Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 2018-0004; ROMERIA POINTE APARTMENTS; TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS; 2020-03-09( Prepared by: Roman Lopez Transportation Planner II TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS ROMERIA POINTE Carlsbad, California March 9, 2020 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Under the Supervision ot Christopher Mendiara Associate Principal Li'ISCOlT L,\W & GREENSPAN cnq1nccrs Linscott. law & Greenspan, Engineen 4542 Ruffner Street Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92111 858.300.8800 T 858.300.8810 F www.llgengineers.com ( C 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 A venue, 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 SANDA G'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 and Gibraltar Street based on City guidelines. No significant Project impacts to vehicular queueing at signalized intersections were identified per City TIA guidelines (Growth Management) analysis, though the Project will make improvements to address deficiencies identified in multi-modal (MMLOS) analysis. No significant Project impacts were determined via regional SANTEC/ITE significance criteria LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe ( C TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Impact Analyses ..................................................................................................... I 2.0 Analysis Approach & Methodolog:)' ......................................................................................... 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, engineers 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 ................................................................ 35 7.4.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis .............................................. 35 7.4.2 Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................. 35 7.5 Analysis of Existing+ Cumulative+ Project Conditions ................................................. 35 7.5.1 Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Analysis .............................................. 35 7.5.2 Roadway Segment Analysis ................................................................................. 35 7.6 CEQA Method-Findings and Conclusions ..................................................................... 38 LINSCOTT' LA w & GREENSPAN, engineers iii LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe C C C APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Intersection Analysis Methodology B. Existing Traffic Count Sheets C. MMLOS Results D. HCM Analysis Worksheets -Existing E. HCM Analysis Worksheets-Existing+ Project F. HCM Analysis Worksheets -Existing + Cumulative G. HCM Analysis Worksheets-Existing+ Cumulative+ Project LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers iv LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe ( LIST OF FIGURES 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 C • ( 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 ...................................................................... 33 Table 7-2 Existing+ Project Segment Analysis ................................................................................ 34 Table 7-3 Intersection Analysis -Cumulative Conditions ................................................................ 36 Table 7-4 Cumulative Conditions Segment Analysis ........................................................................ 37 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 March 9, 2020 The Project proposes to construct 23-unit multi-family residential dwelling units. The Project site is located on the west side of Romeria Street between Gibraltar Street and La Costa A venue 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. c· The Growth Management Plan analysis is based on the City of Carlsbad Transportation 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 SANTECIJTE 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. 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. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 1 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe LINSCOTT LAW & GRE£NSPAN rnglnren OCEAHSEE N:\31SS\Flgures Date: 10/30/2019 Tlme:9:38AM tm " S.D.COUNTY :;,- SAN DIEGO Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map ROMERIA POINTE 4 if''- t v tJ'O.q•~ ... ;i C,lll"'or!Ro • I "" ... ..,~ .. McCtellnn-Palomar Airport ... ~~~ -,ii 1>olom"' '"'"°" Rd Q l :i c,~ g> -~ ·~ ! !.' Lto,,111ra,1••· The Flower Fields f Paloma,Al,J)Ol\116 BRE:SSI RANCH Poinsenia Park , SoU1h C~rtsbad State Beach Campground South Ponto Beoch · ~' N:1315~1gum Oita: 10/28/19 -i. ~ \ l ~ ~,,. qoil' Ba:fqui:os ___ Lagpqn State Mafine. Encinitas Ranch Golf Course le ! Alga None Community. Park .,.inP\"'Y J Alv•Ao ,I' ~ I I l;; of"""" L• rP""'~ .. i Q\li.,nhalftRd : • "'" . Pao"""''. . . ~"" . o 1, q, '1 i ~ ¢ ~roject W Site 4'1> J"' Sift'-•~ 4~ i \ 0 <.a 4,,,..,.0, 1' ~ ✓· -, '% :.,~ ~ ,0 ~(I+. lvM;, .lo •r(f ~ p~ l ~ "'· ws .. ~r.oS!!W6 Lake San Marcos s.,~ ~.Po, ~ ~,., ., Sit ~'-> "q 0 Figure 1-2 Project Area Map ROMERIA POINTE -·-ORAOEOlONEW ..,,.... ..... 10 COIIIIIIUICEMENT PERCIICZ1.K.14' """""""·'" - IEECMl!NG. DIIAWINGI l"OK IRB!T ANDIM>EWALKlYP'ICH. DflAU. == __,,,.,. _,_,._ - ,/; I I I I \ II}\" .,., \ \ \ \ .,. BUILDING B 11l'NliiCNII.-MnMTHN!'CmM ~~mi:~ IS\o'Q..CllnNlNtlll00t,,IINTSAIID~ Ql,a:IQllJIOOl,ll,MT'l,RlllATOT'ollrl0,1\ Ullflll.,e.M1•1t11MA&IU'ACE.O'IBII Ul'lfWCll'P,Wl(NI~ --=~OH ', ~>-~, .~ _,_ N:13155\Flgures Date: 10/28/19 IEECMLINO. DltAWINGa FOIi MUT AND M>EWAUC 1'YNCM. OETAILI. / (,,' '\, ........ ," . '( ~ .,• ---x \ ,; /CZ.~ ' ' '\ ~> . \ -11> "\."\ IS';,, '\.' 1>~> ' ' --~ :,~ ROMERIA STREET ;""'"'" I \ :-= ~-\~~~ ~~"'i---11---------- ~----!7 7 ~ 231'•1" l \ '\.___..,...,,.181(;:1 --·- BUILDING A ~■EEOAADINOl't.AWSFOR I ADJACENT TOPOGRAl'HY L_ i i i I : I I I I ' ' -~ i i ii 'I ·1 @ Iii :I ....... ,_ -tr- T -,I G Figure 1-3 Site Plan ROMERIA POINTE ( 2.0 ANALYSIS APPROACH & METHODOLOGY C 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 turn in/right turn 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 C Based on these guidelines, the following auto facilities are included in the study area for Growth Management Plan analysis: Intersections • Gibraltar Street/ Romeria Street (unsignalized) • Romeria Street/ Project Driveway North (unsignalized) • Romeria Street I 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 turn 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 Roadway Capacity Tables Report 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 Roadway LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 6 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe c·--Capacity Tables to determine the segment operating conditions. The LOS for each segment is reported for all study scenarios in the TIA. C r 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 • Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street • Romeria Street to Cadencia 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 10 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 inAppendixA. 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 with the assistance of the Synchro 10 computer software. A more detailed explanation of the methodology is also attached in Appendix A. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 7 LLGRef 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe ( ·. 2.2.4 Roadway Segment Methodology C 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 "V/C" 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) Connectivity Crossing Characteristics Bikeway Design Transit Priority Other Elements Connectivity/Contiguity Service -Adjacent Vehicle Parking Amenities -Other Elements. Bicycle Accommodations --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" (10 points assigned) • Transit Priority-"Dedicated right of way" (5 points assigned) • Service -"Commute shuttle service provided during the morning and afternoon commute periods" (JO points assigned) • Amenities -"Covered bus stops" (5 points assigned) • Bicycle Accommodations -"Bike parking available at the bus stop" (5 points assigned) • Available Mobility Services -"On demand rideshare services available" (JO points assigned) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 8 LLG Ref 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe r-\.. . 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 D or better operations for each mode subject to LOS standards. 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, engineers 9 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe ( Bicycle: C • 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 multiuse 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 2.3.1, the MMLOS study area includes the following: Pedestrian The Project site will provide pedestrian access to both Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. Therefore, the segments below are evaluated for Pedestrian MMLOS. Romeria Street (Local/Neighborhood Street) • Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue (southbound only) Gibraltar Street (Local/Neighborhood Street) • Romeria Street to La Costa Avenue (eastbound only) Bicycle The Project site will provide pedestrian access to both Romeria Street and Gibraltar Street. Therefore, the segments below are evaluated for Bicycle MMLOS. Romeria Street (Local/Neighborhood Street) • Gibraltar Street to La Costa A venue (both directions) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 10 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe (-Gibraltar Street (Local/Neighborhood Street) C ( • Romeria Street to La Costa A venue (both directions) Transit None 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. Figure 2-1 shows the MMLOS study area. 