Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 2018-0004; ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS; TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS; 2019-10-29Prepared by: Roman Lopez Transportation Planner II TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS ROMERIA POINTE Carlsbad, California October 29, 2019 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Under the Supervision of: Christopher Mendiara Associate Principal LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers JAN 2 9 2020 ( I ( \...,1 • L , E. Linscott. Law & Greenspan, Engineers 4542 Ruffner Street Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92111 858.300.8800 T 858.300.8810 F www.llgengineers.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Romeria Pointe project ("Project") proposes the construction of 23 multi-family dwelling units in two buildings. The Project site located on the west side of Romeria Street, north of La Costa Avenue, in the city of Carlsbad. The Project will be served by two (2) full-access unsignalized driveways to Romeria Street. The Project study area includes four (4) intersections, including the two (2) future project driveways and three (3) street segments. The transportation analyses for the Project were conducted in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The following scenarios are evaluated in this report: • Existing • Existing + Project • Existing + Cumulative • Existing + Cumulative + Project The gross Project trip generation was calculated using SANDAG's Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002). The Project is calculated to generate 138 ADT with 11 total AM peak hour trips (2 inbound/ 9 outbound) and 12 total PM peak hour trips (8 inbound/ 4 outbound). This report evaluated the effect of the Project on the Existing and Existing + Cumulative baselines using the two distinct analyses needed to meet requirements for both the City of Carlsbad Growth Management and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) was also conducted for Romeria Street based on City guidelines. No significant Project impacts or deficiencies were identified per City TIA guidelines (Growth Management) analysis, nor were any significant Project impacts determined via regional SANTEC/ITE significance criteria LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, enginee,s LLGRef 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Impact Analyses ..................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Analysis Approach & Methodology ......................................................................................... 5 2.1 Auto Analysis per City TIA Guidelines (Growth Management Plan) ................................ 5 2.1.1 Study Area .............................................................................................................. 5 2.1.2 Signalized Intersection Methodology ..................................................................... 6 2.1.3 Roadway Segment Level of Service Methodology ................................................ 6 2.2 Auto Analysis per SANTEC/ITE Guidelines (CEQA) ....................................................... 7 2.2.1 Study Area .............................................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Signalized Intersection Methodology ..................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Unsignalized Intersection Methodology ................................................................. 7 2.2.4 Roadway Segment Methodology ............................................................................ 8 2.3 Multimodal Level of Service Analysis ............................................................................... 8 2.3.1 Multi-Modal Facilities to be Included in Study Area ............................................. 9 2.3.2 Project Multi-Modal Study Area .......................................................................... 10 2.4 Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................... 11 2.4.1 TIA Guidelines (Growth Management Plan) ........................................................ 11 2.4.2 SANTEC/ITE Guidelines (CEQA Method) ......................................................... 12 3.0 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 15 3 .1 Existing Street Network .................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................. 15 3.3 Existing Transit Conditions .............................................................................................. 15 4.0 Proposed Project ...................................................................................................................... 18 4.1 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................. 18 4.2 Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................... 18 4.3 Trip Assignment. ............................................................................................................... 18 5.0 Cumulative Conditions ............................................................................................................ 23 5.1 Cumulative Projects .......................................................................................................... 23 5.2 Network Conditions .......................................................................................................... 23 6.0 Analysis Per City TIA Guidelines (Growth Management Plan) ......................................... 28 6.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 28 6.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 28 6.3 Analysis of Existing+ Project Conditions ........................................................................ 28 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, en/jnee,s ii LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe .. 6.4 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative Conditions ................................................................ 29 6.5 Analysis of Existing+ Cumulative+ Project Conditions ................................................. 29 6.6 MMLOS Analysis ............................................................................................................. 30 6. 7 TIA Guidelines -Findings and Conclusions .................................................................... 31 7.0 Analysis Per SANTEC/ITE Guidelines (CEQA) .................................................................. 32 7 .1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 32 7 .2 Analysis of Existing Conditions ....................................................................................... 32 7.2.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis .............................................. 32 7.2.2 Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................. 32 7.3 Analysis of Existing+ Project Conditions ........................................................................ 32 7.3.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis .............................................. 32 7.3.2 Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................. 32 7.4 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative Conditions ................................................................ 36 7.4.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis .............................................. 36 7 .4.2 Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................. 36 7.5 Analysis of Existing+ Cumulative+ Project Conditions ................................................. 36 7.5.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis .............................................. 36 7.5.2 Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................. 36 7 .6 CEQA Method -Findings and Conclusions ..................................................................... 39 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers iii LLGRef. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe , APPENDICES APPENDIX A. City of Carlsbad Segment LOS Capacity Threshold table B. Intersection Analysis Methodology C. Existing Traffic Count Sheets D. MMLOS Results E. HCM Analysis Worksheets -Existing F. HCM Analysis Worksheets -Existing + Project G. HCM Analysis Worksheets -Existing+ Cumulative H. HCM Analysis Worksheets-Existing+ Cumulative+ Project LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers iv LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe LIST OF f IGURES SECTION-FIGURE# PAGE Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 Figure 1-3 Figure 2-1 Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 4-1 Figure 4-2 Figure 4-3 Figure 5-1 Figure 5-2 Figure 5-3 Figure 5-4 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 2 Project Area Map ............................................................................................................ 3 Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 4 MMLOS Study Area ..................................................................................................... 14 Existing Conditions Diagram ........................................................................................ 16 Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 17 Project Traffic Distribution ........................................................................................... 20 Project Traffic Assignment ........................................................................................... 21 Existing + Project Traffic Volumes .............................................................................. 22 Cumulative Projects Location Map .............................................................................. 24 Cumulative Projects Assignment .................................................................................. 25 Existing+ Cumulative Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 26 Existing+ Cumulative+ Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................... 27 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3•19-3155 Romeria Pointe V LIST OF TABLES SECTION-TABLE# PAGE Table 2-1 Multimodal Level of Service Criteria .................................................................................. 8 Table 2-2 MMLOS Point System & LOS Rating ................................................................................ 9 Table 2-3 Measure of Significant Project Traffic Impacts-Roadways Subject to the Vehicle MMLOS Standard ...................................................................................................................... 12 Table 2-4 Traffic Impact Significant Thresholds ............................................................................... 13 Table 4-1 Trip Generation .................................................................................................................. 19 Table 5-1 Cumulative Projects List .................................................................................................... 23 Table 6-1 Existing Signalized Intersection Analysis ......................................................................... 28 Table 6-2 Signalized Intersection Analysis -Cumulative Conditions .............................................. 29 Table 6-3 MMLOS Analysis .............................................................................................................. 30 Table 7-1 Intersection Analysis -Existing Conditions ...................................................................... 34 Table 7-2 Existing+ Project Segment Analysis ................................................................................ 35 Table 7-3 Intersection Analysis-Cumulative Conditions ................................................................ 37 Table 7-4 Cumulative Conditions Segment Analysis ........................................................................ 38 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers vi LLG Ref 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS ROMERIA POINTE Carlsbad, California October 29, 2019 The Project proposes to construct 23-unit multi-family residential dwelling units. The Project site is located on the west side ofRomeria Street between Gibraltar Street and La Costa Avenue in the City of Carlsbad. La Costa Avenue is the major east-west arterial serving the Project vicinity. Figure 1-1 shows the vicinity map. Figure 1-2 shows a more detailed Project area map. Figure 1-3 shows the Project site plan. 1.2 Project Impact Analyses Two distinct analyses are needed to meet requirements for City of Carlsbad Growth Management and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Both analyses are included in this traffic impact analysis. The Growth Management Plan analysis is based on the City of Carlsbad Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, which outlines evaluation of facilities based on their typologies, and it defines analysis methodologies, thresholds of significance, and other necessary considerations. Roadway segment analysis, signalized intersection analysis (queuing at tum lanes), and multimodal level of service (LOS) are included in this portion of the report. The CEOA Analysis is based on the Carlsbad historic use of thresholds of significance in the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region, March 2000. Facilities are evaluated based on Table 1 of the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines. For roadway segments analysis capacity is evaluated using the City of Carlsbad Roadway Capacity Tables (same analysis as is required for Growth Management). Intersection LOS is evaluated based on the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. No multi-modal analysis is required for this portion of the report. IJNSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 1 LLGRef. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N:\3155\Flaur~~ Date: 10/30/2 TTme:9:38AM SAN DIEGO S.O.COUNTY i.I.L_:___.._ ........ ...__ FF:iicg1uure 1-1 Vicinity Map ROMERIA POINTE d i i (;111'"0,, 11d <;)#"'~ l]¾~o~ .... ... £ i ,...,•<1.-t◄•c ~"" .,,, Mcetellan·P.alomar . ..,. Airport q !'alOfflll~R,t z. I i .,;r g> .,. ~ .. ., "O ~ !i llcriat:~••• BRESSI RANCH Alga Norte Community. Poinsettia Park Park :9 '\ South Carlsbad State Beach Campground South Ponto Beach tfl!l ~' N :131 SS'rlgures Date: 10/28/19 ~ ,L ';; '!, ~ ,...$ q<i/1".,...\\ ... , •• Pil.,., AA}aflcj ~ I " ,:, Barlquiros <Lag09f) State Marine j I:;; Encinitas Ranch @ '( Golf ~oorse if'.,, S l L (J""U••t L• "~~· cP 1 Oiivtnh4lll Rd I ..,to ,, po,1'~,,· ... .,.,, " i ~ ,., ·~ ~q. ~roject W Site .. "' J'"s1111\1>~ ~~ ,, I ~ ' 0 l,r~"- ~4~ ~ /; \ l ~ "'M., "<ll~ O',o <ll".f. "''O'J:>~ .~ I C( !. ti\ w s.n -<:¢ ~,o Lake San Marcos Sa, s..~. 'b~O' .~b (/ ., ¢,~ .,.~ () Figure 1-2 Project Area Map ROMER I A POINTE I I • I _ _UL: ✓ ✓ ✓ / ✓ ...,;:!',(,, .. , ..... ' ... \_ .... " I '? 0 ~ / J ✓ ✓ /~ ✓/ ,/ / . ' C m I n, .-I 11.l ,._ 0. ::J QJ tl.O U:: .., ·-V) .. e °' , 21j ~-~! zc -.. ..., ,_ z -0 0... < -a: ..., lE 0 c:: 2.0 ANALYSIS APPROACH & METHODOLOGY As discussed in Section 1.2 above, two distinct analyses are provided to address both the City's Growth Management Plan and State of California CEQA requirements. Each of these approaches evaluates components of the street system, but using different methodologies. The following is a discussion of these methodologies. 