Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-09-09; Traffic Safety Commission; ; WORK PLAN VALUE SETTING WORKSHOPItem # 2 Meeting Date: Sept. 9, 2019 To: Traffic Safety Commission Staff Contact: Doug Bilse, Senior Engineer Doug.Bilse@Carlsbadca.gov or 760-602-7504 Subject: Work Plan Value Setting Workshop Recommended Action Information only. Background City Council approved Resolution No. 2018-052 on April 17, 2018 affirming the following City Council goal: By April 2019, amend the duties of the Traffic Safety Commission to include advising the City Council on matters related to implementation of the General Plan Mobility Element. Staff is preparing a draft work plan consistent with this goal. At the August TSC meeting, the following Values were identified by the Traffic Safety Commission: TIER 1: ● Enhancing Safe Mobility ● Government Transparency ● Data Driven Decision Making ● Done the right way TIER 2: ● Commitment to the City of Carlsbad and the residents ● Forward looking The September meeting workshop will continue work towards development of a work plan. The TSC will vote on the work plan before it is taken to City Council for approval. Necessary Council Action The City Council must approve the work plan for the TSC before it is implemented. Next Steps Another work shop is scheduled for the October 7, TSC meeting. Exhibits Correspondence from Commissioner Linke. 1 Traffic and Mobility Commission (TMC) Commissioner correspondence from Steve Linke Subject: TMC Procedural Rules; FY 2019-20 Work Plan Development Meeting Date: September 9, 2019 TMC Proposed Procedural Rules For our July 1, 2019 meeting, I submitted a draft of meeting Procedural Rules. Staff said they would refer it to the City Clerk’s office for feedback and hoped to bring that back by this meeting, so I am interested in getting a progress update. When the City Council voted at their August 20, 2019 meeting to adopt our Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) update, they specifically requested that our work plan include a direct commission-to-Council communications plan. One way to accomplish that could be to include additional language in the “Information Transfer” section of the proposed Procedural Rules similar to the following: 8.D. The commission may designate the Chair or another commissioner to attend a City Council or Planning Commission meeting to provide input and answer questions when items of business are referred to those bodies, or when other concerns wish to be raised by the commission. At a minimum, a commission designee shall report to the City Council semi-annually, typically when staff presents its semi-annual traffic and mobility initiatives report. Background on TMC Work Plan Ideas The City Council’s work plans formerly included multiple goals/strategies and detailed tasks on mobility- related issues. However, in 2018, they established their new goal of a CMC update for our commission to advise them on implementation of the Mobility Element, and to shift work plan development to us (by April 2019). That was the culmination of multiple Council workshops that also included broad reforms to all of Carlsbad’s boards, commissions, and committees. The overarching goal was to create consistency among these bodies, and to foster “greater transparency, trust, and communication with the City Council.” In addition, the following “purposes” for the bodies were identified: • Advise City Council on policy issues • Advise City Council on community interests • Provide an opportunity for community members to learn about and influence policy in its early stages • Provide an opportunity for an in-depth review of issues prior to them coming before the City Council • Provide training for future city leaders Given lack of progress, I submitted my own drafts of the CMC update and work plan in March 2019. A mutually agreeable CMC update is now set for final adoption in September 2019, and the soon-to-be- renamed Traffic and Mobility Commission (TMC) is finally scheduled to engage in meaningful work plan development at this meeting. 2 Included in this correspondence is a re-submission of my March 2019 draft work plan with revisions. My intent is to provide a relatively comprehensive and logically organized plan that includes a majority of the goals and tasks derived from: • The TMC’s duties contained in the CMC • Goal/task lists and discussions from all of the TMC commissioners • The City Council’s previous mobility-related work plans, associated discussions, and the “purposes” listed above • The “Implementing Policies” in the General Plan Mobility Element Commission bypass An important lingering issue is the tendency of our commission to get bypassed (i.e., Staff presentation of matters to the City Council without our review/advice) on more prominent mobility-related items of business. Some examples from the recent past include the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance and larger mobility projects, such as the Terramar and Tamarack Avenue area coastal projects. Based on an August 6, 2019 email from Acting