HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-11-15; City Council; ; Local Roadway Safety PlanCA Review CKM
Meeting Date: Nov. 15, 2022
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Staff Contact: John Kim, City Traffic Engineer
john.Kim@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-2757
Subject: Local Roadway Safety Plan
Districts: All
Recommended Action
Adopt a resolution adopting the City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan.
Executive Summary
City Transportation staff, with funds from a state grant, have completed the city’s first Local
Roadway Safety Plan, a data-driven plan designed by the California Department of
Transportation that provides a framework to identify, analyze and prioritize roadway safety
improvements to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on the local roadway network.
The city began developing the plan in early 2021, before the current city emergency in traffic
safety was declared.1 It involved a comprehensive analysis of citywide collision data from a five-
year period, from 2015 to 2019 (excluding the atypical years of the pandemic.)
As part of its traffic-safety efforts during the emergency, the city has either completed, begun
or planned several of the roadway safety improvements that were recommended in the plan.
Having a plan in place qualifies the city to receive Highway Safety Improvement Program grant
funding for future roadway safety improvement projects, including some of those in the city’s
Safer Streets Plan. The California Department of Transportation recommends a city’s local
roadway safety plan be adopted by its city council, but it is not required for the city to be
eligible for the grants.
Staff recommend the City Council approve the resolution provided as Exhibit 1. The plan itself is
Attachment A to that exhibit.
1 The City Manager, who is also the Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a state of local emergency for bike,
e-bike and traffic safety on Aug. 23, 2022. The City Council ratified the proclamation seven days later. (Resolution
No. 2022-214) The City Council extended the emergency for an additional 60 days on Oct. 18, 2022. (Resolution
No. 2022-250)
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 1 of 161
Discussion
Background
The plan was funded by a $72,000 grant from the California Department of Transportation the
City Council approved in 2020 (Resolution No. 2020-196).
Staff developed the plan following the methodical process outlined by Caltrans to identify,
analyze and prioritize roadway safety improvements. The analysis provided various collision
statistics and identified locations where collisions are most frequent, collision patterns and
roadway safety trends across the city.
This process generated a list of safety improvement recommendations that integrate the “three
Es” approach, which stand for engineering, enforcement and education, to improve roadway
safety for the identified traffic safety issues and locations where collisions are most frequent.
The city has used this approach in developing its Safer Streets Plan2 during the current
emergency.
The Local Roadway Safety Plan is considered a living document that will be periodically
reviewed and updated every five years or less, or as requested by Caltrans. These updates will
include more recent collision data to reflect changing local needs and priorities.
Emergency efforts underway
Many traffic safety improvements are already underway as part of the city’s emergency efforts.
The following actions have either been completed, are already underway or are planned to
provide traffic safety enhancements for all modes of travel in Carlsbad. These actions are
consistent with the safety improvement recommendations provided in the Local Roadway
Safety Plan. These actions include:
• Implementation of green paint bike lane in conflict areas
• Installation of speed feedback signs and electronic message boards in areas where there
are more frequent collisions
• Implementation of leading pedestrian intervals at targeted signalized intersections
• Resurfacing and restriping on targeted streets, including Carlsbad Boulevard
In addition, the data city departments are collecting now as part of the emergency will be used
or reflected in future updates of the Local Roadway Safety Plan.
Citywide collision data analysis overview
The analysis of citywide collision data is intended to identify patterns and trends and specific
locations that would benefit from safety improvements. The analysis examined all reported
collisions that have occurred on local roadways in Carlsbad from January 2015 through
December 2019. (The analysis excluded collision data from 2020-2022 because traffic and travel
patterns for this period were an anomaly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Staff plan to analyze
this 2020-2022 data separately.)
The analysis also took into account data on the number of travel lanes on a roadway as well as
traffic signal locations, posted speed limits and traffic volumes.
2 The plan can be found at
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/11566/638013338210100000
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 2 of 161
The plan further reflects input from other city departments and from engagement with the
city’s traffic safety partners, including local school districts, the North County Transit District
and transportation advocacy groups.
The plan, with its recommendations, is provided as Attachment A to Exhibit 1, which is the
recommended City Council resolution.
Safety improvement recommendations
Based on the findings from the collision data analysis and input from the city’s traffic safety
partners, the following traffic safety issues – referred to in the roadway safety plan as “safety
enhancement areas” – were identified for pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic:
Pedestrians
• Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks
• Pedestrians failing to yield to drivers while crossing outside of crosswalks
Bicyclists
• Drivers failing to yield to bicyclists while the driver is making right turns
• Bicycle at-fault collisions due to unsafe speeds (primarily non-motor vehicle
collisions)
• Increases in e-bike use: people of varying bicycle skill levels are traveling
further and faster than ever before
Motorists
• Leading violations:
o Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions
o Failure to stop at stop line on pavement
o Driving under the influence, including underage DUI
• Leading crash types:
o Broadside collisions, at intersections and driveway locations
o Rear-end collisions, at mid-block approaching intersections
Many of these safety enhancement areas cannot be remedied with infrastructure
improvements. For these safety enhancement areas, the Local Roadway Safety Plan
recommends programs to improve traffic safety that are primarily focused on education and
enforcement strategies, some of which city staff and other safety partners have already taken
steps to initiate. These include:
• Safe Routes to School
• Bicycle education courses for regular bikers and e-bikers
• Youth driving under the influence
• Targeted driving under the influence enforcement
• Targeted speed enforcement
• Updating Police Department systems to identify and track e-bike-related incidents in
collision reports
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 3 of 161
For those safety enhancement areas that can be addressed with infrastructure safety
improvements, potential solutions can be found in Caltrans’s Local Roadway Safety Manual,
which recommends established countermeasures to reduce a certain type of collision to
improve roadway safety.
These countermeasures include:
Red light indicators,
small red lights on
the back of traffic
signals that enables
a police officer not
facing the signal to
know whether a
motorist has run a
red light
Overhead-mounted through
signal heads, used to add an
additional signal head on an
existing mast arm
Stop lines before
crosswalks, and high
visibility crosswalks to
enhance pedestrian safety
Retroreflective
backplate
borders, to
increase the
visibility of
traffic signals
Green-painted bike lanes to
increase their visibility in
areas where vehicle and
bicycle travel may conflict
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 4 of 161
The Local Roadway Safety Manual recommends the following infrastructure improvements as
countermeasures for citywide implementation to address five of the safety enhancement areas
identified in the Local Roadway Safety Plan.
Recommended
countermeasure Traffic safety enhancement area
Drivers
failing to
yield to
pedestrians
in crosswalks
Drivers
failing to
yield to
bicyclists
while
making
right-turn
Driver failure
to stop at the
limit line
Broadside
collisions
(intersections)
Rear end
collisions
(approaches to
intersections)
Retroreflective
backplate borders
Overhead-mounted
through signal head
Improve signal timing:
leading pedestrian
interval, coordination
Install pedestrian
crossing: high visibility
crosswalk
Install advance stop
line before crosswalk
Red light indicator
Green paint bike lane
in conflict areas
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 5 of 161
The state safety manual also recommends countermeasures for the safety enhancement areas
at the specific locations identified in the Local Roadway Safety Plan as having the most frequent
collisions during the period examined, January 2015 through December 2019:
Location Recommended countermeasure
Intersection
Roosevelt Street and Carlsbad Village
Drive
Curb extension
Advance stop line before crosswalk
Harding Street and Carlsbad Village
Drive
High visibility crosswalk
Curb extension
Advance stop line before crosswalk
Roosevelt Street and Grand Avenue
Curb extension
Advance stop line before crosswalk
Install leading pedestrian interval
El Camino Real and Palomar Airport
Road
Additional overhead-mounted signal heads
High visibility crosswalk
Advance stop line before crosswalk
Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport
Road
Additional overhead-mounted signal heads
High visibility crosswalk
Advance stop line before crosswalk
Carlsbad Boulevard and State Street Add intersection lighting
El Camino Real and Alga Road Additional overhead-mounted signal heads
Palomar Airport Road and Loker
Avenue/Innovation Way Additional overhead-mounted signal heads
Carlsbad Boulevard and Cerezo Drive
Install flashing beacons as advance warning
Green paint bike lane in conflict areas
Speed reduction markings
Segment
Paseo Del Norte, from Palomar
Airport Road to Camino Del
Parque/Sea Gate Road
Road reconfiguration including vehicle lane
reduction and buffer for bike lanes
Install new pedestrian crossing with rectangular
rapid flashing beacons and pedestrian refuge
island
Carlsbad Boulevard, from Carlsbad
Village Drive to Cannon Road
Road reconfiguration including vehicle lane
reduction and add buffer to bike lanes
Carlsbad Boulevard, from Tierra Del
Oro Street to La Costa Avenue Install multi-use path along west side of roadway
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 6 of 161
Traffic and Mobility Commission recommendation
Staff presented the draft Local Roadway Safety Plan to the Traffic and Mobility Commission for
its feedback on Sept. 6, 2022. The commission voted 5/0/0/2, with Chair Perez and
Commissioner Proulx absent, to include the following comments:
1) The Local Roadway Safety Plan report should highlight the issues with right-hook
collisions, specifically for vehicle versus bike collisions. (Right-hook collisions involve
vehicles turning right in conflict with a bicyclist proceeding straight.)
2) Consider adding the following additional locations to the priority project list:
a. The roadway segment of Carlsbad Village Drive between Harding Street and the
Interstate 5 southbound ramps
b. The intersection of El Camino Real and Faraday Avenue
c. The intersection of Alicante Road and Colina de la Costa
Staff have considered the comments provided by the Traffic and Mobility Commission and
updated the report accordingly. The approved minutes for the Sept. 6, 2022, Traffic and
Mobility Commission meeting are provided in Exhibit 2.
Options
Staff recommend the City Council adopt a resolution adopting the Local Roadway Safety Plan.
While Caltrans recommends city councils formally adopt their cities’ local roadway safety plans,
the City Council’s approval is not required for the city to be eligible for future Highway Safety
Improvement Program grant funding for safety improvement projects.
Fiscal Analysis
There is no cost involved in adopting the Local Roadway Safety Plan. The cost of developing the
plan was funded through a $72,000 grant from Caltrans with a requirement to provide $8,000
in matching funds from the city, which were drawn from the Traffic Engineering operating
budget.
Next Steps
Staff will submit the Local Roadway Safety Plan to Caltrans and watch for Highway Safety
Improvement Program grants the city could apply for to help fund its ongoing efforts to
improve traffic safety. Staff will continue to prioritize and program safety improvement projects
based on the collision data analysis and safety enhancement areas identified in the plan.
Environmental Evaluation
This action does not constitute a project within the meaning of the California Environmental
Quality Act under California Public Resources Code Section 21065 in that it has no potential to
cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment.
Public Notification
Public notice of this item was posted in keeping with the state’s Ralph M. Brown Act and it was
available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours before the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. City Council resolution
2. Approved minutes of the Sept. 6, 2022, Traffic and Mobility Commission meeting
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 7 of 161
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-265
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY
PLAN
WHEREAS, on Oct. 6, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-196, authorizing
execution of the Program Supplemental Agreement No. V28, with the California Department of
Transportation, or Caltrans, accepting local Roadway Safety Plan, or LRSP, grant funding in the amount
of $72,000 to prepare a LRSP; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP provides a framework for the city and stakeholders to identify, analyze and
prioritize roadway safety improvements to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on the local roadway
network; and
WHEREAS, completion of the LRSP qualifies the city to receive Highway Safety Improvement
Program grant funding for future roadway safety improvement projects; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP is a data-driven plan that involved a comprehensive analysis of citywide
collision data for a five-year period, from 2015 to 2019; and
WHEREAS, the process resulted in a list of safety improvement recommendations that integrate
the "three E's" approach, which stand for engineering, enforcement and education, to improve
roadway safety for the identified enhancement areas; and
WHEREAS, the plan is considered a living document that will be reviewed and updated
periodically to reflect changing local needs and priorities; and
WHEREAS, staff presented the draft LRSP to the Traffic and Mobility Commission for feedback
at the Sept. 6, 2022, meeting, in which the commission supported staff's recommendation and
provided additional comments; and
WHEREAS, staff have considered the comments received from the Traffic and Mobility
Commission and updated the report accordingly.
Exhibit 1
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 8 of 161
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1.That the above recitations are true and correct.
2.That the City Council adopts the City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan in
Attachment A.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 15th day of November, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Hall, Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Acosta, Norby.
None.
None.
MATT HALL, Mayor
WAVIOLA MEDINA, City Clerk Services Manager
-v·-{SEAL)
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 9 of 161
Prepared For Prepared By
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
CR Associates
3900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92103
CITY OF CARLSBAD
OCTOBER 2022
Local Roadway Safety Plan
OCTOBER 2022
Attachment A
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 10 of 161
{city of
Carlsbad C R
ASSOCIAT E S
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page i
Statement of Protection of Data from Discovery and Admissions
Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code [23 U.S.C. §145(h) (4)]:
REPORTS DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS, SURVEYS, AND
INFORMATION – Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or
data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery
or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in
any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the
reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 11 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page ii
Acknowledgements
City Staff
Tom Frank, Transportation Director/City Engineer
John Kim, City Traffic Engineer
Miriam Jim, Senior Engineer
Lindy Pham, Associate Engineer
Traffic & Mobility Commission
Nathan Schmidt, Staff Liaison
Brandon Perez, Chair
Steve Linke, Vice Chair
Josh Coelho
Bill Fowler
Edward Newlands
Peter Penseyres
Diane Proulx
Stakeholder Working Group
Randy Metz, City of Carlsbad Fire Department
Jason Jackowski, City of Carlsbad Police Department
Steve Thomas, City of Carlsbad Police Department
Michael O’Brien, City of Carlsbad Public Works Branch, Streets Division
Dr. William Fowler, City of Carlsbad Traffic and Mobility Commisssion
Peter Penseyres, City of Carlsbad Traffic and Mobility Commission
Manieh Varner, Caltrans
Dr. Benjamin Churchill, Carlsbad Unified School District
Eric Kroenke, Carlsbad Unified School District
Eric Smith, Encinitas Unified School District
Scot Loeschke, North County Transit District
Andy Hanshawy, San Diego Bicycle Coalition
Tina Douglas, San Dieguito Unified School District
Tova Cormen, San Marcos Unified School District
Mike Sawyer, San Marcos Unified School District
Consultant
CR Associates
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 12 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page iii
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 LRSP Development Process ........................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Safety Partners ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 LRSP Vision and Goals ................................................................................................................ 3
2.0 Data Summary .............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Collision Database ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Data Findings ............................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Strategic Highway Safety Plan Challenge Areas ..................................................................... 27
2.4 Enhancement Areas ................................................................................................................. 27
3.0 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 29
3.1 Programmatic ............................................................................................................................ 29
3.2 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 31
4.0 Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 41
4.1 Benefit/Cost Ratios .................................................................................................................. 41
4.2 Funding Sources ....................................................................................................................... 43
4.3 Implementation with Maintenance .......................................................................................... 45
4.4 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 45
Appendix A - Descriptive Statistics Analysis ........................................................................................ 46
Appendix B - Intersection & Segment Analysis .................................................................................... 47
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 13 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page iv
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Citywide Crash Tree (2015 – 2019) ........................................................................................ 7
Figure 2-2 Collisions by Year and Mode (2015 – 2021) ......................................................................... 8
Figure 2-3 Collisions by Year and Level of Injury Severity (2015 – 2021) .......................................... 8
Figure 2-4 Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location ................................................ 10
Figure 2-5 Pedestrian Involved Collisions (2015 – 2019) .................................................................... 11
Figure 2-6 Pedestrian Collision Party at-Fault by Roadway Location .................................................. 13
Figure 2-7 Pedestrian Collision Violation Code Comparison ................................................................ 14
Figure 2-8 Bicycle Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location ....................................................... 15
Figure 2-9 Bicycle Involved Collisions (2015 – 2019) ........................................................................... 16
Figure 2-10 Bicycle Collision Party at-Fault by Roadway Location ......................................................... 18
Figure 2-11 Bicycle Collisions by Motor Vehicle Involvement (2015 – 2019) .................................... 19
Figure 2-12 Bicycle Collisions Without a Motor Vehicle by Object Involved With ............................... 20
Figure 2-13 Bicycle Collision Violation Code Comparison ....................................................................... 20
Figure 2-14 Vehicular Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location ................................................... 21
Figure 2-15 Vehicle-Only Collisions (2015 – 2019) .................................................................................. 22
Figure 2-16 Vehicle-Only Collision Heat Map (2015 – 2019) ................................................................. 23
Figure 2-17 Vehicular Collision Violation Code Comparison ................................................................... 25
Figure 2-18 Vehicular Collisions by Level of Sobriety ............................................................................... 26
Figure 3-1 Countermeasure Locations ...................................................................................................... 36
List of Tables
Table 2-1 California OTS Crash Ranking Comparison for 2018 ........................................................... 9
Table 2-2 Intersections with Multiple Pedestrian Collisions (2015 – 2019)................................... 12
Table 2-3 Intersections with Multiple Pedestrian Collisions (2015 – 2019)................................... 12
Table 2-4 Driver at-Fault Pedestrian Intersection Collisions by Driver Movement ......................... 14
Table 2-5 Intersections with Multiple Bicycle Collisions (2015 – 2019) .......................................... 17
Table 2-6 Segments with >2 Bicycle Collisions (2015 – 2019) ......................................................... 17
Table 2-7 Vehicular Intersection Collision Frequency (2015 – 2019) .............................................. 24
Table 2-8 Vehicular Collision Crash Type by Roadway Location ......................................................... 24
Table 2-9 Vehicular Collision Crash Type by Injury Severity ................................................................ 25
Table 3-1 Citywide Countermeasure Summary ...................................................................................... 34
Table 3-2 Countermeasure Summary by Location ................................................................................ 35
Table 4-1 Benefit Cost Ratio Summary .................................................................................................... 42
Table 4-2 Monitoring Data Topics ............................................................................................................. 45
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 14 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
The State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) administers the Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP) Program as part of the statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). LRSPs
provide local agencies an opportunity to understand and address unique safety needs in their
jurisdictions while contributing to the success of the SHSP. Additionally, all agencies are now
required to have a LRSP to be eligible for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds.