2.1 Auto Analysis per City TIA Guidelines (Growth Management Plan) The following summarizes the evaluation methodologies to be used per the City of Carlsbad Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, consistent with the City's adopted Growth Management Plan. 2.1.1 Study Area Per the City of Carlsbad TIA Guidelines, the study area shall include the following: Intersections • All signalized intersections within 0.25 miles of a project access point serving vehicles will be included in the study area. Additional intersections within 0.25 to 0.5 miles from the project access points may also be added to the study area the discretion of the City Engineer/ City Traffic Engineer. • Unsignalized intersections located along corridors subject to Auto MMLOS within the project study area may require a traffic signal warrant analysis. A warrant analysis is required if: o The unsignalized intersection provides direct access to the project site, or o The unsignalized intersection provides direct access to a cumulative project considered in the Transportation Impact Analysis o The unsignalized intersection has been identified by the City as a potential signalized intersection. A warrant analysis is not required for right tum in/right tum out only intersections or driveways that are physically restricted by a raised center median. Street Segments • Non-freeway roadway segments that are subject to Auto MMLOS Criteria and expected to experience an increase in project traffic equal to 50 or more peak hour trips in either direction of travel. Freeway Mainline Segments • Freeway mainline segments where the project adds 50 or more peak hour trips in either direction of travel. Freeway Ramps • Freeway entrance and exit ramps where the proposed project will add 20 or more peak- hour trips and/or cause any traffic queues to exceed ramp storage capacities. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 5 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe Based on these guidelines, the following auto facilities are included in the study area for Growth Management Plan analysis: Intersections • Gibraltar Street I Romeria Street (unsignalized) • Romeria Street/ Project Driveway North (unsignalized) • Romeria Street/ Project Driveway South (unsignalized) • La Costa Avenue/ Romeria Street (signalized) 2.1.2 Signalized Intersection Methodology The City of Carlsbad's published TIA Guidelines state that all signalized intersections within the study area are subject to the signalized intersection analysis. The analysis will address the adequacy of the signalized intersection geometry to serve the existing, forecast and project traffic through the intersection. As stated previously, all signalized intersection within 0.25 miles of the project auto access driveway or intersection shall be evaluated if the project adds trips to the left tum or right turning movements at the intersection. The signalized study area will be based on trip generation and trip assignment for the project. Analyses will be based on the following criteria: • Left turn queue assessment: Compare the left tum volume with the length of the left tum pocket(s). A general rule of thumb of one foot per left turning vehicle per lane may be used for this analysis. • Left turn volume: If the left tum volume exceeds 250 vehicles per hour, a second left tum lane is recommended. • Right turn volume: If the right tum volume exceeds 150 vehicles per hour, a dedicated right tum lane is recommended. 2.1.3 Roadway Segment Level of Service Methodology The City of Carlsbad's published TIA Guidelines state that roadways within the Project study area subject to Auto MMLOS standards shall be evaluated using the most current version of the Highway Capacity Manual, as outlined in the City's General Plan Mobility Element (2015). Roadway Capacity Tables derived from the Highway Capacity Manual were developed specifically for each roadway subject to MMLOS in the City of Carlsbad. The specific capacity calculated for each roadway takes into account key geometric and operational factors including number of lanes, type of facility, intersection cycle length, distance between intersections, and other factors related to lane capacity and signal operations. The capacity for each roadway segment was calculated using the ARTPLAN software, which was developed using the capacity calculations outlined in the HCM. The ARTPLAN software package is used nationally as a planning tool, but alternative methods can be used to calculate roadway segment capacity. The City of Carlsbad Segment LOS Capacity Threshold table provides the directional capacity for each roadway segment subject to MMLOS analysis in the General Plan Mobility Element. To evaluate the operating conditions along a study corridor, peak hour volumes are compared to the LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 6 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe Roadway Capacity Tables to determine the segment operating conditions. The LOS for each segment is reported for all study scenarios in the TIA. Appendix A contains the City of Carlsbad Segment LOS Capacity Threshold table. 2.2 Auto Analysis per SANTEC/ITE Guidelines (CEQA) 2.2.1 Study Area Per the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in the San Diego Region, the study area must include: ■ All local roadway segments (including all State surface routes), 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 will add 20 or more peak hour trips. Based on the Project's trip generation and distribution (Section 4.0), the following locations are included in the Project study area for CEQA Analysis: Intersections ■ Gibraltar Street/ Romeria Street (unsignalized) ■ Romeria Street/ Project Driveway North (unsignalized) ■ Romeria Street/ Project Driveway South (unsignalized) ■ La Costa Avenue/ Romeria Street (signalized) Street Segments Romeria Street ■ Gibraltar Street to La Costa A venue La Costa Avenue ■ West of Romeria Street ■ East ofRomeria Street 2.2.2 Signalized Intersection Methodology Signalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay was determined utilizing the methodology found in Chapter 19 of the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6), with the assistance of the Synchro JO computer software. The delay values (represented in seconds) are presented for the pre-and-post Project conditions. A more detailed explanation of the methodology is attached in Appendix B. 2.2.3 Unsignalized Intersection Methodology Unsignalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay was determined based upon the procedures found in Chapter 20 and Chapter 21 of the HCM 6 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 7 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe with the assistance of the Synchro 10 computer software. A more detailed explanation of the methodology is also attached in Appendix B. 2.2.4 Roadway Segment Methodology The City of Carlsbad has historically evaluated street segment LOS by evaluating the volume-to- capacity ratio for peak hour traffic. The City has updated the capacity table utilized for the "Volume/Capacity", or "VIC" method with development of the recent City of Carlsbad Segment LOS Capacity Threshold table also utilized in the Growth Management Plan roadway LOS methodology described above in Section 2.1.3. 2.3 Multimodal Level of Service Analysis The City of Carlsbad requires multimodal level of service (MMLOS) evaluation for pedestrian, bicycle and transit/rideshare users of the public roadway system. The City organizes the street network by a system of "typologies", as defined by the City of Carlsbad Mobility Element. Depending on the typology, different streets may require different MMLOS evaluations. For each roadway user set (pedestrian, bicycle, transit), general criteria groups have been identified. Table 2-1 shows a summary of the criteria for each roadway user set. TABLE2-1 MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Roadway Users Pedestrian Bicycle Transit/Ridesharing Accessibility & Functionality Street Characteristics Access Street Characteristics Facility ( each side of street) ~o~~ctivity ... , ... ·-- Crossing Characteristics Bikeway Design Transit Pri<>rity -.. -·- Other Elements Connectivity /Contiguity Service -Adjacent Vehicle Parking Amenities ·-· ----Other Elements. Bic~c;I~ Ai;cmnlllo~i<>ns _ --Available Mobility Services Source: City of Carlsbad. Each roadway's typography is evaluated for the particular set of roadway users based on sub-criteria, which is assigned "typology points". The following represents examples of sub-criteria within the "Transit and Ridesharing" general criteria group with corresponding points assigned: • Access -"ADA compliant sidewalk or path to transit stops in both directions" (15 points assigned) • Connectivity -"Multiple transit routes on segment" (] 0 points assigned) • Transit Priority -"Dedicated right of way" (5 points assigned) • Service -"Commute shuttle service provided during the morning and afternoon commute periods" (10 points assigned) • Amenities -"Covered bus stops" (5 points assigned) • Bicycle Accommodations -"Bike parking available at the bus stop" (5 points assigned) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 8 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe • Available Mobility Services -"On demand rideshare services available" (JO points assigned) The MMLOS analysis evaluates each of the sub-criteria, totals the points for the subject street typology, and compares the points to the City's MMLOS Point System and LOS Rating, shown in Table 2-2. This table assigns a qualitative LOS to several ranges of points, similar to the application of LOS to ranges in delay for CEQA-analysis intersection operations. TABLE2-2 MMLOS POINT SYSTEM & LOS RATING Point Score LOS 90-100 A 80-90 B 70-80 C 60-70 D 50-60 E 0-50 F Source: City of Carlsbad The City's Mobility Element calls for each street typology to achieve LOS Dor better operations for each general criteria group. It should be noted that scores in excess of 100 points can be achieved. 2.3.1 Multi-Modal Facilities to be Included in Study Area In general, multi-modal facilities must be included in the study area based on the following criteria: Pedestrian: • All pedestrian facilities that are directly connected to project access points will be included in the study area. • All pedestrian facilities adjacent to the project development site that provide direct pedestrian access to the project site will be included in the study area. • The analysis of each pedestrian facility will extend in each direction to the nearest intersection or connection point to a multiuse trail or path. The study area will extend from the project site until a Mobility Element Road or Class I trail is reached in each direction. • Pedestrian facilities shall include all existing and proposed sidewalks, crosswalks, signalized pedestrian phases, and ADA-compliant facilities. • Pedestrian analysis need only be conducted for the side of the street where the project is located, unless the project is located on both sides of the street, in which case both sides of the street should be studied. • Pedestrian analysis shall be conducted for all roadway segments included in the study area that are subject to the Pedestrian MMLOS standards. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engneers 9 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe Bicycle: ■ All facilities that bicyclists can legally use shall be included in the study area from each project access point extending in each direction of travel to the nearest intersection, dedicated bicycle facility, or connection point to a multi use trail or path. Inventory and evaluation shall include all off-street and on-street bicycle paths, lanes, and routes. ■ Bicycle analysis shall be conducted for both directions of travel (e.g. both sides of the street) of each facility included in the study area. ■ Bicycle analysis shall be conducted for roadway segments subject to the Bicycle MMLOS standards. Transit: ■ All existing transit lines and transit stops within ½ mile walking distance of the project site shall be included in the study area. ■ If the roadways within the study area are not subject to Transit MMLOS standards no further transit analysis is required. ■ All transit lines located within ½ mile walking distance of the project site will be analyzed according to Transit MMLOS. ■ All pedestrian routes linking the project site to a transit line within the ¼ mile walking distance boundary. ■ If no transit lines are provided, but the roadways within the study area are identified as subject to Transit MMLOS, the project shall complete the worksheet for "No Transit Located within½ Mile Walk from Subject Site or Roadway Segment". ■ Transportation Demand Management Measures shall be identified for the project, which may include on-demand transit, flex, or other measures. 2.3.2 Project Multi-Modal Study Area Based on the study area criteria shown in Section 2. 3. I, the MMLOS study area includes the following: Pedestrian Romeria Street (Local/Neighborhood Street) ■ Gibraltar Street to La Costa A venue (southbound only) Bicycle Romeria Street (Local/Neighborhood Street) ■ Gibraltar Street to La Costa A venue (both directions) There are no transit lines or stops within ½ mile walking distance of the Project site, nor are the roadways within the study area subject to Transit MMLOS. No Transit MMLOS evaluation is required. Figure 2-1 shows the MMLOS study area. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 10 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe 2.4 Thresholds of Significance 2.4.1 TIA Guidelines (Growth Management Plan) The City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program "Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan (last amended August 22, 2017)" states that the performance standard for the circulation system is as follows: Implement a comprehensive livable streets network that serves all users of the system - vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. Maintain LOS D or better for all modes that are subject to this multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) standard, as identified in Table 3-1 of the General Plan Mobility Element, excluding LOS exempt intersections and streets approved by the City Council. Thus, the Growth Management Plan's standard for all non-exempt street system facilities is LOS D. To comply with the Growth Management Program, all roadway facilities identified as not meeting the performance standard (LOS D) in the existing conditions scenario must be fully mitigated regardless of the project impact to that facility, or the TIA must request an exemption from the LOS D standard according to the Mobility Element Implementing Policy 3-P.9. The project causes a significant impact to the transportation facility in the study area if one or more of the following criteria is met: • The roadway facility is projected to exceed the LOS D standard and the project's traffic meets or exceeds the thresholds of significance listed in Table 2-3; or • A ramp meter delay exceeds 15 minutes and the project's traffic meets or exceeds the thresholds of significance listed in Table 2-3; or • The addition of project results in a change in LOS from acceptable (LOS D or better) to deficient (LOS E or F) on a roadway segment, freeway segment or ramp; or • The project results in a change in conditions on a roadway segment, freeway segment or ramp that exceeds the allowable thresholds (outlined in Table 2-3) for locations operating at a deficient LOS without the project (baseline conditions). LINSCOTT, I.Aw & GREENSPAN, engineers 11 LLG Ref 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe TABLE2-3 MEASURE OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS-ROADWAYS SUBJECT TO THE VEHICLE MMLOS STANDARD Auto Facility Subject to Threshold of Significance MMLOS Thresholds Roadway Segment Any trip added to a segment forecast to operate at deficient LOS requires project mitigation; Project mitigation will be determined based on project contribution to the identified impact. Freeway Segment 1 % increase in V /C or 1 mph decrease in speed Ramp Meter 2-minute increase Source: Table 6-Carlsbad TIA Guidelines (FINAL), April 2018. The project can have either a direct or cumulative impact as follows: • Direct Impacts: any significant impact identified under existing conditions. Direct impacts shall be fully mitigated by the project. • Cumulative Impacts: any significant impact identified under Cumulative and Horizon Year conditions. Cumulative impacts may be mitigated through fair share contribution. Projects identified for fair share contribution should be included in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) or Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. Any roadway section that is identified as having a significant impact must either: • Mitigate the traffic impact to pre-project conditions, or • Request LOS exemption