City Traffic Engineer John Kim, updates on Village/Barrio traffic circles and safety concerns on Carlsbad Boulevard, College Boulevard, and Tamarack Avenue also will go directly to the City Council without TMC input (ostensibly due to the TMC being too busy developing our work plan). In addition, Staff has stated that the commission likely would not be reviewing potential traffic impacts of large City projects like the Orion Center due to the scope. Perhaps more importantly, at two City Council meetings in July, Staff presented the circulation (mobility) portion of the FY 2017-2018 Growth Management Program (GMP) Monitoring Report. That included suggestions to address several streets that are not meeting the vehicle level of service (LOS) performance standard, which I had been predicting at recent commission meetings. The suggestions involved street improvements, exemptions from the LOS standard, or a pause in land use development for different street segments. The annual GMP Monitoring Report and the recommended actions are all central to the TMC’s role in implementing the Mobility Element, and I raised some issues during the comment periods of the meetings that I feel deserve more in-depth review by the TMC and Council. The Council voted to return the item to Staff to formulate solutions. However, I expect in the coming weeks that Staff will return directly to the Council to further discuss LOS exemptions, TDM, etc.—again without TMC input. So, one critical question for the City Council is whether it wants the TMC to continue to focus on issues such as reviewing speed surveys, minor parking changes, neighborhood traffic calming, and informational presentations, or whether they also want TMC guidance on the more prominent mobility issues facing Carlsbad, including review of guidelines, plans, programs, and reports, as well as the consideration of new/revised codes and policies. Below is a one-page outline of my vision of a long-term TMC work plan with the initial priorities highlighted. That is followed by my rationale for the importance of the tasks. It is lengthy, but I want to be completely transparent about my vision and, hopefully, help expedite the work plan development process so that we can actually start working on these matters. And I look forward to hearing the ideas of all of the other commissioners and the public. 3 TMC Work Plan Ideas Summary (*bold items suggested for initial year work plan) 1. Provide a public forum for community input on mobility and traffic safety matters* 2. Review the Evaluation and Monitoring (E&M) Manual a. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines* i. Vehicle level of service (LOS) evaluation methods, including Roadway Service Volume Tables* ii. Add all major streets to service volume tables* iii. Multimodal (pedestrian, bicycle, and transit) LOS methods and tools* iv. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) guidelines b. Growth Management Program (GMP) Annual Traffic Monitoring Procedures Manual* 3. Review evaluation methods and a periodic monitoring system for safety issues 4. Review LOS and safety monitoring reports* a. Review citywide LOS and safety maps/inventories for all modes of travel* b. Proactively identify projects to address problems* i. Prioritize Safe Routes to School (SRTS) projects* ii. Monitor ongoing projects and maintain a list of completed projects* 5. Review TIAs and other mobility-related components of proposed city street projects and environmental impact reports (EIRs) for developments* 6. Review and suggest revisions to mobility components of growth management related plans and programs a. Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program* b. Growth Management Program (GMP)* c. Local Facilities Management Plans (LFMPs) d. Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP) 7. Review Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program (CRTMP) projects and propose program enhancements* 8. Review programs providing alternatives to expanding vehicle capacity a. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program* b. Transportation System Management (TSM) i. Traffic Signal Master Plan ii. Adaptive Traffic Signal (ATS) Program 9. Review transit-related programs and studies a. Carlsbad Connector rideshare service pilot program b. Trolley Feasibility Study 10. Review annual parking reports and parking-in-lieu fee programs a. Carlsbad Village, Barrio, and Beach Area Parking Management Plan and reports 11. Review the Sustainable Mobility Plan (SMP) a. Bicycle Master Plan b. Pedestrian Master Plan c. Coastal Mobility Readiness Plan d. Active Transportation Strategy 12. Review the mobility components of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) 13. Review educational initiatives related to mobility and transportation safety 14. Consider recommendation of new policies/rules 15. Any other items of business that emerge during the year that are relevant to the Commission’s duties or long-term work plan* 4 TMC Work Plan Details 1. Provide a public forum for community input on mobility and traffic safety matters and address matters as they arise This is a broad task intended to include many of the commission’s duties as defined prior to the CMC update. 