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, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 11 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe C ( 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 SANTECIITE 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 1-4 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, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 12 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe C. c· 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 lmpactsb Level of Service with Freeways Roadway Segments Intersections Ramp Metering Project" Speed Speed Delay Delay VIC (mph) VIC (mph) (sec.) (min.) D,E&F ( or ramp meter delays 0.01 I 0.02 I 2 2c above 15 minutes) Footnotes: 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 Nores: 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 Gibraltar St • Local / -PED MMLOS likeMMLOS LINSCOTT LAW & GREENSPAN ,nginPers G\bta\tat S~ Romeria St • Local / Neighbomood Street -PEDMMLOS -Bike MMLOS ~ e,,osta l)."e Figure 2-1 MMLOS Study Area RoMERIA POI NTE 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 Avenue to Levante Street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Bike lanes are not provided on either side of the road. On-street parking and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. Gibraltar Street is classified as a Local Neighborhood Street on the City of Carlsbad Mobility Element. Gibraltar Street is built as a two-lane undivided roadway from La Costa Avenue to its terminus northeast of Romeria Street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. On- street parking and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street. No bicycle facilities are provided. La Costa A venue in the Project vicinity is classified as a Neighborhood Connector Street in the City of Carlsbad Mobility Element. It is currently built with one vehicular travel lane in each direction and a two-way left-turn lane median in the Project vicinity Class II buffered Bike Lanes and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the road. On-street parking is permitted along some portions of the street. The 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 B 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 '\ JJ'i'i Report 1J~'i Report.don 7 0 Fiart -1 .!''!>i.°!'tlN.l ... "'. -. --< 1 © Fiaro -1 • "'.'i.~lS,) --. --. --< 1 © 4. ~ r LICoclolNe _,I 't ==::; Ill j N:\315S\Flgun,s D•t•: 10/28/2019 Time: 3:12 PM Gi,nlwSI @ I • ':,\ rj.'T;Jf'o~<- Stuctf lnlelsecticn Traffic Signal Sic!) Sign ,Ir Tumirv Movemenls Project Sile 21411 Numbe< of Travel Lanes u Io DMdelWnd'Mded Roadway u ...., Posted Speed Limit • Two-Way Left Turn Median CD 1,\} 1,.~'((\9'(\ CARLSBAD t,0((\9'(\ ~- ~ ~ --~fl) ?] .g ::, "' CJ) P.f'_-(s1 ·@ ~ ~ t ~ © ,.u• .,a'((\9'(\ ~ n Figure 3-1 Existing Conditions Diagram ROMER IA POI NTE ~,___ __________________ _....:0 r-------------------~, © -1314 , 1s18 GiJnlllaSt 3 /8 -) ( 211 /21, i)'l j \!!o, :: "' ® .. N ~ Fiain l ,!"!i_°!'( (.NL -• -• 1 N i)'l .. j ... © .. N ~ Fwo l Proj[)wy(S.) ...... 1 .. i)'l .. j ~ © ~ -~ t! co~ "-10/28 ) ! \. -668/416 , 1;14 LaCouAve 1/8 J 'l I r 3141625 - 44"8 , il'l <O 0 :! ~:: j s co~ N:\3155\Figun,s Date: 10/28/2019 Time:3:12PM S\ 6~,:a~'b-1., 0 NIii!: _.0 ~~~~\V 1-::0 ,o .3 11> i,1· en CARLSBAD =.r,s1·@ ,........11~ \ ~11- ~~~, ~~~ ! ' ~ ~ \ i © s1 '~ ........ ~ ~ ~1~,~~i @ Study Intersections 11 ( Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes -XX / XX Peak Hour Midblock Volumes () 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 SANDAG's Brie/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, LAW & 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 o/o of ln:Out Volume ADT Split In Out 8o/o 20:80 2 9 PM Peak Hour ¾of In:Out Volume Total ADT Split In Out Total 11 9% 70:30 8 4 12 a. Trip generation based on SANDAG's (Not So/ Brie[Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rares for the San Diego Region April 2002 ("SAND AG Brief Guide"). LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, enr,neers 19 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe '-'ll5"Repon3l55 kcportdoc, N:\3155\Filures oa .. , 1013012019 Time: 11:42 AM \()0 lo .. ~1S\ r:t,'<$0'~ G) ~ ~ 11% i ~ CARLSBAD Piiij bii; (S.) @ '2-\)0lo ® Study Intersection xx% Regional Trip Distribution n Figure 4-1 Project Trip Distribution ROMERIA POINTE © 0/1 0 Pn:jOwy(I<) 1/0 412 0 Pn:jOwy(S,) 412 © uoCootaAve 215 ' ) 0 .; :: I 0 ) ___, ' ) .., .; :: j N .. l ' ' l ilS j .. .., -- ..,_ ;; N ) \. '- ___, ilS j N:~155\Flgures D1te: 10/28/2019 Time: 3:16 PM GiJnlltarst (,~~~a1S\ 012 G) CARLSBAD ~I~ ........... / ii~ ~ ~ir-·' ,;:0 ,,~ (I) ill g,? S.) 3 ~ ' \ ~ C.~~l'-'le \,a - © ....----(,)Ii/ i i' ® Study Intersections , I 1 J ( Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes -xx I xx Peak Hour Midblock Volumes n Figure 4-2 Project Traffic Volumes ROME RIA POINTE © -13/4 ,-1518 -SI 318 -) ( 211122 , ,n Ill -.. j ~ .. © ., -N oi ) ! Projllwy(N.) 1 /0 .J 1 1 4/2 ' .. ~ Ill -t:, j © 0 .. :i j Projllwy(S.) .,2 ' 1 I ,n Ill .... j -:? © :? -~ i;. ~ '-10/ 30 )!~ -15681416 ,-1e14 LoC-lwe 3113 .J 1 I r 31.,625 - 44148 , Ill "' 0 .. "' - j i;.i N:\3155\l'iBu~s 01111: 10/28/2019 Time: 3:15 PM Gi?"°~('i>\ CD CARLSBAD .......---1~ I &.1~ "§l..._1<o*/ ?1 .3 i.l U' '""'&;(s.J@ ~ ' \ ~ 1D © s1 I &,f§} .......---e / ~,~1'o~ ® Study ln1ersections , I ( Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes ~ XX I XX Peak Hour Midblock Volumes 0 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. ln coordination with the City, the following four (4) cumulative projects 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 I CT2019-000 I 2 SDP20 I 8-0022 3 - 4 CT2017-0003 Source: City of Carlsbad LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers TABLE5-1 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 Q i ~Rd The Flower Fields 9 ~·- eic-. ~'llito~ ., ' a \ I ~ .. \ .,, i ,, .... II)' .... ~1:.,.,. ",ci " !i;> McC1ellan-Palomar Atrport polOl'II• )JIPOq R,r lJot11tead l.,e ~ SI RANCH BRES ·· •~ . ~ '1:: ...,..,,,. I 1?, Poil' --: -~ AlgaNo~e Community t.4,~(-1, .. .; ~~ 'lil" 1b ~~~ ; , 11141,, O',o ~c.., ..,.oi''b'"" r',f~ ~ l ; .,. W 5_,. Ma<COS ~ Lake Sari Marcos Poinsettia Park Park 9 South Carlsbad State Beach Campground South Ponto Beach·~. N:\315S\Flgure, Date: 10/2&/19 "l, ~ ' l ,..., q<lf'~t/l).' ...,,.,,P~wy ~ ~ 0 ! Q . Algellc, ~ ,!! ~ ~ ~Ava ' L• ~"' ... ~ Encinitas Ranch ~ Golf ;ourse L/•81vd \ 1 Oli-,11\haiA Rd I er .. ·s .f ~ San ,. b S+,~-. q, ~ -t>.,~ ~ ~~ .. \. 4-~ e-4, "'q n I!, \ 0 See Section 5.0 for a detailed description of each project 0 Figure 5-1 Cumulative Projects Location Map ROME RIA POI NTE CD 111 ' 1 in j - @ - Flan ! !";>LD!ft!!IL •••• 1 - G) - Fw• ! ."!."i.D!ftlSL. •••• 1 in ::: j - © ::: -'- \. -r LaCoatlfwe 3 /6 -1 ( 1 /2 ' --in --j -o N:\3155\Flgures Date: 10/29/2019 Thne: 8:13 AM G«atw6t 1/1 5/4 1/0 ,$\ (,i';f.?;\'(o' G) CARLSBAD ~\~ /"/ b, \ 'o .At!: .. ti' 'tATiit~~\!:.,/ :;IJ ,O .3 CD i· $!} t:lii<s1·@ ~ ' \ ~ © ..,..---11~ / b, \ 'o ® Study Intersections 11 ( Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes -XX I xx Peak Hour Midblock Volumes 0 Figure 5-2 Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ROMERIA POINTE ~, --------------~0 ----, 'I <i,_ J.;;- CD -13/4 r 1s1a GlnllrSt 318 -,r 27122 , ., in -"' j ~"' 0 "' "' 5l Fw• l !"!'l~lN.J. •• ·-. 1 ., uS ::! j ~ © "' N S! FUii.re l -~~tSJ.. .... 1 ., uS ::! j ., © ~-~ .,..,_ '-11129 -.. J l \... -873/420 , 2014 La~/Wo 118 .J , 1 ( 317/831 -45150 , t;: (0 :: In s;; ~ j N:\3155\F.sur., D•t2: 10/28/2019 Tom•: 3:23 PM r:,~1a.~~S\ G) CARLSBAD ....,........1<o&.'t,,11 / '?ji'?> I ~'o~ --•.! .. '2' ~..;~~'-V ~ ,3 (1) ::,. "' en a,"<s~·® i , \ ii 1t:)btl t,,~'?> ¢,~~ © @ Study Intersections , I ( Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes -XX I XX Peak Hour Mldblock Volumes n Figure 5-3 Existing + Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ROMERIA POINTE ~~---------0--, L_ _____________ ! © -13/4 , 1s18 GinltwSI 3 /8 -"')( 27123 , !!' ... vi a; j 0 O> ==~ c:;i ) ! Projllwy{N.) 1/0 _,I ) 1 "2 ' "' .., .. vi -!!' j © ;;; ;ii l Projllwy(S.) 412 ' ) 1 .. ~ vi -~ j © ~ .... ~ ~ co R \...__ 11131 J I \.. -673/420 , 201• ~ColllAve 3113 _,I ) 1 ( 317/831 - 45/50 , vi ... -.. ., - j s;. ~ N:\3155\Figures Dole: 10/28/2019 Time: 3:26 PM r:,i(Jt~~S\ CD CARLSBAD ...-1g;)I'-~ r§:,':>\'ff!/it/ ~ .3 "' "' "' ~ /~) ~ ' 1 l e,<:fo'(J,i,-~e \.'a . © r:;&, I &,':>':> ...-1 / ~1~ I roto\ ® Study Intersections 1 J ( Intersection AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes -XX I XX Peak Hour Midblock Volumes n Figure 5-4 Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Traffic Volumes ROMERIA POINTE C 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 (1) signalized intersections within the study area. As the Project generates a maximum of 12 peak hour trips (see Section 4.1), there are no street segments which meet the 50 peak hour trip threshold for inclusion in the analysis. 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 turn 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. As shown in Table 6-1, existing+ project queues are accommodated in the existing turn pockets where applicable. The right turn volumes are less than the 150 peak hour trip threshold at which a dedicated right tum lane should be considered, per City guidelines. TABLE 6-1 ExlSTING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Pocket Existing Signalized Intersection Movement Tum Length Peak Queue Lanes Hour Tum (feet) Volume Length (feet) N/Aa AM IO -WBR - PM 28 - La Costa Avenue / AM 13 -4. Romeria Street SBR -N/Aa PM 10 - EBL I 160 AM I I PM 8 8 Footnotes: a. Shared lane. Queue length not shown as traffic stream includes through trips. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 28 Existing + Project Queue Tum Volume Length (feet) IO - 30 - 19 - 13 - 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 right tum volumes are less than the 150 peak hour trip threshold at which a dedicated right tum lane should be considered, per City guidelines. 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 N/Aa AM 11 -- PM 29 - 4. La Costa Avenue / SBR N/Aa AM 13 - Romeria Street -PM IO - EBL 1 160 AM 1 1 PM 8 8 Footnotes: a. Shared lane. Queue length not shown as traffic stream includes through trips. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 29 Existing+ Cumulative + Proiect Queue Turn Length Volume (feet) 11 - 31 - 19 - 13 - 3 3 13 13 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe ( C 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 and Gibraltar Street. As shown in Table {r-3 bicycle conditions on these streets are calculated at LOS B. The pedestrian facilities are tentatively calculated at LOS C under existing conditions, but with certain essential features lacking. The Project will replace the ramp along its frontage at the southwest comer of the Romeria Street I Gibraltar intersection, improving it to meet ADA requirements. The Project will also add a streetlight at this same street comer. With these improvements, pedestrian conditions are expected to achieve LOS A. Appendix C contains the detailed MMLOS worksheets. TABLE6-3 MMLOS ANALYSIS Without Project Location Direction Pedestrian LOS Bicycle LOS Total LOS Score Romeria Street Gibraltar Street to NB -- La Costa Avenue SB 70 C* Gibraltar Street Romeria Street to EB 75 C* La Costa Avenue WB -- GeMral Notes: I. Pedestrian LOS is only evaluated for the side of the street where the project is located per City TIA Guidelines. 2. • indicates the lack of an essential feature. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers Total LOS Score 85 B 85 B 85 B 85 B MMLOSPoint Point Score LOS 90-100 A 80-89 B 70-79 C 60-69 D 50-59 E 0-49 F 30 With Project Pedestrian LOS Total LOS Score -- 90 A 95 A -- Bicycle LOS Total LOS Score 85 B 85 B 85 B 85 B LLG Ref. 