from City Council for the LOS standard and identify feasible TSM & TDM mitigation Because of the qualitative nature of the MMLOS methodology, a project impact is significant if an existing pedestrian, bicycle or transit facility is determined to not meet the LOS D standard regardless of the forecasted number of project trips expected to use the facility. An impact occurs and is deemed significant if: • An existing facility in the project study area does not meet the pedestrian, bicycle or transit LOS standard, or • The project causes a standard facility to become substandard ( e.g., removal of an existing bike lane or bus stop, or blocking pedestrian access), or • A gap is identified in or directly adjacent to the study area related to pedestrian, bicycle or transit service to the project site. 2.4.2 SANTECRTE Guidelines (CEQA Method) A project is considered to have a significant impact if the new project traffic has decreased the operations of surrounding roadways by a defined threshold. The defined thresholds shown in Table 2-4 below for freeway segments, roadway segments, intersections, and ramp meter facilities are based on published San Diego Traffic Engineers' Council (SANTEC) guidelines. If the project LINSCOTT, I.AW & GREENSPAN, enfjneers 12 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe exceeds the thresholds in Table 2-4, then the project may be considered to have a significant project impact. A feasible mitigation measure will need to be identified to return the impact within the thresholds (pre-project + allowable increase) or the impact will be considered significant and unmitigated. TABLE2-4 TRAFFIC IMPACT SIGNIFICANT THRESHOLDS Allowable Increase Due to Project Impactsb Level of Service with Freeways Roadway Segments Intersections Ramp Metering Project" Speed Speed Delay Delay V/C (mph) V/C (mph) (sec.) (min.) D,E&F ( or ramp meter delays O.oI 1 0.02 1 2 2· above 15 minutes) Footnores: a. All level of service measurements are based upon HCM procedures for peak-hour conditions. However, V/C ratios for Roadway Segments may be estimated on an ADT/24-hour traffic volume basis (using Table 2 or a similar LOS chart for each jurisdiction). The acceptable LOS for freeways, roadways, and intersections is generally "D" ("C" for undeveloped or not densely developed locations per jurisdiction definitions). For metered freeway ramps, LOS does not apply. However, ramp meter delays above 15 minutes are considered excessive. b. If a proposed project's traffic causes the values shown in the table to be exceeded, the impacts are deemed to be significant. These impact changes may be measured from appropriate computer programs or expanded manual spreadsheets. The project applicant shall then identify feasible mitigations (within the Traffic Impact Study [TIS] report) that will maintain the traffic facility at an acceptable LOS. If the LOS with the proposed project becomes unacceptable (see note a above), or if the project adds a significant amount of peak hour trips to cause any traffic queues to exceed on-or off-ramp storage capacities, the project applicant shall be responsible for mitigating significant impact changes. c. The impact is only considered significant if the total delay exceeds 15 minutes. General Nous: I. V /C = Volume to Capacity Ratio 2. Speed = Arterial speed measured in miles per hour 3. Delay = Average stopped delay per vehicle measured in seconds for intersections, or minutes for ramp meters. 4. LOS = Level of Service LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 13 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe G\\>ta\tat St ~ Cl') tO ·-.. cu E 0 a:: Romeria St • Local / Neighborhood Street -PED MMLOS -Bike MMLOS ~ costa ~"e () Figure 2-1 MM LOS Study Area ROMERIA POINTE 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section presents existing transportation conditions for street system components identified for either Growth Management, CEQA, or Multi-Modal analysis. 3.1 Existing Street Network The following is a description of the major roadways within the study area. Figure 3-1 illustrates existing conditions in the study area in terms of traffic lanes and intersection controls. Romeria Street is classified as a Local/Neighborhood Street on the City of Carlsbad Mobility Element. Romeria Street is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway from La Costa A venue to Levante Street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Class II bike lanes are not provided in either side of the road. On-street parking and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. La Costa A venue in the Project vicinity is classified as a Neighborhood Connector Street in the City of Carlsbad Mobility Element. rt is currently built with a two-way left-tum lane median in the Project vicinity and generally three travel lanes. West of Romeria Street there are generally one vehicle lane in the westbound direction and two vehicles lanes traveling eastbound, with the second eastbound lane dropping following Gibraltar Street. East of Romeria Street there are generally two westbound and one eastbound vehicle lane, with the second westbound lane dropping following Romeria Street. Class II Bike Lanes and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the road. On-street parking is permitted aJong some portions of the street. There posted speed limit is 40 mph within the study area. 3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes AM/PM peak hour (7:00 am-9:00 am/ 4:00 pm-6:00 pm) intersection counts at all study area intersections were conducted on Thursday, October 17, 2019 while schools in the area were in session. Directional peak hour street segment volumes were derived from the peak hour turning movement counts. Figure 3-2 shows the Existing Traffic Volumes. Appendix C contains the intersection count sheets. 3.3 Existing Transit Conditions There are no transit services within ½ mile walking distance of the Project site. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 15 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe \, 11 .,, CD ., • ~ y .; j @ ~· ..{ ••• °!'l\!1-J.. •••• ~ 1 .; J © Fut1n ..{ -~-~(S.) -----·-- ~ 1 .; J © ~ + 7 L,CoalaAve -::!.. i' ' .; j N:\3155\Flgur,,s 0i!e: 10/28/2019 Time: 3:12 PM Gi:JlatatSI ® a • ,1( """"'\ (,~l'l>'=·· Sl!ni lnlersection TralflC Signal Stop Sign Turning Movements Project Sile 2141& Numbe< of Trawl Lanes U/D OMdedNnclivided Roadway ,..,.,, Pa&ted Speed Limit • Sneaker lane G) ,.\} ?.~((\9'(\ CARL SBAD ?,.\} .. ,,.o((\9'(\ ~ ~ .......... @ ~oiit ~' ~ ! (/) fi!n-----~ .-...0.,(S.) \.V \_?> (,l?\?,t--'111 ~ ~ \ ::,' © ,.\} .. ,,.o((\9'(\ '2:- 0 Figure 3-1 Existing Conditions Diagram ROM ERIA POINTE 0 -13/4 , 1s18 GixalarSI 3/8 -) ( 26/21 , IIS '/1 O> j :: O> @ ., N .. .. Fw, l .!'1:>i.~ lN.l .••• _ • t N IIS ... j ,._ - © ., ~ ~ Fulln l P!,jllwy(S.) •••••• t N Ill .. j ~ © ~ ... C: a;;;~ '-._ 10/ 28 JI"' -668/416 , 1s14 i.JICou/we I 18 J ) 1 ( 314/825 - 44/48 , _ ., 0 ..,.,,_ "' ~o~ 1 N:\3155\Flgures Oate: 10/28/2019 Time: 3:12 PM S\ t:,~\'ow,1 CD CARLS BAD ,,,,....---11'0 I &,1'2. '!>-:;,~l~'o.._...,.... ~ .. '2' .,_\I":~~~ ';x, 0 •li iii en ~$~)-® ! \ ~ ~ \ i ,.,..,\'ol>-"e \,?>v""-- 0 ~~11&.b.'o ,,,,....---_..,.... '!)1'!>,~~i @ Study Intersections 11 ( Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes -XX I XX Peak Hour Midblock Volumes n Figure 3-2 Existing Traffic Volumes ROMERIA POINTE 4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT 4.1 Trip Generation The Project site consists of 23 multi-family dwelling units in two buildings on a 0.71-acre site. Trip generation estimates for the Project were based on the SANDA G's Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002). Table 4-1 tabulates the Project traffic generation.The project is calculated to generate 138 ADT with 11 total AM peak hour trips (2 inbound/ 9 outbound) and 12 total PM peak hour trips (8 inbound/ 4 outbound). 4.2 Trip Distribution The Project's trip distribution was developed based on a review of existing traffic volumes at adjacent intersections. 4.3 Trip Assignment The Project traffic generation in Table 4-1 was assigned to the street system based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 4-1. The resulting assignment of net AM/PM peak hour volumes is shown on Figure 4-2. These AM/PM traffic volumes are added to the existing 2019 traffic volumes to produce the Existing + Project volumes evaluated in the analyses. Figure 4-3 shows the Existing+ Project AM/PM peak hour volumes. LINSCOTT, l.Aw & GREENSPAN, engineers 18 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe Daily Trip Ends (ADTs) Land Use Quantity Rate• ADT Proposed Apartment 23DU 6/DU 138 (Multi-family> 20 DU/acre) Footnotes: TABLE4-1 TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Hour ¾of In:Out Volume ADT Split In Out Total I..----------- 8% 20:80 2 9 11 PM Peak Hour %of In:Out Volume ADT Split In Out Total ----·-··-- 9% 70:30 8 4 12 a. Trip generation based on SANDAG's (Not So! BrtefGuide of Vehicular Trafnc Generation Rates for the San Diero Rerion. April 2002 ("SAND AG Brief Guide"). LINSCOTT. LAW & GREENSPAN. engineers 19 LLG Ref 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe '!C·1'-•11 :1.:, f.: N:\3155\flgures Date: 10/30/2019 Time: 11:42 AM \\)o/o <;,\ rj'Ol'o~I 1\)olo CD ?] i ::,. 0> ·sa CARLSBAD iliiij 6w; (S.) G_) \.'ow'?,"'~© ~\)0 /o ® Study Intersection xx 'lo Regional Trip Distribution n Figure 4-1 Project Trip Distribution ROMERIA POINTE 0 011 0 ProjDwy(N.) 110 4/2 © ProjDwy(S.) 412 © ~eouAve 215 ' ) Ill 0 J 0 ) ....,, ' ) "' Ill :: J N ... l ' ) 1 Ill j ..... -- ..,_ <O"' ) \. '- ....,, Ill j N:\3155\Figures D•te: 10/28/2019 Time: 3:16 PM GballsSt G~<_'l>~?>IS\ 0/2 CD CARLSBAD ~\~ ....-----/ 1-I I:> ~ .3 "' iii g> Piijow} (S.) @ ~ ' \ ~ """'11,~e \.cl_vv - 0 ....-----() \1-/ 1-I' ® Study Intersections 1 ! ( Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes -XX I XX Peak Hour Midblock Volumes () Figure 4-2 Project Traffic Volumes ROMERIA POINTE © -13/4 r 15/8 Gl><mSt 3/8 -1 ( 28/22 , "' _., a; 1 ~"' 0 .. -N o;;; .., J l Proj Owy (N.) 1 /0 _,,I 1 l 4/2 ' a; "'~ j -Cc 0 0 "' :a ! ProjOwy(S.) 4/2 ' 1 I a; !~ j -., © ~-~ 5'! U) Pt '--10/30 )!~ -668/416 r 19/4 LaCoolaAve 3/ 13 _,,I 1 l ( 314/625 - 44/48 , _ ., 0 ..,., _ "' i~~ j N:\3155\Fillures Date: 10/28/2019 Time: 3:15 PM ..,.,$\ G~l'o"''' G) C ARLS BAD 1<ob. I &.1~ ~ "P\\'o'?F/ fl -~ sl $!} S.)@ ~ ' r,.)\ ~ r()$~f>.'le \,'ov . to © ~1 I 6.q.) ~~ ./" ~1~\ 'o~":l @ Study Intersections 1 J ( Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes -XX I XX Peak Hour Midblock Volumes () Figure 4-3 Existing + Project Traffic Volumes ROMERIA POINTE 5.0 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS The following describes the potential cumulative development and street network conditions in the near-term scenarios. 5.1 Cumulative Projects To determine Near-Term (Existing+ Cumulative) conditions, LLG reviewed approved and pending projects within the City of Carlsbad to identify projects that will add traffic to the Project study area in the near-term condition. In coordination with the City, the following four (4) cumulative projects that may be built and occupied by Project opening day were identified for inclusion in Near-Term conditions. Table 5-1 lists and describes each cumulative project and Figure 5-1 depicts the cumulative project locations. Figure 5-2 shows the total cumulative projects AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes. Figure 5-3 shows the AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes for the "Existing + Cumulative" scenario. Figure 5-4 shows the peak hour traffic volumes for the "Existing + Cumulative + Project" scenario. 5.2 Network Conditions There are no known pending improvements to the study area street network or to nearby facilities that would notably affect conditions in the study area. No improvements or changes to the study area street facilities are assumed for Near-Term (Existing+ Cumulative) conditions. # Permit Number 1 CT20 I 9-000 l 2 SDP2018-0022 3 - 4 CT2017-0003 Source: City of Carlsbad LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, enfjneers TABLE>-1 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST Project Name La Costa Villas North Resort View Apartments Romeria Street single family homes La Costa Town Square Parcel 3 Description 9 condominiums to be located at 400 Gibraltar Street. 26 apartment units to be located on the west side of Viejo Castilla Way, between Navarra Drive and Pirineos Way. 3 single family homes located on Romeria Street south of La Costa A venue. 95 condominiums located at La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road. 23 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe ~,- ~,014,.., Ql"l?nlld ' l· ~ ...... _ ·-,◄ ... <')~ll a g I '? ~ \ .,, 1 '? <.,.,.,~ '""•c.- ! ~· ~,f 1h. ,,.,,,, \ l lvM,, O',o ~".f. <Pr<IJ>,t~ ~ I q ., ~ McClellan-Palomar Airport '-'°' l10n41iot,4 A•• "' w San -~ flWO The Flower Fields 9 Pill!.;.,,• Alrpo<\ 110 Poinsettia Park ' South Cartsbad State Beach Campground South Ponto Beach f, .,,..,, • ..s- qOIS' ptlom 11 .w>o.1 Rd AESSI RANCH B v' ¢,,,. "°'" Alga Norte Community Park - ~ f ~ ~ ~t, Alg1Jld .. t-,,inPliwy i " f ,: 0 c-J ~ ' tfl"'AA._ L• c--'•""~ .,. ~ Encinitas Ranch ,, Golf Course J ,•fPwa N:\3155\Flgures Date: 10/28/19 i , ~ r . _ . ..., ~ ! Ofi,..~hain Rd l Lake Sa!l Marcos ·.f,. ~ ~ "<a Sall ~ l> .s.,¾., $q, ,90' ✓ ._'tit .. ~ ~\, ~ t,/4, .,.q n \ l See Section 5.0 for a detailed description of each project () Figure 5-1 Cumulative Projects Location Map ROMERIA PO INTE 0 1/1 ' ' Ill j - @ :: - Rut l ~°!"£LN.J.. •• -• t Ill j - © :: - Flue l _P!,'i,.O!'l lSL. .•.• © t.ColUAve 3/8 1 /2 t Ill j - -'- \. -r -' ' ( Ill -o j N:\3155\Figures 0112: 10/29/2019 Time: 8:13 AM Gm1,-s1 1/1 5 /4 1 /0 --~1$\ G~,:-o.,,v: 0 CARLSBAD ~II:> ,,..,..,... / b, \ 'o .at!: _."i' ~vi-1~~'-V ?1 .3 (!) 51 (/) Arlllir~is1 ·@ ~ ' \ ~ 0 ......----1 11:> / b, \ 'o @ Study Intersections 1) ( Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes -xx I XX Peak Hour Midblock Volumes () Figure 5-2 Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ROMERIA POINTE © -13/4 r 1s18 <lh',jwSI 3/8 -' ( 27/22 , "' in -., j ~., 0 ~ 5! Fulll'e ! M~~.J ••..•. 1 "' in . j ~ © ~ 5! Fime ! .~~lSL. .... l ~ in :? j © ~-~ ..,.,_ -"' '-11/29 )!~ -673/420 r 201• l.aCoolok/e 1 /8 _J , 1 ( 3171831 -45/50 , _ ... -• <O -"' i;; Fi j N:\3155\Fllures Date: 10/28/2019 Time: 3:23 PM Glf:,l?),'<PI $\ 0 CARLS BAD 1~111.11 -----/ ~'!>\~'o~ ~ ··® .._'fiit~\ '& -~ al en ~-,·--13' ""ll>wJ,(S.) \V t t \ 1 \.a e,o-;\a r,.,ie © I 6.e;i~ _.,.--1\)bl ~ 1\~ '!,1 @ Study Intersections 11 ( Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes -XX I XX Peak Hour Midblock Volumes 0 Figure 5-3 Existing + Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ROMER I A Po I NTE 0 -1314 , 1s1e Gi>rmtarSt 3/B -l ( 27123 , ~ .. "' j !'.? .. © .. _., c:i! ) I P!ojOwy(N.) 110 _j l I 412 ' .. ~ in -:!! j (D "' I}; j P!ojOwy(S.) 412 ' 1 l ... ~ in -~ J © ~ -~ ~ C0 ~ '--11131 )!~ -673/420 , 201• ueooto1we 3/13 _j 1 l r 3171631 - 45 150 , ;;; ,-. -... "' - J i ~ Fi N:\3155\Figures Dllta: 10/28/2019 Time: 3:26PM ':,\ (:,\'f:il?,.~?,.I G) CARLSBAD ,.-/1~\b.~ '?P~\'o~/ '?i ,3 ·~. U> Piiijbw;,(S.) ® t\ i ~ ~ Ve,rfo,:;,l\~e © ,~1 b.~~ ,.-/ ~~ ~,~,~ ® Study Intersections 1) ( Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes -XX I XX Peak Hour Midblock Volumes () Figure 5-4 Existing+ Cumulative Projects+ Project Traffic Volumes ROMERIA POINTE 6.0 ANALYSIS PER CITY TIA GUIDELINES (GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN) 6.1 Background Based on the approach and methodologies described in Section 2.1 for the Growth Management Plan analysis, the following is an evaluation of the one (I) signalized intersections within the study area. Significance of impacts is based on the City's TIA Guidelines, as discussed in Section 2.4.1. 6.2 Analysis of Existing Conditions Table 6-1 shows the queue lengths under Existing conditions at the study area signalized intersection, for the applicable left-and-right turning movements to which the Project would contribute traffic. As shown in Table 6-1, existing queues are accommodated in the existing tum pockets, where applicable. 