LRSPs establish a framework to systematically analyze and identify areas where transportation
safety can be improved and recommend specific safety improvements. The process facilitates
development of local partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a prioritized list of multimodal mobility improvements and actions that will contribute to improved roadway safety.
In 2020, the City of Carlsbad was awarded grant funding from the State of California to prepare an
LRSP. The City embarked on development of this LRSP in 2021 to improve transportation safety for
all road users, with a specific focus on pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers.
The LRSP is aligned with the goals and policies set forth in the City of Carlsbad General Plan Mobility
Element (2015), which emphasizes multimodal safety in the policies and planned programs,
strategies, and transportation networks. The LRSP is one of many tools being used to implement the
guidance established in the Mobility Element.
Mobility Element policy language excerpts that this LRSP helps address includes the following:
3-G.1 “Keep Carlsbad moving with livable streets that provide a safe, balanced, cost-
effective, multimodal transportation system (vehicles, pedestrians, bikes, transit),
accommodating the mobility needs of all community members, including children, the elderly
and the disabled.”
3-P.17 “Consider innovative design and program solutions to improve the mobility, efficiency,
connectivity, and safety of the transportation system…”
1.2 LRSP Development Process
This document provides a review of five years of collision records and recommends a series of
programmatic recommendations and infrastructure safety improvements. The analysis provides a
“snapshot in time” of collisions and trends and is intended to be updated as new data becomes
available. Collision data was compared across roadway environments citywide, resulting in the
identification of intersections and segments with relatively higher collision frequencies and rates.
Locations with higher collision frequencies were then reviewed to identify site-specific trends and recommend improvements. No locations were identified as hazardous or requiring immediate
attention.
The following flow chart illustrates the key project phases and associated components undertaken
throughout the LRSP development. Combined, these deliverables resulted in the LRSP document.
Data Collection
o Data Processing o Collision Dashboard
Collision Analysis
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 15 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 2
o Descriptive statistics analysis o Intersection and segment analysis o Collision matrix
Recommendations o Programmatic
o Citywide infrastructure o Site-specific infrastructure
Implementation o Cost estimates
o Benefit/cost ratios o Implementation considerations
1.3 Safety Partners
Identifying multimodal issues and safety countermeasures included consideration of topics related
to engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services. Thus, this effort involved the
collaboration of various City departments, as well as external stakeholders, to discuss issues and
potential solutions. Representative from the following organizations and departments participated in
the development of the LRSP:
City of Carlsbad, Public Works Branch, Transportation Department, Traffic & Mobility Division
City of Carlsbad, Public Works Branch, Transportation Department, Streets Division
City of Carlsbad Police Department
City of Carlsbad Fire Department
City of Carlsbad Traffic and Mobility Commission
Caltrans
Carlsbad Unified School District
Encinitas Unified School District
San Marcos Unified School District
San Dieguito Union High School District
North County Transit District
Walk + Bike Carlsbad / San Diego County Bike Coalition
The role of stakeholders was to represent their unique perspective as it relates to transportation
safety, help identify pressing safety topics, shape the vision of the LRSP, and strategize on safety
recommendations. Four stakeholder meetings were held over the course of the project. The
meetings were organized around the following topics:
Meeting 1 – Stakeholder role, LRSP background information, initial collision analysis
findings, stakeholder safety priorities
Meeting 2 – Project vision and goals, proposed focus areas, programmatic recommendations
Meeting 3 – Infrastructure recommendations
Meeting 4 – HSIP Grant Cycle 11, benefit/cost ratio results, final document outline
From the stakeholder’s perspective, the most pressing transportation safety issue facing Carlsbad
today is the rapid, exponential growth in electric bikes (E-bikes). Stakeholders referenced 2020 as
the year E-bike increases started to become most evident. People of varying bicycle skill levels are
travelling further and faster than ever before. With this increase in activity comes potential increases
in conflicts and new needs.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 16 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 3
However, collision data reporting was identified as one issue related to E-bike safety. The collision
data utilized in this analysis and regularly presented to the Traffic and Mobility Commission did not
previously distinguish between electric and non-electric bicycles. This information is critical to understanding potential trends in collision causes and locations associated with E-bikes. The
Carlsbad Police Department was very responsive to this data need, initiating new bicycle collision
reporting procedures and training for officers. The response will ensure the E-bike distinction is
available in future data. This is one example of the value in stakeholder collaboration.
Additionally, in March 2022, the City of Carlsbad amended Title 10, Chapter 10.56 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, adding sections to regulate bicycles, electric bicycles, electric personal assistive
mobility devices, electronically motorized boards, low-speed vehicles, motorized scooters, share
mobility devices and other similar vehicles. The ordinance establishes definitions for E-bikes and the
other regulated mobility devices and prohibitions on where they can be used. It also requires riders
to use due care, reduce speed when necessary for safety, and follow all rules of the road.
1.4 LRSP Vision and Goals
The LRSP vision statement is an idealized description of future success. It is what this project strives
to accomplish. A series of goals supplement the vision, identifying more specific desired outcomes.
Actions identify steps that the City can undertake to work towards the goals and overall vision.
Vision Statement
A multimodal transportation system that is safe and efficient for all people.
Goal #1 – Data
Maintain accurate and informative collision data.
Actions:
Continue to regularly update the City's Crossroads collision database.
Coordinate with law enforcement to ensure collisions involving electric bikes are
distinguishable from those involving standard bikes.
Ensure data can capture emerging transportation trends.
Goal #2 – Engage
Regularly engage with partner agencies, stakeholders, advocacy groups, and the public to inform
transportation safety needs.
Actions:
Hold Traffic and Mobility Commission meetings as a forum to discuss transportation issues.
Coordinate with the Carlsbad Police Department regarding enforcement issues.
Coordinate with the Carlsbad Fire Department to make traffic safety a component of the
Community Risk Reduction Program.
Coordinate with the school districts to understand transportation issues surrounding schools
and safety education opportunities.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 17 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 4
Coordinate with organizations such as the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition and League of
American Bicyclists to offer state of the practice educational opportunities1.
Coordinate with the judicial system to explore the potential for a bicycle ticket diversion program to allow cited people to avoid court appearances and fines if they successfully
complete a bike safety class.2
Goal #3 – Analyze
Analyze safety data to identify potential issues and locations where safety could be enhanced.
Actions:
Identify citywide safety issues that may be addressed through programmatic means (education or enforcement).
Identify intersections and segments with the greatest collision frequency for each travel
mode (pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle).
Review high collision frequency locations to identify trends in crash types or violations.
Goal #4 – Recommend
Use safety analysis findings to identify safety enhancements.
Actions:
Maintain a prioritized set of safety projects.
Evaluate the need for educational and enforcement programs to address safety issues.
Goal #5 – Implement
Pursue funding to implement safety recommendations.
Actions:
Continue to allocate CIP funding towards prioritized projects that enhance multimodal
transportation safety.
Stay current with available grant sources and application periods to pursue funding for
competitive projects.
Goal #6 – Monitor
Conduct pre- and post-project assessments to understand the effectiveness of safety
enhancements.
Actions:
Analyze collision frequency before and after project implementation.
Conduct multimodal counts before and after project implementation.
1 California Assembly Bill 1946 (AB 1946) requires the California Highway Patrol to develop, on or before September 1, 2023, statewide
safety and training programs for electric bicycle users, including, but not limited to, general electric bicycle riding safety, emergency
maneuver skills, rules of the road, and laws pertaining to electric bicycles.
2 Carlsbad Municipal Code section 10.56.030 enables safety courses in lieu of fines or citations: “10.56.030 Enforcement. In lieu of a fine or administrative citation as authorized by this code, and in lieu of filing charges in any court having jurisdiction over a violation, the police chief or designee may allow a violator of this chapter to complete a police department provided safety course for regulated mobility devices.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 18 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 5
2.0 Data Summary
2.1 Collision Database
A citywide collision dataset was obtained from the City of Carlsbad’s Crossroads database for the
five-year period from January 2015 through December 2019. Prior to database construction and
analysis, the accuracy of the data was reviewed. The review process resulted in a database of 3,030
records.
The 3,030 collision records were further reviewed to identify and separate records resulting in an
injury from those that resulted in property damage only (PDO). A total of 1,683 injury collision records
were obtained for the five-year study period, including 108 severe injury or fatal collisions.
The 1,683 spatially referenced injury collision records were assigned to one of two location
categories: intersection or mid-block. Location assignment was based on the intersection offset
distance indicated in each record’s attributes. Collision points within 50 feet of an intersection node
were categorized as intersection collisions. All remaining collisions were categorized as midblock
collisions. This approach takes into consideration the influence intersection characteristics may have
on records within this distance. The 50 feet offset distance is within the threshold identified by
Caltrans’s HSIP, which permits collisions up to 250 feet from an intersection to be used in the
determination of benefit/cost ratios for intersection countermeasures.
Other City maintained transportation datasets, including travel lanes, traffic signals, posted speed
limits, and traffic volumes were utilized in tandem with aerial imagery to populate roadway
characteristics and infrastructure data for the 1,683 spatially referenced collision records. SANDAG’s
Transportation Forecast Information Center (TFIC) Series 14 Base Year 2016 data was also
referenced for additional traffic volume estimates. The type of traffic control and size of intersection
(based on number of through-lanes in the approaching roadways) were collected and attributed to the location of each intersection collision. Posted speed limit, number of travel lanes, median
presence, and average daily traffic volumes attributed for each midblock collision.
COVID-19
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic greatly influenced daily life in Carlsbad
and throughout the world. Significant measures were undertaken to prevent transmission of the
disease beginning in March 2020. Social or physical distancing was one of the measures intended to
slow the spread of the disease, resulting in the closure of many schools, workplaces, recreational
and entertainment venues, and shopping centers.
The closures eliminated daily work and school commutes for many, altering travel behaviors and
reducing vehicular activity. For example, estimated daily trips in San Diego County went from 12.2 million in February 2020 (pre-COVID-19 conditions) to 6.9 million in July 2020 (COVID-19
conditions)3. Therefore, 2020 collision data was excluded from the full collision analysis to avoid
irregular travel patterns. However, in response to input received from stakeholders involved in
development of this LRSP, year 2020 and 2021 collision data was obtained from Carlsbad’s
Crossroads database and incorporated into some sections of this report.
3 “Daily Travel during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.” Daily Travel during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency | Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2022. https://www.bts.gov/daily-travel.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 19 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 6
2.2 Data Findings
Two deliverables were produced to review the collision data:
A Descriptive Statistics Analysis was developed to identify citywide trends amongst collision
records, including an examination of collision causes, violations, movements, and roadway
characteristics for each travel mode (pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers).
The Intersection and Segment Analysis identifies collision rates and frequencies at individual
locations across Carlsbad. A supplemental focus was placed on the locations with the
highest collision frequencies.
The Descriptive Statistics Analysis and Intersection and Segment Analysis reports are included as
Appendix A and B, respectively. The remainder of this chapter summarizes findings from the two
analyses.
Citywide Crash Tree
Figure 2-1 provides a crash tree overview of the 1,683 injury collisions, depicting the location type
and mode, as well as number of severe injury or fatal collisions for each travel mode. The crash tree
illustrates a nearly even split between intersection (52%) and mid-block (48%) collisions, however, a
larger share of severe injury and fatal collisions were reported at mid-block locations (62%).
When comparing collision severity between modes:
Pedestrians made up approximately 9% of intersection collisions yet accounted for almost a
quarter (24%) of severe injury/fatal collisions. Similarly, pedestrians accounted for 6% of
mid-block collisions but 21% of severe injury/fatal collisions.
Bicyclists accounted for 13% yet 21% of severe injury/fatal collisions at mid-block locations.
Collisions by Year
Figure 2-2 displays collisions by mode for each of the five study years plus the two supplemental
COVID data years. During the five-year study period (2015 – 2019) collisions for bikes, vehicles, and all modes combined peaked in 2016. The yearly comparison does not yield any discernable patterns,
with collisions for each mode increasing and decreasing throughout the five-year period.
Pedestrian collisions ranged from 23 collisions in 2018 to 31 collisions in 2019
Bicycle collisions ranged from 24 collisions in 2019 to 47 collisions in 2016
Vehicular collisions ranged from 246 collisions in 2017 to 319 collisions in 2016
The supplemental 2020 and 2021 data years included the lowest pedestrian collision frequency
(2020), yet the highest bicycle collision frequencies (2020 and 2021). The high bicycle collision
frequency is consistent with stakeholder descriptions of increased E-bike and bicycle activity.
Vehicular collisions and total collisions for all modes combined during 2020 and 2021 were similar
to the analyzed five-year (2015-2019) data.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 20 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 7
Figure 2-1 Citywide Crash Tree (2015 – 2019) Nov. 15, 2022Item #14 Page 21 of 161C R
Intersection
878 (52.2%)
41 (38%)
i ~·
Pedestrian Bicycle
80(9.1%) 74 (8.4%)
10 (24.4%) 4 (9.8%)
Black: All Injury Collisions
Red: Severe/Fatal Collisions
i
Vehicle-Only
724 (82.5%)
27 (65.9%)
% is calculated based on the total of the previous row
5-Years Citywide
Collisions (2015-2019)
3,030
•r
Injury Collisions
1,683
108
I
+
Property Damage
Only (PDO) Collsions
1,347
Mid-Block
805 (47.8%)
67 (62%)
i ~, i
Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle-Only
49(6.1%) 106 (13.2%) 650 (80.7%)
14 (20.9%) 14 (20.9%) 39 (58.2%)
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 8
Figure 2-2 Collisions by Year and Mode (2015 – 2021)
Figure 2-3 shows collisions by year and level of injury severity. Combined, severe injury and fatal
collisions ranged between 5% of all collisions in 2015 to 8% in 2019. The severe injury/fatal collision
rate continued during the two supplemental data years with 7% in 2020 and 8% in 2021.