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 queuing impacts are calculated based on the addition of Project traffic to the signalized intersection within the study area. The Project will provide improvements along its frontage, including street lighting and an ADA- compliant curb ramp and landing at the intersection of Romeria Street / Gibraltar Street, to meet MMLOS requirements. LINSCOTT, I.Aw & GREENSPAN, engineers 31 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe C 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 B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Appendix D 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, Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street -Westbound AM (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 B or better with the addition of Project traffic volumes. Appendix E 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 Dor better, except for the following: • La Costa A venue, Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street -Westbound AM (LOS F) No significant impact is calculated on the segment listed above 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 32 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe ( TABLE7-1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS-ExlSTING CONDITIONS Control Peak Existing Existing + Project Significant Intersection Type Bour Delay" 1. 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 Signal AM 13.7 PM 7.8 Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service c. d denotes Project induced delay increase. d. Minor Street Stop Control. Minor street delay is reported. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 33 LOSb Delay A 8.9 A 8.9 -8.7 -8.5 -8.6 -8.5 B 13.9 A 8.0 SIGNALIZED Delay LOS 0.0 :S 10.0 A 10.1 to20.0 B 20.1 to35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E 2:80.1 F LOS A• Impact A 0.0 No A 0.0 No A -No A -No A -No A -No B 0.2 No A 0.2 No UNSIGNALIZED Delay 0.0 :s 10.0 10.1 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. Peak (LOSE) Hour Romeria Street 560 AM NB PM 1. Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue AM 560 SB PM La Costa Avenue 780 AM EB 2. Gibraltar Street to PM Romeria Street AM 780 WB PM AM 780 EB 3. Romeria Street to PM Cadencia Street AM 780 WB PM Footnotes: TABLE7-2 ExtSTING + PROJECT SEGMENT ANALYSIS Existing Volume LOSb 17 A 42 A 49 A 28 A 359 A 681 D 778 E 472 B 373 A 652 D 697 D 448 A V/CC 0.030 0.075 0.088 0.050 0.460 0.873 0.997 0.605 0.478 0.836 0.894 0.574 a. Hourly peak hour directional capacities based on City of Carlsbad Segment LOS Capacity Thresholds. b. Level of Service c. Volume to Capacity. d. A denotes project induced V/C increase. LINSCOTT, I.Aw & GREENSPAN, engineers 34 Volume 19 49 57 32 361 686 784 475 375 653 697 450 Existing + Project Sig. LOS A A A A A D F B A D D A Impact V/C Ad 0.034 0.004 No 0.088 0.013 No 0.102 0.014 No 0.057 0.007 No 0.463 0.003 No 0.879 0.006 No 1.005 0.008 No 0.609 0.004 No 0.481 0.003 No 0.837 0.001 No 0.894 -No 0.577 0.003 No LOS V/C A <0.6 B <0.7 C <0.8 D <0.9 E <1.0 F >1.0 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe ( 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 B or better with the addition of cumulative project traffic volumes. Appendix F 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, Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street -Westbound AM (LOS F) • La Costa A venue, Romeria Street to Cadencia Street -Westbound AM (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 B or better with the addition of cumulative and Project traffic volumes. Appendix G 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 Dor better, except for: ■ La Costa A venue, Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street -Westbound AM (LOS F) • La Costa A venue, Romeria Street to Cadencia Street -Westbound AM (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 of 0.02 during both the AM and PM peak hours. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 35 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe ( ( .. TABLE7-3 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS-CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Existing+ Existing + Cumulative + Significant Control Intersection Peak Cumulative Type Hour Delay" LOSb Delay 1. Romeria St / Gibraltar St MSSCd AM 8.9 A 8.9 PM 8.9 A 8.9 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 14.0 B 14.2 4. Romeria St/ La Costa Ave Signal PM 7.9 A 8.1 Footnotes: SIGNALIZED a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. Delay LOS b. Level of Service 0.0 :S 10.0 A C. ~ denotes Project induced delay increase. JO.I to20.0 B d. Minor Street Stop Control. Minor street delay is reported. 20.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E 2:80.1 F LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 36 Project Impact LOS A' A 0.0 No A 0.0 No A -No A -No A -No A -No B 0.2 No A 0.2 No UNSIGNALIZED Delay 0.0 :S 10.0 JO.I to 15.0 15.1 to 25.0 25.J to 35.0 35.1 to 50.0 ;,:50.1 LOS A B C D E F LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe r Segment Capacity• Dir. (LOSE) Romeria Street 560 NB 1. Gibraltar Street to La Costa Avenue 560 SB La Costa Avenue 780 EB 2. Gibraltar Street to Romeria Street 780 WB 780 EB 3. Romeria Street to Cadencia Street 780 WB Footnotes: TABLE7-4 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS SEGMENT ANALYSIS Peak Existing + Cumulative Hour Volume LOSb VIC• AM 18 A 0.032 PM 43 A 0.077 AM 50 A 0.089 PM 29 A 0.052 AM 363 A 0.465 PM 689 D 0.883 AM 784 F 1.005 PM 477 B 0.612 AM 377 A 0.483 PM 660 D 0.846 AM 704 E 0.903 PM 453 A 0.581 a. Hourly peak hour directional capacities based on City of Carlsbad Segment LOS Capacity Thresholds. b. Level of Service c. Volume to Capacity. d. t,. denotes project induced V /C increase. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 37 Existing+ Cumulative+ Project Sig. Volume LOS 20 A 50 A 58 A 33 A 365 A 694 D 790 F 480 B 379 A 661 D 704 E 455 A V/C Ad Impact 0.036 0.004 No 0.089 0.012 No 0.104 0.015 No 0.059 0.007 No 0.468 0.003 No 0.890 0.007 No 1.013 0.008 No 0.615 0.003 No 0.486 0.003 No 0.847 0.001 No 0.903 -No 0.583 0.002 No LOS V/C A <0.6 B <0.7 C <0.8 D <0.9 E <1.0 F >1.0 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe c· 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, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers 38 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe r "- TECHNICAL APPENDICES ROMERIA POINTE Carlsbad, California March 9, 2020 LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 LI \JS COTT LAW & GRFENSPAN f' r/ ~, ' r1 C t:' r \ Linscott. Law & Greenspan. Engineeni 4542 Ruffner Street Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92111 858.300.8800 T 858.300.8810 F www.llgengineers.com I \ LINSCOTT, l.Aw & GREENSPAN, engineers APPENDIX A INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe c- 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) 10.1 20.1 35.1 55.1 < 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 10.1 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 \Technical Manuals\HCM\HCM 6\HCM Wnteup_SigHCMtl 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-tum 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, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineets S:\Technical Manuals\HCMIHCM 6\HCM Writeup_UnsigHCM6.doc C LINSCOTT, I.Aw & GREENSPAN, engineers APPENDIXB 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: car1sbad Project ID: 19--04397-002 Control: 1-Way Stop(NB) Date: 10/17/2019 Total RomeriaSt Romerla St Gibraltar St Gibraltar St NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTI!OUND WESTBOUND 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 l 0 0 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00AM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 0 3 4 0 0 20 7:15 AM l 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 l 6 0 0 0 16 7:30AM 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 l 3 0 0 15 7:45AM 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 5 6 0 0 27 8:00 AM 0 0 l 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 8:30AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 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 WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 18 0 11 l 0 0 0 0 0 7 50 1 20 19 0 0 127 APPROACH 'V.'1 : 60.00% 0.00% 36.67% 3.33% 0.00% 12.07% 86.21% 1.72% 51.28% 4B.n% 0.00% 0.00% PfAKHR: 07:00 AM -01:00 AM TOTAL PfAK HR VOL : 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 o.m 0.500 0.682 0.636 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 l 0 0 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT 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 l 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 l 1 0 0 12 5:30 PM 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 1 l 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 WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 35 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 30 0 11 10 0 0 123 APPROACH 'V.'1 : 63.64% 0.00% 36.36% 0.00% 0.00% 36.17% 63.83% 0.00% 52.38% 47.62% 0.00% 0.00% PfAK HR: 04:15 PM -05:15 PM TOTAL PfAK HR VOL : 15 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 21 0 8 4 0 0 65 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.625 0.000 0.450 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 Location: Romeria St & Gibraltar St City: Carlsbad National D ata & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement Count Control: 1-Way Stop(NB) 7:00AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30AM 8:45 AM TOTAL VOLUMES : APPROACH 0,.'s : PEAK HR P!AKHRYOL PEAK Hit FACTOR 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:4~PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM TOTAL VOLUMES APPROACH 0,.'s PEAK Hit P!AK-HRVOL PEAK HR FACTOR 0 NL 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NL 1 100.00% 0 0.000 0 NL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL 0 0 0.00 Romeria St NORTHBOUND 1 0 NT NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NT NR 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 07:00 AM -08:00 AM 0 0 0.000 0.000 NORTHBOUND 1 0 NT NR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NT NR 0 0 04:15 PM· 05:15 PM 0 0 0.000 0.000 0 NU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NU 0 0.00% 0 0.000 0 NU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NU 0 0 0.000 0 SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SL 0 0 0.000 0 SL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SL 0 0 0.000 Romeria St SOUTHBOUND 0 ST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ST 0 0 0.000 0 SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SR 0 0 0.000 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 ST SR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ST SR 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 Bikes 0 SU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU 0 0 0.000 0 SU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SU 0 0 0.000 0 EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL 0 0.00% 0 0.000 0 EL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EL 0 0.00% 0 0.000 Gibraltar St EASTBOUND 1 0 0 ET ER EU 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ET ER EU 1 1 0 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 1 1 0 0.250 0.250 0,000 0.250 EASTBOUND 1 0 0 ET ER EU 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ET ER EU 0 0 1 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0 0 1 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.250 Project ID: 19--04397--002 Date: 10/17/2019 -- Gibraltar St WESTBOUND 0 1 0 WL WT WR 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WL WT WR 0 3 0 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0 2 0 0.000 0 •. 