6.3 Analysis of Existing + Project Conditions Table 6-1 shows the queue lengths under Existing+ Project conditions at the study area signalized intersection, for the applicable left-and-right turning movements with the Project's traffic contribution. The maximum change in queue (SBL TR movement) is 8 feet, which is approximately 1/3 of a car length. As shown in Table 6-1, existing+ project queues are accommodated in the existing tum pockets where applicable. TABLE6-1 EXISTING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Pocket Existing Signalized Intersection Movement Turn Length Peak Queue Lanes Hour Turn (feet) Volume Length (feet) WBR NIA AM 10 10 - PM 28 28 4. La Costa Avenue I SBL1R NIA AM 49 49 Romeria Street -PM 28 28 EBL I 110 AM 1 1 PM 8 8 LINSCOTT, I.AW & GREENSPAN, engineers 28 Existing + Project Queue Turn Volume Length (feet) 10 10 30 30 57 57 32 32 3 3 13 13 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe 6.4 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative Conditions Table 6-2 shows the queue lengths under Existing + Cumulative conditions at the study area signalized intersection, for the applicable left-and-right turning movements to which the Project would contribute traffic. As shown in Table 6-2, Existing + Cumulative queues are accommodated in the existing tum pockets where applicable. 6.5 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative + Project Conditions Table 6-2 shows the queue lengths under Existing+ Cumulative+ Project conditions at study area signalized intersection for the applicable left-and-right turning movements with the addition of Project traffic. As shown in Table 6-2, Existing+ Cumulative+ Project queues are accommodated in the existing tum pockets, where applicable. The maximum change in queue (SBL TR movement) is 8 feet, which is approximately 1/3 of a car length. TABLE6-2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS-CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Existing+ Turn Pocket Peak Cumulative Signalized Intersection Movement Lanes Length Hour Queue (feet) Turn Length Volume (feet) WBR NIA AM 11 11 - PM 29 29 ·------ 4. La Costa Avenue / SBLTR NIA AM 50 50 Romeria Street -PM 29 29 EBL 1 llO AM 1 1 PM 8 8 LINSCOTT, I.Aw & GREENSPAN, engineers 29 Existing+ Cumulative + Project Queue Turn Length Volume (feet) 11 11 31 31 58 58 33 33 3 3 13 13 LLG Ref 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe 6.6 MMLOS Analysis The existing multi-modal facilities in the vicinity of the Project site were evaluated using the City of Carlsbad's MMLOS Tool (September 2018). The MMLOS study area was selected based on the City's scoping requirements and the street typology of the roadway, which indicates which modes are subject to LOS standards on that facility type. Table 6-3 summarizes the MMLOS analysis results for the pedestrian and bicycle facilities on Romeria Street. As shown in Table 6-3 these facilities achieve LOS A. Appendix E contains the detailed MMLOS worksheets. Location Romeria Street Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue Footnotes: TABLE6-3 MMLOS ANALYSIS Pedestrian LOS Direction Total Score LOS NB a -- SB 100 A a. Pedestrian LOS is only evaluated for the side of the street where the project is located per City TIA Guidelines. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, en/jneers 30 Bicycle LOS Total Score LOS 100 A 100 A MMLOSPoint Point Score LOS 90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 0-49 A B C D E F LLGRef. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe 6. 7 TIA Guidelines -Findings and Conclusions Based on the City's TIA Guidelines and thresholds of significance, presented in Section 2.4.1, no significant impacts are calculated based on the addition of Project traffic to the street system. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, enginee,s 31 LLGRef. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe 7 .0 ANALYSIS PER SANTEC/ITE GUIDELINES {CEQA) 7.1 Background Based on the approach and methodologies described in Section 2.2 for the CEQA analysis, the following is an evaluation of the one (1) signalized intersection, three (3) unsignalized intersections, and three (3) street segments. Significance of impacts is based on the SANTECIITE Guidelines, as discussed in Section 2.4.2. 7 .2 Analysis of Existing Conditions 7 .2.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Table 7-1 shows the AM/PM peak hour operations of study area intersections under existing conditions. This table shows all of the existing intersections operate at LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours. Appendix F contains the intersection analysis worksheets for the Existing scenario. 7.2.2 Roadway Segment Analysis Analysis of the study area street segments was performed using the methodology outlined in Section 2.2.4 of this report. Table 7-2 shows that all of the study area street segments are calculated to currently operate at acceptable LOS D or better, except for: • La Costa A venue, West of Romeria Street -Eastbound PM (LOS E) • La Costa Avenue, West ofRomeria Street-Westbound AM (LOSE) • La Costa A venue, East of Romeria Street -Eastbound PM (LOS E) 7.3 Analysis of Existing+ Project Conditions 7 .3.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Table 7-1 shows the results of the intersection capacity analyses conducted for the study intersections under Existing + Project conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. This table shows that all of the existing and proposed intersections operate at LOS A with the addition of Project traffic volumes. Appendix G contains the intersection analysis worksheets for the Existing + Project scenario. 7.3.2 Roadway Segment Analysis Existing + Project street segment analyses were conducted for the study roadways. Table 7-2 summarizes the street segment operations under Existing + Project conditions. As shown in Table 7-2, with the addition of Project traffic, study area segments are calculated to continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better, except for the following: • La Costa A venue, West of Romeria Street -Eastbound PM (LOS E) ■ La Costa Avenue, West ofRomeria Street-Westbound AM (LOS F) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 32 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe ■ La Costa A venue, East of Romeria Street -Eastbound PM (LOS E) No significant impact is calculated on any segment listed above as the Project-related increase in V/C ratio is less than the significance threshold of 0.02 during both the AM and PM peak hours. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 33 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe TABLE7-1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS-ExlSTING CONDITIONS Intersection Control Peak Existing Existing + Project Significant Type Hour Delay" I . Romeria St / Gibraltar St MSSCd AM 8.9 PM 8.9 AM -2. Romeria St / Project Drwy (N) MSSC PM - AM -3. Romeria St/ Project Drwy (S) MSSC PM - 4. Romeria St/ La Costa Ave AM 9.2 Signal PM 7.4 Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service C. t,. denotes Project induced delay increase. d. Minor Street Stop Control. Minor street delay is reported. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 34 LOSh Delay A 8.9 A 8.9 -8.7 -8.5 -8.6 -8.5 A 9.3 A 7.6 SIGNALIZED Delay LOS 0.0 ~ 10.0 A IO.I to 20.0 B 20.I to 35.0 C 35.I to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E 2 80.1 F LOS Ac Impact A 0.0 No A 0.0 No A -No A -No A -No A -No A 0.1 No A 0.2 No UNSIGNALIZED Delay 0.0 ~ 10.0 IO.I to 15.0 15.1 to 25.0 25.1 to35.0 35.1 to 50.0 2 50.1 LOS A B C D E F LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe Segment Capacity• Dir. (LOSD) Romeria Street 450 NB 1. Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue 450 SB La Costa A venue 630 2. West ofRomeria EB Street 630 WB 630 EB 3.East ofRomeria Street 1,390 WB Footnotes: Peak Hour AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM TABLE7-2 ExlSTING + PROJECT SEGMENT ANALYSIS Existing Volume LOSb 17 C 42 C 49 C 28 C 359 D 681 E 778 E 472 D 373 D 652 E 697 D 448 C a. Hourly two-way capacities based on City of Carlsbad Segment LOS Capacity Thresholds. b. Level of Service c. Volume to Capacity. d. fl denotes project induced V /C increase. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 35 V/C< Volume 0.030 19 0.075 49 0.088 57 0.050 32 0.460 361 0.873 686 0.997 784 0.605 475 0.478 375 0.836 653 0.453 697 0.291 450 Existing+ Project LOS C C C C D E F D D E D C V/C Ad 0.034 0.004 0.088 0.013 0.102 0.014 0.057 0.007 0.463 0.003 0.879 0.006 1.005 0.008 0.609 0.004 0.481 0.003 0.837 0.001 0.453 - 0.292 0.001 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe Sig. Impact No No No No No No No No No No No No 7.4 Analysis of Existing + Cumulative Conditions 7.4.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Table 7-3 reports the Existing + Cumulative intersection operations during the AM and PM peak hours. This tables shows that all of the existing intersections operate at LOS A with the addition of cumulative project traffic volumes. Appendix H contains the intersection analysis worksheets for the Existing + Cumulative scenario. 7.4.2 Roadway Segment Analysis Table 7-4 summarizes the street segment operations under Existing + Cumulative Projects conditions. As shown in Table 7-4, the study area segments are calculated to continue to operate at LOS D or better with the addition of cumulative project traffic, except for: • La Costa A venue, West of Romeria Street -Eastbound PM (LOS E) • La Costa A venue, West of Romeria Street -Westbound AM (LOS F) • La Costa A venue, East of Romeria Street -Eastbound PM (LOS E) 7.5 Analysis of Existing+ Cumulative+ Project Conditions 7 .5.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Table 7-3 reports the Existing+ Cumulative+ Project intersection operations during the AM and PM peak hours. This table shows that all of the existing and proposed intersections operate at LOS A with the addition of cumulative and Project traffic volumes. Appendix I contains the intersection analysis worksheets for the Existing + Cumulative + Project scenario. 7.5.2 Roadway Segment Analysis Table 7-4 summarizes the street segment operations under Existing + Cumulative + Project conditions. As shown in Table 7-4, with the addition of Cumulative Projects and Project traffic, the study area segments are calculated to continue to operate at acceptable LOS D or better, except for: • La Costa A venue, West of Romeria Street -Eastbound PM (LOS E) • La Costa A venue, West of Romeria Street -Westbound AM (LOS F) • La Costa A venue, East of Romeria Street -Eastbound PM (LOS E) No significant impact is calculated on either of the above-listed segments as the Project-related increase in V/C ratio is less than the significance threshold of0.02 during both the AM and PM peak hours. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 36 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe TABLE7-3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS-CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Control Existing+ Existing + Cumulative + Significant Intersection Peak Cumulative Type Hour Delay" LOSb Delay MSSCd AM 8.9 A 8.9 I . Romeria St / Gibraltar St 8.9 PM 8.9 A AM --8.7 2. Romeria St / Project Drwy (N) MSSC PM --8.5 AM --8.6 3. Romeria St/ Project Drwy (S) MSSC PM --8.5 AM 9.2 A 9.3 4. Romeria St/ La Costa Ave Signal PM 7.5 A 7.6 Footnotes: SIGNALIZED a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. Delay LOS b. Level of Service 0.0 S 10.0 A C. /1 denotes Project induced delay increase. IO.I to 20.0 B d. Minor Street Stop Control. Minor street delay is reported. 20.I to35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.I to 80.0 E 2: 80.I F LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 37 Project Impact LOS Ac A 0.0 No A 0.0 No A -No A -No A -No A -No A 0.1 No A 0.1 No UNSIGNALIZED Delay 0.0 S 10.0 JO.I to 15.0 15.1 to 25.0 25.1 to 35.0 35.1 to 50.0 2: 50.1 LOS A B C D E F LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe Segment Capacity• Dir. (LOSD) Romeria Street 450 NB l. Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue 450 SB La Costa Avenue 630 EB 2. West of Romeria Street 630 WB 630 EB 3. East of Romeria Street 1,390 WB Footnotes: TABLE7-4 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS SEGMENT ANALYSIS Peak Existing + Cumulative Hour Volume LOSb VIC• AM 18 C 0.032 PM 43 C 0.077 AM 50 C 0.089 PM 29 C 0.052 AM 363 D 0.465 PM 689 E 0.883 AM 784 F 1.005 PM 477 D 0.612 AM 377 D 0.483 PM 660 E 0.846 AM 704 D 0.457 PM 453 C 0.294 a. Hourly two-way capacities based on City of Carlsbad Segment LOS Capacity Thresholds. b. Level of Service c. Volume to Capacity. d. I!,. denotes project induced VIC increase. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, enginee,s 38 Existing+ Cumulative + Project Volume LOS 20 C 50 C 58 C 33 C 365 D 694 E 790 F 480 D 379 D 661 E 704 D 455 C VIC .&,d 0.036 0.004 0.089 0.012 0.104 0.015 0.059 0.007 0.468 0.003 0.890 0.007 1.013 0.008 0.615 0.003 0.486 0.003 0.847 0.001 0.457 - 0.295 0.001 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe Sig. Impact No No No No No No No No No No No No 7.6 CEQA Method -Findings and Conclusions No significant impacts are identified based on the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines thresholds of significance presented in Section 2.4.2. End of Report LINSCOTT, I.Aw& GREENSPAN, engineers 39 LLG Ref 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe TECHNICAL APPENDICES ROMERIA POINTE Carlsbad, California October 29, 2019 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 JAN 2 ~ 2020 Li NS COTT LAW & GREENSPAN engineers Linscott. Law & Greenspan, Engineers 4542 Ruffner Street Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92111 858.300.8800 T 858.300.8810 F www.llgengineers.com LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers APPENDIX A CITY OF CARLSBAD SEGMENT LOS CAPACITY THRESHOLD TABLE LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe Lanes 1 2 3 4 Lanes 2 4 5 6 7 Lanes 2 4 6 City of carlsbad Segment LOS capacity Threshold Segment Capacity Threshold for Arterial Streets Hourly Volume in Peak Direction Speed Limit Median B C D 35 Undivided .. 180 590 35 Divided ** 190 630 35 Divided ** 520 1390 45 Divided ** 600 1560 50 Divided ** B50 1690 55 Divided ** 1050 1800 35 Divided ** 680 2230 45 Divided .. 2040 2660 50 Divided .. 2360 2760 55 Divided 390 2600 2870 45 Divided ** 2780 3560 Hourly Volume In Both Direction Speed Limit Median B C D 35 Undivided •• 340 1100 35 Divided ** 360 1170 35 Divided ** 970 2580 45 Divided ** 1120 2890 50 Divided ** 1580 3130 55 Divided ** 1950 3340 55 Divided ** 3395 4343 35 Divided ** 1260 4130 50 Divided ** 4380 5120 55 Divided 730 4820 5320 45 Divided ** 4483 5785 Annual Average Dally Traffic Speed Limit Median B C D 35 Undivided ** 4200 13700 35 Divided •• 4400 14600 35 Divided ** 12100 32200 45 Divided ** 13900 36200 50 Divided •• 19700 39200 55 Divided ** 24400 41700 35 Divided ** 15800 51700 50 Divided ** 54700 63900 55 Divided 9100 60200 66500 E Lanes 740 780 1540 1760 1 1B20 1890 2540 2700 2800 2900 3620 E Lanes 1380 1450 2860 3260 2 3380 3500 4455 4720 5180 5360 5878 E Lanes 17200 18100 35800 40800 2 42200 43800 59000 64800 67000 Segment Capacity Threshold for Industrial Streets Hourly Volume in Peak Direction Speed Limit Median B C D 25 Undivided ** 110 450 25 Divided ** 140 610 35 Undivided ** 180 590 35 Divided ** 190 630 40 Undivided •• 216 708 40 Divided ** 228 756 Hourly Volume in Both Direction Speed Limit Median B C D 25 Undivided ** 200 800 25 Divided •• 250 1080 35 Undivided •• 340 1100 35 Divided ** 360 1170 40 Undivided ** 408 1320 40 Divided ** 432 1404 Annual Average Dally_ Traffic -Speed Limit Median B C D 25 Undivided •• 2200 8900 25 Divided •• 2800 12000 35 Undivided •• 4200 13700 35 Divided •• 4400 14600 40 Undivided ** 5040 16440 40 Divided ** 5280 17520 E 560 720 740 780 888 936 E 990 1270 1380 1450 1656 1740 E 11000 14100 17200 18100 20640 21720 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers APPENDIX 8 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY LLG Ref 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe IDGHWAY CAPACITY 6th EDITION MANUAL LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS In the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6), Level of Service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, Level of Service criteria are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle for a 15-minute analysis period. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Delay is a complex measure, and is dependent on a number of variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio, and the v/c ratio for the lane group or approach in question. LEVEL OF SERVICE A B C D E F CONTROLLED DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) 10.l 20.l 35.l 55.l < to to to to > 10.0 20.0 35.0 55.0 80.0 80.0 Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, (i.e. less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle). This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Level of Service B describes operations with delay in the range of l 0.1 to 20.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level of Service C describes operations with delay in the range of 20.1 to 35.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in the level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersections without stopping. Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of35.l to 55.0 seconds per vehicle. At Level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Level of Service E describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 to 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over-saturation (i.e. when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection). It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers S.ITechmcal Manuals\HCM\HC'M 6\JIC'M Wnteup_S1gHCM6 doc HIGHWAY CAPACITY 6th EDITION MANUAL LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS In the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6), Level of Service for unsignalized intersections is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. Level of Service is not defined for the intersection as a whole. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The criteria are given in the following the table, and are based on the average control delay for any particular minor movement. LEVEL OF AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY EXPECTED DELAY TO MINOR SERVICE SECNEH STREET TRAFFIC A 0.0 < 10.0 Little or no delay B IO.I to 15.0 Short traffic delays C 15.1 to 25.0 Average traffic delays D 25.1 to 35.0 Long traffic delays E 35.1 to 50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Severe congestion Level of Service F exists when there are insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow a side street demand to safely cross through a major street traffic stream. This Level of Service is generally evident from extremely long control delays experienced by side-street traffic and by queuing on the minor-street approaches. The method, however, is based on a constant critical gap size; that is, the critical gap remains constant no matter how long the side-street motorist waits. LOS F may also appear in the form on side-street vehicles selecting smaller-than-usual gaps. In such cases, safety may be a problem, and some disruption to the major traffic stream may result. It is important to note that LOS F may not always result in long queues but may result in adjustments to normal gap acceptance behavior, which are more difficult to observe in the field than queuing. In most cases at Two-Way Stop Controlled (TWSC) intersections, the critical movement is the minor-street left-tum movement. As such, the minor-street left-tum movement can generally be considered the primary factor affecting overall intersection performance. The lower threshold for LOS F is set at 50 seconds of delay per vehicle. There are many instances, particularly in urban areas, in which the delay equations will predict delays of 50 seconds (LOS F) or more for minor-street movements under very low volume conditions on the minor street (less than 25 vehicle/hour). Since the first term of the equation is a function only of the capacity, the LOS F threshold of 50 sec/vehicle is reached with a movement capacity of approximately 85 vehicle/hour or less. This procedure assumes random arrivals on the major street. For a typical four-lane arterial with average daily traffic volumes in the range of 15,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day (peak hour, 1,500 to 2,000 vehicle/hour), the delay equation used in the TWSC capacity analysis procedure will predict 50 seconds of delay or more (LOS F) for many urban TWSC intersections that allow minor-street left-tum movements. The LOS F threshold will be reached regardless of the volume of minor-street left-turn traffic. Not-withstanding this fact, most low-volume minor- street approaches would not meet any of the volume or delay warrants for signalization of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) since the warrants define an asymptote at 100 vehicle/hour on the minor approach. As a result, many public agencies that use the HCM 6 Level of Service thresholds to determine the design adequacy of TWSC intersections may be forced to eliminate the minor-street left-tum movement, even when the movement may not present any operational problem, such as the formation of long queues on the minor street or driveway approach. LINSCOTT, l.Aw & GREENSPAN, engineers S:\Taclvlical Manuals\HCMIHCM 6\HCM Writeup_UnsigHCM6.doc LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers APPENDIXC EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS SHEETS LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe N ational Data & Surveying Services Location: Romeria St & Gibraltar St Intersection Turning Movement Count City: Carlsbad Project IO: 19--04397-002 Control: 1-Way Stop(NB) Date: 10/17/2019 Total Romeria St Romerta St Gibraltar St Gibraltar St NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL wr WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 B 0 3 4 0 0 20 7:15 AM 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 0 0 0 16 7:30 AM 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 3 0 0 15 7:45 AM 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 5 6 0 0 27 B:00 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 11 0 1 2 0 0 18 8:15 AM 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 9 8:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 2 2 0 0 13 8:45 AM 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 9 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL wr WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 18 0 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 50 1 20 19 0 0 127 APPROACH '¥o's: 60.00% 0.00% 36.67% 3.33% 0.00% 12.07% 86.21% 1.72% 51.28% 48.72% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR: 07:00 AM • 08:00 AM TOTAL Pl!AKHRVOL: 10 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 26 1 15 13 0 0 78 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0,500 0.000 0.450 0.250 0.000 0,000 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.813 0.250 0.625 0.542 0.000 0.000 0.722 0.500 0.682 0.636 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU El ET ER EU Wl wr WR WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 3 0 0 14 4:15 PM 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 1 0 0 0 13 4:30 PM 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 0 1 2 0 0 21 4:45 PM 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 2 0 0 14 5:00 PM 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 4 0 0 0 17 5: 15 PM 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 12 5:30 PM 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 1 1 0 0 20 5:45 PM 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 12 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL wr WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 35 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 30 0 11 10 0 0 123 APPROACH o/o's : 63.64% 0.00% 36.36% 0.00% 0.00% 36.17% 63.83% 0.00% 52.38% 47.62% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:15 PM • 05:15 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL: 15 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 21 0 8 4 0 0 65 PEAK Hll FACTOR : 0.625 0.000 D.450 0.000 0.000 0.000 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.667 0.583 0.000 0.500 0.500 0,000 0.000 o.n4 0.750 0.604 0.750 N ational Data & Surveying Services Location: Romeria St & Gibraltar St Intersection Turning Movement Count City: Carlsbad Project ID: 19-04397-002 Control: 1-Way Stop(NB) Date: 10/17/2019 Bikes Romeria St Romeria St Gibraltar St Gibraltar St NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU El ET ER EU Wl WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 8:15 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 6 APPROACH '!It's : 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Pl!AKHR : 07:00 AM • 08:00 AM TOTAL Pl!AKHRVOL: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.250 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 l 0 0 3 APPROACH ~•s: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR 04:15 PM • 05:15 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 PEAK HR FACTOR 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.250 0.250 J National Data & Surveying Services Locatilnt~m~i~Jjpn Turning MO'«jmfr~J;)punt City: Carlsbad Date: 10/17/2019 Pedestrians Crosswalks Romeria St Romeria St Gibraltar St Gibraltar St NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EASf LEG WEST LEG EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 7:00AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 7:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:00AM 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 8:15AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 8:30 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 8:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES: 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 9 APPROACH o/o's: 44.44% 55.56% PEAK HR: 07:00 AM -08:00 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL: 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.250 0.375 0.375 NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EASf LEG WESfLEG EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 4:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 4:15 PM 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 4:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 5 5:15 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 5 6 1 3 2 1 18 APPROACH o/o's : 45.45% 54.55% 25.00% 75.00% 66.67% 33.33% P!AKHR: 04:15 PM -05:15 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL: 0 0 3 5 1 2 1 1 13 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.375 0.313 0.250 0.500 0.250 0.250 0.464 0.500 0.375 0.250 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Romeria St & Gibraltar St Peak Hour Turning Movement Count ID: 19-04397-002 City: Carlsbad ti) a: ::J 0 l: ~ 07:00 AM -08:00 AM AM 0 NONE NOON 0 ~ 11. 04:15 PM -05:15 PM PM 0 AM NOON PM 24 0 19 ~ .. en .. 0 0 :, 0 !! e --l------+---- .a 0 0 0 j 0 <3 --l------+---- 3 0 8 -+1 26 0 21 ~ 0 AM NOON PM Total Vehicles (AM) Total Vehicles (Noon) _J111L ., . ... N/A; t.N/A N/A-+ <e> ., N/A 7 N/A~ ~ t ,. , 1 N/A zzz ..................... )> )> )> Total Vehicles (PM) _J~ ~ ~L o; t.O 8-+ <e> .,4 7 21 ~ 4"I t ,. ,,s I-" 0 \0 V, PM NOON AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Day: Thursday Date: 10/17/2019 AM 07:00 AM -09:00 AM NOON NONE PM 04:00 PM -06:00 PM PM NOON AM 0 t. 0 0 0 ----l---+-- 1 ~ 4 0 13 or a 0 15 ---1--+-- o f: 0 0 0 c:> 17 0 12 0 0 C z -I ,, m ~ 0 C en C) a= ii: S' ... CJ) .. 0 0 1 0 "~ t ,. PM NOON AM 29 0 15 0 9 PM 0 0 0 0 0 NOON 42 1 10 0 9 AM Romeria St Bikes (AM) _J oo oL .,I .. ... o; <e> t.O 1-+ A .. 2 1 ~ ,o 7 ~ t ,.r- 0 o o I Bikes (NOON) _J <( <( <( L ..................... z z z ., ..... N/A; ~ t. N/A N/A-+ ~., N/A N/A ~ t I' N/A 7 1:z~r->> > I Bikes (PM) National Data & Surveying Services Location: Romeria St & La Costa Ave Intersection Turning Movement Count City: Carlsbad Project ID: 19-04397-001 Control: Signalized Date: 10/17/2019 Total Romeria St Romeria St La Costa Ave La Costa Ave NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 5 0 0 0 4 1 6 0 2 78 5 0 0 108 1 0 210 7:15 AM 4 0 1 0 9 0 4 0 0 90 12 0 3 158 2 0 283 7:30 AM 21 1 2 0 5 2 4 0 0 64 13 0 1 190 1 0 304 7:45 AM 28 1 10 0 7 4 3 0 1 77 13 0 14 174 7 0 339 8:00AM 44 4 16 0 9 0 2 0 0 83 6 0 1 146 0 0 311 8:15 AM 10 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 1 75 0 0 1 163 1 0 257 8:30 AM 11 0 1 0 7 1 4 0 3 77 7 0 1 142 2 0 256 8:45 AM 6 1 1 0 3 0 3 0 2 53 5 0 0 130 1 0 205 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 129 7 31 0 46 8 30 0 9 597 61 0 21 1211 15 0 2165 APPROACH 'I'. 's : 77.25% 4.19% 18.56% 0.00% 54.76% 9.52% 35.71% 0.00% 1.35% 89.51% 9.15% 0.00% 1.68% 97.11% 1.20% 0.00% P!AICHR: 07:15 AM · 01:15 AM TOTAL P!AIC HR VOL : 97 6 29 0 30 6 13 0 1 314 44 0 19 668 10 0 1237 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.551 0.375 0.453 0.000 0.833 0.375 0.813 0.000 0.250 o.8n 0.846 0.000 0.339 0.879 0.357 0.000 0.912 0.516 0.875 0.880 0.894 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 l 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 4 0 5 0 4 1 1 0 1 161 8 0 0 105 6 0 296 4:15 PM 10 1 2 0 2 0 3 0 2 160 9 0 1 97 7 0 294 4:30 PM 9 0 1 0 10 1 1 0 2 143 3 0 0 121 4 0 295 4:45 PM 9 0 2 0 4 0 6 0 1 161 12 0 0 100 8 0 303 5:00 PM 14 2 6 0 4 1 1 0 2 125 15 0 2 98 5 0 275 5: 15 PM 12 3 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 186 10 0 1 99 3 0 320 5:30 PM 11 1 1 0 6 0 1 0 5 153 11 0 1 119 12 0 321 5:45 PM 7 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 169 3 0 1 99 5 0 291 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES 76 7 22 0 36 3 15 0 13 1258 71 0 6 838 50 0 2395 APPROACH 'V.'s 72.38% 6.67% 20.95% 0.00% 66.67% 5.56% 27.78% 0.00% 0.97% 93.74% 5.29% 0.00% 0.67% 93.74% 5.59% 0.00% PEAK HR 04:45 PM • 05:45 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL 46 6 10 0 17 1 10 0 8 625 48 0 4 416 28 0 1219 PEAK HR FACTOR 0.821 0,500 0.417 0.000 0.708 0.250 0.417 0.000 0.400 0.840 0.800 0.000 0.500 0.874 0.583 0.000 0.949 0.705 __ 0.700 0.869 0.848 N ational Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement Count Location: Romelia St & La Costa Ave City: Carlsbad Project ID: 19-04397-001 Control: Signalized Date: 10/17/2019 Bikes Romeria St Romelia St La Costa Ave La Costa Ave --NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:45AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8:00AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 6 APPROACH "ilo's : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% O.OO"A, 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% PEAK Hll: 07:15 AM • 08:15 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 PEAK Hll FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.375 0.500 0.250 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 APPROACH ~•s : 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR: 04:45 PM • 05:45 PM I TOTAL PEAK HR VOL: 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 PEAK HR FACTOR : o.oo 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0·000 0.500 0.250 0.250 National Data & Surveying Services Locatilnittm~gjgp Turning Mo~mJrmJ;punt City: Carlsbad Date: 10/17/2019 Pedestrians Crosswalks Romeria St Romeria St La Costa Ave La Costa Ave NORTH LEG SOlJTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 7:00AM 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7:15AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:30AM 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 11 8:00 AM 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 4 8:15AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 8:45AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 3 3 0 0 4 15 1 0 26 APPROACH o/o's: 50.00% 50.00% 21.05% 78.95% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR: 07:15 AM -08:15 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL: 1 1 0 0 3 13 1 0 19 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.250 0.375 0.325 0.250 0.432 0.500 0.364 0.250 NORTH LEG SOlJTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5:30 PM 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 5:45 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 4 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 9 APPROACH o/o's: 66.67% 33.33% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 100.00% PEAK HR: 04:45 PM -05:45 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL: 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.333 0.250 0.250 0.300 0.333 0.250 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services Romeria St & La Costa Ave Peak Hour Turning Movement Count Romeria St Romeria St ID: 19-04397-001 City: Carlsbad SOUTHBOUND Day: Thursday Date: 10/17/2019 "' a: 07:15AM -08:15AM AM 13 6 30 0 17 AM 07:00 AM -09:00 AM 0 0 C: z .... ::::, 0 J: :.:: NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE "O m :i a. 04:45 PM -05:45 PM PM 10 1 17 0 42 PM 04:00 PM -06:00 PM i!! 0 C Ill Q) > c( s en 0 0 C'G ..J AM NOON PM 0 778 0 4 72 ¢=:i 0 0 0 ,!j 0 ---+----+---- 1 0 8 j-1 314 0 625 ~ 1 44 0 48 ,. 