2. Review the “Evaluation and Monitoring (E&M) Manual” Based on the FY 2016-17 GMP Monitoring Report, the E&M Manual was expected to be completed in the Summer of 2018, although it is unclear whether it has been completed or what is included in the manual. It is my understanding that it is supposed to include the TIA Guidelines, including the vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit LOS evaluation methods and related tools for the GMP, as well as the VMT guidelines to assess vehicle impacts for future EIRs. It may also include a Growth Management Program (GMP) Annual Traffic Monitoring Procedures Manual, which likely defines the protocols for collecting traffic monitoring data. All of these documents are highly significant to mobility in Carlsbad, including both technical details and broad policy implications. Therefore, I think they should undergo careful public review by the TMC, they should be formally adopted by the City Council, and the TMC and Planning Commission should be trained on how to apply them to future items of business. In addition, to maintain consistency and fairness over time, I believe that material revisions to such documents should occur under quality system-like document control (i.e., any changes other than administrative corrections should be reviewed and formally adopted). It is my understanding that Staff has been unilaterally developing these documents and making periodic revisions without external review. Vehicle LOS The current TIA Guidelines document with the service volume table approach to measuring vehicle LOS was published in April 2018, and the roadway-specific tables were published in February 2019. This long- overdue revision to Carlsbad’s vehicle LOS assessment methods better reflects the reality of vehicle congestion on Carlsbad’s streets—after 30 years of usage of custom Carlsbad methods that vastly under-estimated congestion. However, I believe there are several sections of the TIA Guidelines that require more in-depth review and revision. For example: • The minimum requirements to conduct a TIA for a project are contained in Table 1, and I believe these are significant policy decisions that should be scrutinized. For example, with the current thresholds in the table, a typical development must generate >1,000 additional vehicle trips per day before a cumulative analysis with other planned developments in the area is required. • When developers are required to conduct TIAs, they are supposed to execute a “Scoping Agreement” with the City, but the guidelines for such agreements are very vague, and it is my observation that there is a lack of consistency in the application of this requirement. • The GMP requires a shutdown of development in certain Local Facilities Management Zones (LFMZs) when LOS deficiencies are identified for street facilities (Carlsbad is divided into 25 such zones). Historically, this has meant a shutdown of any zone that contributes 20% of its traffic to the failed facility, as described in each Local Facility Management Plan (LFMP). However, the TIA Guidelines do not appear to be consistent with this historical GMP norm, and Staff has recently 5 adopted an even more creative interpretation in their mitigation proposals to the City Council, which does not appear to be consistent with either the GMP or the TIA Guidelines. • For private development and City projects that will further exacerbate vehicle congestion on streets that are either exempt from or not subject to the vehicle LOS standard, it is unclear whether/how mitigation will occur, such as through mandatory funding of TDM, TSM, or other measures (e.g., through impact fees). • Several streets that are subject to the vehicle LOS standard are not included in the current service volume tables (e.g., arterial connector portions of Carlsbad Village Drive, Poinsettia Boulevard, and Aviara Parkway and several industrial streets). In addition, service volume table entries should be created for all major streets, regardless of exemption status or street typology. • The originators of the service volume table LOS method consider it a “simplified” “quick assessment” tool that provides only “rough estimates” of LOS, so more precise/accurate methods (e.g., intersection analysis) likely should be triggered when the rough estimates approach the failure threshold. • Although the Mobility Element and all of the other Carlsbad mobility-related governing documents and plans refer to measuring delay at intersections for vehicle LOS (in addition to street segment analysis), Staff has unilaterally decided to cease conducting intersection analyses. • Some subjective variables are included in the service volume table calculations, and it may be important to define when and how they should be made more objective (e.g., peak hour factor, arrival type, etc.). • The California Coastal Commission appears to be requiring “travel time” analysis to