Figure 2-3 Collisions by Year and Level of Injury Severity (2015 – 2021)
24 26 25 23 31 17 263447393624
56 85
276
319
246 266 267
210
249
334
392
310 325 322
283
360
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle-Only Total
168
219
161 173 163
137
182
148 151
127 132 133 126
151
14 18 18 15 22 16 24
4 4 4 5 4 4 3
0
50
100
150
200
250
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Supplemental Data
Supplemental Data
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 22 of 161
C R
■I ■I ■I ■I •• .I .I
■ ■ ■ ■
------------------(
•--■---■--·--■---I _________________ (
■ ■ ■ ■
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 9
California Office of Traffic Safety Rankings
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) provides comparisons of traffic safety statistics among
cities with similar sized populations. This data can help build an understanding of which areas cities
are doing well in or may need improvement. The most recent year of OTS data during this LRSP’s
composition was 2018.
With an estimated 2018 population of 113,365, the City of Carlsbad falls within Group B, which
includes 59 cities with population sizes between 100,001 – 250,000. Additional cities in San Diego
County categorized in Group B include Oceanside, Vista, Escondido, and El Cajon.
Table 2-1 displays the OTS rankings for Carlsbad and the other Group B cities in San Diego County. The rankings depict two numbers: the first number is the city’s ranking in that category, while the
second number is the total number of cities within that Group. Number 1 in the rankings is the
highest or worst, while 59 would be the lowest or best for Group B.
By comparison, areas that may be noteworthy in Carlsbad include collisions involving bicyclists and
collisions involving drivers that have been drinking under the age of 21. Bicycle collisions may be
addressed through a combination of engineering, education, and enforcement related measures.
Underage drinking drivers could be addressed through enforcement and education programs.
Table 2-1 California OTS Crash Ranking Comparison for 20184
Type of Crash Carlsbad Oceanside Vista Escondido El Cajon
Total Fatal and Injury 47/59 36/59 56/59 9/59 4/59
Alcohol Involved 40/59 17/59 34/59 8/59 13/59
Has Been Drinking Driver < 21 8/59 5/59 35/59 3/59 26/59
Has Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 38/59 13/59 33/59 8/59 29/59
Motorcycles 33/59 3/59 20/59 6/59 2/59
Pedestrians 26/59 40/59 44/59 12/59 2/59
Pedestrians < 15 30/59 46/59 51/59 18/59 2/59
Pedestrians 65+ 37/59 52/59 46/59 18/59 3/59
Bicyclists 5/59 22/59 52/59 23/59 8/59
Bicyclists < 15 30/59 41/59 36/59 29/59 21/59
Composite 39/59 10/59 42/59 10/59 13/59
Speed Related 36/59 7/59 58/59 15/59 9/59
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 56/59 12/59 45/59 26/59 7/59
Hit and Run 36/59 31/59 46/59 25/59 5/59
Source: California Office of Traffic Safety (2021)
4 OTS provides the following description as to how the rankings are determined:
“Crash rankings are based on the Empirical Bayesian Ranking Method, which adds weights to different statistical categories including observed crash counts, population and vehicle miles traveled. The crash counts reflect the aggregated impacts of all influential factors containing even the unrecognized or unmeasurable ones (e.g. level of enforcement), and the population and vehicle miles traveled represent the important traffic exposure factors that affect crash occurrence. The weights are assigned to the three components in a way that maximizes the precision of estimated Bayesian crash counts.”
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 23 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 10
Pedestrian Collisions
A total of 129 pedestrian-involved collisions were reported during the five-year study period (2015 –
2019). Understanding trends amongst the roadway locations (intersection or mid-block) and types of
intersection control (signalized, all-way stop-controlled, etc.) where the pedestrian collisions are
occurring can inform potential needs. Figure 2-4 displays injury severity by roadway location for the
pedestrian collisions. 62% of the collisions were reported as occurring at an intersection (80/129),
including 43 records at signalized intersections and 28 at side-street stop-controlled intersections.
Six pedestrian collisions resulted in a fatality, split evenly among signalized intersections, stop-
controlled intersections, and mid-block locations. Severe injury/fatal collisions combined were
concentrated at mid-block locations (14/24), accounted for 19% of pedestrian-involved collisions, the highest of all three travel modes.
Figure 2-4 Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Figure 2-5 displays pedestrian collisions across Carlsbad, differentiating between those that
occurred at intersection and mid-block locations. The greatest collision concentrations are visible
within the Village and coastal areas where relatively high levels of pedestrian activity are common.
As shown, two or more pedestrian collisions were reported at ten different intersections, including
two locations with three collisions and two locations with four collisions.
15
1
8
2
8
23
3
15
1 2
27
3 3
12
2 2 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 24 of 161
C R
■ ■ ■ ■
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 11
Figure 2-5 Pedestrian Involved Collisions (2015 – 2019)
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 25 of 161
C R
Oceanside
Pacific
Ocean
"
•
•
• •
A • Hedoat»
L
Intersection Pedestrian Collisions .4
• 3
• 2
•
• Nlidblock Pedestrian Collision
School
• • •
•
• •
•
•
Pacific
Ocean
Encinitas
•
~ %.
"'<J)-
0
" ~"'' • C,~~,"~
•
•
""0 ~'l>~ -...~<ffP
0.5
San
Marcos
1 Miles
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 12
Table 2-2 identifies the ten intersections where two or more pedestrian-involved collisions were
reported. An additional 54 unique intersections each experienced a single pedestrian collision. The
intersections are largely concentrated within the Village area and just to the south.
Table 2-2 Intersections with Multiple Pedestrian Collisions (2015 – 2019)
Location Pedestrian Vehicle Bike
All
Modes
Severe/
Fatal
Roosevelt Street & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) 4 2 1 7 -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Hemlock Avenue (side street stop) 4 1 - 5 1
Roosevelt Street & Grand Avenue (signalized) 3 - - 3 -
Harding Street & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) 3 4 1 8 -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Oak Avenue (side street stop) 2 - 2 4 -
Washington Street & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) 2 3 1 6 1
Carlsbad Boulevard & Maple Avenue (side street stop) 2 1 - 3 -
Adams Street & Magnolia Avenue (all way stop) 2 - - 2 -
Paseo Del Norte & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) 2 7 - 9 -
Faraday Avenue & College Boulevard (signalized) 2 7 - 9 1
Table 2-3 displays the seven segments where multiple pedestrian collisions were reported. These
seven segments account for approximately 35% (17/49) of mid-block pedestrian collisions. An
additional 26 segments each experienced a single pedestrian collisions.
Table 2-3 Intersections with Multiple Pedestrian Collisions (2015 – 2019)
Street From To Length (miles) Pedestrian Vehicle Bike All Modes Severe/ Fatal
Carlsbad
Boulevard
Tamarack
Avenue Cannon Road 1.18 3 13 5 21 4
Carlsbad
Village Drive
Harding
Street I-5 SB Ramps 0.12 3 7 3 13 -
Paseo Del
Norte
Palomar
Airport Road
Camino De
Las Ondas 1.15 3 7 1 11 2
Paseo Del
Norte
Car Country
Drive
Palomar
Airport Road 0.50 2 8 2 12 -
Carlsbad
Boulevard Island Way Breakwater
Road 0.42 2 - 1 3 1
Palomar Airport Road Paseo Del Norte Armada Drive 0.32 2 11 - 13 -
Magnolia
Avenue
Pio Pico
Drive
Monroe
Street 0.79 2 - - 2 -
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 26 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 13
Examining the collision roadway locations by party at-fault further informs potential needs. Figure 2-6
displays the party at-fault by roadway location. Drivers were largely reported as the party at-fault for
collisions occurring at intersections (71% or 55 of the 77 records where fault was assigned), with the greatest share occurring at signalized intersections (80% or 32 of the 40 records where fault was
assigned). The following signalized intersections experienced multiple pedestrian-involved collisions
where the driver was reported as at-fault:
Carlsbad Village Drive & Roosevelt Street (4 collisions)
Carlsbad Village Drive & Harding Street (3 collisions)
Grand Avenue & Roosevelt Street (3 collisions)
The following side-street stop-controlled intersections experienced multiple pedestrian-involved
collisions where the driver was reported as at-fault:
Carlsbad Boulevard & Hemlock Avenue (4 collisions)
Carlsbad Boulevard & Oak Avenue (2 collisions)
Pedestrians were the leading party at-fault at mid-block locations (60% or 28 of the 46 records
where fault was assigned). Three of the 28 pedestrian at-fault mid-block collisions were reported on
Paseo Del Norte ranging from 860 to 1,000 feet south of Palomar Airport Road. Corridors with
multiple pedestrian at-fault mid-block collisions include:
El Camino Real (4 collisions)
Palomar Airport Road (3 collisions)
Carlsbad Boulevard (3 collisions)
Carlsbad Village Drive (3 collisions)
Grand Avenue (2 collisions)
Figure 2-6 Pedestrian Collision Party at-Fault by Roadway Location
32
3
17
3
17
1
8
1
11
1 1
28
3 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Driver Bicyclist Pedestrian No Fault Assigned
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 27 of 161
C R
■ I ■
■ ■ ■ ■
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 14
Table 2-4 displays the driver movement for the 55 pedestrian-involved collisions reported at
intersections where the driver was the party at-fault. Drivers Making Left-Turn was the most
frequently reported movement, largely concentrated at signalized intersections. Four of the 14 Making Left-Turn movements at signalized intersections were reported at the intersection of
Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt Street.
Table 2-4 Driver at-Fault Pedestrian Intersection Collisions by Driver Movement
Driver Movement
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-Controlled
Intersection
Uncontrolled
Intersection Total
Making Left-Turn 14 2 3 - 19
Making Right-Turn 9 4 - - 13
Proceeding Straight 3 9 - 1 13
Not Stated 3 1 - 1 5
Backing 2 - - 1 3
Slowing/Stopping 1 - - - 1
Other - 1 - - 1
Total 17 17 3 3 55
Violation codes are assigned by the reporting officer, indicating which California Vehicle Code was
violated that resulted in the collision. This information helps demonstrate which actions are resulting
in collisions and can be used to develop citywide or site-specific safety countermeasures. Figure 2-7
compares violation codes for severe injury and fatal collisions to the violations assigned to all
pedestrian injury collisions.
The violation code with the highest number of collisions assigned (32) was 21950(a), the driver
failing to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway. The most frequent violation
code among severe and fatal injury collisions (11) was 21954(a), pedestrians failing to yield the
right-of-way vehicles outside a crosswalk.
Figure 2-7 Pedestrian Collision Violation Code Comparison
21950(a) -Driver failed to yield; 30%
21954(a) -Ped failed to yield;
25%
22350 -Unsafe speed; 5%21950(b) -Pedestrian hazard; 5%
22107 -Unsafedriver movement;
4%
22106 -
Unsafe driver
start; 3%
21453(a) -
Driver failed to stop; 2%
Other/Not
Stated; 26%
All Injury Collisions
21950(a) -Driver
failed to yield; 8%
21954(a) -Ped failed to yield; 46%21950(b) -Pedestrian
hazard; 13%
22107 -
Unsafe driver
movement; 8%
22106 -Unsafe
driver start; 4%
Other/Not
Stated; 21%
Severe/Fatal Injury Collisions
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 28 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 15
Bicycle Collisions
A total of 180 bicycle-involved collisions were reported during the study period (2015 – 2019).
Figure 2-8 displays bicycle collision injury severity by roadway location. Combined, 10% (18
collisions) of the 180 bicycle-involved collisions resulted in a severe injury or fatal collision, the
second highest severe injury/fatal rate of the three travel modes.
Over half of bicycle-involved collisions (59% or 106 of the 180 records) were reported at mid-block
locations, including the only two fatalities and 12 of the 16 severe injury collisions. The remining four
severe injury collisions were reported at side-street stop-controlled intersections (three collisions)
and signalized intersections (one collision). Of the 106 mid-block bicycle collisions, 90 collisions
occurred along roadways with bike lanes and two along roadways with bike routes.
Intersection collisions were closely split between signalized and side-street stop-controlled
intersections, accounting for 19% and 17% of all bicycle-involved collisions, respectively. Bicycle
facility presence was not reviewed at intersection locations due to the absence of facilities within the
intersection.
Figure 2-8 Bicycle Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Figure 2-9 displays bicycle collisions across Carlsbad, differentiating between those that occurred at
intersection and mid-block locations. Nine intersections experienced two or more bicycle collisions.
Five of the multi-collision locations are intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard where relatively high
bicycle activity is common.
11
1
11
1922
2
17
2 4
73
1 3
12
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 29 of 161
C R
---
■ ■ ■ ■
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 16
Figure 2-9 Bicycle Involved Collisions (2015 – 2019)
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 30 of 161
C R
•
C> • <I!,. \~• .. • • '\1·. •
-~ -~ • • • • Jwu• --
Pacific
Ocean
Intersection Bicycle Collisions .4
• 2
•
• Nlidblock Bicycle Collision
School
CJ "-'
•
•
•
•
•
Encinitas
0
•
• •
~0::-• ~
"'<$,
•
•
•
0
• <:>' .f..~?>~e •
,,o "~ '5,'"
•
•
0.5
,'=>' \J~e~,'(I..~ •
•
San
Marcos
•
•
1 Miles
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 17
Table 2-5 identifies the nine intersections where two or more bicycle collisions were reported. Five
intersections are along Carlsbad Boulevard. The Carlsbad Boulevard/Cerezo Drive intersection
experienced four bicycle collisions - the highest collision frequency citywide. All four collisions occurred when the bicyclist was traveling northbound. The roundabout controlled intersection of
Carlsbad Boulevard/State Street was also identified as one of the leading intersections for vehicles
and all modes combined, however, no severe injury/fatal collisions were reported for any mode at
the location. This aligns with one of the intended benefits of roundabouts, to reduce injury severity.
Table 2-5 Intersections with Multiple Bicycle Collisions (2015 – 2019)
Location Bike Vehicle Pedestrian
All
Modes
Severe/
Fatal
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive (signalized) 4 5 - 9 -
Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street (roundabout) 2 12 1 15 -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Oak Avenue (side street stop) 2 - 2 4 -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Shore Drive (S) (side street stop) 2 2 - 4 -
Celinda Drive & Carlsbad Village Drive (side street stop) 2 1 - 3 -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Poinsettia Lane (signalized) 2 2 - 4 -
Piraeus Street & La Costa Avenue (signalized) 2 4 - 6 -
Cassia Road & Poinsettia Lane (signalized) 2 3 - 5 1
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Avenida Soledad (signalized) 2 5 - 7 -
Table 2-6 identifies the eight segments where more than two mid-block bicycle collisions were
reported. Combined, these segments account for over 30% (32/106) of mid-block bicycle collisions.
The three segments with the greatest collision frequency are located along Carlsbad Boulevard
Table 2-6 Segments with >2 Bicycle Collisions (2015 – 2019)
Street From To
Length
(miles) Bike Vehicle Pedestrian
All
Modes
Severe/
Fatal
Carlsbad
Boulevard
Solamar
Drive Island Way 0.68 7 7 1 15 5
Carlsbad Boulevard Tamarack Avenue Cannon Road 1.18 5 13 3 21 4
Carlsbad
Boulevard
Avenida
Encinas
La Costa
Avenue 0.67 5 2 - 7 3
Carlsbad
Village Drive
Harding
Street
I-5 SB
Ramps 0.12 3 7 3 13 -
La Costa Avenue Saxony Street El Camino Real 1.13 3 9 1 13 -
La Costa
Avenue
Piraeus
Street
Saxony
Road 0.57 3 5 - 8 1
El Camino
Real
Lisa Street/
W Ranch St
Cannon
Road 0.37 3 1 - 4 -
Chestnut Ave Pio Pico Drive Monroe Road 0.80 3 - - 3 1
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 31 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 18
Figure 2-10 displays the party at-fault by roadway location. Drivers were more commonly at-fault
during collisions occurring at signalized intersection locations (61% or 20 of the 33 signalized intersection collisions where fault was assigned). Bicyclists were more commonly at-fault during mid-
block collisions (72% or 59 of the 82 mid-block collisions where fault was assigned).
Of the 14 severe injury/fatal collisions that occurred at mid-block locations, seven were reported as
bicyclist at-fault, five as driver at-fault, and no fault assigned for the remaining two. Five of those
seven bicyclist at-fault collisions occurred along Carlsbad Boulevard, due to unsafe speeds, unsafe
turning movements, or following too closely.