1 AM NOON PM -0, Total Vehicles (AM) Total Vehicles (Noon) _J~~~L z z z ., • I+ N/A.t t. N/A N/A-+ <e> .. N/A 7N/A'\ ~ ♦ ,. f"IN/A zzz -.... -.... -.... )> )> )> Total Vehicles (PM) _J ;:l M ~L ., ♦ I+ 8.t t. 28 625-+ <e> .. 416 48'\ f" 4 7 ~. ,., ""'O'> .... O'> 0 PM 53 NOON 0 AM 69 1 'it PM NOON AM 0 0 0 t. 28 0 10 2 +-416 0 668 1 r 4 o 19 o C. o o o c:;> 652 0 373 0 0 1 0 "' ~ t ,. PM NOON AM 0 46 6 10 PM 0 Q Q Q NOON 0 97 6 29 AM Bikes (AM) _J o"" aL ., • I+ O.t <&t.O 1-+ A .. o O'\ f"O 7 ~ t ,.r- 0 a a I Bikes (NOON) _J ~~~L z z z ., • I+ N/A .t <& t. N/A N/A-+ A .. N/A N/A '\ t f" N/A 7 1z ~r->> > I Bikes (PM) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers APPENDIXD MMLOS RESULTS LLG Ref. 3-l 9-3 l 55 Romeria Pointe Project: Romeria Pointe Segment: Romeria Street From Gilbraltar Street To La Costa Avenue Scenario: All Scenarios By: LLG • Essential Features !Criteria must be met): Sidewalk or path meets ADA unobstructed width requirements • Emnslal Features (~rla mu!t be m~): Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 5' if unspecified) Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology Accessibility and according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified) functionality • Essential Features (Criteria must be m~): Ramps and segments meet ADA requirements (cross-slope and trip Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge On-street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way Landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between Street characteristics pedestrians and vehicle travel way Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day Speed limit 30 mph or less No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and pedestrian crossings Permanent speed control devices Installed on segments posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer • Essential Features (Criteria must be met}: Crosswalks are marked according to CA MUTCO guidelines Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the CAMUTCD) Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width Crossing characteristics (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median island) Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian-friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown heads, signa e, etc.) RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted • Essential Featu~s (Criteria must be m~): Street light locations a ear adequate Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreationa Other Elements spaces) Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk len h Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 15 15 10 10 10 5 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 10 0 0 5 5 5 s 5 5 5 s s 5 0 0 10 10 10 5 0 0 10 0 0 10 10 10 5 0 0 10 10 10 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 100 100 A A Yes Yes Project: Romeria Pointe Segment: Romeria Street From Gibraltar Street To La Costa Avenue Scenario: All Scenarios By: LLG Bicycle MM LOS Criteria NB ~---SB Criteria Points Points Assigned Points Assigned Speed limit is s 25 mph 25 25 25 Speed limit is 30 mph 15 0 0 Street Characteristics Speed limit is 35 mph 10 0 0 Residential street with ADT < 3,000 15 15 15 Street with AOT between 3,000 and 6,000 10 0 0 Class I facility (off-street path), Class IV (cycle track), or 25 0 0 multiuse path Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on-street 15 0 0 bicycle lanes) Facility Bike lane buffer (2' min is rovided 5 0 0 Class Ill facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only) 5 5 5 Additional traffic calming/speed management features have 10 0 0 been applied to Class Ill facility (i.e. a bike boulevard) Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan 25 25 25 Bike lane (including buffer) is at least 8' wide from face of curb 10 0 0 Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet design 10 10 10 Blkeway Design guidelines D Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes) 10 10 10 Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates) 5 5 5 Bikeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master 5 5 5 Plan alon se ment Connectivity/ Contiguity Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes 5 0 0 or driveways Adjacent Vehicle No on-street parkin and speed limit is 25 or 30 mph 5 0 0 Parking Back-in angled parking 5 0 0 Parallel parkin with door-side buffered bike lane 5 0 0 Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at 5 0 0 Other Elements intersections 0 0 100 100 A A LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers APPENDIXE HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS - EXISTING LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe Existing AM 1 : Romeria St & Gibraltar St )ntersedion Int Delay, s/veh 3.7 "1ovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations f. 4 V Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 26 15 13 11 9 Future Vol, veh/h 3 26 15 13 11 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 3 3 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# 0 Grade,% 0 Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 4 36 21 M · /Minor Conflicting Flow All 43 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy -4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Sig 2 Follow-up Hdwy -2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -1566 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -1562 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s 0 HCMLOS Mvmt NBLn1 EBT Capacity (veh/h) 961 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 HCM 6th TWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\1 Ex AM.syn 0 0 0 0 0 72 72 72 2 2 2 18 15 13 Minor1 0 85 25 25 60 -6.42 6.22 -5.42 -5.42 -3.518 3.318 -916 1051 -998 -963 -900 1048 -900 -995 -950 NB 8.9 A EBR WBl WBT -1562 -0.013 -7.3 0 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 Synchro 10 Report Existing AM 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave ~ -+ EBL EBT Lane Configurations ,, + Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 314 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 314 Initial a (Ob), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1 345 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 Cap, veh/h 6 628 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1 345 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 a Serve(g_s), s 0.0 4.6 Cycle a Clear(g_c), s 0.0 4.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 6 628 V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 293 1262 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.1 8.2 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 13.2 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veMn 0.0 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.3 9.0 LnGre LOS C A Approach Vol, veh/h 394 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.8 Approach LOS A mer -Assigned Phs 1 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.3 14.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 20.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 2.4 6.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 ntersection Surnm!!l HCM 6th Ctr1 Delay HCM 6th LOS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\1 Ex AM.syn ...... f ,._ EBR W8[ WBT ,, "' +i. 44 19 668 44 19 668 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No 1870 1870 1870 48 21 734 0.91 0.91 0.91 2 2 2 533 48 1295 0.34 0.03 0.36 1585 1781 3584 48 21 364 1585 1781 1777 0.6 0.4 5.0 0.6 0.4 5.0 1.00 1.00 533 48 642 0.09 0.44 0.57 1069 293 1199 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.9 14.6 7.8 0.1 6.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.3 7.0 20.9 8.6 A C A 766 8.9 A 4 5 10.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 26.0 5.0 2.8 2.0 0.2 0.0 9.2 A Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 "-~ t I" \. l .,/ WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR .i. .i. 10 97 6 29 30 6 13 10 97 6 29 30 6 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No No 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 11 107 7 32 33 7 14 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 19 388 40 63 336 83 80 0.36 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 54 947 209 324 750 428 412 381 146 0 0 54 0 0 1861 1479 0 0 1591 0 0 5.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.73 0.22 0.61 0.26 672 491 0 0 498 0 0 0.57 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 1255 1441 0 0 1453 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 7.8 10.9 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 8.5 11.2 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 A B A A B A A 146 54 11.2 10.3 B B 6 8 15.5 10.4 4.5 4.5 20.5 26.0 7.0 4.6 3.9 0.8 Synchro 10 Report Existing PM 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St ntersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations t. 4 V Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 21 8 4 15 9 Future Vol, veh/h 8 21 8 4 15 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 8 8 0 2 3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# 0 Grade,% 0 Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 10 27 10 . /Minor Conflicting Flow All 0 0 45 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy -4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy -2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -1563 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -1551 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s 4.9 HCM LOS inor MYmt NBln1 EBT Capacity (veh/h) 966 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.032 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 HCM 6th TWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\2 Ex PM.syn 0 0 0 0 0 77 77 77 2 2 2 5 19 12 Minor1 0 59 35 32 27 -6.42 6.22 -5.42 -5.42 -3.518 3.318 -948 1038 -991 -996 -933 1027 -933 -983 -988 NB 8.9 A EBR WBL WBT -1551 -0.007 . 7.3 0 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 Synchro 10 Report Existing PM 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave ~ ..... Movement EBL EBT Lane Configurations 'i t Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 625 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 625 Initial a (Ob), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 658 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 Cap, veh/h 19 907 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 658 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 a Serve(g_s), s 0.1 9.1 Cycle a Clear(g_c), s 0.1 9.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 19 907 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 273 1751 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.0 6.7 Iner Delay {d2), s/veh 13.9 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 o/oile BackOfQ(50%),veMn 0.1 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh lnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.0 7.8 LnG~ LOS C A Approach Vol, veh/h 717 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.8 Approach LOS A [l'lmer-Assigned Phs 1 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 20.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 Max a Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 2.1 11 .1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 :Intersection Sum HCM 6th Ctr1 Delay HCM 6th LOS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\2 Ex PM.syn ... f ,._ EBR W8L WBT ,, 'i ti. 48 4 416 48 4 416 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No 1870 1870 1870 51 4 438 0.95 0.95 0.95 2 2 2 769 10 1623 0.49 0.01 0.48 1585 1781 3383 51 4 229 1585 1781 1m 0.6 0.1 2.5 0.6 0.1 2.5 1.00 1.00 769 10 853 0.07 0.41 0.27 1484 273 1664 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.5 16.1 5.1 0.0 25.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 4.5 41.7 5.2 A D A 471 5.5 A 4 5 7.6 4.8 4.5 4.5 26.0 5.0 2.5 2.1 0.1 0.0 7.4 A Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 '-~ t I" '. ! .ti WBR NBL NBT NBR SB[ SBT SB • • 28 46 6 10 17 1 10 28 46 6 10 17 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No No 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 29 48 6 11 18 1 11 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 107 298 13 24 256 16 55 0.48 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 223 1119 140 256 836 172 584 238 65 0 0 30 0 0 1829 1515 0 0 1592 0 0 2.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.12 0.74 0.17 0.60 0.37 878 336 0 0 328 0 0 0.27 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 1713 1361 0 0 1354 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 5.1 13.9 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.2 14.2 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 A B A A B A A 65 30 14.2 13.7 B B 6 8 20.1 7.6 4.5 4.5 30.5 26.0 4.5 3.2 2.9 0.3 Synchro 10 Report LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers APPENDIXF HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS- EXISTING + PROJECT LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe Existing + Project AM 1 : Romeria St & Gibraltar St nt Int Delay, s/veh 3.8 Movement EBT EBR WBl WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations f. 4' V Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 26 15 13 12 9 Future Vol , veh/h 3 26 15 13 12 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 3 3 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# 0 Grade,% 0 Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 4 36 21 . IMioor Conflicting Flow All 0 43 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy -4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy -2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -1566 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -1562 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT Capacity (veh/h) 958 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 HCM 6th TWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\3 Ex+P AM.syn 0 0 0 0 0 72 72 72 2 2 2 18 17 13 Minor1 0 85 25 25 60 -6.42 6.22 -5.42 -5.42 -3.518 3.318 -916 1051 -998 -963 -900 1048 -900 -995 -950 NB 8.9 A EBR WBL WBT -1562 -0.013 -7.3 0 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 Synchro 10 Report Existing + Project AM 2: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (N) ntersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 EBL EBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations ¥ 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 4 1 17 Future Vol, veh/h 1 4 1 17 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free RT Channelized -None -None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 1 5 1 20 Milol2 Conflicting Flow All 80 58 58 0 Stage 1 58 Stage 2 22 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 922 1008 1546 Stage 1 965 Stage 2 1001 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 921 1008 1546 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 921 Stage 1 964 Stage 2 1001 r'flproach HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvrnt NBL NBTEBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1546 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 HCM6thTWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\3 Ex+P AM.syn -989 -0.006 0 8.7 A A 0 SBT SBR ft 49 0 49 0 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 85 85 2 2 58 0 0 SB 0 SBT SBR Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 Synchro 10 Report Existing + Project AM 3: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (S) ntersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 ovement EBL EBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations V 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 4 1 18 Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 1 18 Conflicting Peds, ##hr 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free RT Channelized -None -None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 0 5 1 21 inor Mlnor2 Conflicting Flow All 85 62 62 0 Stage 1 62 Stage 2 23 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 916 1003 1541 Stage 1 961 Stage 2 1000 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 915 1003 1541 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 915 Stage 1 960 Stage 2 1000 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Mviiit NBL: 1 Capacity (veh/h) 1541 -1003 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 HCM 6th TWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\3 Ex+P AM.syn -0.005 0 8.6 A A 0 SST SBR t. 53 0 53 0 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 85 85 2 2 62 0 0 SB 0 SBT SBR Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 Synchro 10 Report Existing + Project AM 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave ,;. -+ EBL EBT Lane Configurations 'I + Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 314 Future Volume (veh/h) 3 314 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 345 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 Cap, veh/h 7 631 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 3 345 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 4.