250 0.000 0.250 WESTBOUND 0 1 0 WL WT WR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WL WT WR 1 1 0 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0 1 0 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.250 0 WU TOTAL 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 WU TOTAL 0 6 0.00% TOTAL 0 4 0.000 0.250 0 WU TOTAL 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 WU TOTAL 0 3 0.00% TOTAL 0 2 0.000 0.500 National Data & Surveying Services Locatilnt~m~i~Jjpn Turning Mo~uw.~J;,punt City: Carlsbad Date: 10/17/2019 Pedestrians Crosswalks Romeria St Romer1a St Gibraltar St Gibraltar St NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 7:00AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 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 8:15 AM 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 %'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 EAST LEG WEST LEG 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 %'s: 45.45% 54.55% 25.00% 75.00% 66.67% 33.33% PEAK . : SPM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL: 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 & Swveying Services Romeria St & Gibraltar St Peak Hour Turning Movement Count ID: 19-04397-002 City: Carlsbad ::1 ::, 0 :c lll:: ~ Q. -(/) .. J! ~ .0 a 07:00 AM -08:00 AM AM 0 NONE NOON 0 04:15 PM -05:15 PM PM 0 AM NOON PM 0 24 0 19 ¢:i 0 0 .::,o 0 0 0 j 0 3 0 8 -+ 1 26 0 21 .,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1t 0 0 0 0 1 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 1 +-4 0 13 0 ,t" 8 0 15 oC' o o o c::;> 17 0 12 0 0 C z -I -0 m i!! 0 C VI G) a= ; if ., t/J .... AM NOON PM -0, '1 ~ t ,. PM NOON AM Total Vehicles (AM) Total Vehicles (Noon) _J ~~~L z z z ., . ~ N/A,# ~ t. N/A N/A-+ ~ .. N/A N/A'\ t 'N/A 7 ~z:1 ..................... )> )> )> Total Vehicles (PM) PM 29 0 15 0 NOON 0 0 0 0 AM 42 1 10 0 Romeria St 9 PM 0 NOON 9 AM Bikes (AM) _J oo oL ~ . "- o; <S> 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 ~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 8:45AM 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 VOWMES : 129 7 31 0 46 8 30 0 9 597 61 0 21 1211 15 0 2165 APPROACH '!'o'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% PEAK HR: 07:15 AM • 08:15 AM TOTAL P!AK 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 0,872 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 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 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 'Vo '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 PfAK 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 Location: Romeria St & La Costa Ave Intersection Turning Movement Count City: Carlsbad Project ID: 19-04397·001 Control: Signalized Date: 10/17/2019 Bikes Romelia St Romeria St La Costa Ave La Costa Ave NORlliBOUND SOIJTHBOUND 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 7:30AM 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 8:45AM 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 ¥o's : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% PEAK HR : 07:15 AM· 011:15 AM lOTAI. l'!AKHRVOL: 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 PEAK HR 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 SOIJTHBOUND 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 ¥o'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 l TOTAL PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.00 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 Locatilnt~m¾~g)l Turning Mo~uw.~9Cpunt City: cartsbad Date: 10/17/2019 Pedestrians Crosswalks Romeria St Romerla St La Cost.a Ave La Costa Ave NORTH LEG SOUTH 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 7:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7:30 AM 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 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8:30 AM 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 8:45 AM 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 %'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 SOUTH 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 %'5: 66.67% 33.33% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 100.00% PEAK HR: 04:45 PM • 05:45 PM TOTAL PEAKHRVOL: 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 ID: 19-04397-001 City: Carlsbad Day: Thursday Date: 10/17/2019 0 Ill a:: :, 07:15AM-08:15AM AM 13 6 30 0 17 AM 07:00 AM -09:00 AM g 0 ::c NONE NOON O O O 0 0 NOON NONE z -I "II m ~ ~ a.. 04:45 PM -05:45 PM PM 10 1 17 0 42 PM 04:00 PM -06:00 PM a 0 C "' AM NOON PM 778 0 472 ¢::i o o o .!)o 1 0 8 j 1 314 0 625 ~ 1 44 0 48 ,. 1 0 AM NOON PM -0, Total Vehicles (AM) Total Vehicles (Noon) _J~~~L ., . .. N/A-' t. N/A N/Ar+ <e> .. N/A 7 N/A'\._ t ,., 1 N/A zzz ------)> )> )> Total Vehicles (PM) _J!. tL 8-' t. 28 625.+ <e> .. 416 48'\ t ,4 7~m 51 PM 53 NOON 0 AM 69 1 0 0 PM 0.95 0 0 1 0 PM NOON AM 0 t_ 28 0 10 2 ~ 416 0 668 1 r 4 o 19 oC: o o o c::;> 652 0 373 "'I ., t ,. PM NOON AM 0 46 6 10 PM 0 0 0 0 NOON 0 97 6 29 AM Bikes (AM) _J o N oL .,J • .. 0., ~ t.O lr+ A .. o O'\ ,o 7 .. t ,.r-- 0 o o I Bikes (NOON) _J <( <( <(L ------z z z .,J • .. N/A-' ~ t. N/A N/Ar+~ .. N/A N/A '\ t 'N/A 7 ~2 ~r->>>I Bikes (PM) LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers APPENDIXC MMLOS RESULTS LLG Ref. 3-19-3 I 55 Romeria Pointe o eri St V i h ho d May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! • Are crosswalks martced per CA MUTCD standards? es Yes • Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width In Feet (Minimum ADA unobstruttecl width requirement Is 4'): s s • Do sld-alks appear to nMet ADA requirements (e-1., No No aoss-slope and trip hazards)? • Do ramps and landlnp appear to !Met ADA No No requl1'91'MRt11 • Do the street Upt locations appear adequate? 0 Speed llmlt (mites per hour • mph): s rlo r h r o Number of Throuch lanes: 1 Are there 3 lanes or less to be aossed without peclestrtan Yes Yes refuae? (lnducle tum lanes In count) Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian facility and vehicle travel way: O' to 2' O' to 2' Does on-street partc1111 or a bike lane provide 6' or more Yes Yes buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way? Any apparent sl&flt dlstaMe Issues at Intersections and No No pedestrian aosslnp? Are there any permanent speed control devices No No Installed? Are there traffic calml111 measunis that red-aossi"I No No width (e-1., bulbouts, chokers, rlpt•tum median Island)? Do crosswalks appear to be hJ&h vlslblllty? es Ye Are there Intersection enha.-rnents provldecl for pedestrians (e ... , pedestrian signal phasl111, countdown No No heads)? Are there Recta"IUlar Rapid Flashllll Bucons (RRFBs) at No No street crosslnp? Is there pedestrian scale Uahtl1117 Do active bulldl111 frontaps appear to be present on Im' No No of street curb llne? Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards No No businesses or attractions? Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more than ~ of the sidewalk lenlth 7 Project: Romeria Pointe Segment: Romeria St From Gibraltar St To la Costa Ave Accessibillty and functionality meets ADA unobstructed width requirements • Essential Features (Criteria must be rnetl: Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or S' if unspecified) Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified) • Essential Features (Criteria mU$t be metl: Ramps and landin s within se ment meet ADA r uirements 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 edestrians and vehicle travel way Landscaping 2' to S' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way Landscaping greater than S' wide provides 'buffer' between Street characteristics pedestrians and vehicle travel way Less than 3,000 vehicles er 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 MUTCD 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-tum median island) Other Elements Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian-friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown heads, sl na e, etc. RRFBs at uncontrolled crossin s if warranted • Essential Features (Criteria must be met): Street light locations ap ear ad uate Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational spaces) Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk len h Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions '--------P d I r h . . . . . . 10 s 10 10 10 10 s s 10 s s s s 10 s 10 10 s 10 5 s 5 s "'-• -' .>-~ ... • • • ' • • • 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 s s 0 0 0 0 s 5 s s s s 0 0 10 10 s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 65 C D No No May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! e • Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width In Feet (Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement Is 4'): 5 5 • Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e.,., Yes Yes aoss-slope and trip hazards)? • Do ramps and landlnp appear to meet ADA No No requirements? • Do the street U&ht locations appear adequate? 0 Speed limit (miles per hour• mph): 25 mp o I 5 h or o r Number of Throuah Lanes: l Are there 3 laMS or less to be aOSMd without pedestrian Yes Yes ref..■? (Include tum lanes In count) Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian fadllty and vehicle travel way: O' to 2' O' to 2' Does on-stniet parkllll or a bike lane provide 6' or more Yes Yes buffer between pedestrians and vehicle travel way? pparent sl&ht distance Issues at Intersections and No No an crosslnp? any permanent speed control devices No No Heel? Are there traffic c:alml111 measures that reduce aossl111 width (e,1., bulbouts, chokers, rflht•tum median Island)? No No Do crosswalks appear to be high vlslblllty7 0 Are there Intersection enhancements provided for pedestrians (e.a., pedfltrlan signal phaslnc. countdown No No heads)? Are there Rectangular Rapid Flashllll Beacons (RRFBs) at No No street crossl1115? 