>92
1.578
2;555
1.77.6
2,387
1,695
?_;377
un
MSS
'?>72
!.fr31
O.OB
OA5
0'21
0.4~
0.22
0.42
0.22
0.21
0.32
0.31
0.17
0.20
ll.ll
0.18
0.19
021
029
0.49
0.32
0.44
·0.31
{}.44
0.27
0.10
0$7
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
tll .2 S,GO!J • 865" 1,077 0.24 0.30 A A
Paseo Dcl'Norte to Ailia,.. Pkl'l)i .WB 2-3;600 :6'74· l!Sl 0.19 0.26 A A
.FE~~
NB 2 3,600 254 •us 0.07 0.26 A A
North -ofTnmarar:k AVe-Sil .7. 3i600 563 536 {l.l6 0.15 A A
33
. ··.
SANDAG model reflects the forecasted population and employment from land uses that are consistent with
the adopted General Plans of all18 cities plus the County of San Diego within SANDAG's jurisdiction. The
SANDAG model used for this analysis was the same Series 12 baseline model used for the Carlsbad General
Plan Update (2012) analysis.
Daily traffic volumes generated from the model were refined and used in this study to develop peak hour
turning movement volumes. Post processing of the daily volumes to estimate peak hour volumes was
conducted using a Furness process, which takes the daily roadway volume growth between the base year
(2011) and future year model and distributes the growth proportionally using existing intersection turning
movement counts. Refinements were mad~ to the processed volumes to confirm that volume growth by
turning movement was reasonable.
8.3 2035 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The 2035 baseline peak hour turning movement volumes were Input into Synchro with the corresponding
system improvements from Section 8.1 and intersection operations were calculated. Table 22 presents the
potential intersection operating conditions and traffic imi)C!cts under 203.5 13asellne Conditions. The
corresponding lOS calculation sheets are included in Appr:mdix 0. The analysis results indicate that 23
study intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS D or better under 2035 Baseline Conditions. The
remaining 10 study intersections are expected to operate at LOS E or F for at leas~ one peak hour:
4. Tamarack Avenue I El Camino Real -LOS E (AM peak hour) and lOS F (PM peak hour)
6.
14. Cannon Road 1 El Camino Real ~LOS E (AM peak hour) and LOS F (PM peak ho.t,rr)
18. College Boulevard I El Camino Real-lOS F (AM and PM peak hours)
19. El Camino Real/ Faraday Avenue -LOS E (AM and PM peak hours)
23. Palomar Airport Road 1 Paseo del Norte -!..OS E (PM peak hour)
f 24. Palomar Airport Road I Armaela Drive-LOS F (PM peak hour) -
·::JL_ 26. Palomar Airport Road 1 College Boulevard -LOSE {AM peak hour} and LOS F (PM peak hour) 7\ 27. Palomar Airport RoadIE! Camino Real-LOS F (AM and PM peak hours)
32. Alga Rd-Aviara Parkway'l El Camino Real-LOS F {AM peak hour) and LOS E (PM peak hour)
33. Poins~ttia Lane I El Camino Real -LOS E (PM peak hour)
Turning movement traffic volumes and intersection lane configurations for 2035 Baseline Conditions are
shown in figure 13.
84
e .. 2o
iU ~ ll ~ 0 ~ ~ ii' i Vi
< ~ ~ ! " ~ ,g l ~ J X " l ;
I
8-21
19. El Camino Real 1 Faraday Ave
20. Palomar Airport Rd I Avenida Encinas
21. I-5 SB Ra1nps 1 Palomar Airp01t Rd
22. 1-5 NB Ramps I Palomar Airport Rd
23. Palomar Airport Rd I Paseo Del Norte
24. Palomar Airport Rd 1 Armada Dr
27. Palomar Airport Rd I El Camino Real
28. I-5 SB Ramps 1 Poinsettia Ln
29. 1·5 NB Ramps/ Poinsettia Ln
30. Poinsettia Ln 1 Paseo Del Norte
31. Poinsettia Ln 1 Aviara Pkwy
32. Aviara Pkwy 1 El Camino Real
33. Poinsettia Ln I El Camino Real
34. Cannon Rd I Specific Plan Dwy
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2015.