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 4.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 7 631 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 291 1254 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.2 8.2 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 32.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veMn 0.1 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.9 9.0 LnGre LOS D A Approach Vol, veh/h 396 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.0 Approach LOS A mer-1 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.3 14.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 20.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 2.4 6.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 ntersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\3 Ex+P AM.syn ..... '# +- EBR W8[ T ,, 'I +i. 44 19 668 44 19 668 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No 1870 1870 1870 48 21 734 0.91 0.91 0.91 2 2 2 535 48 1291 0.34 0.03 0.36 1585 1781 3584 48 21 364 1585 1781 1777 0.6 0.4 5.0 0.6 0.4 5.0 1.00 1.00 535 48 640 0.09 0.44 0.57 1062 291 1191 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.9 14.7 7.9 0.1 6.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.3 7.0 21.0 8.7 A C A 766 9.0 A 4 5 10.4 4.6 4.5 4.5 26.0 5.0 2.9 2.1 0.3 0.0 9.3 A Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 '-"\ t I" \. ! .I W8R NB NBT NBR SB[ SBT SBR 4t 4t 10 97 6 29 32 6 19 10 97 6 29 32 6 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No No 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 11 107 7 32 35 7 21 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 19 388 41 63 308 81 103 0.36 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 54 945 212 325 643 417 530 381 146 0 0 63 0 0 1861 1482 0 0 1590 0 0 5.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.73 0.22 0.56 0.33 670 492 0 0 492 0 0 0.57 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 1247 1428 0 0 1444 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 7.9 10.9 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 8.6 11.2 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 A B A A 8 A A 146 63 11.2 10.4 B B 6 8 15.5 10.4 4.5 4.5 20.5 26.0 7.0 4.6 3.9 0.8 Synchro 10 Report Existing + Project PM 1 : Romeria St & Gibraltar St . ntersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.1 Movement EB EBR WBL: T NBL NBR Lane Configurations ft. 4 V Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 22 8 4 15 9 Future Vol, veh/h 8 22 8 4 15 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 8 8 0 2 3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 Grade,% 0 Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 10 29 10 Major/Minor Mijor1 Mip2 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 47 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy -4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy -2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -1560 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -1548 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCMLOS Mvmt NBLn1 EBT Capacity (veh/h) 965 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 HCM 6th TWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\4 Ex+P PM.syn 0 0 0 0 0 77 77 77 2 2 2 5 19 12 Minor1 0 60 36 33 27 -6.42 6.22 -5.42 -5.42 -3.518 3.318 -947 1037 -989 -996 -932 1026 -932 -981 -988 NB 8.9 A EBR WBL WBT -1548 -0.007 -7.3 0 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 Synchro 10 Report Existing + Project PM 2: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (N) ntersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 EBL EBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations V 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 3 42 Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 3 42 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free RT Channelized -None -None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 0 2 4 49 Mi1or2 Conflicting Flow All 91 34 34 0 Stage 1 34 Stage 2 57 CriticalHdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 909 1039 1578 Stage 1 988 Stage 2 966 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 906 1039 1578 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 906 Stage 1 985 Stage 2 966 ~ HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Mvmt NBL NBTEBln1 Capacity (veh/h) 1578 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 HCM 6th TWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\4 Ex+P PM.syn -1039 -0.002 0 8.5 A A 0 SBT S8R ft 28 1 28 1 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 85 85 2 2 33 1 0 SB 0 SBT S8R Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 Synchro 10 Report Existing + Project PM 3: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (S) ntersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 vement EBL EBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations V 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 4 45 Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 4 45 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free RT Channelized -None -None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 0 2 5 53 · r/Minor Minor2 u· Conflicting Flow All 98 35 35 0 Stage 1 35 Stage 2 63 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical H~ Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 901 1038 1576 Stage 1 987 Stage 2 960 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 898 1038 1576 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 898 Stage 1 984 Stage 2 960 N>ei§icfi HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Mvmt N NBTEBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1576 -1038 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 -0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.5 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 HCM 6thTWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\4 Ex+P PM.syn SBT SBR 'f. 30 0 30 0 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 85 85 2 2 35 0 0 SB 0 SBT SBR Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 Synchro 10 Report Existing+ Project PM 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave .,,. --+ Movement EBL EBT Lane Configurations "i + Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 625 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 625 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 14 658 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 Cap, veh/h 33 906 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 14 658 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 9.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 9.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap c), veh/h 33 906 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 272 1745 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.9 6.7 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 8.7 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veMn 0.2 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.6 7.8 LnGre LOS C A Approach Vol, veh/h 723 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.9 Approach LOS A rrmer -Assigned Phs 1 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 20.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 2.1 11.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 ntersection Stmvn!!X HCM 6th Ctr! Delay HCM 6th LOS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\4 Ex+P PM.syn '\-f +- EBR WBL WBT ,, "i ti. 48 4 416 48 4 416 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No 1870 1870 1870 51 4 438 0.95 0.95 0.95 2 2 2 768 10 1584 0.48 0.01 0.47 1585 1781 3358 51 4 231 1585 1781 1777 0.6 0.1 2.6 0.6 0.1 2.6 1.00 1.00 768 10 838 0.07 0.41 0.28 1478 272 1657 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.5 16.2 5.2 0.0 25.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 4.5 41.7 5.4 A D A 474 5.7 A 4 5 7.7 5.1 4.5 4.5 26.0 5.0 2.6 2.3 0.1 0.0 7.6 A Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 ' ~ t ~ '. + ~ WBR NBL NBT NBR SB[ SBT SBR • • 30 46 6 10 18 1 13 30 46 6 10 18 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No No 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 32 48 6 11 19 1 14 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 115 300 14 25 246 16 64 0.47 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 244 1122 140 257 769 166 654 239 65 0 0 34 0 0 1825 1519 0 0 1589 0 0 2.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.13 0.74 0.17 0.56 0.41 861 339 0 0 326 0 0 0.28 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 1702 1354 0 0 1349 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 5.3 13.9 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.4 14.1 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 A B A A B A A 65 34 14.1 13.7 B B 6 8 19.9 7.7 4.5 4.5 30.5 26.0 4.6 3.2 2.9 0.3 Synchro 1 O Report LINSCOTT, IJ\w & GREENSPAN, engineers APPENDIXG HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS- EXISTING + CUMULATIVE LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe Near-Term AM 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St ntersectlon Int Delay, s/veh 3.7 f.4ovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations f. 4 V Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 27 15 13 12 9 Future Vol, veh/h 3 27 15 13 12 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 3 3 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 Grade,% 0 Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 4 38 21 ' ajor/Minor Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 45 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy -4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy -2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -1563 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -1559 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Minor Mvmt NBLn1 EBT Capacity (veh/h) 957 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 HCM 6thTWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\5 NT AM.syn 0 0 0 0 0 72 72 72 2 2 2 18 17 13 Minor1 0 86 26 26 60 -6.42 6.22 -5.42 -5.42 -3.518 3.318 -915 1050 -997 -963 -899 1047 -899 -994 -950 NB 8.9 A EBR WBL WBT -1559 -0.013 7.3 0 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 Synchro 10 Report Near-Term AM 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave ~ --+ EBL EBT Lane Configurations 1i + Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 317 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 317 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A__pb T) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1 348 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 Cap, veh/h 6 629 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1 348 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 4.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 4.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 6 629 VIC Ratio(X) 0.17 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 291 1255 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.2 8.3 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 13.3 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veMn 0.0 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.6 9.0 LnG!E LOS C A Approach Vol, veh/h 398 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.8 Approach LOS A !Timer -Assigned Phs 1 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.4 14.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 20.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 2.4 6.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 Jntersection Summa!}'. HCM 6th Ctr1 Delay HCM 6th LOS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\5 NT AM.syn ~ • -4-- EBR W8[ WBT r' 1i +i. 45 20 673 45 20 673 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No 1870 1870 1870 49 22 740 0.91 0.91 0.91 2 2 2 533 50 1299 0.34 0.03 0.36 1585 1781 3579 49 22 367 1585 1781 1m 0.6 0.4 5.1 0.6 0.4 5.1 1.00 1.00 533 50 645 0.09 0.44 0.57 1063 291 1192 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.9 14.6 7.8 0.1 6.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.3 7.0 20.7 8.6 A C A 774 8.9 A 4 5 10.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 26.0 5.0 2.8 2.0 0.2 0.0 9.2 A Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 '-' t ~ \. + .,' WBR NBL NBT NBR SB( SBT SB 4 4 11 98 6 29 31 6 13 11 98 6 29 31 6 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No No 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 12 108 7 32 34 7 14 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 21 388 40 62 339 81 78 0.36 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 58 949 208 322 766 419 405 385 147 0 0 55 0 0 1860 1480 0 0 1590 0 0 5.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.73 0.22 0.62 0.25 675 491 0 0 499 0 a 0.57 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 1248 1433 0 0 1444 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 7.8 10.9 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 8.6 11.3 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 A B A A B A A 147 55 11.3 10.3 B B 6 8 15.6 10.4 4.5 4.5 20.5 26.0 7.1 4.6 4.0 0.8 Synchro 10 Report Near-Term PM 1 : Romeria St & Gibraltar St /ntersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.2 EBT EBR WBL WBT NB[ NBR Lane Configurations 'J. 4 V Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 22 8 4 16 9 Future Vol, veh/h 8 22 8 4 16 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 8 8 0 2 3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# 0 Grade,% 0 Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 10 29 10 inor Conflicting Flow All 0 47 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy -4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy -2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -1560 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -1548 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 f'9>proaCh HCM Control Delay, s 4.9 HCM LOS J-iinor l.a19IMajor Mvmt NBl.n1 EBT Capacity (veh/h) 964 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.034 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 HCM 6th TWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\6 NT PM.syn 0 0 0 0 0 77 77 77 2 2 2 5 21 12 Minor1 0 60 36 33 27 -6.42 6.22 -5.42 -5.42 -3.518 3.318 -947 1037 -989 -996 -932 1026 -932 -981 -988 NB 8.9 A EBR WBL WBT -1548 -0.007 -7.3 0 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 Synchro 10 Report Near-Term PM 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave ; -,.. ovement EBL EBT Lane Configurations "i + Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 631 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 631 Initial a (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 664 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 Cap, veh/h 19 911 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 8 664 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 a Serve(g_s), s 0.1 9.3 Cycle a Clear(g_c), s 0.1 9.