The most frequent driver movements reported for the 69 total driver at-fault collisions include:
Making right-turn (17 collisions)
Making left-turn (8 collisions)
Proceeding straight (5 collisions)
Other (ex., backing, entering traffic, U-turn, other) (6 collisions)
The most frequent bicyclist movements reported for the 93 total bicyclist at-fault collisions include:
Proceeding straight (66 collisions)
Changing lanes (8 collisions)
Making left-turn (5 collisions)
Other (ex., right-turn, merging, wrong way, slowing/stopping, other) (14 collisions)
Figure 2-10 Bicycle Collision Party at-Fault by Roadway Location
Of the 180 bicycle collisions, 65 did not involve a motor vehicle (36%). Bicycle-involved collisions can
involve a bicyclist and motorist(s), multiple bicyclists, or a single bicyclist. Figure 2-11 distinguishes
between collisions that involved a driver and those that did not. In the Village area, collisions largely
involved a motor vehicle, whereas bike-only collisions were more common along Carlsbad Boulevard
south of Tamarack Avenue. It should be noted, while a vehicle was not reported as involved in the
actual collisions for the 65 records, a vehicle may have influenced the collision.
20
1
14
1
33
13
2
14
2 3
59
1 3
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Driver Bicyclist No Fault Assigned
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 32 of 161
C R
■ ■ ■
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 19
Figure 2-11 Bicycle Collisions by Motor Vehicle Involvement (2015 – 2019)
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 33 of 161
C R
Pacific
Ocean
Motor Vehicle Involvement
• Bike Only
• Bike-Motor Vehicle
Oceanside
• •
• •
Encinitas
0 0.5
San
Marcos
1 Miles
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 20
Figure 2-12 identifies additional objects involved in bicycle collisions for the 65 collisions where a
motor vehicle was not present. The leading object category for non-motor vehicle involved bicycle
collisions was reported as “non-collisions” or overturned bicyclists, accounting for 17 of the 65 collisions.
Thirty-two of the 65 collisions resulted from the bicyclist travelling at an unsafe speed, including 10
of the 17 non-collision records. Other leading causes include “unknown” (11 records), improper
turning (7 records), and other improper driving (4 records).
Figure 2-12 Bicycle Collisions Without a Motor Vehicle by Object Involved With
Figure 2-13 compares violation codes for severe injury and fatal collisions to all injury collisions.
Consistent with the collision causes, the most frequent violation code reported for bicycle-involved
collisions was 22107, failing to turn properly (39 collisions). Unsafe speed was the second leading
violation code, with 38 collisions reported, and leading code for severe injury/fatal collisions.
Figure 2-13 Bicycle Collision Violation Code Comparison
8
11
13
16 17
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Parked Vehicle Fixed Object Other Object Bicycle Non-Collision
21801(a) -Failure to yield; 7%
21453(a) -Driver
failed to stop; 4%
21658(a) -
Unsafe lane
change; 4%
21650.1 -Bicycle wrong way; 3%
22106 -Unsafe driver start; 3%
21703 -
Following too
closely; 3%
Other/Not Stated; 33%
22107 -Unsafe
driver
movement; 22%
22350 -
Unsafe
speed; 21%
All Injury Collisions
21801(a) -Failure
to yield; 5%21453(a) -Driver
failed to stop; 6%
21658(a) -Unsafe lane
change; 11%
21703 -Following
too closely;
6%
Other/Not Stated; 39%
22107 -
Unsafe driver
movement; 11%
22350 -Unsafe speed; 22%
Severe/Fatal Injury Collisions
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 34 of 161
C R
-
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 21
Vehicular Collisions
A total of 1,374 vehicle-involved injury collisions were reported during the five-year study period,
excluding collisions involving pedestrians and bicycles. Figure 2-14 displays vehicular collision injury
severity by roadway location. Collisions were closely split between intersections (53%) and mid-block
locations (47%).
Approximately 60% of the severe injury/fatal collisions were reported at mid-block locations, and
largely concentrated along Carlsbad Boulevard (14 collisions), followed by Palomar Airport Road (4
collisions) and Rancho Santa Fe Road (4 collisions).
Among the 724 intersection collisions, signalized locations accounted for 78% of all injury collisions and 59% of severe injury/fatal collisions.
Figure 2-14 Vehicular Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Figure 2-15 displays the 1,374 vehicle-only collisions across Carlsbad, differentiating between those
reported at intersection and mid-block locations. Figure 2-16 presents the collisions in a heat map to
more clearly depict where relatively greater concentrations are present. Collisions are more
concentrated along the roadways and intersections carrying relatively greater volumes of vehicular
traffic, such as Carlsbad Boulevard, El Camino Real, Carlsbad Village Drive, Cannon Road, Palomar
Airport Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Drive.
345
9
67
5 6
376
204
3
48
8 2
235
14 1 7 2 29
2 1 10
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 35 of 161
C R
---
■ ■ ■ ■
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 22
Figure 2-15 Vehicle-Only Collisions (2015 – 2019)
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 36 of 161
C R
Oceanside
•• .,
• •
• ••
• %u• --Lag
, ..
\t ~
\
\ ·~
\e
\~
•
\e
.__
•
~
' SJ ••••
0 • 0 • •
e
•
\ /',
·, . ~_/ \. ,------------,..,..._ _______ __,,..;•::i;
Vehicle Collisions • •
16 -17 Intersection Vehicle Collisions
11 -15 Intersection Vehicle Collisions
e 6 -10 Intersection Vehicle Collisions
• 2 -5 Intersection Vehicle Collisions
• 1 Intersection Vehicle CoL!ision
• 1 Midblock Vehicle Collision
School
• .-t %
.i,~
• •
• • • • •
Encinitas
0
• ' ' • r:,'<:-••'"~
ee ,
• •"" . !'/>elf. ,~~ ..
0.5
•
San
Marcos
1 Miles
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 23
Figure 2-16 Vehicle-Only Collision Heat Map (2015 – 2019)
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 37 of 161
C R
Pacific
0c .l/1
Collision Density
Sparse
D ense
"
Cannon Rd
\
\
. ...___
,..._I
i
j ~le 1,arcelon8
Ls-·1 , ___ _
l_ __ _
Encm,tas
0 0.5
San
Marcos
1 Miles
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 24
Table 2-3 identifies the ten intersections with the greatest vehicle collision frequency. These
locations are also the ten intersections with the greatest collision frequency for all modes combined.
These ten intersections account for approximately 15% of all intersection collisions citywide.
Nine of the ten high collision frequency intersections are signalized, the exception being the
roundabout controlled Carlsbad Boulevard/State Street intersection. The roundabout intersection
experienced the third most total collisions, including one pedestrian and two bicycle collisions,
however no severe or fatal injury collisions. This aligns with one of the intended benefits of
roundabouts, to reduce injury severity.
Table 2-7 Vehicular Intersection Collision Frequency (2015 – 2019)
Location Vehicle Pedestrian Bike All Modes Severe/ Fatal
El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) 17 1 - 18 1
Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) 16 - - 16 -
El Camino Real & Alga Road (signalized) 14 - - 14 1
Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street (roundabout) 12 1 2 15 -
College Boulevard & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) 12 - - 12 -
Rancho Santa Fe Road & La Costa Avenue (signalized) 12 - - 12 -
El Camino Real & La Costa Avenue (signalized) 11 - 1 12 -
El Camino Real & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) 11 - - 11 -
El Camino Real & Cannon Road (signalized) 10 - - 10 1
Melrose Drive & Lionshead Avenue (signalized) 10 - - 10 -
Table 2-4 displays crash type by roadway location. Rear-End collisions were the most common
vehicular crash type overall (37%), and the leading crash type at mid-block locations (50%).
Broadside collisions were the most frequent crash type at all intersection locations combined, and
the leading crash type at all intersection control types individually other than roundabouts.
Table 2-8 Vehicular Collision Crash Type by Roadway Location
Crash Type Signalized Intersection
All-Way
Stop-
Controlled Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-
Controlled Intersection Roundabout Uncontrolled Intersection Mid-Block Total
Rear-End 148 3 30 - 1 328 510
Broadside 266 6 56 1 5 68 402
Hit Object 24 1 8 3 1 105 142
Sideswipe 31 - 8 1 1 73 114
Head-On 62 1 11 4 3 23 104
Other/Not Stated 20 2 5 1 0 27 55
Overturned 14 - 4 3 - 26 47
Total 565 13 122 13 11 650 1,374
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 38 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 25
Table 2-5 presents crash types by injury severity. The leading crash type for severe injury/fatal
collisions was Hit Object, assigned to 21 of the 66 collisions. Hit Object collisions resulting in a severe injury or fatality were due to unsafe speeds (8 collisions), driving under the influence (6
collisions), improper turning (6 collisions) and other improper driving (1 collision). Hit Object
collisions were most common at mid-block locations (16 of the 21 collisions). No locations
experienced multiple severe injury/fatal Hit Object collisions.
Broadside collisions were the second most frequent crash type for severe injury/fatal collisions,
reported for 18 records. No locations experienced multiple severe injury/fatal Broadside collisions.
Nine percent of Overturned collisions resulted in a severe injury or fatality, the highest rate of any
crash type, followed by Hit Object collisions at 7%.
Table 2-9 Vehicular Collision Crash Type by Injury Severity
Crash Type
Complaint of
Pain
Other Visible
Injury Severe Injury Fatal Total
Rear-End 371 129 8 2 510
Broadside 233 151 15 3 402
Hit Object 49 72 15 6 142
Sideswipe 69 40 4 1 114
Head-On 49 51 4 - 104
Other/Not Stated 23 28 3 1 55
Overturned 14 29 4 - 47
Total 808 500 53 13 1,374
The top ten violation codes reported for vehicular collisions account for approximately 84% of all
vehicular-injury collisions. Figure 2-17 compares the violation codes for the severe injury and fatal
collisions to the leading 10 violations (26 or more collisions) assigned to all vehicular collisions.
Figure 2-17 Vehicular Collision Violation Code Comparison
22350 -Unsafe speed; 36%
21453(a) -Driver failed to stop; 16%
22107 -Unsafe
driver movement; 9%
23152(a) -
DUI; 7%
21703 -
Following too
closely; 4%
21801(a) -
Failure to yield; 3%
21453(c) -Failure to stop
red arrow; 3%
21804(a) -Failure to yield when entering
traffic; 2%
21802(a) -
Failure to yield stop sign; 2%21658(a) -Unsafe lane
change; 2%
Other/Not Stated; 16%
All Injury Collisions
22350 -Unsafe speed; 32%
21453(a) -
Driver failed to
stop; 11%
22107 -Unsafedriver movement; 15%
23152(a) -DUI; 17%
21801(a) -Failure to
yield; 1%
21453(c) -Failure to stop red
arrow; 1%
21804(a) -
Failure to yield
when entering traffic; 3%
21658(a) -Unsafe lane
change; 2%
Other/Not Stated; 18%
Severe/Fatal Injury Collisions
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 39 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 26
Violation 22350, unsafe speed for prevailing conditions, was the most frequent code cited for all
vehicular collisions (488 collisions) and most frequent for severe injury/fatal collisions (21
collisions).
Violation code 22107, failing to turn safely, and violation 23152(a), driving under the influence of
alcohol, represent higher shares of severe injury/fatal collisions (15% and 17%, respectively) than
they do for all injury collisions (9% and 7%, respectively).
Combined, violation codes 22350, 22107, and 23152(a) account for 64% of all severe/fatal injury
collisions.
Figure 2-18 presents level of sobriety/impairment for vehicular-only collisions. The influence of
impairments such as alcohol, drugs, fatigue, or physical was reported for 145 collisions (11%),
including 14 severe or fatal injury collisions (21%). Of those 145 impaired driving collisions, 20
involved drivers under the legal drinking age (<21) – age was not reported for 41 of the collisions.
Figure 2-18 Vehicular Collisions by Level of Sobriety
3 10 18 21 11
114 65
1132
0
150
300
450
600
750
900
1050
1200
Other Physical
Impairment
Sleepy -
Fatigued
Under Drug
Influence
Had Been
Drinking - Not
Under
Influence
Had BeenDrinking -
Impairment
Unknown
Had BeenDrinking -Under
Influence
ImpairmentNot Known Not Stated /Had Not BeenDrinking
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 40 of 161
C R
■ -
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 27
2.3 Strategic Highway Safety Plan Challenge Areas
The California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is a statewide traffic safety plan that provides a
framework and strategies for reducing fatalities, severe injuries, and total crashes. The SHSP
development is led by stakeholders representing California’s 5 Es of traffic safety: Education,
Enforcement, Engineering, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies.
The SHSP identifies safety “Challenge Areas” to focus resources. The 2020 – 2024 SHSP includes a
total of 16 Challenge Areas which were categorized into High Priority Areas and Focus Areas. Greater resources are focused on High Priority Areas, as they are identified as having the greatest potential
to significantly decrease statewide fatalities and severe injuries.
High Priority Areas
Active Transportation: Pedestrians &
Bicyclists
Impaired Driving
Intersections
Lane Departures
Speed Management/Aggressive Driving
Focus Areas
Aging Drivers (≥65 years in age)
Commercial Vehicles
Distracted Driving
Driver Licensing
Emergency Response
Emerging Technologies
Motorcyclists
Occupant Protection
Work Zones
Young Drivers (ages 15 – 20)
Based on the analysis findings and OTS data, High Priority Areas most relevant to Carlsbad include
Active Transportation: Pedestrians & Bicyclists, Impaired Driving, Intersections, and Speed Management/Aggressive Driving. Caltrans developed an Implementation Plan to complement the
2020 – 2024 SHSP.
The Implementation Plan includes actions to be undertaken by Caltrans and other public agencies
specific to each Challenge Area. For example, one action identified under the Speed Management/
Aggressive Driving Challenge Area is to “Develop policies related to the following topics and
incorporate them into the Highway Design Manual: traffic calming; lane narrowing; reallocation of
the roadway cross-section; and “target speed.” Other examples include new recommendations,
training programs, and tools that will be valuable resources for local agencies to help address
pressing topics.
2.4 Enhancement Areas
The Descriptive Statistics Analysis and Intersection & Segment Analysis information previously
summarized in this Chapter, along with input from the project safety partners, informed the
identification of the following enhancement areas:
Pedestrian o Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks o Pedestrians failing to yield to drivers while crossing outside of crosswalks
Bicycle o Drivers failing to yield to bicyclists while the driver is making right-turns o Bicycle at-fault collisions due to unsafe speeds (primarily non-motor vehicle
collisions)
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 41 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 28
o Increases in E-bike use: people of varying bicycle skill levels are travelling further and
faster than ever before
Vehicular o Leading violations
Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions
Failure to stop at limit line
Driving under the influence (including youth DUI)
o Leading crash types
Broadside collisions (intersections and driveway locations)
Rear end collisions (mid-block approaching intersections)
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 42 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 29
3.0 Recommendations
This chapter summarizes the programmatic and infrastructure safety improvement
recommendations.
3.1 Programmatic
Programs can be initiated to address a variety of safety topics. This section describes educational
and enforcement topics for the city to consider undertaking that will complement engineering
strategies.
Education
Safe Routes to School
Safe Routes to School programs seek to make conditions safer and more comfortable for students to
walk and bike to school, and to encourage more walking and biking. The programs can come in
various sizes (school specific, district wide) and address any number of topics (e.g., safe walking
behaviors, identifying infrastructure enhancements, encouragement programs). The City of Carlsbad
Sustainable Mobility Plan (SMP) identifies Safe Routes to School as one of four recommended
mobility programs.
The City of Carlsbad and Carlsbad Unified School District identified the following Safe Routes to School strategies in the SMP:
SchoolPool Carpools
Parent Surveys
Walk Audits
Conceptual Improvement Maps
Suggested Routes to School Maps
Student Shortest Path Assessment
Student Address Pairing
Consistent with the SMP strategies, the City of Carlsbad initiated development of the first Safe
Routes to School Plan for Hope Elementary School in Spring 2022. This effort and future school
specific plans will be valuable tools to address hyper localized topics and engage students.