Notes:
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
~~ .. ·=-·
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
158.4 ,f
139.8 F
148.4 F
28.8 c
43.2 D
14.7 B
11.2 B
29 c
36.1 D
44.5 D
72.9 E
32.4 c
94.3 F
35.8 D
35.3 D
57.5 :] 89.3
112 " "-~"--,"-"-,:-"
176.2 F
14.4 B
31.6 c
16.4 B
21.3 c
34.4 c
37.7 D
28.7 c
35.4 D
61.2 E
149.3 F
43.4 D
74.5 E
Does Not Exist
1 Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop control
intersections.
2 LOS calculations pe1formed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HC/11) method"
' LOS E or F operations highlighted in bold.
B-22
88
_j
..
I
4 Our analysis does not include the pre-emption at the Cannon Road/Avenida Encinas intersection as we determined that the
pre-emption frequency is nominal during peak hours. However, when rail pre'emptions are frequent, op~rations at this
intersection are worse.
8.4 2035 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
Table 2.3 displays the LOS analysis for the Specific Plan study roadway segments under 2035 Baseline
Conditions. As shown in the table, all roadway segments currently operate acceptably at LOS D or better.
I 8,5 2035 FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 24 displays the freeway Level of Service analysis for I~s under 20.35 Year Conditions. As shown, all
freeway segments on I-5 would operate at undesirable levels (LOS E) during peak hours under 2035 Baseline
Conditions, except for the segment between Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive, which is expected
to operate at lOS D.
8.6 2035 RAMP METERING ANALYSIS
Table 25 displays the ramp metering analysis conducted at the Tamarack Avenue, C:annon Road, Palomar
Airport Road; and Poinsettia lane southbound and northbound On-ramps on 1-5 under 2035 Baseline
Conditions. The following ramp meters are assumed to not be in operation under one or both peak hours
consistent With Existing Conditions:
• I~s ~Bon-ramp from Tamarack Avenue-PM peak hour
" I-5 NB on-ramp from Tamarack Avenue-AM and PM peak hours
" I~S NB on-ramp from Cannon_ Road ... AM peak hour
" 1-5 NB on-ramp from Palomar Airport Road -AM peak hour
" I-5 NB on-ramp from Poinsettia Lane-AM Peak hour
As shown in Table 25, the following ramps are expected have insufficient capacity to sei-ve on-ramp
volumes during one or both peak hours:
~ I-5 SB on-ramp from Tamarack Avenue-AM peak hour
t I-5 SB on-ramp from EB Palomar Airport Road -PM peak hour
I-S SB on-ramp from WB Palomar Airport Rbad -PM peak hour
I-5 NB on-ramp from Palomar Airport Road -PM peak hour
I-5 SB on-ramp from Poinsettia lane-AM peak hour
8-23
89
TABLE 2! • 203!> SAsEUillE PEAlCHOIJitV()UlMES AND lMLOF SERVICE
_.-~~
C-armon Road
EB 2
!-S SB Ramps to 1-5 NB !lamps we 2 3,t;OO 810 1,130 0.23 0.31 A A
EB 2 3,600 1,850 li?40 04G 0.34-A A
l· S NB Ramps to Pas eo Del Norte WB 3 5.400 900 2.150 0.17 0.40 A A
ea 2 3;600 1.320 1.020 0,37 0,7.8 A A Paseo Del Norte to Car country WB 2 3,600 900 1,590 022 0:44 A A
EB 2 ~.600 1.100 1,040 031 0.29 A A C~r Country Or to Armada Dt WB ·2 3;6QO 800 1,<100 0.22 0.39 A A
Ell 2 3,500 no 1.210 0.20 034 A A Armad• Dr to Grand Pacific Dr wa 2 ~,Qoo l.Ua 1,140 031 032 A A
EB 2 3;6oo 710 1,210 020 03<1 A A ~J:and.Padfk Or to Faraday Ave WB -2· 3,600 1.130 1,150 0.31 D.3Z A A