0 Do active bulldl111 frontqes appear to be ~ on 81)% No No of street a,rt, llne? Does the stl'Nt furniture appear to be oriented towards No No businesses or attractions? Do the street trNS appear to provide shade over more than ~ of the sidewalk leftlth 1 Project: Romeria Pointe Segment: Gibraltar St From La Costa Ave To Romeria St Scenarlo:_E_xi_st_in__,g"------------------------------------------ By: LLG • EsRnllal Fj!atur!IS (Criteria mug be !!!!111: Sidewalk or path 15 meets ADA unobstructed width requirements 15 15 • Essential ft•b!m (Criteria must !ti mt1): Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility 10 10 10 Element (or S' if unspecified) Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology 5 0 0 Accesslblllty and according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified) functionality • Essential Featum (Criteria must be metl: Ramps and 10 0 0 segments meet ADA requirements (cross-slope and trip 10 10 10 Sidewalk width meets recommended width for typology 10 0 0 according to the Mobility Element (or 8' if unspecified) 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refuge 10 10 10 On-street parking or bike lane provides 6' or more buffer 5 5 5 between pedestrians and vehicle travel wa Landscaping 2' to S' wide provides 'buffer' between 5 0 0 pedestrians and vehicle travel way Landscaping greater than S' wide provides 'buffer' between 10 0 0 Street characteristics edestrians and vehicle travel way Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day 5 5 5 Speed limit 30 mph or less 5 5 5 No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and 5 5 5 pedestrian crossin s Permanent speed control devices installed on segments 5 0 0 posted as approved by the City Traffic Engineer • Euentlal Faa1yres (Criteria must !!! metl: Crosswalks are 10 10 10 marked accordin to CA MUTCO guidelines Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the 5 0 0 CAMUTCD) Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width Crossing characteristics (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right-turn median 10 0 0 island) Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian-friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown 10 0 0 heads, sl na e, etc. RRFBs at uncontrolled crossin s if warranted 5 0 0 • Emn1!1I Fei!!b!W (Criteria m!!!t be mt1I: Street light 10 0 0 locations appear ade uate Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational 5 0 0 Other Elements spaces) Street trees provide shade over more than 50')(, of sidewalk 5 0 0 len Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions 5 0 0 0 0 75 C C No No May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! • Do the roadway pavement conditions appear to be 1ood (e.g., no pot holes)? • Does bike facility on roadway appear to be free of obstructions (e.g., drainage grates)? • Does the bicycle facility appear to meet MUTCD signing and strlplns deslsn guidelines? Ins provided Does the blkeway on the study segment and side streets meet and/or exceed the Bicycle Master Plan? Is there enhanced bicycle detection or video detection provided at Intersections? t ca eighborh 1 NB SCORE I LOS 85 I B Yes Yes No 25 Both No SB SCORE I LOS 85 I B Yes Yes No Both No Project: Romeria Pointe Segment: Romeria St From Gibraltar St To La Costa Ave Scenario: All Scenarios Speed limit is s 25 mph Speed limit is 30 mph Street Characteristics Speed limit is 35 mph Residential street with AOT < 3,000 Street with AOT between 3,000 and 6,000 Class I facility (off-street path), Class IV (cycle track), or multiuse path Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on-street bi cle lanes) Facility Bike lane buffer 2' min is rovided Class Ill facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only) Additional traffic calming/speed management features have been applied to Class Ill facility (i.e. a bike boulevard) Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan Bike lane (including buffer) ls at least 8' wide from face of curb Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet design Blkeway Design uidelines D Good pavement condition for blkeway (no visible potholes) Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates) Blkeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master Connectivity/ Plan alon se ment Contiguity Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes Adjacent Vehicle limit ls 25 or 30 m h Back-in arking Parltlng Parallel with door-side buffered bike lane Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at Other Elements 5 25 25 0 0 10 0 0 15 15 15 10 0 0 25 0 0 15 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 10 0 0 25 25 25 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! • Do the roadway pavement conditions appear to be good (e.1., no pot holes)? • Does bike faclllty on roadway appear to be free of obstructions (e-1., dralnaae arates)? • Does the bicycle facility appear to meet MUTCD sl1nln1 and striping desiln pldellnes? Does the blkeway on the study segment and side streets meet and/or exceed the Blcyde Master Plan? Is there enhanced bicycle detection or video detection provided at Intersections? Any bicycle rac are provl segment? Bicycle Faclllty Provided: INFO Gibraltar St Yes Yes No No r WB SCORE I LOS 85 I B Yes Yes No a a 2 Both No Project: Romeria Pointe Segment: Gibraltar St From La Costa Ave To Romeria St Scenario: Alt Scenarios By: LLG Speed limit is s 2S mph Speed limit is 30 mph Street Characteristics Speed limit ls 3S mph Residential street with AOT < 3,000 Street with ADT between 3,000 and 6,000 Class I facility (off-street path), Oass IV (cycle track), or multiuse path Class II facility that meets minimum width of 5' (on-street bicycle lanes) Fac/1/ty Bike lane buffer 2' min is rovided Class Ill facility (bike route designated by signage or paint only) Additional traffic calming/speed management features have been applied to Class Ill facility (i.e. a bike boulevard) Bikeway meets or exceeds the Bicycle Master Plan Bike lane (including buffer) is at least 8' wide from face of curb Bicycle facilities with signing and striping meet design Bikeway Design uidelines D Good pavement condition for bikeway (no visible potholes) Free of infrastructure that obstructs bike facility (e.g. grates) Blkeways on side streets are consistent with Bicycle Master Connectivity/ Plan alon ment Contiguity Bike lanes are striped continuously on all approaches to and departures from intersections, without dropping at turn lanes or driveways Adjacent Vehicle No on-street limit ls25or30m h Parking Back-in angled parking Parallel rkin with door-side buffered bike lane Enhanced bicycle detection or video detection is provided at Other Elements 2S 25 25 15 0 0 10 0 0 15 15 15 10 0 0 25 0 0 15 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 10 0 0 25 25 25 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 85 85 B B May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! NB SB .. An crosswalks marted per CA MUTCD standards? e s • Minimum Slclewalk Unobltructecl Width In Feet (Minimum ADA unobstructed width requi,-nt Is 4'): s s ' Do sidewalks appear to meet ADA requirements (e .... No No cross-slope and trip huarcls)? • Do ramps and landlnp appear to meet ADA No Yes requirements? • Do the street llaht locations appear adequate? 0 s Spted llmlt (mlles per hour• mph): p 0 2 m lo e Number of 'ThrOUlh Lanes: An there 3 lanes or less to be aoued without pedestrian Yes Yes refup? (Include tum lanes In count) Width (ft.) of landsaped buffer between pedestrian O'to 2' O' to 2' fadllty and whlde travel way: Does on-street perldnc or a bike •-provide &' or more Yes Yes buffer between pedestrt.. and whlde travel way? Any apparent sllht distance Issues at lntersedlons and No No pedestrian aosslnp? An thera any permanent speed control devices No No Installed? An there traffic catmlns __,,., diet redlKe cross1,.. No No width (e,1., bulbouts, chokers, rlpt-tum median Island)? Do aosswalb appear to be hip vlslblllty? e An there lntenection en:.ncemen1s provlcled for pedestrians (e.1-, pedestrian signal phaslns, countdown No No heads)? An there RKtancular Rapid Flashlns ae-(RRFas) at No No street crosslnp? Is there pedestrian scale ll&htlns? 0 0 Do active bullclns frontaps appear to be present on'°" No No of street curb Hne? Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards No No ~ or atbac:tlorls? Do the street traes appear to provide shade -more than SOK of the slci-lk lencth? Project: Romeria Pointe Segment: Romeria St From Gibraltar St To la Costa Ave Scenario: With Project Accessibility and functionality By: LLG meets ADA unobstructed width requirements * Emntlal Features (Criteria must be met): Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (ors• if unspecified) Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified) • Essential Features (Crlterlf mu I: Ramps and landin s within se ment m 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 edestrians and vehicle travel way Less than 3,000 vehicles per lane per day No apparent sight distance issues at intersections and edestrian 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 accordin to CA MUTCD 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) Other Elements Presence of intersection enhancements for pedestrians (pedestrian-friendly signal phasing, pedestrian countdown heads, signa e, etc.) RRFBs at uncontrolled crossings if warranted • Emntlal Features (Criteria must be met}: Street light locations appear adequate Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational spaces) Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk len h Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions .__ _______ P d t. I I' hf . . lS 10 s 10 10 10 5 5 10 5 5 5 5 10 5 10 10 5 10 s 5 5 5 .. :,_., . ._. --· -----·' ~ . ' .. - 15 10 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 10 5 5 0 0 0 0 s 5 5 s s 5 0 0 10 10 s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 85 C B No No PEDESTRIAN May require improvements and upgrades to fully support CAP goals! • An crosswalks marked per CA MUTCO standards? • Minimum Sidewalk Unobstructed Width In Feet (Minimum ADA unobstructed width requirement Is 4'): sidewalks appear to meet ADA requlnlments te .... and trip haurds)? Do ramps and landlnp appear to meet ADA requirements? • Do the street Hpt locations appear adequate? Speed llmlt (miles per hour• mph): Number of Throuch Lanes: Are there 3 lanes or less to be crossed without pedestrian refup? (Include tum lanes In count) Width (ft.) of landscaped buffer between pedestrian facility and vehicle trawl way: Does on-street pal'klns or a bike 1-provide 6' or more buffer between pedestrians and vehicle trawl way? Any appanmt slpt distance '-at lntersectfons and pedestrian aosslnp? Are there any penMMnt speed control devices Installed? Are there traffic calmJnc measures that red.