Bicycle Education Courses
The San Diego County Bike Coalition provides over a dozen free classes, bike skills trainings, and
workshops intended to inform bicyclists and roadway users of all skill levels of safe bicycling
behaviors. Bicycle education courses are:
Smart Cycling - This course is designed to get adults and children (must be accompanied by
an adult) comfortable on the road and ready to commute or make short trips over two days, including a 3-hour classroom portion and a 6-hour road portion. Attendants should learn
proper bike & helmet fit, safety tips for riding in traffic, techniques for navigating hazardous
roads, emergency maneuvers, using public transit with a bike, their legal rights and
responsibilities, as well as instructions on fixing a flat and bicycle adjustments.
Bike Rodeos - These are bicycle skills events targeting children and teens. They are taught on
a school playground or parking lot, which provides them with the opportunity to practice and
develop skills that will help them become better bicyclists and avoid typical crashes. Its
objective is to teach young riders the importance of seeing, being seen, and always
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 43 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 30
remaining under control when riding a bicycle. Bicycle skills stations give students the
opportunity to practice a variety of specific bike handling skills and procedures for operating
a bike legally and more safely on the street.
City Cycling – This program is intended to prepare people for commute or recreational rides.
Topics covered include general bike safety, legal rights and responsibilities, emergency
maneuver skills, and basic maintenance tips.
City Cycling for Ebikers – This course touches upon the similar topics as the City Cycling
course from the perspective of E-bike users. The three-hour course includes three sections:
lecture, skills drills, and road riding.
Youth Driving Under the Influence Educational Program
Educating the youth of the dangers of driving under the influences is a proactive approach towards
traffic safety. The California Highway Patrol offers the Every 15 Minutes program to high school
juniors and seniors. The program is intended to challenge students to “think about drinking, driving,
personal safety, the responsibility of making mature decisions and the impact their decisions have
on family, friends, their community, and many others.” The California Office of Traffic Safety makes
funding available to the California Highway Patrol for mini-grants to implement the Every 15 Minutes
program.
Enforcement
Targeted Driving Under the Influence Enforcement
The City of Carlsbad Police Department should continue conducting driving under the influence
checkpoints to deter impaired driving and promote public safety. As new collision datasets are made
available, City departments should consider coordinating to identify priority locations for the
checkpoints based on DUI collision history. For example, the 2015 -2019 collision data reviewed
through this LRSP identified the Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street roundabout as a location with
relatively high share of impaired driver collisions (9 of 15 collisions involved DUI).
Targeted Speed Enforcement
Similar to targeted DUI enforcement, targeted speed enforcement is intended to deter speeding in locations with a history of collisions resulting from drivers travelling at unsafe speeds. Internal City
coordination can help in determine locations where unsafe speeds are of most concern.
E-Bike Collision Coding
As stated in Section 1.3, the rise in E-bike use has also resulted in new safety concerns and the need
for collision reporting that distinguishes between electric and non-electric bicycles. The Carlsbad
Police Department implemented procedures to address this data gap. As the new collision data
becomes available, the Police Department and other relevant City departments should consider
evaluating the reporting modification outputs to determine if additional data refinements would be
beneficial.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 44 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 31
3.2 Infrastructure
Infrastructure countermeasures include those intended for systemic or citywide application and site-
specific recommendations. This section identifies the various types of countermeasures
recommended, followed by citywide recommendations, and finally site-specific recommendations.
Recommended Countermeasure Types
Caltrans’s HSIP serves to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all
public roads, including non-State-owned public roads. The HSIP is intended to be consistent with
California’s SHSP and focuses project eligibility on categories that may address the most critical
needs on California local roadways.
HSIP grant application guidelines identify HSIP-eligible countermeasures in Caltrans’s Local Roadway
Safety Manual (2022) (LRSM). The LRSM is updated with each HSIP funding cycle to include
strategies intended to address the most pressing topics. Countermeasures within the LRSM are
proven to improve roadway safety and address specific topics or crash types. Each countermeasure
has a corresponding Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) the indicates the effectiveness of a particular
treatment, demonstrating the percentage of crashes the countermeasure is expected to reduce. To
maximize the benefit of HSIP funds, Caltrans primarily awards HSIP funds to projects demonstrating the greatest safety benefit for the cost.
This subsection identifies the various countermeasures recommended for site-specific and citywide
application for the City of Carlsbad. The countermeasures were primarily drawn from the LRSM to be
consistent with HSIP funding requirements. The city should be flexible in their approach to safety
improvements and look to the full spectrum of LRSM eligible countermeasures and beyond as new
enhancement areas or location specific challenges are identified. The recommended
countermeasures, countermeasure ID, and CRF are provided for each countermeasure, as stated in
the LRSM. A description of the intended application within the context of Carlsbad is also provided
for the broader countermeasures.
S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and
number (CRF 15% - all crash types). This countermeasure is recommended to address broadside and
rear end collisions by improving intersection/signal visibility. Two specific enhancements for
consideration include:
Back-plates with retroreflective borders – Apply retroreflective tape or borders to signal back-
plates to increase signal visibility.
Overhead-mounted through signal heads – Provide one (1) overheard-mounted signal head
per through lane at intersections with ≥ 45mph approaches. See applicable Caltrans
guidance in MUTCD table below.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 45 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 32
Source: 2014 CA MUTCD, Revision 5 (March 27, 2020)
S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) (CRF 15% - all crash
types). Reviewing signalized intersection citywide to ensure appropriate timing, phasing, and controls
are in place can produce multimodal safety benefits.
S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (CRF 30% - all crash types). Advance warning device used to alert drivers they are approaching a signal and need to prepare to slow down. This is
application is intended to help reduce rear end collisions and also prevent vehicles from failing to
stop at the limit line.
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing (CRF 25% - pedestrian and bicycle crash types). Enhancements
for consideration include:
High visibility crosswalks – Upgrade existing marked crosswalks to high visibility crosswalk to
improve crosswalk visibility and help define where vehicles are intended to stop.
Curb extensions – Shorten the crossing distance, improve pedestrian visibility, and facilitate
slower vehicle turning speeds.
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (CRF 15% - pedestrian and bicycle crash types).
Enhance pedestrian safety by providing an additional buffer. Stop bars also help define where
vehicles are intended to stop.
S21PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) (CRF 60% -
pedestrian and bicycle crash types). This enables people crossing at signalized crosswalks to enter
the intersection 3 – 7 seconds in advance of drivers, helping them to establish their presence and
improve their visibility to drivers.
NS01, Add Intersection lighting (CRF 40% - night-time crashes). Lighting improves night-time visibility
for all travel modes.
R14, Road Diet (reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) (CRF 30% - all crash
types). Proposed in locations with high pedestrian and bicycle collisions. Repurpose travel lane
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 46 of 161
C R
Table 4D-1. Recommended Minimum Number of Primary Signal Faces for
Through Traffic on Approaches with Posted, Statutory,
or 85th-Percentile Speed of 45 mph or Higher
Total Number of Primary Minimum Number of
Number of Through Overhead-Mounted
Lanes on Approach Through Signal Faces for Primary Through Signal Approach* Faces for Approach
1 2 1
2 2 1
3 3 2··
4ormore 4 or more 3**
NOTES: • A minimum of two through signal faces is always required (See Section 4D.11 ).
These recommended numbers of through signal faces may be exceeded. Also, see
cone of vision requirements otherwise indicated in Section 4D.13.
•• If practical, all of the recommended number of primary through signal faces should
be located overhead.
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 33
space to provide buffers for bicycle facilities, reduce pedestrian exposure, and eliminate “multiple
threat” at uncontrolled crossings.
R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs (CRF 30% - all crash types). Radar speed
feedback signs inform drivers of their speed when exceeding the posted speed limit. Note, this
application may not be HSIP eligible as the LRSM intends for use at horizontal curves.
R34PB, Install sidewalk/pathway (CRF 80% - pedestrian and bicycle crash types). Intended to
implement the planned Class I Multi-Use Paths.
R35PB, Install pedestrian crossing with enhanced safety features (CRF 35% - pedestrian and bicycle
crash types). Installation of a mid-block pedestrian crossing with high visibility crosswalks, advance
yield markings, pedestrian refuge, and/or curb extensions.
R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) (CRF 35% - pedestrian and bicycle crash
types). Installation at uncontrolled locations to improve driver awareness of crossing pedestrians.
The following additional countermeasures were recommended that are not from the LRSM and are
therefore not HSIP eligible:
Green conflict paint in bike lane – Intended to improve driver awareness of the bicycle facility
and to anticipate bicyclists. The paint is recommended for application within bike lanes
where a right-turn only lane forces vehicles to cross over the bike lane. Green conflict paint
should also be considered for intersection approaches.
Enhance sight distance – Landscaping modifications at Carlsbad Boulevard and Cerezo Drive
may improve sight distance for vehicles making a right-turn from westbound Cerezo Drive
onto northbound Carlsbad Boulevard and for northbound bicyclists.
Speed reduction markings – Transverse stripes spaced at gradually decreasing distances
increase drivers’ perception of speed.
Rat Boxes/Lights (Red Light Indicator) – A tool used to assist police officers in identifying
when roadway users fail to obey traffic signals. Reporting officers must visually confirm a
traffic signal is red to issue a citation. These small devices are attached to traffic signals.
When the traffic signal turns red, a small light on the rat box illuminates. A law enforcement
officer must be physically located in the vicinity of the traffic signal and rat box – typically on
the side street or past the intersection – to observe the line where the vehicles are supposed
to stop. The rat box gives greater flexibility in where the law enforcement officer can position
themselves when observing traffic signal compliance. Note, these are not red-light cameras
(no photo/video is taken, and an officer must be present to observe and issue a citation).
Citywide Recommendations
Table 3-1 identifies the citywide recommendations and corresponding safety topics the
recommendation addresses.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 47 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 34
Table 3-1 Citywide Countermeasure Summary
Countermeasure Enhancement Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks Drivers failing to yield to bicyclists while driver is making right-turn Driver failure to stop at the limit line Broadside collisions (intersections) Rear end collisions (approaches to intersections) S02, Retroreflective backplate
Borders
S02, Overhead-mounted through
signal head
S03, Improve signal timing
S18PB, Install pedestrian
crossing: high visibility crosswalk
S20PB, Install advance stop bar
before crosswalk
Rat lights (red light indicator)
Green conflict paint in bike lanes
at right-turn only lanes
Location-Specific Issues and Recommended Countermeasures
Table 3-2 summarizes the site-specific countermeasures recommended. Figure 3-1 displays the
recommendation locations, with the ID corresponding to the ID in Table 3-2. The table is followed by
descriptions of the issues, relevant planned improvements identified in the City of Carlsbad Capital
Projects Dashboard and Sustainable Mobility Plan, and the recommended countermeasures.
In addition to the locations identified in Table 3-2, the segment of Carlsbad Village Drive between
Harding Street and I-5 southbound ramps was reviewed due to the higher collision frequency. Collisions along this segment primarily consisted of rear end collisions due to unsafe speeds in the
westbound direction and broadside collisions with vehicles entering from driveways. Previously
planned improvements will narrow travel lanes just east of the segment which should facilitate lower
travel speeds entering the segment and help reduce rear end collisions resulting from unsafe
speeds. As adjacent properties redevelop, the city should consider encouraging the consolidation of
driveways accessible via Carlsbad Village Drive as a means to reduce conflicts with vehicles entering
and exiting the roadway.
The intersection of El Camino Real was one of two locations identified with multiple (2) severe or
fatal injuries. The intersection had low collision frequency overall (6 collisions), yet may be a good
candidate for higher priority application of recommendations made citywide (high visibility
crosswalks and advance stop bars. The intersection of Alicante Road and Colina de la Costa was the
other location where two severe or fatal injuries were reported. A total of three collisions were
reported within the vicinity of this intersection. No trends were identified amongst the three records.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 48 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 35
Table 3-2 Countermeasure Summary by Location
S02. Overhead-mounted through signal head S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning S18PB, High visibility crosswalk S18PB, Curb extensions S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk S21, Modify signal phasing to implement LPI NS01 Add intersection lighting R14, Road diet and add buffers to bike lane R26, Install dynamic/ variable speed warning signs R34PB, Install sidewalk/ pathway R35PB, Pedestrian refuge R37PB, Install rectangular rapid flashing beacon Green conflict paint in bike lane (non-LRSM) Speed reduction markings (non-LRSM Enhance sight distance – clear vegetation (non-LRSM) Intersections
1. Roosevelt Street & Carlsbad Village Drive
Extend onto
Roosevelt St
(all corners)
All
approaches
2. Harding Street & Carlsbad Village Drive All legs Extend onto Harding St
(all corners)
All
approaches
3. Roosevelt Street & Grand Avenue All corners All approaches All legs
4. El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road All signals N, W legs SB, EB
approaches
5. Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road NB, EB,
WB signals E, W legs EB, WB
approaches
6. Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street
7. El Camino Real & Alga Road EB, WB
signals
8. Loker Avenue/Innovation Way & Palomar
Airport Road EB, WB
signals All legs All
approaches
9. Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive NB
approach NB
approach West side
Segments
10. Paseo Del Norte, from Palomar Airport
Road to Camino Del Parque/Sea Gate Rd
11. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Carlsbad
Village Drive to Cannon Road
12. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Tierra Del Oro
to La Costa Avenue (southern City limit)
Class I
Path along
west side
Nov. 15, 2022Item #14 Page 49 of 161C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 36
Figure 3-1 Countermeasure Locations
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 50 of 161
C R
Pacific
Ocean
0 Priority Intersection
(JJ Priority Segment
Oceanside
Encinitas
0 0.5
San
Marcos
1 Miles
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 37
1. Roosevelt Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Issue: Pedestrian collisions where the driver is at-fault while making left-turns
Planned (SMP): Priority intersection for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Recommended:
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing: curb extensions extending onto Roosevelt Street at all
corners
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (all approaches)
2. Harding Street & Carlsbad Village Drive
Issue: Pedestrian collisions where the driver is at-fault while making left- and right-turns
Planned (SMP): Priority intersection for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Recommended:
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing: o High visibility crosswalk (all legs) o Curb extensions extending onto Harding Street at all corners
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (all approaches)
3. Roosevelt Street & Grand Avenue
Issue: Pedestrian collisions where the driver is at-fault while making left- and right-turns
Planned (SMP): Priority intersection for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Recommended:
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing: curb extensions (all corners)
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (all approaches)
S21PB, Modify signal phasing to implement lead pedestrian interval (all legs)
4. El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road
Issue: Broadside collisions due to failing to stop at the limit line while proceeding straight
Planned (CIP): Project # 6077: The project will extend left turn lanes at four locations along El
Camino Real.
Recommended:
S02, Improve signal hardware
o Additional overhead-mounted through signal head (one signal head per through lane
on all signals)
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing: high visibility crosswalk (north and west legs)
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (southbound and eastbound approaches)
5. Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road
Issues:
Broadside collisions due to failing to stop at the limit line
Collisions at night due to unsafe speeds and DUI
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 51 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 38
Planned (CIP): Project # 6034: Widen southbound Melrose Drive to provide an additional right-turn
lane to westbound Palomar Airport Road.
Planned (SMP): Priority intersection for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Recommended:
S02, Improve signal hardware
o Additional overhead-mounted through signal head (one signal head per through lane
on northbound, eastbound, and westbound signals)
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing: high visibility crosswalk (east and west legs)
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (eastbound and westbound approaches)
6. Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street
Issues:
Collisions due to driving under the influence (9 of 15 collisions)
Collisions at night (14 of 15 collisions during dusk, dawn, or night)
Planned (CIP): Project # 4016: Install phase 1 decorative lighting solutions along Grand Avenue and
State Street in the Village.
Planned (SMP): Priority corridor for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Recommended:
NS01, Add intersection lighting
Targeted DUI enforcement (non-LRSM)
7. El Camino Real & Alga Road
Issue: Rear end collisions due to unsafe speed in the north- and southbound directions
Planned (CIP): Project # 201944: Modify the right turn lane configuration from northbound El Camino
Real to eastbound Alga Road.
Recommended:
S02, Improve signal hardware o Additional overhead-mounted through signal head (one signal head per through lane
on eastbound and westbound signals)
8. Loker Avenue/Innovation Way & Palomar Airport Road
Issue: Rear end collisions due to unsafe speeds and following too closely approaching the
intersection.