:E9 2: 3;~00 450 1,470 0.13 OA1 A A m Faradav Ave to El Camino Real Wll 2 3,600 1,100 690 0.3-l 0.19 A A \ . .. •" --'-· ,··-'7;·· I Tamarac~ /l.vi'Onue
'1;800 860 DAB 0.46 A A 1\.) EB 1 830
~ Carlsbad Blvd to 1~ 5 SB Jiamps WB 1 1,800 930 B70 0.52 VA8 A A
ES 2 3,SOO 530 810 0,18 0.23 A A 1-5 SG Ramp; to 1·5 NB namps WB 2 3;500 l,tibo 860 028 ll.Z4 A A
E8 2 3,600 830 1,070 0.23 0.30 A A l-S NB Ramps to El Camino Real WB 2 3;600 1.150 700 0.32 0.19 A A
'•''• p..,lo'mar Airport Road A ·,;, EB 3" 5,400 3~050 2,140 O.SG MO A Pnseo 0~1 Norte td Armada Dr WB 3 5,400 ],490 g,2SS o.2a 0.61 A A
EB 3 ~,400 2,750 2,210 0.51 0.41 A A . ·-·~." Arm~da Dr to J"he Grossli'lg.s.Dr .. .-... , ..... , . wrr 3 SAOO 1,515 1.,B3S 0.?.8 0.53 A A
( ~--· -~ Th• Crossings Dr to College Blvd ....... ~. ···---·,,-..._\ EB 3 5;400 2,950 ~.290 0:55 0.42 A A
WB 3 MOO 1,510 2,971) 0.28 o.ss A A
\'-...... -~ College Blvd to El Camino Real ,;...~.--/ _ ·;·
E8 3 5.400 2,175 2,560 0.40 0.48 A A
WB 3 5,400 2.220 2,355 0.41 0.44 A A
"' Co!fl!ge BoUf{l.V"\rct ~ ·~~~" ... ~.., ·~ ~ -m-.,_, ~"··~~ """"~.-;.,-~-"""'-_,.,...., ~ . /, ~
EB/MB 2 3,600 1,830 1,470 0.51 om A A ~alomar Airport M to Faraday Mo W6/Sll 1 l,l!QQ. 840 1480 0.47 O.Bl A A -· ·--. ~ . ' .. ··;--· .. -~·:· --~;.· . Ptlinsettia Ln
Paseo Del Norte to Aviara Pktvy EB 2 3;600-1,410 1.410 0.39 0.41 A A
i 90
9.0 YEAR 203 5 PLUS SP'ECIFiC PLAN CONDIT!ONS' ·
This chapter summarizes and presents the results of the operations analysis under the Ye:ar 2035 scenario,
with the proposed Specific Plan. Under this 2035 Plus Specific Pian Conditions scenario, Specific Plan traffic
estimated and assigned to the study intersections and roadway segments was added to 2035 Baseline traffic
volumes. The 2035 Plus Specific Plan Conditions roadway network is the same network assumed under the
baseline scenario, except for the addition of the site driveways that is discussed in Chapter 4. The Specific
Plan trip assignment was superimposed on 2035 Baseline traffic volumes to yield 2035 Plus Specific Plan
volumes.
9.1 INTERSECTION ANALYSI?
Turning movement traffic volumes and intersection lane configurations for the 2035 Plus Spedfic Plan
Conditions are shown on F!igure 14. This information was used to calculate operations under this scenario.
Table 26 presents the intersection operating conditions and traffic impacts under the 2035 Plus Specific
Plan Conditions and comp(lres the projected levels of servi<::e ai: each study intersection under 2035 Baseline
Conditions. The corresponding LOS calculation sheets are rnduded in Appendix D,
As indicated in Table 26, after applying the aforementioned SANTEC I ITE significant impact criteria, it is
determined that the proposed Specific Plan would increase delay by more than two seconds compared to
2035 Baseline Conditions and would rest~ It in a significant impact at the following 9 locations:
4. Tamarack Avenue I El Camino Real
9.. Cannon Road I Paseo del No.J!e/Specific Plan Driveway
14. Cannon Road I Ef Camino Real
19. El Camino Real/ Fataday Avenue
23. Paiomar Airport Road 1 Paseo del Norte
24. Palomar Airport Road I Armada Drive
'jj-. 26. P~lomar A~rport Road I Colleg~ Boulevard
f\.J 27. Palomar Atrport Road I El Cammo Real
32. Alga Rd-Aviara Parkway I El Camino Real
B-25
93
D'J I ~ m
'·\
'· '· ., ~~~:-~~'""'<•,..:-<~
''•t-f /./: ·-:...~,_,:><J::~-:
;:::'" ···~·.;/?:K
.)· ' ).~. \
/"',/ ,._,_,.....,....