determine vehicle LOS, rather than the service volume table approach, in coastal areas under their jurisdiction. Travel time analysis likely should follow a strict protocol with regard to study size and scope, data collection techniques, etc. (e.g., using the Federal Highway Administration’s “Travel Time Data Collection Handbook”), but that analysis method is not included in the current TIA Guidelines or monitoring plan. • In addition, there are a number of intersections with current or planned roundabouts or traffic circles, which do not appear to be considered in the current TIA Guidelines/service volume table approach. Transit, bicycle, and pedestrian LOS Unlike vehicle LOS (which effectively describes congestion), transit, bicycle, and pedestrian LOS are based on the availability and quality of the facilities for those modes of travel, as determined by a point- based system. The point systems have changed over time since the Mobility Element was adopted, and there does not appear to have been any external review. Notably, the current transit LOS point system sets a very low bar to meet the minimum performance standard, reminiscent of the old vehicle LOS standard that was designed to almost never fail. The minimum passing transit LOS score is 60 points, but 60 points is automatically assigned to any street segment that is more than 1/4 mile from a transit route or with the approval of the City Traffic Engineer, as long as there is a “documented TDM measure in place.” The recently adopted TDM ordinance appears very narrowly focused on new business developments that generate more than 110 new daily trips (not existing businesses, new small businesses, or any residential areas), so it is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on mass transit in its current form. However, in the FY 2017-18 GMP Monitoring 6 Report, Staff creatively interprets the adoption of that ordinance as creating a citywide passing grade for mass transit. Also notable is the fact that the FY 2017-18 GMP Monitoring Report identified zero issues in the bicycle and pedestrian point systems. Perhaps the result of an MMLOS failure—development shutdown—is too severe a consequence, and it may be time to end that through changes to the GMP. However, the charade of citywide passing LOS grades for all modes of travel, regardless of quality, deserves immediate scrutiny and revision. Based on past City Council goal updates, a $300,000 Caltrans Sustainable Communities Program grant helped fund development of performance measures to demonstrate annual progress to address gaps in non-vehicular LOS. An update on that progress should be reviewed by the TMC. Growth Management Program (GMP) Annual Traffic Monitoring Procedures Manual This document (if/when it exists) presumably should define the streets to be monitored via vehicle counts, as well as the methods of data collection and interpretation, all of which should be reviewed by the TMC. With the adoption of the 2015 General Plan Update, the new Mobility Element eliminated many streets from being subject to the vehicle LOS standard via changes in the street typology scheme and a number of exemptions—many of them because it was known that they were failing or would fail in the near future. Although the City Council can decide to handle the congestion on those streets by promoting alternative modes of travel, I think it is very short-sighted to stop monitoring the traffic. Sweeping the problems under the rug does not make them go away, and the incremental cost for tube counters to monitor those streets is likely minimal. Some obvious candidates for expanded monitoring include Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad Village Drive west of I-5, Tamarack Avenue, Avenida Encinas, Paseo Del Norte, Poinsettia Lane west of College Boulevard, La Costa Avenue east of El Camino Real, and Calle Barcelona. The measurement methods also can have a significant impact on the results, including: • Time of year (e.g., Summer on coast and tourist areas vs. Spring and Fall in other areas, such as near schools) • Number of measurements (e.g., non-holiday Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday with no weather issues, construction that would divert traffic, or other unusual circumstances) • Calculation (e.g., mean, median, minimum, maximum, etc. and dealing with outliers) Based on past City Council goal updates, video monitoring equipment had been installed at 32 intersections by the end of 2017 that can monitor vehicle congestion, speeds, turn behavior, etc. Perhaps those could be used to bolster other traffic counts. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) guidelines VMT is the new required method to assess the projected vehicle-based environmental impacts of projects, replacing vehicular LOS in EIRs. It focuses on how many more vehicle miles might be traveled as a result of a project, which correlates with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, so it also intersects with the Climate Action Plan (CAP). 