Planned: N/A
Recommended:
S02, Improve signal hardware
o Additional overhead-mounted through signal head (one signal head per through lane
on eastbound and westbound signals)
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing: high visibility crosswalk (all legs)
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (all approaches)
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 52 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 39
9. Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive
Issues:
Bicycle collisions where the driver is at-fault while making right-turns
Rear end collisions in northbound direction due to unsafe speeds
Planned (SMP):
Priority intersections for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Multi-use path
Recommended:
S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (install on northbound approach near
Manzano Drive where northbound Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road merge)
Install green conflict paint in northbound bike lane intersection approach and departure
(non-LRSM)
Install speed reduction markings on northbound Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport
Road before the merge (non-LRSM)
Enhance sight distance by clearing the vegetation along the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard
for westbound drivers on Cerezo Drive (non-LRSM)
10. Paseo Del Norte, from Palomar Airport Road to Camino Del Parque/Sea Gate Road
Issue: Mid-block pedestrian collisions near Tip Top Meats and Motel 6
Planned (SMP):
Priority corridor for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Buffered bike lanes
Recommended:
R14, Road diet and add buffers to bike lanes
R35PB, Install pedestrian crossing with pedestrian refuge and curb extensions (near Motel 6
and Tip Top Meats)
R37PB, Install rectangular rapid flashing beacon (near Motel 6 and Tip Top Meats)
11. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Carlsbad Village Drive to Cannon Road
Issue: Pedestrian collisions due to driver failing to yield while pedestrians are crossing in crosswalks
Planned (CIP):
Project # 6068: Install pedestrian scale lighting along both sides of Carlsbad Village Drive to
match the lighting in the Village. The lights will be 13' concrete/marblelite poles with black
metal toppers.
Project # 6097: The project will construct pedestrian enhancements at six uncontrolled
crosswalk locations on Carlsbad Boulevard. Improvements include curb extensions, in-
pavement flashing lights, green bike lane treatments and street lighting.
Project # 201907: Construct raised, landscaped median. Work includes concrete curb,
landscaping, irrigation and colored, stamped concrete.
Project # 6058: Construct an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant pedestrian path
through the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard (west side). The
project will require the removal of the existing “pork chop” islands, installation of new
concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk and pedestrian ramps. Relocation of traffic signal equipment
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 53 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 40
including signal poles, controller cabinet and electric service cabinet will be necessary. Due
to the age/deterioration of existing traffic conduit, the traffic signal will be completely re-
wired.
Planned (SMP):
Priority intersections for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Buffered bike lane along Carlsbad Boulevard
Recommended: R14, Road diet and add buffers to bike lane. Excess right-of-way along west side of
Carlsbad Boulevard may be repurposed to provide additional on-street parking and/or widen the
existing bike lane.
12. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Tierra Del Oro to La Costa Avenue (southern City limit)
Issue: High frequency of bike collisions throughout the corridor, specifically in southbound direction
where on-street parking is present
Planned (CIP): Project # 6031: (Nearby Improvements) The project will conduct an investigative study
of future roadway realignment alternatives, infrastructure needs, land uses, commercial land
development options, public park and coastal access opportunities, and related long term coastal
planning issues, constraints, and processes. The second phase study of a multi-year project such as this would not require permits or environmental review at this time. Extent: Manzano Drive to La
Costa Avenue.
Planned (SMP):
Priority corridor for enhanced pedestrian treatment
Multi-use path
Recommended: R34PB, Install sidewalk/pathway (Class I Bike Path) along west side of Carlsbad
Boulevard
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 54 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 41
4.0 Implementation
This chapter provides information to aid in the pursuit of recommendation implementation.
Benefit/cost ratio analysis results, potential funding sources, and opportunities to implement
improvements with maintenance projects are covered along with topics to consider monitoring post-
implementation.
4.1 Benefit/Cost Ratios
This LRSP document helps the City of Carlsbad maintain eligibility for HSIP funding from Caltrans.
The majority of HSIP funds are awarded based on the project’s effectiveness, determined using a
benefit to cost ratio (BCR). HSIP Cycle 11 requires minimum BCR score of 3.5 to apply, however,
funded projects have historically scored higher. For example, the BCR cutoff score for funded projects in Cycle 10 was 12.0 and 7.5 in Cycle 9.
Table 4-15 presents BCR results for the HSIP-eligible countermeasure recommendations previously
identified in Table 3-2. In addition to HSIP grant pursuits, the BCR results help the city prioritize
improvements likely to have the greatest safety benefit for the cost.
As shown, five projects exceed the 12.0 BCR cutoff score from Cycle 10. Those projects, in order of
BCR score, include:
9. Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive (63.81)
11. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Carlsbad Village Drive to Cannon Road (18.03)
10. Paseo Del Norte, from Palomar Airport Road to Camino Del Parque/Sea Gate Rd (17.77)
6. Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street (15.80)
4. El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road (14.35)
HSIP applications permit the bundling of locations and countermeasure types with the following
limitations:
Countermeasures must generally be from the same roadway category (Signalized
Intersection, Non-Signalized Intersection, or Roadway Segment)6
A maximum of three countermeasures can be factored into the BCR calculation
Considering this, it is recommended that projects 9 and 4 be combined into a single project using
the following three countermeasures, which would yield a BCR of 18.71:
S02, Improve signal hardware retroreflective backplate borders and additional overhead-
mounted through signal heads
S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing: high visibility crosswalk
5 Project 12, the Class I Bike Path along the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard from Tierra Del Oro to La Costa Avenue was divided into four
segments considering the length of the project and relatively high cost. Additionally, cost estimates were prepared unit costs which may not capture location specific nuances that could greatly change assumptions. This is particularly relevant to project 12 due to the length and potential project related challenges (e.g., environmental habitats, utilities, coastal area, right-of-way). Therefore, two different unit cost assumptions were used in the cost estimate and BCR development for project 12 and reflected in Table 4-1.
6 Exceptions can apply for “Corridor Projects”
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 55 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 42
Table 4-1 Benefit Cost Ratio Summary
S02. Overhead-mounted through signal head S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning S18PB, High visibility crosswalk S18PB, Curb extensions S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk S21, Modify signal phasing to implement LPI NS01 Add intersection lighting R14, Road diet and add buffers to bike lane R26, Install dynamic/ variable speed warning signs R34PB, Install sidewalk/ pathway R35PB, Pedestrian refuge R37PB, Install rectangular rapid flashing beacon BCR
Intersections
1. Roosevelt Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Extend onto
Roosevelt St
(all corners)
All
approaches 0.56
2. Harding Street & Carlsbad Village Drive All legs Extend onto
Harding St
(all corners)
All
approaches 0.73
3. Roosevelt Street & Grand Avenue All corners All
approaches All legs 0.29
4. El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road All signals N, W legs SB, EB approaches 14.35
5. Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road NB, EB,
WB
signals E, W legs EB, WB
approaches 2.91
6. Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street 15.80
7. El Camino Real & Alga Road EB, WB
signals 4.41
8. Loker Avenue/Innovation Way & Palomar
Airport Road EB, WB
signals All legs All
approaches 3.06
9. Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive NB
approach 63.81
Segments
10. Paseo Del Norte, from Palomar Airport
Road to Camino Del Parque/Sea Gate Rd 17.77
11. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Carlsbad
Village Drive to Cannon Road 18.03
12a. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Tierra Del
Oro to Solemar Drive
Class I
Path
0.30 ($9M)
0.94 ($2.7M)
12b. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Solemar
Drive to Poinsettia Lane
Class I
Path
1.70 ($9M)
5.15 ($2.7M)
12c. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Poinsettia
Lane to Avenida Encinas
Class I
Path
0.70 ($9M)
2.11 ($2.7M)
12d. Carlsbad Boulevard, from Avenida
Encinas to La Costa Avenue
Class I
Path
1.54 ($9M)
4.62 ($2.7M) Nov. 15, 2022Item #14 Page 56 of 161C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 43
4.2 Funding Sources
This LRSP documents positions the City of Carlsbad to be eligible to submit HSIP applications. A wide
range of additional funding sources are also available at the regional, state, and federal levels that
could be used to fund safety projects. A sample of potential funding sources is summarized in the
remainder of this subsection, including funding program descriptions and eligible projects.
Regional Sources
Active Transportation Grant Program (SANDAG)
The goal of the ATGP is to encourage local jurisdictions to plan and build facilities that promote
multiple travel choices and build connectivity.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Capital projects
Non-capital projects: planning, education, encouragement, and awareness programs; and
bike parking
Smart Growth Incentive Program (SANDAG)
The SGIP provides funding for transportation-related infrastructure improvements that within Smart Growth Opportunity Areas as shown in SANDAG’s Smart Growth Concept Map. The goal is to fund
public infrastructure projects and planning activities that facilitate or support compact, mixed-use,
transit-oriented development and transportation choices.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Capital and planning projects
State Sources
Office of Traffic Safety Grant Program (California Office of Traffic Safety)
Funds to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes so all roadway users arrive at their destination safely.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Non-infrastructure programs
Safety education programs
Encouragement programs
SRTS programs
Local Streets and Roads Program (Caltrans)
Funding dedication for cities and counties to perform basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and
critical safety projects on the local streets and roads systems.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Safety projects
Complete streets components
Traffic control devices
Maintenance and rehabilitation
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 57 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 44
Local Partnership Program (California Transportation Commission)
This program serves to provide funding to districts, cities, counties, and regional transportation
agencies in which voters have approved or imposed fees or taxes dedicated solely to transportation improvements.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Aging infrastructure
Road conditions
Active transportation
Transit and rail
Health and safety benefits
Active Transportation Program (Caltrans)
Caltrans’s ATP was created to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, increase
the safety and mobility of non-motorized users, help achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals,
enhance public health, provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active
transportation users while ensuring disadvantages communities share in the benefits.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Capital projects: environmental, design, right-of-way, and construction phases of a capital
project.
Plans: community wide bicycle, pedestrian, safe routes to school, or active transportation
plan.
Non-infrastructure (NI) projects: education, encouragement, and enforcement activities
Sustainable Communities Planning Grants (Caltrans)
Funds intended to further the region’s RTP SCS, help achieve the State’s GHG reduction targets, and
directly benefit the multi-modal transportation system.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Safe Routes to School Plan
Bike/pedestrian trail or feasibility study
Regional Trails Program (California Parks Department)
Provides funds for recreational trails and trails-related projects.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Development and Rehabilitation of Trails, Trailside and Trailhead Facilities
Construction of new trails
Acquisition of easements and simple title to property for Recreational Trails
Urban Greening Program (California Natural Resources Agency)
Supports the development of green infrastructure projects that reduce GHG emissions and provide
multiple benefits, such as reducing commute VMT by constructing bicycle or pedestrian facilities that
provide safe routes for travel.
Sample of Eligible Projects:
Non-motorized urban trails
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 58 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 45
4.3 Implementation with Maintenance
Regularly scheduled maintenance projects, such as road resurfacing and restriping present
opportunities to cost effectively incorporate safety enhancement projects. The following
recommended countermeasures are examples of projects that could be implemented with
maintenance projects:
S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing: high visibility crosswalk
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk
R14, Road Diet (reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes)
Green conflict paint in bike lane (non-LRSM)
Speed reduction markings (non-LRSM)
Coordination between various City departments is required to leverage the maintenance projects and
achieve the cost savings.
4.4 Monitoring
Monitoring the effectiveness of infrastructure improvements helps to fortify City staff’s, elected
officials’,
and community members’ understanding of responses to investments and develops knowledge of
benefits within the local context. Monitoring can also aid in the pursuit of future grant funding
sources by helping to build the case of anticipated benefits with proven local data.
Table 4-3 identifies data to consider tracking before and after implementation.
Table 4-2 Monitoring Data Topics
Topic Rationale
Collisions Multimodal (pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle) collision data is the base for understanding safety benefits. Comparing similar years of data before
and after project implementation is one indicator of project benefits.
Count Data
Intersection counts, segment counts, and crossing data can help inform volume and exposure. Combined with collision data, count data can be
used to develop collision rates to help account for changes in activity
levels.
Infrastructure Modifications
Infrastructure modifications within the project vicinity may contribute to
changes in travel patterns, behavior, or safety. Documenting
infrastructure changes that occurred before, during and after implementation can help inform if changes were influential.
Development Projects
Like infrastructure modifications, new development projects may alter
travel patterns and behavior. These changes may not be fully captured through count data, yet they may contribute to changes in activity. Noting
these projects will help ensure they are considered when evaluating
benefits.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 59 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Appendix A - Descriptive Statistics Analysis
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 60 of 161
C R
Prepared For: Prepared By:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
CR Associates
3900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92103
CITY OF CARLSBAD
LOCAL ROADWAY
SAFETY PLAN
AUGUST 2021
Descriptive Statistics Report
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 61 of 161
{city of
Carlsbad C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Collision Database ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Key Findings ................................................................................................................................. 2
2.0 Pedestrian Collisions .......................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 Bicycle Collisions ............................................................................................................................. 13
4.0 Vehicular Collisions ......................................................................................................................... 19
5.0 Systemic Collision Matrices ............................................................................................................ 26
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 - Citywide Crash Tree (2015 – 2019) ....................................................................................... 3
Figure 2.1 - Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location .................................................... 6
Figure 2.2 - Pedestrian Collision Party at-Fault by Roadway Location...................................................... 7
Figure 2.3 - Pedestrian Collision Violation Code Comparison ................................................................ 10
Figure 2.4 - Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity by Lighting ................................................................... 11
Figure 2.5 - Pedestrian Collisions by Time of Day ................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.6 - Pedestrian Collisions by Age & Gender ............................................................................... 12
Figure 3.1 - Bicycle Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location ........................................................ 13
Figure 3.2 - Bicycle Collision Party at-Fault by Roadway Location ......................................................... 14
Figure 3.3 - Bicycle Collision Violation Code Comparison ...................................................................... 17
Figure 3.4 - Bicycle Collisions by Time of Day ......................................................................................... 18
Figure 3.5 - Bicycle Collisions by Age & Gender ...................................................................................... 18
Figure 4.1 - Vehicular Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location .................................................... 19
Figure 4.2 - Vehicular Collision Violation Code Comparison .................................................................. 22
Figure 4.3 - Vehicle Collisions by Time of Day ......................................................................................... 25
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 62 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page ii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 - Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location ...................................................... 6
Table 2.2 - Pedestrian Collision Cause by Roadway Location ................................................................... 8
Table 2.3 - Pedestrian Collision Violation Code by Injury Severity ............................................................ 9
Table 2.4 - Pedestrian Action by Injury Severity ...................................................................................... 10
Table 2.5 - Driver at-Fault Pedestrian Intersection Collisions by Driver Movement ............................. 11
Table 3.1 - Bicycle Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location ......................................................... 13
Table 3.2 - Bicycle Collision Cause by Roadway Location ...................................................................... 15
Table 3.3 - Bicycle Collision Violation Code by Injury Severity ............................................................... 16
Table 3.4 - Bicycle-Vehicle Collisions by Movement ............................................................................... 17
Table 4.1 - Vehicular Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location ..................................................... 19
Table 4.2 - Vehicular Collision Crash Type by Roadway Location .......................................................... 20
Table 4.3 - Vehicular Collision Crash Type by Injury Severity ................................................................. 20
Table 4.4 - Vehicular Collision Cause by Roadway Location .................................................................. 21
Table 4.5 - Vehicular Collision Violation Code by Injury Severity ........................................................... 23
Table 4.6 - Severe/Fatal Vehicle Collisions by Movement ..................................................................... 25
Table 5.1 - Intersection Matrix for All Injury Collisions ........................................................................... 27
Table 5.2 - Mid-Block Matrix for All Injury Collisions ............................................................................... 29
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 63 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 1
1.0 Introduction
This document provides a review of collision records in support of the Carlsbad Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP). The project study area encompasses all city streets within the Carlsbad City
Limits, excluding freeway facilities. This review examines the collision records from a citywide
perspective to identify trends among the roadway location (intersection or mid-block), causes, users
and their behaviors.
The introductory chapter provides an overview of the collision database and key findings from the
analysis. Following this chapter, analysis results are separated by travel mode, including pedestrian,
bicycle, and vehicle. The report concludes with a set of systemic collision matrices, intended to help
identify combinations of behaviors and roadway characteristics where collisions are most frequent.