i ·'
/
I , __
.. Ja, coflege~eiVdil:fcam!no.Ri!a[ .19; EI-C1linlno Ri!aiiF.r'l'!"YAi>~PaiOmtl} ....;;o;.•Rti!A•""lda'Eilclml~ 2LPa!omor Altpo" f'!dn·SSB Ramp•]?•· ?•tom"" Af!llotf Rilll45'00 flamJl!;l
"' l'r I I ' ! ,. I gl;.._ . ~"' =! . ,re ~ • I M;!$g. g-:::.~--noo ~ u.E. ~ ~ ·.~:&.8-a ~-.!ID(<fJ'I.. 1'1. !~g. _;;:.. ·.~.S!5ID) ti. ~ :j -..JmO .. IM_ •> I .~_g 1
, :l~Of1.:t<~D} 1_ ::::,... !1.2701 l .;!..rt;W. ~730ffi00l ~-.;!"e!g -51!(2:28) g2.:;: ~'21io'!500) ~:;. ...,..::~ -J!Wt ..... !!0017!0) ;mw rteO{l!J!tl) Jj,.~ --~10(31<) I~""' -~Ak . _,,16001 l "'=·-='""''•Sll"
••• 11!,.1... ~tltr ~!~'"' 11,lt~ ••II!•> I ,rr ~-H' ~ 'trr ~~i;~~ I ~I!I· Jst1~:1 ill_~ !~=~ .~~~ . 4
. 3.iU:: ,A,~t~:g~m=t Jf.l 1 8;r~ .,.om li!!!!~ ~'1~7 lif ~ I ..... ~-.l" c;>~-.--A l ::
2a~,j>a'10iii!\\'At<i><i~·!'l~ii;i!>§~:ili>JiO_l~4'P,ii!ii!§tJII!ilill't[fi\!1A\i§i(~\l:!T.'!l:i!!!;!•i!li!!j@~,:Bdlindd~~Xi
id ..!:::2.2(2112). I ~iii§ "11'1'5'!:!" __ 1;.2'8.~.{2,>1-«} Qoi
:iil;C ;;;;~~m, . . "J!J.
to"s_,,.. l Y'ltr , ..... ,.._..,~.__~'tl::r--• .-.t-l --
. ~{254).::::!.. St!rS' ~,~~=;f ' li~
' \~-~ I CARlSBAD
s i l l . ~1s'E _ _ _ • . •• ,, ~ .'-.. ~-v.~~ j ~g_t:.!-! :t::a!ID{940) . • .!:::"""".S9J .~~~ ~;~{;,'Hror I ~-8~ .:-!l'f~(S43J l -~c-,~ ..-s:aoi410}I · ; \x. -/ lll"l'l ;::s•ot••o; ;l::1,U\bfM<ol -!~. .-,.1201 I JJ~ ..-,•t••l ~!ll.lt ""'•ol51 ~ ~' ·-/ J41. • . ..._.. • • 11' ,. 50) 111t~ ·" .; _ · ; ' 'irr . •I'll.,. '~" •npo,,::: l~-""''~·~~ -., .. ft...t<:::<\i;:nc.,.,u. 1\\ \'
_';. \ . · ~ •· ·. -190(.:!5D}~ ·S"-ei'S'· 3B0(5m))~ S:S'G" S:'!1(152)=::;t" ;,·~·§ lD7lSG3):::::t' 3"-:Ji1j \ r-----. .__ . _I ,_. ~ir,gl""' I ... ,,,,,,,::::::I i'J."'Iii .,;,st'"""i""' ;;~""~ ' ''""''~ I ii:!>:rn I ••21·"'1..... \!i'lig J ,. \ ·~ .f c~O. 3fl(Bll} 11 lll-~ • ·::-N j ·'"'""""""' . \ <. ~· ~ J -~ m . • -~ . . it{-~ ... ' ::!-_, . .--I ~\ _-c'-~'' -·-.. -· ":;, \ · -:33, P.of,.,.,!!latniEICanitn.~Real·" :;~~,:c~nn6nJli:I7'Speel!'ro·PfiurOwy: ·;·~--"' '·, -. ~ ', ·I ~ H
.. _..--m<·. ~ ~•4 !~.!--~ .,'S..,.TOl{fl21
,:, . ".,\ \ !' ' l !~.~ij-nt ~21~{2,1~ ~48'(105} -9S3{'J,Il0~) ~~ Study lrtlt'IMN;.fi::}r;