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap c), veh/h 19 911 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 271 1736 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.2 6.7 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 14.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.1 7.8 LnGre LOS C A Approach Vol, veh/h 725 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.8 Approach LOS A mer -Assigned Phs 1 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 20.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 2.1 11.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 ntersection Summary HCM 6th Ctr1 Delay HCM6th LOS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary N:13155\Analysis\Synchro\6 NT PM.syn \' 'f +- EBR WBL WBT .,, "i ti. 50 4 420 50 4 420 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No 1870 1870 1870 53 4 442 0.95 0.95 0.95 2 2 2 772 10 1624 0.49 0.01 0.48 1585 1781 3368 53 4 232 1585 1781 1m 0.6 0.1 2.6 0.6 0.1 2.6 1.00 1.00 772 10 857 0.07 0.41 0.27 1471 271 1649 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.5 16.3 5.1 0.0 25.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 4.5 41 .8 5.2 A D A 477 5.5 A 4 5 7.7 4.9 4.5 4.5 26.0 5.0 2.5 2.1 0.1 0.0 7.5 A Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 ' ' t I" \. ! ,,/ WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SB 4t 4t 29 47 6 11 18 1 10 29 47 6 11 18 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No No 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 31 49 6 12 19 1 11 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 114 297 13 26 258 17 54 0.48 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 235 1109 136 272 846 181 565 241 67 0 0 31 0 0 1827 1516 0 0 1592 0 0 2.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.13 0.73 0.18 0.61 0.35 881 336 0 0 330 0 0 0.27 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 1695 1349 0 0 1341 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 5.1 14.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.2 14.3 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 A B A A B A A 67 31 14.3 13.8 B B 6 8 20.3 7.7 4.5 4.5 30.5 26.0 4.6 3.3 2.9 0.3 Synchro 10 Report LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers APPENDIXH HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS - EXISTING + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe Near-Term + Project AM 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St ntersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.8 Movement EBT EBR WB[ NBR Lane Configurations f. Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 27 15 9 Future Vol, veh/h 3 27 15 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 3 3 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 Grade,% 0 Peak Hour Factor 72 72 72 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 4 38 21 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 45 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy -4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy -2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -1563 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -1559 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major NBLn1 EBT Capacity (veh/h) 954 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.032 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 HCM 6thTWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\7 NT+P AM.syn 0 0 0 0 0 72 72 72 2 2 2 18 18 13 0 86 26 26 60 -6.42 6.22 -5.42 -5.42 -3.518 3.318 -915 1050 -997 -963 -899 1047 -899 -994 -950 NB 8.9 A EBR WBL WBT -1559 -0.013 7.3 0 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 Synchro 10 Report Near-Term+ Project AM 2: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (N) ntersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 EBL EBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations V 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 4 1 18 Future Vol, veh/h 1 4 1 18 Conflicting Peds, ti/hr 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free RT Channelized -None -None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 1 5 1 21 MaPJMinor Minor2 Major! Conflicting Flow All 82 59 59 0 Stage 1 59 Stage 2 23 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 920 1007 1545 Stage 1 964 Stage 2 1000 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 919 1007 1545 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 919 Stage 1 963 Stage 2 1000 ~ HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 0.4 HCM LOS A 1 inor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1545 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 HCM 6th TWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\7 NT+P AM.syn -988 -0.006 0 8.7 A A 0 SBT SBR f+ 50 0 50 0 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 85 85 2 2 59 0 Major2 0 SB 0 SBT SBR Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 Synchro 10 Report Near-Term+ Project AM 3: Romeria St & Proj Drwy {S~ ntersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 ovement EB[ EBR N NBT Lane Configurations V 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 4 1 19 Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 1 19 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free RT Channelized -None -None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 0 5 1 22 M 'or/Minor Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 88 64 64 0 Stage 1 64 Stage 2 24 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 913 1000 1538 Stage 1 959 Stage 2 999 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 912 1000 1538 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 912 Stage 1 958 Stage 2 999 ip.. HCM Control Delay, s HCMLOS Mviiit NB[ BTEB[n1 Capacity (veh/h) 1538 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 HCM 6th TWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\7 NT+PAM.syn -1000 -0.005 0 8.6 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 SST SBR ~ 54 0 54 0 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 85 85 2 2 64 0 0 SB 0 SBT SBR Synchro 10 Report Near-Term+ Project AM 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave ,> --+ vement EBL EBT Lane Configurations 1'j + Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 317 Future Volume (veh/h) 3 317 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 3 348 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 Cap, veh/h 7 632 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 3 348 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 a Serve(g_s}, s 0.1 4.7 Cycle a Clear{g_c), s 0.1 4.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 7 632 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 290 1247 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.3 8.3 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 32.8 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veMn 0.1 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 48.0 9.0 LnGre LOS D A Approach Vol, veh/h 400 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.1 Approach LOS A mer-Phs 1 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.4 14.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 20.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 2.4 6.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 ntersection Summ HCM 6th Ctr1 Delay HCM 6th LOS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\7 NT +PAM.syn • " +- EBR WBl WBT 'f 1'j +i. 45 20 673 45 20 673 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No 1870 1870 1870 49 22 740 0.91 0.91 0.91 2 2 2 536 50 1295 0.34 0.03 0.36 1585 1781 3579 49 22 367 1585 1781 1777 0.6 0.4 5.1 0.6 0.4 5.1 1.00 1.00 536 50 643 0.09 0.44 0.57 1057 290 1185 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.0 14.7 7.9 0.1 6.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.3 7.0 20.8 8.7 A C A 774 9.0 A 4 5 10.5 4.6 4.5 4.5 26.0 5.0 2.9 2.1 0.3 0.0 9.3 A Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 -\.. ~ f I" \. ! .;' WBR Bl NBT BR SB[ SB SB • • 11 98 6 29 33 6 19 11 98 6 29 33 6 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No No 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 12 108 7 32 36 7 21 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 21 388 41 63 311 80 102 0.36 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 58 948 212 323 658 410 522 385 147 0 0 64 0 0 1860 1483 0 0 1590 0 0 5.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.73 0.22 0.56 0.33 673 492 0 0 493 0 0 0.57 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 1240 1420 0 0 1436 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 7.9 10.9 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 8.7 11.3 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 A B A A B A A 147 64 11.3 10.5 B B 6 8 15.6 10.5 4.5 4.5 20.5 26.0 7.1 4.6 3.9 0.8 Synchro 10 Report Near-Term+ Project PM 1 : Romeria St & Gibraltar St ,ntersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.1 ment EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations f. 4 V Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 23 8 4 16 9 Future Vol, veh/h 8 23 8 4 16 9 Conflicting Peels, #/hr 0 8 8 0 2 3 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized -None -None -None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# 0 Grade,% 0 Peak Hour Factor 77 77 77 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 10 30 10 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 48 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy -4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy -2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -1559 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -1547 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS Mvmt N8ui1 EBT Capacity (veh/h) 964 HCM lane V/C Ratio 0.034 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 HCM 6thTWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\8 NT+P PM.syn 0 0 0 0 0 77 77 77 2 2 2 5 21 12 Minor1 0 60 36 33 27 -6.42 6.22 -5.42 -5.42 -3.518 3.318 -947 1037 -989 -996 -932 1026 -932 -981 -988 NB 8.9 A EBR WBT -1547 -0.007 -7.3 0 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 Synchro 10 Report Near-Term+ Project PM 2: Romeria St & Proj Drwy ~Nl ntersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 EBL EBR N8L NBT . Lane Configurations V 4' Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 3 43 Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 3 43 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free RT Channelized -None -None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 2 4 51 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 94 35 35 0 Stage 1 35 Stage 2 59 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 906 1038 1576 Stage 1 987 Stage 2 964 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 903 1038 1576 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 903 Stage 1 984 Stage 2 964 HCM Control Delay, s 8.5 HCM LOS A Mvmt NBL NBTEBLri1 Capacity (veh/h) 1576 -1038 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 -0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.5 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 HCM 6th TWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\8 NT +PPM.syn 0 Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 SBT SBR f+ 29 1 29 1 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 85 85 2 2 34 1 0 SB 0 SBT SBR Synchro 10 Report Near-Term+ Project PM 3: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (S) ntersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations V 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 4 46 Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 4 46 Conflicting Peels, #/hr 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free RT Channelized -None -None Storage Length 0 Veh in Median Storage,# 0 0 Grade,% 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 0 2 5 54 inor Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 100 36 36 0 Stage 1 36 Stage 2 64 Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 Critical Hdwy ~ 2 5.42 Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 899 1037 1575 Stage 1 986 Stage 2 959 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 896 1037 1575 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 896 Stage 1 983 Stage 2 959 ~roicfi HCM Control Delay, s HCMLOS LanalMapMviiit NBL NBTEBl.1'11 Capacity (veh/h) 1575 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 HCM 6th TWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\8 NT +P PM.syn -1037 -0.002 0 8.5 A A 0 SBT SBR t. 31 0 31 0 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 85 85 2 2 36 0 0 SB 0 SST SBR Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 Synchro 10 Report Near-Term+ Project PM 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave ,> -+- EBL EBT Lane Configurations "i + Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 631 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 631 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veh/Mn 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 14 664 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 Cap, veh/h 33 910 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 14 664 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/Mn 1781 1870 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 9.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 9.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 33 910 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 270 1729 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.0 6.7 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 8.8 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veMn 0.2 2.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.8 7.9 LnG!E LOS C A Approach Vol, veh/h 731 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 Approach LOS A 1 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.7 20.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 2.1 11.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 . ntersection HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary N:13155\Analysis\Synchro\8 NT+P PM.syn ... f +- EBR WBL WBT .,, "i tf+ 50 4 420 50 4 420 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No 1870 1870 1870 53 4 442 0.95 0.95 0.95 2 2 2 772 10 1589 0.49 0.01 0.47 1585 1781 3352 53 4 234 1585 1781 1777 0.6 0.1 2.6 0.6 0.1 2.6 1.00 1.00 772 10 842 0.07 0.41 0.28 1466 270 1643 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.5 16.4 5.3 0.0 25.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 4.5 41.9 5.4 A D A 479 5.7 A • 4 5 7.7 5.1 4.5 4.5 26.0 5.0 2.6 2.3 0.1 0.0 7.6 A Romeria Pointe 10/29/2019 ' ~ t /-' ~ ! ..,' WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT ~ • • 31 47 6 11 19 1 13 31 47 6 11 19 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 No No 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 33 49 6 12 20 1 14 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 118 298 13 27 248 17 63 0.47 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 249 1112 136 272 781 173 636 241 67 0 0 35 0 0 1824 1520 0 0 1590 0 0 2.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.14 0.73 0.18 0.57 0.40 865 339 0 0 328 0 0 0.28 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 1687 1342 0 0 1336 0 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 5.3 13.9 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.4 14.2 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 A B A A B A A 67 35 14.2 13.8 B B 6 8 20.1 7.7 4.5 4.5 30.5 26.0 4.6 3.3 2.9 0.3 Synchro 10 Report