Collisions for each mode are reported by the categories provided within the record, as completed by
the reporting law enforcement officer, such as party-at-fault, cause, violation, and crash type. The
collision’s roadway location (intersection or mid-block) was used to further understand specific
issues to the location type. Consistent with the Caltrans’ LRSP guidelines, additional emphasis was
placed on collisions resulting in severe injuries or fatalities for each travel mode.
A subsequent report will be provided focusing on specific intersection and midblock collision
locations, including collision frequencies and rates. The findings presented in this document inform
the identification of noteworthy areas across the city and will be combined with the intersection and segment analysis results (in a separate report) to determine specific locations and topic areas to
focus recommendation – or countermeasure – development on.
1.1 Collision Database
A citywide collision dataset was obtained from the City of Carlsbad’s Crossroads database for the
most recent complete five-year period, January 2015 – December 2019. Prior to database
construction and analysis, the accuracy of the data was reviewed.
Collision Data Review
The initial dataset contained 3,075 collision records. One record was removed due to being
identified as a duplicate. Four records were removed due to occurring within private parking lots. An
additional 40 records were removed due to insufficient locational information (ex., single cross-
street, labelled as “Private Road”, or two streets that do not intersect). The 40 removed records with
insufficient locational information did not include any collisions resulting in a severe or fatal injury
(30 Property Damage Only, 2 Other Visible Injury, 8 Complaint of Pain). The review process resulted
in a final database of 3,030 records.
Database Construction
The 3,030 collision records were further reviewed to identify and separate records resulting in an
injury from those that resulted in property damage only (PDO). A total of 1,683 injury collision records
were obtained for the five-year study period, including 108 severe or fatal injury collisions.
The 1,683 spatially referenced injury collision records were assigned to one of two location
categories: intersection or mid-block. Location assignment was based on the intersection offset
distance indicated in each record’s attributes. Collision points within 50 feet of an intersection node
were categorized as intersection collisions. All remaining collisions were categorized as midblock
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 64 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 2
collisions. This approach takes into consideration the influence intersection characteristics may have
on records within this distance. The 50’ offset distance is within the threshold identified by Caltrans’
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which permits collisions up to 250’ from an intersection to be used in the determination of Benefit/Cost ratios for intersection countermeasures.
Figure 1-1 provides a crash tree overview of the 1,683 collisions, depicting the location type and
mode, as well as number of severe injury or fatal collisions for each mode.
Other City maintained transportation datasets, including travel lanes, traffic signals, posted speed
limits, and traffic volumes were utilized in tandem with aerial imagery to populate roadway
characteristics and infrastructure data within the 1,683 spatially referenced collision records.
SANDAG’s Transportation Forecast Information Center (TFIC) Series 14 Base Year 2016 data was
also referenced for additional traffic volume estimates. The type of traffic control and size of
intersection (based on number of through-lanes in the approaching roadways) were collected and
attributed to the location of each intersection collision. Posted speed limit, number of travel lanes,
median presence, and average daily traffic volumes attributed for each midblock collision.
1.2 Key Findings
Pedestrian Collisions
During the five-year study period, 129 pedestrian collisions were reported, most frequently at
intersection locations (62% or 80/129). Intersection collisions were most reported at signalized
locations (43 collisions), followed by side-street stop-controlled intersections (28 collisions), with the
remaining nine collisions reported at uncontrolled intersections, all-way stop controlled intersections,
and roundabout locations. Severe injury and fatal collisions accounted for 19% of pedestrian-
involved collisions, the highest rate of all three travel modes.
Drivers were more commonly found to be at-fault for intersection collisions, largely while making left-
turns. The following locations experienced multiple driver at-fault collisions:
Carlsbad Village Drive & Roosevelt Street (4 collisions)
Carlsbad Boulevard & Hemlock Avenue (4 collisions)
Carlsbad Village Drive & Harding Street (3 collisions)
Grand Avenue & Roosevelt Street (3 collisions)
Carlsbad Boulevard & Oak Avenue (2 collisions)
Pedestrians were the leading party at-fault at mid-block collisions, which accounted for 14 of the 24
severe injury/fatal collisions. Three of the pedestrian at-fault mid-block collisions were concentrated
along Paseo Del Norte, 860’ to 1,000’ south of Palomar Airport Road.
Two violation codes accounted for over half of the 129 pedestrian-involved collisions:
21950(a) – The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection,
except as otherwise provided - 38 collisions, including 2 severe injuries/fatal.
21954(a) – Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked
crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to
all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard - 32 collisions,
including 11 severe injuries/fatal.
Violation 21954(a) accounted for 25% of all injury collisions, yet 46% of severe injury/fatal collisions.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 65 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 3
Figure 1.1 - Citywide Crash Tree (2015 – 2019) Nov. 15, 2022Item #14 Page 66 of 161Intersection
878 (52.2%)
41 (38%)
+ 1•
Pedestrian Bicycle
80(9.1%) 74 (8.4%)
10 (24.4%) 4 (9.8%)
Black: All Injury Collisions
Red: Severe/Fatal Collisions
+
Vehicle-Only
724 (82.5%)
27 (65.9%)
% is calculated based on the total of the previous row
5-Years Citywide
Collisions (2015-2019)
3,030
,,
Injury Collisions
1,683
108
I
+
Property Damage
Only (PDO) Collsions
1,347
Mid-Block
805 (47.8%)
67 (62%)
+ 1, +
Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle-Only
49(6.1%) 106 (13.2%) 650 (80.7%)
14 (20.9%) 14 (20.9%) 39 (58.2%)
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 4
Bicycle Collisions
Bicycle-involved collisions were most frequently reported at mid-block locations (59% or 106 of the
180 records), including the only two fatalities and 12 of the 16 severe injury collisions. Similar to pedestrian collisions, drivers were more commonly at-fault when bicycle collisions occurring at
signalized intersections (61% or 20 of the 33 signalized intersection collisions where fault was
assigned) while bicyclists were more commonly at-fault with mid-block collisions (72% or 59 of the
82 mid-block collisions where fault was assigned).
The intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard & Poinsettia Lane was the only signalized intersection where
multiple bicyclist at-fault collisions (2) were reported. Two signalized intersections experienced
multiple collisions where the driver was at-fault are:
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive (3 collisions)
La Costa Avenue & Piraeus Street (2 collisions)
Driver at-fault collisions most often occurred when the driver was making a right-turn (17 collisions).
The most frequent bicyclist movement reported for bicyclist at-fault collisions was proceeding
straight (66 collisions).
Two violation codes accounted for 43% the 180 bicycle-involved collision records:
22107 – No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety… - 39 collisions, including
2 severe injuries/fatal.
22350 – Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions - 38 collisions, including 4 severe
injuries/fatal.
Vehicular Collisions
The 1,374 vehicular collisions were closely split between intersections (53%) and mid-block (47%)
locations. Approximately 60% of the severe injury/fatal collisions were reported at mid-block
locations, and largely concentrated along Carlsbad Boulevard (14 collisions), followed by Palomar
Airport Road (4 collisions) and Rancho Santa Fe Road (4 collisions).
Among the 724 intersection collisions, signalized locations accounted for 78% of all injury collisions
and 59% of severe injury/fatal collisions at intersections.
Rear-End and Broadside collisions were the most frequent crash types for all injuries, accounting for
37% and 29% of vehicular collisions, respectively. The leading crash type for severe injury/fatal
collisions was Hit Object, assigned to 21 of the 66 collisions. Hit Object collisions resulting in a
severe injury or fatal conditions were due to unsafe speeds (8 collisions), driving under the influence
(6 collisions), improper turning (6 collisions), and other improper driving (1 collision).
Violation code 22350, unsafe speed for prevailing conditions, was the most frequent code cited for
all vehicular collisions (488 collisions) and the most frequent for severe injury/fatal collisions (21
collisions).
Violation code 22107, failing to turn safely, and violation 23152(a), driving under the influence of
alcohol, represent higher shares of severe/fatal injury collisions (15% and 17%, respectively) than
they do for all injury collisions (9% and 7%, respectively).
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 67 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 5
Systemic Collision Matrices
Systemic collision matrices were created for intersection and mid-block locations to help identify
characteristics related to behaviors and roadway environments where collisions were most prevalent.
For intersections, broadside collisions were the most frequent crash type reported, largely due to the
driver’s failure to stop at the limit line. These collisions were most common at signalized
intersections with four- or six-lane approaches on at least one of the two intersecting roads.
The mid-block collision matrix depicted collision concentrations within the rear end crash type due to
the unsafe speed violation code. These collisions most often occurred along roadways with a posted
speed limit of 50 mph or greater and four to six lanes.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 68 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 6
2.0 Pedestrian Collisions
A total of 129 pedestrian-involved collisions were reported and reviewed in this section. Figure 2-1
and Table 2-1 display injury severity by roadway location for the 129 pedestrian-involved collisions.
62% of the collisions were reported as occurring at an intersection (80/129), including 43 records at
signalized intersections and 28 at side-street stop-controlled intersections.
Six collisions resulted in a fatality, split evenly among signalized intersections, stop-controlled
intersections, and mid-block locations. Severe injury/fatal collisions combined were concentrated at
mid-block locations (14/24), accounted for 19% of pedestrian-involved collisions, the highest of all
three travel modes.
Figure 2.1 - Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Table 2.1 - Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Location
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection Roundabout
Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-
Block Total
Complaint of Pain 15 1 8 - 2 8 34
Other Visible Injury 23 3 15 1 2 27 71
Severe Injury 3 - 3 - - 12 18
Fatal 2 - 2 - - 2 6
Total 43 4 28 1 4 49 129
15
1
8
2
8
23
3
15
1 2
27
3 3
12
2 2 2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 69 of 161
_. -
• • • •
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 7
Figure 2-2 displays the party at-fault by roadway location. Drivers were largely reported as the party
at-fault for collisions occurring at intersections (71% or 55 of the 77 records where fault was
assigned), with the greatest share occurring at signalized intersections (80% or 32 of the 40 records where fault was assigned). The following signalized intersections experienced multiple pedestrian-
involved collisions where the driver was reported as at-fault:
Carlsbad Village Drive & Roosevelt Street (4 collisions)
Carlsbad Village Drive & Harding Street (3 collisions)
Grand Avenue & Roosevelt Street (3 collisions)
The following side-street stop-controlled intersections experienced multiple pedestrian-involved
collisions where the driver was reported as at-fault:
Carlsbad Boulevard & Hemlock Avenue (4 collisions)
Carlsbad Boulevard & Oak Avenue (2 collisions)
Pedestrians were the leading party at-fault at mid-block locations (60% or 28 of the 46 records
where fault was assigned). Three of the 28 pedestrian at-fault mid-block collisions were reported on
Paseo Del Norte ranging from 860’ to 1,000’ south of Palomar Airport Road. Corridors with multiple
pedestrian at-fault mid-block collisions include:
El Camino Real (4 collisions)
Palomar Airport Road (3 collisions)
Carlsbad Boulevard (3 collisions)
Carlsbad Village Drive (3 collisions)
Grand Avenue (2 collisions)
Figure 2.2 - Pedestrian Collision Party at-Fault by Roadway Location
32
3
17
3
17
1
8
1
11
1 1
28
3 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Driver Bicyclist Pedestrian No Fault Assigned
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 70 of 161
■-I -■-
■ ■ ■ ■
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 8
Pedestrian collision causes by roadway location are shown in Table 2-2. Pedestrian Violation was
reported as the primary collision cause for 38% of all pedestrian-involved collisions, with 57% of the
records reported at mid-block locations. Pedestrian Right-of-Way Violations were the second most frequent cause (31% of collisions), and the leading signalized intersection collision cause. Pedestrian
Violations were also the leading cause for collisions resulting in a severe injury or fatality, reported
for 16 of those 24 collisions. Violation of a Pedestrian’s Right-of-Way and Improper Turning were the
only other causes attributed to multiple severe/fatal injury collisions, with two records each. Driving
Under Influence of Alcohol was reported as the cause for the one remaining fatal collision.
Table 2.2 - Pedestrian Collision Cause by Roadway Location
Cause
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection Roundabout
Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-
Block Total
Pedestrian Violation 7 (1S; 1F) 1 11 (2S; 1F) 1 1 28 (9S; 2F) 49
Ped R/W Violation 20 3 12 (1S; 1F) - - 5 40
Unsafe Speed 2 - 2 - - 3 7
Improper Turning 2 (1S) - 1 - - 2 (1S) 5
Traffic Signals and
Signs 3 - 1 - - 1 5
Driving Under
Influence of Alcohol 1 (1F) - 1 - - 2 4
Unsafe Starting or Backing 2 (1S) - - - 1 1 4
Other Improper
Driving 2 - - - - 2 4
Unknown 1 - - - 1 1 3
Other Hazardous
Movement 1 - - - - 2 (1S) 3
Auto R/W Violation 1 - - - 1 - 2
Not Stated 1 - - - - - 1
Unsafe Lane Change - - - - - 1 (1S) 1
Other Than Driver - - - - - 1 1
Total 43 4 28 1 4 49 129
S = Severe; F = Fatal
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 71 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 9
Table 2-3 presents the violation codes by level of injury severity. Figure 2-3 compares violation codes
for severe injury and fatal collisions to the violations assigned to all pedestrian injury collisions. The
violation code with the highest number of collisions assigned (32) was 21950(a), the driver failing to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway. The most frequent violation code among
severe injury and fatal collisions (11) was 21954(a), pedestrians failing to yield the right-of-way
vehicles outside a crosswalk.
Table 2.3 - Pedestrian Collision Violation Code by Injury Severity
Violation Code Definition1 Complaint of Pain
Other
Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal Total
21950(a)
The driver of a vehicle shall yield the
right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
within any unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection, except as otherwise provided.
17 19 1 1 38
21954(a)
Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any
point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection shall yield
the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the
roadway so near as to constitute an
immediate hazard.
6 15 8 3 32
22350 Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions. 4 3 - - 7
21950(b)
No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb
or other place of safety and walk or run
into the path of a vehicle that is so close
as to constitute an immediate hazard.
1 3 2 1 7
22107
No person shall turn a vehicle from a
direct course or move right or left upon a
roadway until such movement can be
made with reasonable safety…
- 3 2 - 5
22106
No person shall start a vehicle stopped,
standing, or parked on a highway, nor
shall any person back a vehicle on a
highway until such movement can be
made with reasonable safety.
1 2 1 - 4
21453(a)
A driver facing a steady circular red signal
alone shall stop at a marked limit line,
but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if
none, then before entering the
intersection, and shall remain stopped
until an indication to proceed is shown,
except as provided in subdivision (b).
- 3 - - 3
Other/Not Stated 5 23 4 1 33
Total 34 71 18 6 129
Note: 1 Violation Code definition obtained from California Department of Motor Vehicles 2015 California Vehicle Code.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 72 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 10
Figure 2.3 - Pedestrian Collision Violation Code Comparison
Note: Violation Code definitions are provided in Table 2-3
Pedestrian action by injury severity is shown in Table 2-4. The most frequent pedestrian action
identified was Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection with 47 records. However, In Road and Crossing
Not in Crosswalk were reported as having the highest number of severe injuries and fatalities, with
eight records each.
Table 2.4 - Pedestrian Action by Injury Severity
Pedestrian Action
Complaint
of Pain
Other
Visible Injury
Severe
Injury Fatal Total
Crossing In Crosswalk At Intersection 14 27 5 1 47
In Road 6 19 7 1 33
Crossing Not In Crosswalk 7 13 5 3 28
Not Stated 3 6 - - 9
Crossing In Crosswalk Not At Intersection 3 2 - 1 6
Not In Road 1 4 1 - 6
Total 34 71 18 6 129
21950(a)
21950(a)
21954(a)
21954(a)
22350
21950(b)
21950(b)
22107
22107
22106
22106
21453(a)
Other/Not Stated
Other/Not Stated
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
All Injury Collisions
Severe/Fatal Collisions
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 73 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 11
Table 2-5 displays the driver movement for the 55 pedestrian-involved collisions reported at
intersections where the driver was the party at-fault. Drivers Making Left-Turn was the most
frequently reported movement, largely concentrated at signalized intersections. Four of the 14 Making Left-Turn movements at signalized intersections were reported at the intersection of
Carlsbad Village Drive and Roosevelt Street.