Nl!'l'f "Sp-~dfk: p:~ Dt!VC"",Y.W
---t:"i!ttlrto Rt:<tdw;rv
:-_,~: Sp.etific .P!ai~$11.1!-
'·· ···--' 1 ~HW ~""l''lll
I '
-t:/ ·, 23DI1llll)-" fl,fitr -" _j ,-ll;, n-{24"7)·........ iila-Ei"S" 587(989}-~ fi 141(Z/B}=;;t; ~Si-~~ 1~82(1,2.ti1):::. 1/ !il!;.-0' g_, ·:;jm~
f. .: ~--\A I !JOen·
a~·,..:.:~:w~c.-
~·:w:o~
,.---~
Fig)lre 14
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
2035 Plus Specific Plan O:mditions
1. Carlsbad Blvd I Tamarac~ Ave
2. I·~ SB Ramps [Tamarack Ave
3. f.5 Na Ramps 1 Tanmrack Ave
4. Tamarack Ave/ El Camino Real
S. Cannon Rd I Carlsbad Slvd
6. Cannon Rcl I Aveni.da Encinas'
7. I·SSB Ramps/Cannon Rd
li. l-5 .NB Ramps 1 c~nnorll<d
g, Cannon Rd I Paseo Del Norte
~0, Cannan Rd I tar CoiJlitly Dr
11. Olnnon Rd 1 Arrpada Dr
12. Cannon M I Grand .Paciflc Dr
13. Olnnon Rd/ F11raday Ava
14. Olnnon Rd 1 El Canilno Real
15. Paseo Del Norte I Cat count')' Dr
16. Paseo Del Norte I Outlets Dwy
17. COllego Blvd /F!rnday Ave
18. Cotleg• Sfvd I El Camino Real
19. El Camino Real/ faraday Ave
20. Paloniar Airport Rd J Avenida
Endna•
21. f.5 SB Ramps I Palomar Airport Rd
22. 1·5 N6 Ramps J Palomar Airport Rd
23. Palomar Airport Rd 1 Paseo Del
Norte
24. Pa!C>mar Airport Rd J Armada Dr
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
pM
AM
PM
22.7
29.8
24.5
23.7
2l.S
16.2
78.4
112.3
i7.S
36.6
i82
20
.39
2~.;>
J.7.6
30.3
19.4
28.1
13.4
22.2
12;4
13.9
9A
10;8
26.7
32.7
92
itJS.6
i.2.9
16
31.8
20
~8.9
51.3
260.6
15SA
~9.8
14M
29.8
43~
14.7
11.2
29
36.1
44.5
72.9
a2.4
94.3
c
c
c
c
c
B
D
B
8
D
c
8
c
c
!J
c
B
a
A
B
c
c
E
B
e
c
a
D
D
F
f
F
c
D
a
22.6
30,6
24,8
14.6
22.1
lo.9
81.2
ll.7;9
18.4
42.8
16:8
21
41$
~ 35.5
~5.3
4lcl
32..8
·66.4'
14.3
2S1J
12;8
15.4
9A
u.o
27;3
42:9
:,64.~:~.
·~~:
12.4
15;4
2}.(}
21.8
503
53.6
260.7
lS9.4
139.2
.:t.!Jl.S
29.0
43.7
14.7
11.2
c
c
c
c
c
B
f
8
D
c
D
D
c
0
c
c
s
c
c
0
D
f
F
}' '
c
0
·0.1
0,8
0.2
0.9
03
0.7
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
0.9 NO
52 NO
·M NO
1.0 NO
2.s No
U.3 NO
B.i 1\10
lllll NO
13-4 NO
X·%~~> :-: , ,, ,ves',
0.9 NO
lll 1110.