7 In December 2018, the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a “Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA,” which could be used as a guide for VMT estimation protocols. It is my understanding that Staff is currently developing VMT guidelines in conjunction with other San Diego County entities. It would be appropriate for the TMC and Planning Commission to be updated on progress and be involved in review during development of these guidelines. 3. Review evaluation methods and a periodic monitoring system for safety issues The TMC could explore creating a safety-related version of the annual traffic monitoring program. This could include compilation of historical data and trends on collision rates, number and severity of injuries, etc. for all modes of travel from sources such as City records, the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), the CA Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integral Traffic Record System, and/or other safety tracking databases. In addition, periodic surveys could be used to assess perceived safety on certain street facilities with higher levels of alternative mode travel (pedestrian and bicycle). 4. Review LOS and safety monitoring reports Citywide maps/inventories LOS and safety monitoring data, collected as described above, should be used to create citywide inventories/maps of all major streets with color-coding to allow visualization of segments that are failing or nearing failure. The use of the new valid vehicle LOS data based on the service volume tables should allow the City to act more proactively to address problems as they emerge, rather than acting reactively years after failures have accumulated and worsened. And a meaningful inventory of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities should help prioritize improvements for those modes. Although many major streets are now exempt from the vehicle LOS standard, or are otherwise not subject to the standard due to typology, service volume table entries should be created for them, and they should be monitored and included in the inventories/maps. A data-driven approach to decision- making is best accomplished with complete data for all major streets. For example, the effectiveness of TDM, mass transit, and related initiatives at reducing vehicle counts can be directly assessed with citywide traffic counts, rather than avoiding traffic counts on congested streets and relying on estimates or assumptions. Correlations can then be made with other data on mode shifting, such as transit ridership, pedestrian and bicycle counts, and TDM survey data. Based on past City Council goal updates, the City has completed Phase 1 of the Caltrans Sustainable Communities Program grant that funded collection of previous active transportation plans and current asset maps to produce compendium maps showing existing active transportation and transit networks and gaps that addresses the non-vehicular modes. Project prioritization For prioritization purposes, the infrastructure maps should highlight: • Areas with safety concerns (e.g., intersections or segments with histories of serious injuries or elevated collision rates) 8 • Schools for Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) planning (particularly issues that arise during drop-off and pick-up times, when there are large numbers of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians occupying the streets simultaneously) • Areas with levels of service that are not compliant with minimum performance standards • Major destinations (e.g., beaches), employment centers, shopping/restaurant centers, recreation areas, etc. with current or potential high rates of non-passenger vehicle travel • Other priority areas identified by Staff or the Commission Example City projects focusing on safety and/or mode shifting SRTS • Carlsbad High School area • All elementary schools, particularly those on busy streets Larger projects: • Tamarack Area Coastal Project (Carlsbad Boulevard around Tamarack Avenue) • Grand Avenue Promenade pedestrian streetscape project in the Village & Barrio Master Plan • Safety data and traffic calming for Tamarack Avenue between Highland Drive and Park Drive, including SRTS Smaller projects: • Melrose Drive/Palomar Airport Road striping (trap lane issue) • Speed limit on Alga Road • Safety-related data (speeds, collision rates, etc.) on Rancho Santa Fe Road near Camino Junipero • Alternatives to an all-way stop at La Costa Avenue/Camino De Los Coches intersection Review completed projects (note pros and cons for future reference): • Harbor Drive traffic calming • Road diet on Avenida Encinas between Palomar Airport Road and Cannon Road (explore speed limit change if prevailing speed has changed) • Roundabout and mid-block crosswalk recently constructed in the Quarry Creek development • Other mini-roundabout installations 5. Review TIAs and other mobility-related components of proposed city street projects and environmental impact reports (EIRs) for developments Projects for TMC review should include city-initiated street reconfigurations, such as restriping projects, lane