-aossl,w width (e .... bulbouts, chokers, rflht•tum median Island)? Do crosswalks appear to be hlch visibility? Are there Intersection enha.-nents provided for pedestrians (e ... , pedestrian slpal phasl111, countdown heads)? Are there Rectarwular Rapid Flashl,w IIRc:ons (RRFBs) at street crosslnp? 11 there peclestrtan scale llchtlrw? Do active bulldl,w &ontaps appear to be~ on SOK ofstrNtairbllne? Does the street furniture appear to be oriented towards businesses or attradlOIII? Do the street trees appear to provide shade over more than SOK of the sl~lk len&th? Yes No Ye 5 p or lo h or I er Yes Yes O' to 2' O' to 2' Yes Yes No No No No No No 0 0 No No No No 0 No No No No No Project: Romeria Pointe Segment: Gibraltar St From La Costa Ave To Romeria St Accessiblllty and functionality Street characteristics Crossing characteristics Other Elements meets ADA unobstructed width requirements • Essential Features (Criteria mu1t be metl: Sidewalk width meets minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 5' If unspecified) Sidewalk width exceeds minimum width for typology according to the Mobility Element (or 6' if unspecified) 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 edestrians and vehicle travel wa Landscaping 2' to 5' wide provides 'buffer' between pedestrians and vehicle travel way landscaping greater than 5' wide provides 'buffer' between edestrians and vehicle travel wa 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 MUTCD guidelines Crosswalk is high visibility (i.e., continental markings per the CAMUTCD) Traffic calming measures that reduce crossing width (pedestrian refuge, bulbouts, chokers, right-tum 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 Features (Criteria must be met): Street light locations a ear ade uate Active building frontages on 80% of street curbline (pedestrian attracting frontages such as active storefronts and recreational spaces Street trees provide shade over more than 50% of sidewalk len h Street furniture oriented toward businesses or attractions L--------P d I Ii hf . . < -' 10 5 10 10 10 10 5 5 10 5 5 5 5 10 5 10 10 5 10 5 5 5 5 ,._.,._,_~~ _ .. , .. ~---. .. . .. ·~-·. , . " . .. 10 10 0 0 10 0 10 10 0 0 10 10 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 75 A C Yes No LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers APPENDIXD HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS - EXISTING LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe Existing AM 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.7 ment EBT EBR WB[ WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations ft, «f V Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 26 15 13 11 9 Future Vol, veh/h 3 26 15 13 11 9 Conflicting Peels, #/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 ajar/Minor Major! Major2 Conflicting Flow All 0 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 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 -981 -963 NB 8.9 A EBR W8L WBT -1562 -0.013 -7.3 0 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 Synchro 10 Report Existing AM 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave _,> ~ ment EB[ EBT Lane Configurations 1'i + Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 314 Future Volume (veh/h) 1 314 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 1 345 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 Cap, veh/h 5 821 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 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 4.9 Cycle a Clear(g_c), s 0.0 4.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 5 821 V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 230 992 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.3 7.5 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 22.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veMn 0.0 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.3 7.8 LnG!E LOS D A Approach Vol, veh/h 394 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.7 Approach LOS A mer-Pfii 1 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.5 21.5 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 6.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 ntersection Summ HCM 6th Ctr! Delay HCM 6th LOS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\1 Ex AM.syn ~ f +- EBR WB[ WBT ,, "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 2 696 47 852 0.44 0.03 0.46 1585 1781 1838 48 21 0 1585 1781 0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 1.00 1.00 696 47 0 0.07 0.45 0.00 840 230 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 6.3 18.6 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 6.3 25.3 0.0 A C A 766 16.6 B ;.i 5 11.7 4.6 4.5 4.5 26.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 13.7 B Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 ' "" t I" \. ! ~ WBR BL NBT NBR SBl SBT SB~ .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 13 338 38 60 296 73 77 0.46 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 28 954 202 324 789 394 414 745 146 0 0 54 0 0 1865 1480 0 0 1597 0 0 13.8 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.8 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.73 0.22 0.61 0.26 865 436 0 0 446 0 0 0.86 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 989 1133 0 0 1148 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 9.3 14.1 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 16.4 14.5 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 B B A A B A A 146 54 14.5 13.3 B B 6 8 22.4 11 .7 4.5 4.5 20.5 26.0 15.8 5.3 2.1 0.7 Synchro 10 Report Existing PM 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St miiiiectioii Int Delay, s/veh 4.2 vement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations i. 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 a· /Minor Conflicting Flow All 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 HCM LOS inor l:inilMijor Mvmt NBLn1 EBT Capacity (veh/h) 966 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\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 -977 -994 NB 8.9 A EBR WBL WBT -1551 -0.007 -7.3 0 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 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 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 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 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 9.1 Cycle Q 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 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veMn 0.1 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.0 7.8 LnGre LOS C A Approach Vol, veh/h 717 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.8 Approach LOS A [mer-AssiQi'led 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 Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\2 Ex PM.syn • f +- EBR WBL WBT ,, 'i ft- 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 10 832 0.49 0.01 0.48 1585 1781 1734 51 4 0 1585 1781 0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 1.00 1.00 769 10 0 0.07 0.41 0.00 1484 273 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 4.5 16.1 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 4.5 41.7 0.0 A D A 471 6.7 A 4 5 7.6 4.8 4.5 4.5 26.0 5.0 2.5 2.1 0.1 0.0 7.8 A Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 ' "" t ~ \. ! .,.I WBR NBL NBT NBR $Bl: 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 0.98 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 55 298 13 24 256 16 55 0.48 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 115 1119 140 256 834 172 582 467 65 0 0 30 0 0 1849 1515 0 0 1588 0 0 5.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.06 0.74 0.17 0.60 0.37 887 336 0 0 328 0 0 0.53 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 1731 1361 0 0 1350 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 5.9 13.9 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 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 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.4 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 7.7 3.2 3.0 0.3 Synchro 10 Report LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers APPENDIX E HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS- EXISTING + PROJECT LLG Ref. 3-I 9-3155 Romeria Pointe Existing + Project AM 1 : Romeria St & Gibraltar St /ntersectlon Int Delay, s/veh 3.8 Movement EBT BR W8[ WBT NBC NBR Lane Configurations f. 4 ¥ 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,% Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % MvmtFlow Major}Minor Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap-1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 0 72 2 4 Major1 0 72 72 2 2 36 21 Major2 0 43 4.12 -2.218 -1566 -1562 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 -981 Stage 1 Stage 2 ------- ~ HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS -963 NB 8.9 A Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBl WBT Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 958 0.03 8.9 A 0.1 HCM 6th TWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\3 Ex+P AM.syn -1562 -0.013 -7.3 0 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 Synchro 10 Report Existing + Project AM 2: Romeria St & Proj Drwy !Nl ntersectlon Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 EBL EBR NB[ NBT Lane Configurations V 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 MvmtFlow 1 5 1 20 Milor2 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 HCM Control Delay, s HCM LOS . inor !!!Mvmt NBI: 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 HCM 6th TWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\3 Ex+P AM.syn -989 -0.006 0 8.7 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 SST S8R f. 49 0 49 0 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 85 85 2 2 58 0 0 SB 0 SST SBR Synchro 10 Report Existing + Project AM 3: Romeria St & Proj Drwy !S} ntersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 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 Peels, #I/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 . iMinor Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 85 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 0.4 HCM LOS Minor LanelM!i! Mvmt NBL NBTEBlJ11 Capacity (veh/h) 1541 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 -1003 -0.005 0 8.6 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 SBT SBR f. 53 0 53 0 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 85 85 2 2 62 0 0 SB 0 SBT SBR Synchro 10 Report Existing + Project AM 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave .,> -+ EBL EBT Lane Configurations 11 t Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 314 Future Volume (veh/h) 3 314 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 3 345 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 Cap, veh/h 7 824 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 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 4.