M NO
i.S NO
Q NO
0.2 NO
O.S NO
10.2 NO
'~
.~s:
-o.s No
-0,1; NO
-1!1.8
1.8
1.4
.23
0.1
lD
·0.~
:A~
02
0.5
Nd
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ns·,
NO
NO
NO
NO
C 29.0 C 0 NO
D 36.1 D 0 NO
D 48.2 D 3.T NO
E ~~.8 6.9 YES
C 33.5 C 1.1 NO
F ili6.3 F . 12 YES
r-:::--~-..... 25. ~1:\ci~':Y~IIey -~·---~----. D 37.9 D 2.1 NO ~-""" ~<i'l zs. P•lama.rAirportRdrcall•g•fll:: .......... -~~ =~ .. tr ... ··-..............
1
:
1
:
2
.:.·
9
.. ---··~-·-·-~·~o~., .. 9·~co·-.-~o~--·--· · ,
~ '· aamar AirportRd/ El C•min<> A~ 1 · "
Real PM l76.i . _.A.l · Y
28. i·S SB Ramps 1 Poinsettia ln
29. J. 5 NB Ramps ) Poinsettia Ln
30. Poinsettia Ln 1 Paseo Del Norte
AM M.4 14.6 P.2 NO
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
3!.5
164
21.3
34.4
37.7
8 .. 27
c
c
D
3M
16.4
21.3
34,9
39.9
c
8
c
D
-0.8
0.5
2.2
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
96
---,1
9.2 ROADV\fAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Specific Plan traffic traversing the study roadway segments were added to 2035 Baseline Conditions peak
hour volumes. Table 27' displays the LOS analysis for the key study roadway segmerltf; under 2035 Plus
Specific Plan Conditions and compare$ the projected levels of service at each segment with 2035 Baseline
Conditions. As shown in the table, all study roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS D or better
during both p.eak hours.
As indicated in Table 27, after applying the aforementioned SANTEC I ITE significant impact Criteria, it is
determined that the proposed Spt:dfic Plan would not result in any significant impacts to the study rt>adw;:!y
segments under 2035 Plus Specific Plan Conditions
9.3 FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 28 displays freeway operation for 1-5 under 2035 Plus Specific Plan cohditio~s. All fre~ways segments
are :expected to operate iit undesiraple levels (LOS E or F) under 2035 Conditions without and with the
Specific Plan, except for the segment between Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive, which operates
at LOS 0 without the Specific Plan and degrades to ~OS E with the Specific Plan. The <Jddition of Specific
Pian trips at all other locations would further exacerbate operations. After applying the aforementioned
SANTEe I ITE significant impact criteria, it was determined that the proposed Specific Plan wou.ld result in
a significant impact on the five I-5 freeway study segments from La Costa Avenue to Carlsbad Village Drive
since the Specific Plan peak hour addition of traffic to the freeway mainline is more than one {1) percent of
the per lane capacity. The Specific Plan trips are approximately three {3) percent of total traffic volume on .
I-5,
9.4 RAMP METERING ANALYSIS
Table 29 displays the ramp metering analysis conducted at the Tamarack Avenue, Cannon Road, Palomar
Airport Road, and Poinsettia Lane southbound and northbound on-ramps on I-5 under 2035 Plus Specific
Plan Conditions. Similar to 2035 Baseline Conditions, the following ramp meters are assumed to be inactive
under one or both peak hours:
l-5 SB on-ramp from Tamarack Avenue-PM peak hour
l-5 NB on-ramp from Tamarack Avenue-AM and PM peak hours
98
B-28
OJ I
I\)
(C
Roadwoy Segmen':"
Cannon Road
l-5 Stlll.:~mps to l-S.Nti !tamps
i-S NB Ramps 'oP.asaoDe! Norte
Pasco Del Norte to Car Countf}'
Car Country Dr to .A.rm¥a Dr
A1·rnuda Dr to Grand Pa:clfh:: Or
Grand Pacmc Dr to Farad#}' A1Je
FM<"lday A.Vr! to Ei C-amino Rt!al
Tamarack Avenue
Carlsb:.;~rl Blvd to t~S SB Ramps
l·S SB Ramps to l•S Nil Ramps
l-5 N B "R~mp.s to Ef Camino Real
Paldmar Airport -Road
v__
~-u
Paseo De! Nort~ 'to Armaaa Or
Armadfl Dr to The Crossings Or
lh!? Crossings Dt 1o College Bfi:fd
College Blvd to·el Ca:rrtlno Rear
TABlE 27-2.035 PlUS' SPECIFIC PlAN ROADWAY I'EAKHOU!t:VOLUMES AND Ul'IIEL OF S$.1/lCE
· -. :· , .. -::~:-:'·_,_:_;k~,:~~~pr.;.::;: ··\::~:~~r . .._ .. ·~···~·~,l~~;I:i~f;r·
EB
WB
EB
WB
EB
Wll
EB
WB
ES
·WB
EB
WB
EB
WB
EB
WB
EB
WB
EB
WB
EB
WB
EB
ws
EB
WB
EB
z·
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
3.