width changes, road diets, or installation of new facilities like traffic circles, roundabouts, raised medians, speed cushions, etc. As suggested by the Director of the Community and Economic Development Department, projects for TMC review also could include the mobility portions of private development applications that are not subject to the Permit Streamlining Act—to provide guidance to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Examples include EIRs in the Planning Commission’s work plan, such as Marja Acres, Aviara Apartments, etc. For City street projects with mode-shifting components (i.e., intent to reduce vehicle traffic by shifting people to alternative modes of travel), the evaluations should be planned before and after the project to assess success. For example, volume counts for all modes of travel, vehicle speeds, collision rates, etc. 9 should be collected before and after the project. The protocols should be designed to be robust and scientifically valid. This includes “prospective design,” which means the methods, outcomes to be measured, definitions of success, etc. are all pre-specified before the project begins. This also includes the use of relevant comparisons and controls for the before and after studies. For example, data collection should be done under similar conditions (days of week, time of day and year, weather, etc.), and relevant reference groups should be used for comparison of longer-term data, particularly when sample sizes are small with a tendency toward regression to the mean. As a further example, differences in collision rates should be considered only in the context of other similar streets that did not undergo a project during the before and after time periods, because collision rates may have changed everywhere due to other confounding factors, like increased anti-collision radar technology on vehicles. The less similar the comparison street(s) are to the study site or the smaller number of collisions to compare, the larger the comparison group should be. These are just a few examples of the more scientific approaches that should be used. 6. Review and suggest revisions to mobility components of growth management related plans and programs Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program Based on past City Council goals, an update to the Traffic Impact Fee Program is pending. The commission could review the adequacy of the traffic impact and other mobility-related mitigation fees to fund street improvement projects and/or TDM/TSM programs in cases where street improvement is not a definitive option. Many developments appear to be partially or fully exempt from traffic impact analysis, but thresholds to trigger analysis and/or changes in the fee structure or magnitude could be explored. The commission also could review future plans on how the collected fees will be used. This issue could be initiated by an informational Staff presentation with recommended changes (if any). Growth Management Program (GMP) update The City is planning an overhaul of the GMP. The TMC should be involved in reviewing and advising on the mobility-related aspects of that update, as well as updates to its companion documents including the Local Facilities Management Plans (LFMPs) and the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP). This could include discussions and public surveys about performance standards, mode shifting, and the adequacies and priorities for funding various programs. 7. Review Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program (CRTMP) projects and propose program enhancements • Consider expanding the program to non-residential streets and modifying public outreach to help reach neighborhood consensus • Review and update the process, including planning, projecting impacts, implementation, and measuring outcomes • Maintain a list of proposed, in progress, and completed projects with status and outcome data 10 8. Review programs providing alternatives to expanding vehicle capacity Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program TDM is a significant component of the Mobility Element, and an effective TDM program has the potential to solve multiple growing mobility-related problems in Carlsbad. Traffic congestion consistently ranks as the #1 or #2 problem in Carlsbad’s annual resident surveys, and the environmental impact of GHGs produced by all of the vehicles is significant. If we can succeed at shifting trips to alternative modes, we could help solve both of those problems. However, at our April 2019 commission meeting, I reported that over the last approximately 30 years, millions of dollars have been spent on several consultants and programs related to TDM, but the outcomes have been rather disappointing. For example, the City passed a Circulation Element Implementation Program in 1991 to manage and monitor a TDM program focused on the Palomar Airport Road, El Camino Real, Melrose Drive, Carlsbad Boulevard, and I-5 corridors. In 2000, the City implemented what they called an Integrated Transportation Program, which also focused