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 4.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c}, veh/h 7 824 V/C Ratio(X} 0.41 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 229 986 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.3 7.5 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 33.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veMn 0.1 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.3 7.8 LnGre LOS D A Approach Vol, veh/h 396 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 Approach LOS A mer-Phs 1 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.5 21.6 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 2.5 6.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctr1 Delay HCM 6th LOS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\3 Ex+P AM.syn ~ f +- EBR WBL WBT ,, 11 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 2 699 46 851 0.44 0.03 0.46 1585 1781 1838 48 21 0 1585 1781 0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 1.00 1.00 699 46 0 0.07 0.45 0.00 835 229 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 6.3 18.7 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 6.3 25.4 0.0 A C A 766 16.9 B 4 5 11.7 4.7 4.5 4.5 26.0 5.0 3.2 2.1 0.3 0.0 13.9 B Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 ' ~ t I" '. ! ~ WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT 4, 4, 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 13 338 37 61 271 71 99 0.46 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 28 957 201 325 683 383 533 745 146 0 0 63 0 0 1865 1484 0 0 1598 0 0 13.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.73 0.22 0.56 0.33 863 436 0 0 441 0 0 0.86 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 983 1124 0 0 1141 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 9.3 14.1 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 16.6 14.6 0.0 0.0 13.5 0.0 0.0 B B A A B A A 146 63 14.6 13.5 B B 6 8 22.5 11.7 4.5 4.5 20.5 26.0 15.9 5.3 2.1 0.7 Synchro 10 Report Existing + Project PM 1 : Romeria St & Gibraltar St jntersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.1 Movement EST EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations f. 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 ajor/Minor Major! Mgor2 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 0 4.9 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 -975 -994 NB 8.9 A EBR WBL WBT -1548 -0.007 -7.3 0 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 Synchro 10 Report Existing + Project PM 2: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (N) ntersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Moviiiiim B[ EBR N 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 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 91 34 34 0 Stage 1 34 Stage 2 57 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 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 NBTE81.n1 Capacity (veh/h) 1578 HCM Lane VIC 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 SBR 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 03/09/2020 Synchro 10 Report Existing + Project PM 3: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (S) ntersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 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 Channetized -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 . #Minor Minor2 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 Hdwy 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 l'\f)proach HCM Control Delay, s 8.5 HCMLOS A Minor LanelMajor Mvmt NBL NBTEBL.n1 Capacity (veh/h) 1576 -1038 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.003 -0.002 HCM Control Delay (sJ 7.3 0 8.5 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 HCM6thTWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\4 Ex+P PM.syn SBT S8R ft 30 0 30 0 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 85 85 2 2 35 0 0 SB 0 SBT SBR Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 Synchro 10 Report Existing + Project PM 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave _,> _.., vement EBL EBT Lane Configurations "'i + Traffic Volume lveh/h) 13 625 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 625 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 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/Mn 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(!) 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 LnG!J! LOS C A Approach Vol, veh/h 723 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.9 Approach LOS A ms-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 HCM 6th Ctr1 Delay HCM 6th LOS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\4 Ex+P PM.syn ~ 'f ~ EBR WBL WBT ,, 11 i. 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 10 812 0.48 0.01 0.47 1585 1781 1721 51 4 0 1585 1781 0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 1.00 1.00 768 10 0 0.07 0.41 0.00 1478 272 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 4.5 16.2 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 4.5 41.7 0.0 A D A 474 6.9 A 4 5 7.7 5.1 4.5 4.5 26.0 5.0 2.6 2.3 0.1 0.0 8.0 A Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 ' "" f I" '. + .,I WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SB • • 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 0.98 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 59 300 14 25 246 16 63 0.47 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 126 1122 140 257 768 165 653 470 65 0 0 34 0 0 1847 1519 0 0 1585 0 0 5.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.07 0.74 0.17 0.56 0.41 871 339 0 0 326 0 0 0.54 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 1723 1354 0 0 1345 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 6.1 13.9 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 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 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.6 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 7.9 3.2 3.1 0.3 Synchro 10 Report LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers APPENDIXF HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS- Ex:ISTING + CUMULATIVE LLG Ref. 3-19-3155 Romeria Pointe Near-Term AM 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St ntersectlon Int Delay, s/veh 3.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations ft. 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 . /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 -1559 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s HCMLOS 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 6th TWSC 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 -980 -963 NB 8.9 A EBR WBl WBT -1559 -0.013 -7.3 0 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 Synchro 10 Report Near-Term AM 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave ~ _. Eet.: EBT Lane Configurations 11 + 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 5 823 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 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 5.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 5.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 5 823 V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 229 985 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.4 7.5 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 22.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay{d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ{50%),veMn 0.0 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.7 7.9 LnGre LOS D A Approach Vol, veh/h 398 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.8 Approach LOS A Phs 1 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.6 21.6 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 2.5 7.0 Green Ext Time (p_c}, s 0.0 1.9 ;Intersection Summ HCM 6th Ctrl Delay HCM 6th LOS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary N:13155\Analysis\Synchro\5 NT AM.syn "'\, 'f +- EBR WBL WBT .,, 11 f. 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 2 697 48 854 0.44 0.03 0.47 1585 1781 1835 49 22 0 1585 1781 0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 1.00 1.00 697 48 0 0.07 0.45 0.00 835 229 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 6.3 18.6 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 6.3 25.2 0.0 A C A 774 17.1 B 4 5 11.7 4.6 4.5 4.5 26.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 14.0 B Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 ' ~ t I" \. + "' WBR NBL NBT NBR SSL SBT ~ • .i. 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 14 339 37 60 299 72 76 0.47 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 30 959 200 322 804 386 406 752 147 0 0 55 0 0 1865 1481 0 0 1597 0 0 14.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.1 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.73 0.22 0.62 0.25 868 436 0 0 447 0 0 0.87 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 982 1126 0 0 1140 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 9.3 14.2 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 16.9 14.6 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 B B A A B A A 147 55 14.6 13.4 B B 6 8 22.6 11 .7 4.5 4.5 20.5 26.0 16.1 5.3 2.1 0.7 Synchro 10 Report Near-Term PM 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St ntersectlon Int Delay, s/veh 4.2 EBT BR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations f. 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 n n 77 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 MvmtFlow 10 29 10 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 ~ HCM Control Delay, s 0 4.9 HCM LOS Mi!!« LanelMajor Mvmt NBLn1 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 n 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 -975 -994 NB 8.9 A EBR WBL WBT -1548 -0.007 -7.3 0 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 Synchro 10 Report Near-Term PM 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave ,> -+ Movement EBL EBT Lane Configurations , + Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 631 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 631 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) 1.00 Paricing Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Woric 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 a Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehnn 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 Pfii 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 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrt Delay HCM 6th LOS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\6 NT PM.syn ~ f +- EBR WBL WBT .,, , f. 