3
3,
3;600
3,600 •
3,600
5,400
3,600
3;600
3,600
3,600
3,600
3.600
3,600
3,1lll0
3,600
3,600
1,800
1,800
3,600
:!,600
3;600
3,600
5,400
5,400
5,400
5,400
5;400
MOO
s.~oo
1,320
Mo
l;6SO
!ioo
1,320
-BOO
1.100
aoo
no
l,llO
1l0
1,130
450
1,100
860
930
630
1,000
830
1,150
3,050
1,4!10'
~,750
1,5~5
2.960
1,510
2,175
1.1<0
'1.130
1.240
2,150
l,O:<ll
1,590
l.04tr
1.400
1,210.
1.140
1,210
1.150
1,470:
69()
830
870
810
800
1,070
700
2,140
.3285
2.210
2;835
2.~
·:two
2,5llC
().37
().23
M6
0.17
0.37
022
0.31.
022
0:20
031
.020
0.31
0.13
0.31
OAS
0.52
0.18
028
0'.23
032
O.S6
028
O:Sl.
0.28
0.55
0.2S
OAO
0.31
0.3:t
·0.34
MO
0.28
M4
0.29
0.39
034
0.32
034
032
0.41
M9
.-,-·.·.:,·
0-4&
MS
0.23
0.24
0,30
0,19
0.61
0;41
0.53·
M2
o.ss
OAe·
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
2,054
1,08t
1.404
980
1.183
991
782
1,257.
771
1,269
493
x;:m1
S73
936
630
l.l:il9
c836
1,1G3
1,561
.2,7'.98
1,637
3,000
l,li\!2
2.197
1,535
1,955
2;836
1,460
1.83.5
L307
1,6!\4
1,409
1,351
1,404
1,356
· l,ooa
836
1!49
888
870
897
1.088
719
'3;393
2,36S
MOl
2-.419
3,108
2.633
025
0:57
.0.20
·'o.39
• 0.;>;7
033
0.28
0.22-
!!,35
0.21
!l:3S
.0.14
033
0.49
0.52
OilS
0;28
0.23
0.32
029·
052
030
tJ.SG
030
Ml
0.43
0.55
0,53
GAl
0.51
0.36
M7
039
o.3a
1l.39
0.38
0.45
023
0.47
OA9
0.24
025
l)Jfl
0.20
0.63
0.44
.0.56
MS
0.58
M9
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
o.u
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.06
0.02
0,04
0.01
D.M
0.01
0;02
O.Ql
o.oo
0:00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ml
om
O;Ol
0.0<
0.01
0.02
om
0.12
0.21
{}.13
0.13
om
O.fl7
0.08
0.05
0.06
o.os
ll.OG
0:04
0.01
0.01
ll.Ol
0.01
om
0.00
0.01
0.02
om
M3
0.03
OJJ3
0.03
0.01
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
N.O
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
100
tD
I w
0
'.' ~ ·'•
Ro<:idW:!yS!!~.m@f1fs::::-
College 13oule.vard
P•lon...r Airport Rd to faradey·AVo
Poinsettia l.ane
Pa:;l.1o D~l Norte to Aviara Pkwy
Carlsbad Bou!eva:rd
Ncrlh of Tt:lman:rck Ave
Tem;,mck l\ve to Cannon Rd
l
South of Cannon Rd
Pasro dei Norte1
Cannor, Rd to CurCotmhy Dr
Dullels North Entrant:e to· Palotni'ir Airport Rd
Ftrrnday Avenue
C an11on Rd to CoJiege Bl11d
Aviara Par!May
P~tomar Airport Rd to.Polnsettta tn
El Caminr.l Real
~ ''
North of TamaratkAve
ramarar.k Ave to·cannon Rd
Camtof'\ Rd to College Btvd
College Blvd to Faraday Ave
EB/N6
WB/SB
EB
WB
NB
sn
NB
SB
NS
SB
Na
SB
NB
sa
NB
SB
Ni!