on TDM. And throughout the early 2000’s, there were calls to create what was called a Transportation Management Association (TMA) to coordinate and optimize another TDM program. Way back to the first reference I found from almost 30 years ago, city documents declare that aggressive actions would be taken, and that businesses were being encouraged to implement aggressive TDM measures to both reduce overall traffic volumes by encouraging commuters to shift to alternative modes of travel or travel during off-peak hours. Many of these old initiatives very closely resemble the current TDM program that was adopted in March of 2019, which appears to consist of the TDM ordinance adopted in March 2019 and a TDM Handbook and tools developed by consultant Steer, Davies, and Gleeve (first engaged in October 2016). Although the new program makes TDM mandatory, rather than the voluntary programs of the past, it focuses on larger, new business developments (not existing or smaller businesses or residential developments), so it is unclear how meaningful the impact will be. A two-year professional services agreement with UrbanTrans North America was approved by the City Council on August 20, 2019 for TDM consulting. The services include exploring the feasibility of expanding the TDM program and updating the monitoring structure, including monitoring changes in mode share over time. The TMC should be involved in this ongoing process. Transportation System Management (TSM) The goal is to improve signal responsiveness, support connected and autonomous vehicles, ease traffic congestion, etc. According to City records, pilot testing of an Adaptive Traffic Signal (ATS) program was completed by the beginning of 2017 and the installation of the permanent citywide version is underway with a projected completion in 2020. At the March 20, 2018 City Council Goals Workshop, the second- most prominent topic of discussion (behind expansion of the duties of the TMC) was the implementation of the ATS program. Based on past City Council goals, development of a Traffic Signal Master Plan is also pending. Perhaps outcomes, such as changes in overall trip times, could be measured to assess the success of these programs. 11 9. Review transit-related programs and studies Carlsbad Connector is an app-based rideshare service that allows people to get on-demand shuttle transportation between the Poinsettia COASTER train station and business parks in the Palomar Airport area at subsidized rates ($1.25 to $2.50 per one-way trip). It is currently a pilot program that will run for about a year. This appears to be a serious attempt at trying to shift people who should be the most motivated from using their vehicles to drive to work. Given the low price and the on-demand scheduling, this should have the highest likelihood of success. The TMC should be involved in monitoring this pilot program. There is also reportedly a “Trolley Feasibility Study” for Carlsbad in the works. 10. Review annual parking reports and parking-in-lieu fee programs There is a Carlsbad Village, Barrio, and Beach Area Parking Management Plan, and annual parking reports are conducted. Some developments pay a “parking in lieu” fee rather than providing vehicle parking. The commission could review parking plans and annual reports and the adequacy of the fees to fund future centralized parking, such as a multi-level parking garage, and/or other parking alternatives. This issue may be of particular interest in the Village and Barrio areas but also may apply elsewhere. It could be initiated by an informational Staff presentation with recommended changes (if any). 11. Review the Sustainable Mobility Plan (SMP) Based on City documents and comments, the current completion goal for the SMP is the middle of 2019. The SMP incorporates many documents that are directly related to the Mobility Element, including the Mobility Element itself, the Bicycle Master Plan, the Pedestrian Master Plan, a Livable Streets Assessment, an Active Transportation Strategy, a Coastal Readiness Plan, etc. 13. Review educational initiatives related to mobility and transportation safety The TMC could review the development of new educational initiatives related to mobility or transportation safety. Examples: • Roundabout usage by all modes of travel • Different modes of travel sharing a lane (e.g., sharrow) • License plate readers • Speed limit setting regulations 14. Consider recommendation of new policies/rules • With the ever emerging variety of travel modes—walkers, joggers, runners, scooters, skateboards, electronic scooters, bicycles, electronic-assist bicycles (Types 1 through 3), etc.— there may be a need to revise the Municipal Code to clarify which facilities (vehicle lane, bicycle lane, and/or sidewalk) should be used. Perhaps the speed of the mode should be used (e.g., maximum of 6 mph vs. 20 mph vs. >20 mph). • Consider changing the code to allow bicyclists to use sidewalks around roundabouts for those who are uncomfortable sharing the vehicle lane. • Review regulations and promotion of micromobility devices.