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 10 832 0.49 0.01 0.48 1585 1781 1727 53 4 0 1585 1781 0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 1.00 1.00 772 10 0 0.07 0.41 0.00 1471 271 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 4.5 16.3 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 4.5 41.8 0.0 A D A 477 6.7 A -1 5 7.7 4.9 4.5 4.5 26.0 5.0 2.5 2.1 0.1 0.0 7.9 A Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 '-~ t ~ \. ! .ti WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT ~ .i. .i. 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 0.98 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 58 297 13 26 258 17 54 0.48 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 121 1109 136 272 845 180 564 473 67 0 0 31 0 0 1848 1516 0 0 1588 0 0 5.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.07 0.73 0.18 0.61 0.35 891 336 0 0 330 0 0 0.53 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 1715 1349 0 0 1338 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 5.9 14.0 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 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 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.4 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 7.9 3.3 3.1 0.3 Synchro 10 Report LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers APPENDIXG 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 WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations t. 4 V Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 27 15 13 13 9 Future Vol, veh/h 3 27 15 13 13 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 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 HCMLOS Mvmt 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 HCM6thTWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\7 NT +PAM.syn 0 0 0 0 0 72 72 72 2 2 2 18 18 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 -980 -963 NB 8.9 A EBR WBT -1559 -0.013 -7.3 0 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 Synchro 10 Report Near-Term + Project AM 2: Romeria St & Proj Drwy iNl ntersectlon Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 EBL EBR NBL NBT Lane Configurations ¥ 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 4 1 18 Future Vol, veh/h 1 4 1 18 Conflicting Peds, #I/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 i'lor M"inor2 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 HCM LOS Mvmt NBL NBTE8l.n1 capacity (veh/h) 1545 -988 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.001 -0.006 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.7 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 HCM 6th TWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\7 NT+P AM.syn 0 Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 SBT SBR t. 50 0 50 0 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 85 85 2 2 59 0 0 SB 0 SBT SBR Synchro 10 Report Near-Term+ Project AM 3: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (S) ntersedion Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movimint EBL EBR N8L 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 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 HCM Control Delay, s 8.6 0.4 HCMLOS A Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 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 HCM6th TWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\7 NT+PAM.syn -1000 -0.005 0 8.6 A A 0 SST S8R ft 54 0 54 0 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 85 85 2 2 64 0 0 SB 0 SBT S8R Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 Synchro 10 Report Near-Term+ Project AM 4: Romeria St & La Costa Ave ,> --+ EBL EBT Lane Configurations , + Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3 317 Future Volume (veh/h) 3 317 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, veMl/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 7 826 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 3 348 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/Mn 1781 1870 a Serve(g_s), s 0.1 5.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 5.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 7 826 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 227 979 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay {d), s/veh 19.5 7.5 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 33.0 0.3 Initial Q Delay{d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veMn 0.1 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(dl,s/veh 52.5 7.8 LnGre LOS D A Approach Vol, veh/h 400 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 Approach LOS A mer-Phs 1 2 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.6 21.8 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 2.5 7.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 Intersection Summ!!!l HCM 6th ctr! Delay HCM 6th LOS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\7 NT+P AM.syn ""\, f ,._ EBR WBL WBT .,, 'I f. 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 2 700 48 853 0.44 0.03 0.46 1585 1781 1835 49 22 0 1585 1781 0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 1.00 1.00 700 48 0 0.07 0.45 0.00 830 227 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 6.3 18.8 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 6.3 25.3 0.0 A C A 774 17.4 B 4 5 11.8 4.7 4.5 4.5 26.0 5.0 3.2 2.1 0.3 0.0 14.2 B Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 ' ' t ~ \. ! ~ WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT ~ .i. .i. 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 14 339 37 60 274 70 98 0.46 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 30 962 199 323 698 376 524 752 147 0 0 64 0 0 1865 1485 0 0 1597 0 0 14.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.73 0.22 0.56 0.33 866 437 0 0 442 0 0 0.87 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 976 1117 0 0 1133 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 9.4 14.2 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 17.1 14.7 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 B B A A B A A 147 64 14.7 13.6 B B 6 8 22.7 11.8 4.5 4.5 20.5 26.0 16.2 5.3 2.0 0.7 Synchro 10 Report Near-Term+ Project PM 1: Romeria St & Gibraltar St ntersactlon Int Delay, s/veh 4.1 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations ft. 4 V Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 23 8 4 16 9 Future Vol, veh/h 8 23 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 30 10 ajor/Minor Mcp1 Mip2 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 4.9 HCM LOS LMlelMajorMvmt BIJi1 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 0 60 36 33 27 -6.42 6.22 -5.42 -5.42 -3.518 3.318 -947 1037 -989 -996 -932 1026 -932 -975 -994 NB 8.9 A EBR WB( WBT -1547 -0.007 -7.3 0 A A 0 Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 Synchro 10 Report Near-Term+ Project PM 2: Romeria St & Proj Drwy (N) nterseclion Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 t EB( Lane Configurations · V Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 3 Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 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 51 i1or 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 HCM LOS Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1576 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 HCM Lane LOS A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 HCM6thTWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\8 NT +PPM.syn -1038 -0.002 0 8.5 A A 0 SST SBR i. 29 1 29 1 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 85 85 2 2 34 1 0 SB 0 SBT SBR Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 Synchro 10 Report Near-Term+ Project PM 3: Romeria St & Proj Drwy !S} ntersectlon Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBR NBL: NBT Lane Configurations ¥ 4 Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 2 4 46 Future Vol, veh/h 0 2 4 46 Conflicting Peels, #I/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 aior/Minor Mlnor2 Maiort 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 Stg 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 HCM Control Delay, s HCMLOS Mvmt NBL NBTE8Ln1 Capacity (veh/h) 1575 -1037 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 HCM 6th TWSC N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\8 NT+P PM.syn 0 Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 SST SBR t. 31 0 31 0 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 85 85 2 2 36 0 Malor2 0 SB 0 S8T SBR 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_pb T) 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, veMl/ln 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),veMl/ln 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(I) 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 ·o.o %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 2.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Oelay(d),s/veh 24.8 7.9 LnG!J! LOS C A Approach Vol, veh/h 731 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 Approach LOS A Phs 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+l1), s 2.1 11.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.7 nfirsictloo HCM 6th Ctr1 Delay HCM 6th LOS HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary N:\3155\Analysis\Synchro\8 NT +P PM.syn ~ • ,._ EBR W8[ WBT ,, 'I i. 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 10 814 0.49 0.01 0.47 1585 1781 1718 53 4 0 1585 1781 0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 1.00 1.00 772 10 0 0.07 0.41 0.00 1466 270 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 4.5 16.4 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 4.5 41.9 0.0 A D A 479 7.0 A 4 5 7.7 5.1 4.5 4.5 26.0 5.0 2.6 2.3 0.1 0.0 8.1 A Romeria Pointe 03/09/2020 '-"" t ~ '. ! .,, WBR NBT NBR SB[ SST ~ .;. • 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 0.98 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 61 299 13 27 248 17 62 0.47 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 128 1112 136 272 779 172 634 475 67 0 0 35 0 0 1847 1520 0 0 1586 0 0 6.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.07 0.73 0.18 0.57 0.40 875 339 0 0 328 0 0 0.54 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 1707 1342 0 0 1332 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 6.1 13.9 0.0 0.0 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 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 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.7 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 8.0 3.3 3.1 0.3 Synchro 10 Report