ss
Na
sn
NB
SB
MB
SB
NB
2
2
2
?.
2
2
<
2•
.3
3
3,600
1,800
3.600
3,600
~.600
3,600
3;600
1.800
1.600
1,800
3,600
3,600
3;600
MOO
1.80l1
1,800 _.,.. ~· .... ··
3,600
3,~
SAUD
5,400
3,600
3,600
5.400
5.400
5~400
1,830
840
L410
1;190
310
620
340
940
330
950
320
5'10
740
640
955
865
1.27(}
480
900
2.290
1,010
3.275
945
4.100
1,845
1,470
1;480
1.470
1,440
!160
GGO
1.36tl
-810
1;080
800
855
515
;1.430
1,460
0.51
0.47
0.39
0.33
0.09
0.17
0.09
0.52
0.18
0.53
0.09-
0,15
0.21
0.18
0.82
Ml
MO
"•~. ,. , ..
0.27
o:1s
ll.38
0.45
0.60
0.44
0.24
0;14
Q.40
Ml
··:C·"
860
l,2l0
0.53 0.48
0.43 lJ.67
·~ ~'~:f:~L\. ~s '. ~ ~7~·~.;;:::~; £::
610 ll3S
1,190 0.13
-,~··:::"<~'."" ;:,-:-
2,93S
1.105
3,560
1.395
:J.,4SS
2;375
3;305
0.17
0.42
0.28
0;91
0.18
0.76
O,il4
0.11
o3a
0..54
o2!!
0.99
0.39
0,64
0.44
0.61
A
A
A·
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
8
A
A
C:.
A
A
A
A
840
1;311
478
A ~
A ill
A E
A -
A -···.-::~; ~ -..
A G
A m
A m
A B
A
A
A
B
A
A
c:
A
:.:-:,,
985
67S
1l14
2.322
1~033
3.091
9$5
1.403
1.853
.1.480
671
1.247
698
:1.395
84S
.1,095
814
978
631
1,511
1,592
90S
1,252
2,979
1,152
3,631
1,470
3,~66
2;326
S,31G
0.47
0.3G
0.13
0.11!
0.10
0.5~
O.:i9
0.53
0.82
~·:.'..· .,.., ... \<'.
0.19
0,35
0.39
1).47
0.61
0.4S
~3;-~~";~.<:-:.--~
0.11
1).16
0.23
0.19
0:27
0.18
OM
0.44
11.55 o.so
0.49 0.70
1117
0.43
0;29
O.ll£
0.18
0.26
0.34
o.ss
0.2:1
lJll
0.41
0.5¢
M4
0.61
A
A
A
A
A
{\
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
_,,..
A
a
A
c
A
A
A
0.00
0.00
O.ol
O.Ql
0.00
O.ol
O.Ol
om
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
O.ot
0.01
0.00
0.00
O,OJ.
0.01
O.Ql
0.00
0.00
0.00
ll.OO
o.oo
0.01
0.01
_____ ,-
0.01
0.01
O.Ql
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
o.o•
o.o•
0.03
0.02
om
0.0~
o.o~
0.01
O.ol
0:02
o:oz
0.00
0.00
0.00
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
No
NO
NO
NO
NO.
NO
NO
No
NO
NO
No
NO
NO
NO
NO
Nb
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
No
NO
NO
NO
NO
No
NO
NO
NO
N.O
NO
No
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
101