Table 2.5 - Driver at-Fault Pedestrian Intersection Collisions by Driver Movement
Driver Movement
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-Controlled
Intersection
Uncontrolled
Intersection Total
Making Left-Turn 14 2 3 - 19
Making Right-Turn 9 4 - - 13
Proceeding Straight 3 9 - 1 13
Not Stated 3 1 - 1 5
Backing 2 - - 1 3
Slowing/Stopping 1 - - - 1
Other - 1 - - 1
Total 17 17 3 3 55
Figure 2-4 presents pedestrian collision injury severity by lighting. 76 of the pedestrian-involved
collisions occurred during daylight, including one collision resulting in a fatality and 8 collisions
resulting in severe injury. Dark with Street Lights was the second leading category, representing 40
of the 129 of pedestrian-involved collisions. Four fatalities and 5 severe injury collisions occurred
under Dark with Street Lights conditions. Another fatality occurred under Dark with No Street Lights
conditions at Jefferson St and Las Flores Dr.
Figure 2.4 - Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity by Lighting
21
12
1
46
19
2 4
8 5 3 1 1141
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - No Street Lights Dusk - Dawn Dark - Street Lights NotFunctioning
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 74 of 161
-
• • • •
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 12
Pedestrian collisions by time of day are shown in Figure 2-5. Traditional peak commute hours are
noticeable when looking at the hourly distribution of pedestrian-involved collisions occurring in the
morning (7:00AM – 9:00AM). Peaks in the afternoon and nighttime are shown during the 2:00PM hour, 4:00PM hour and 9:00PM hour. 72% of the pedestrian-involved collisions were reported on
weekdays. Peaks on weekends are shown during the 6:00PM hour and 9:00PM to 11:00PM hours.
Figure 2.5 - Pedestrian Collisions by Time of Day
The age and gender of the pedestrians involved in collisions are shown in Figure 2-6. Over two-thirds
of pedestrians were identified as males. The 18-29 age group experienced the greatest number of
collisions, followed by 30-39, and 17 or less. Collision causes and party-at-fault assignments for the
different age groups trended closely with the findings for all pedestrians.
Figure 2.6 - Pedestrian Collisions by Age & Gender
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12 AM1 AM2 AM3 AM4 AM5 AM6 AM7 AM8 AM9 AM10 AM11 AM12 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PM7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM11 PMWeekday Weekend
3
8
4
2
7
3
7
11
9
15
10
6
4
6 6
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
17 or Less18-2930-3940-4950-5960-6970 orMoreUnknownFemale Male
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 75 of 161
I 1 1 I I
• •
• •
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 13
3.0 Bicycle Collisions
A total of 180 bicycle-involved collisions were reported during the study period. Figure 3-1 and Table
3-1 display bicycle collision injury severity by roadway location. Combined, 10% (18 collisions) of the
180 bicycle-involved collisions resulted in a severe injury or fatal collision, the second highest severe
injury/fatal rate of the three modes.
Over half of bicycle-involved collisions (59% or 106 of the 180 records) were reported at mid-block
locations, including the only two fatalities and 12 of the 16 severe injury collisions. The remining four
severe injury collisions were reported at side-street stop-controlled intersections (three collisions)
and signalized intersections (one collision).
Intersection collisions were closely split between signalized and side-street stop-controlled
intersections, accounting for 19% and 17% of all bicycle-involved collisions, respectively.
Figure 3.1 - Bicycle Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Table 3.1 - Bicycle Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Location Signalized Intersection
All-Way
Stop-
Controlled Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-
Controlled Intersection Roundabout Uncontrolled Intersection Mid-Block Total
Complaint of Pain 11 1 11 - - 19 42
Other Visible Injury 22 2 17 2 4 73 120
Severe Injury 1 - 3 - - 12 16
Fatal - - - - - 2 2
Total 34 3 31 2 4 106 180
11
1
11
1922
2
17
2 4
73
1 3
12
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
SignalizedIntersection All-Way Stop-ControlledIntersection
Side-Street Stop-ControlledIntersection
Roundabout UncontrolledIntersection Mid-Block
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 76 of 161
---
• • ■ •
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 14
Figure 3-2 displays the party at-fault by roadway location. Drivers were more commonly at-fault
during collisions occurring at signalized intersection locations (61% or 20 of the 33 signalized
intersection collisions where fault was assigned). Bicyclists were more commonly at-fault during mid-block collisions (72% or 59 of the 82 mid-block collisions where fault was assigned).
The intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard & Poinsettia Lane was the only signalized intersection where
multiple bicyclist at-fault collisions (2) were reported. Two signalized intersections experienced
multiple collisions where the driver was at-fault:
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive (3 collisions)
La Costa Avenue & Piraeus Street (2 collisions)
Of the 14 severe injury/fatal collisions that occurred at mid-block locations, seven were reported as
bicyclist at-fault, five as driver at-fault, and no fault assigned for the remaining two. Five of those
seven bicyclist at-fault collisions occurred along Carlsbad Boulevard, due to unsafe speeds, unsafe
turning movements, or following too closely.
The most frequent driver movements reported for the 69 driver at-fault collisions include:
Making right-turn (17 collisions)
Making left-turn (8 collisions)
Proceeding straight (5 collisions)
Other (ex., backing, entering traffic, U-turn, other) (6 collisions)
The most frequent bicyclist movements reported for the 93 bicyclist at-fault collisions include:
Proceeding straight (66 collisions)
Changing lanes (8 collisions)
Making left-turn (5 collisions)
Other (ex., right-turn, merging, wrong way, slowing/stopping, other) (14 collisions)
Figure 3.2 - Bicycle Collision Party at-Fault by Roadway Location
20
1
14
1
33
13
2
14
2 3
59
1 3
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
SignalizedIntersection All-Way Stop-ControlledIntersection
Side-Street Stop-ControlledIntersection
Roundabout UncontrolledIntersection Mid-Block
Driver Bicyclist No Fault Assigned
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 77 of 161
-
■ ■ ■
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 15
Bicycle collision causes by roadway location are shown in Table 3-2. Improper Turning was the
leading collision cause, cited for 22% of all bicycle collisions, including three severe injuries which all
occurred in mid-block. Improper turning collisions were split amongst mid-block (22 collisions) and intersection (18 collisions) environments. Unsafe Speed was the second leading cause overall (38
collisions) and the leading cause for severe injury/fatal collisions (4 collisions) which again all
occurred in mid-block.
Table 3.2 - Bicycle Collision Cause by Roadway Location
Cause
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way
Stop-Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-Controlled
Intersection Roundabout
Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-
Block Total
Improper Turning 11 1 5 - 1 22 (3S) 40
Unsafe Speed 2 1 5 - 1 29 (4S) 38
Auto R/W Violation 4 - 6 - 2 8 (1S) 20
Unknown - - 3 (2S) - - 12 (2S) 15
Other Hazardous
Movement 1 - 4 - - 8 13
Traffic Signals and Signs 9 (1S) 1 2 - - 1 13
Unsafe Lane Change - - - - - 7 (2F) 7
Wrong Side of Road 2 - 2 - - 3 7
Following Too Closely - - - 1 - 4 (1S) 5
Unsafe Starting or
Backing - - 2 - - 3 5
Other Than Driver - - 1 (1S) - - 4 (1S) 5
Other Improper
Driving 1 - - 1 - 2 4
Driving Under
Influence 1 - - - - 2 3
Improper Passing 2 - - - - 1 3
Lights - - 1 - - - 1
Ped R/W Violation 1 - - - - - 1
Total 34 3 31 2 4 106 180
S = Severe; F = Fatal
Table 3-3 presents violation codes by injury severity. Figure 3-3 compares violation codes for severe
injury and fatal collisions to all injury collisions. Consistent with the collision causes, the most
frequent violation code reported for bicycle-involved collisions was 22107, failing to turn properly (39
collisions). Unsafe speed was the second leading violation code, with 38 collisions reported, and
leading code for severe/fatal injury collisions.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 78 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 16
Table 3.3 - Bicycle Collision Violation Code by Injury Severity
Violation
Code Definition1
Complaint
of Pain
Other
Visible
Injury
Severe
Injury Fatal Total
22107 No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct
course or move right or left upon a roadway
until such movement can be made with reasonable safety…
11 26 2 - 39
22350 Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions. 7 27 4 - 38
21801(a) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the
left or to complete a U-turn upon a highway, or
to turn left into public or private property, or an
alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which
are close enough to constitute a hazard at any
time during the turning movement, and shall
continue to yield the right-of-way to the
approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-
turn can be made with reasonable safety.
3 8 1 - 12
21453(a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal
alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if
none, before entering the crosswalk on the
near side of the intersection or, if none, then
before entering the intersection, and shall
remain stopped until an indication to proceed
is shown, except as provided in subdivision
(b).
3 4 1 - 8
21658(a) Whenever any roadway has been divided into
two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in
one direction, the following rules apply: (a) A
vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical
entirely within a single lane and shall not be
moved from the lane until such movement can
be made with reasonable safety.
- 5 - 2 7
21650.1 A bicycle operated on a roadway, or the
shoulder of a highway, shall be operated in the
same direction as vehicles are required to be
driven upon the roadway.
2 4 - - 6
22106 No person shall start a vehicle stopped,
standing, or parked on a highway, nor shall
any person back a vehicle on a highway until
such movement can be made with reasonable
safety.
4 1 - - 5
21703 The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow
another vehicle more closely than is
reasonable and prudent, having due regard for
the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon,
and the condition of, the roadway.
1 3 1 - 5
Other/Not Stated 11 42 7 0 60
Total 42 120 16 2 180
Note: 1 Violation Code definition obtained from California Department of Motor Vehicles 2015 California Vehicle Code.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 79 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 17
Figure 3.3 - Bicycle Collision Violation Code Comparison
Note: Violation Code definitions are provided in Table 3-3.
Table 3-4 displays the driver and bicyclist movements preceding each collision. Proceeding Straight
was the leading bicycle movement reported, assigned to 142 of the 180 collisions. Driver
movements were led by Proceeding Straight, Making Right-Turn, and Making Left-Turn movements.
Table 3.4 - Bicycle-Vehicle Collisions by Movement
Driver Movement
Proceeding Straight Other/Not Stated Making Right-Turn Making Left-Turn Parked Stopped In Road Making U-Turn Backing Slowing/Stopping Changing Lanes Entering Traffic Merging Other Unsafe Turning Parking Maneuver Ran Off Road Traveling Wrong Way Total Bike Movement Proceeding Straight 34 35 27 15 9 7 5 3 2 1 - 1 1 1 1 - 142
Changing Lanes 7 1 - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 10
Making Left-Turn 4 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7
Making Right-Turn 3 2 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6
Traveling Wrong Way 2 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 4
Other/Not Stated 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3
Entering Traffic 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - 2
Slowing/Stopping - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2
Merging - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
Other Unsafe Turning 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
Passing Other Vehicle - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
Ran Off Road - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
Total 53 46 31 15 9 7 5 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 180
22107
22107
22350
22350
21801(a)
21801(a)
21453(a)
21453(a)
21658(a)
21658(a)
21650.1
22106
21703
21703
Other/Not Stated
Other/Not Stated
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
All Injury Collisions
Severe/Fatal Collisions
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 80 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 18
Figure 3-4 presents bicycle collisions by time of day. Approximately 70% of the collisions were
reported on weekdays. Weekday collisions peak during the 12:00PM to 1:00PM hour. Additional
weekday collision spikes are noticeable during hours that may coincide with work and/or school commutes (9:00AM, 2:00PM, 3:00PM, and 6:00PM). Weekend collisions are more concentrated
during the late morning and early afternoon hours between 10:00AM and 2:00PM.
Figure 3.4 - Bicycle Collisions by Time of Day
Figure 3-5 displays bicyclist collisions by age and gender. When compared to the pedestrian records,
bicyclist ages tend to track older, concentrated among the 40 to 69 age groups. Men represented
approximately 83% of bicyclists reported. This information may be useful for targeting educational
programs for specific demographics.
Figure 3.5 - Bicycle Collisions by Age & Gender
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
12 AM1 AM2 AM3 AM4 AM5 AM6 AM7 AM8 AM9 AM10 AM11 AM12 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PM7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM11 PMWeekday Weekend
4 4 2
10 8
2 0
3
14 14
18
21
29
24
5
31
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
17 or Less18-2930-3940-4950-5960-6970 orMoreUnknownFemale Male
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 81 of 161
I I I l I L I ~ I •
■ ■
I
■ ■
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 19
4.0 Vehicular Collisions
A total of 1,374 vehicle-involved injury collisions are included in this analysis. This section excludes
collisions involving pedestrians and bicycles. Figure 4-1 and Table 4-1 display vehicular collision
injury severity by roadway location. Collisions were closely split between intersections (53%) and mid-
block locations (47%).
Approximately 60% of the severe injury/fatal collisions were reported at mid-block locations, and
largely concentrated along Carlsbad Boulevard (14 collisions), followed by Palomar Airport Road (4
collisions) and Rancho Santa Fe Road (4 collisions).
Among the 724 intersection collisions, signalized locations accounted for 78% of all injury collisions
and 59% of severe injury/fatal collisions.
Figure 4.1 - Vehicular Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Table 4.1 - Vehicular Collision Injury Severity by Roadway Location
Location
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection Roundabout
Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-
Block Total
Complaint of Pain 345 9 67 5 6 376 808
Other Visible Injury 204 3 48 8 2 235 500
Severe Injury 14 1 7 - 2 29 53
Fatal 2 - - - 1 10 13
Total 565 13 122 13 11 650 1,374
345
9
67
5 6
376
204
3
48
8 2
235
14 1 7 2 29
2 1 10
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Roundabout Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-Block
Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 82 of 161
• • • •
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 20
Table 4-2 displays crash type by roadway location. Rear-End collisions were the most common
vehicular crash type overall (37%), and the leading crash type at mid-block locations (50%).
Broadside collisions were the most frequent crash type at all intersection locations combined, and the leading crash type at all intersection control types individually other than roundabouts.
Table 4.2 - Vehicular Collision Crash Type by Roadway Location
Crash Type
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way
Stop-Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-Controlled
Intersection Roundabout
Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-
Block Total
Rear-End 148 3 30 - 1 328 510
Broadside 266 6 56 1 5 68 402
Hit Object 24 1 8 3 1 105 142
Sideswipe 31 - 8 1 1 73 114
Head-On 62 1 11 4 3 23 104
Other/Not Stated 20 2 5 1 0 27 55
Overturned 14 - 4 3 - 26 47
Total 565 13 122 13 11 650 1,374
Table 4-3 presents crash types by injury severity. The leading crash type for severe injury/fatal
collisions was Hit Object, assigned to 21 of the 66 collisions. Hit Object collisions resulting in a
severe or fatal injury were due to unsafe speeds (8 collisions), driving under the influence (6
collisions), improper turning (6 collisions) and other improper driving (1 collision). Hit Object
collisions were most common at mid-block locations (16 of the 21 collisions). No locations
experienced multiple severe injury/fatal Hit Object collisions.
Broadside collisions were the second most frequent crash type for severe/fatal injuries, reported for
18 records. No locations experienced multiple severe injury/fatal Broadside collisions, however, four unique intersections along El Camino Real and three along Palomar Airport Road were identified.
Nine percent of Overturned collisions resulted in a severe injury or fatality, the highest rate of any
crash type, followed by Hit Object collisions at 7%.
Table 4.3 - Vehicular Collision Crash Type by Injury Severity
Crash Type
Complaint of
Pain
Other Visible
Injury Severe Injury Fatal Total
Rear-End 371 129 8 2 510
Broadside 233 151 15 3 402
Hit Object 49 72 15 6 142
Sideswipe 69 40 4 1 114
Head-On 49 51 4 - 104
Other/Not Stated 23 28 3 1 55
Overturned 14 29 4 - 47
Total 808 500 53 13 1,374
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 83 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 21
Vehicular collision causes are presented by roadway location in Table 4-4. Unsafe Speed was the
most frequent collision cause reported for all locations combined (489 collisions), and the leading
cause for mid-block collisions (317 collisions). Unsafe Speed was also the most frequent collision cause reported for severe/fatal injuries, accounting for 22 collisions, including 14 at mid-block
locations. Failure to obey Traffic Signals and Signs was the second leading cause, reported for 240
collisions with 233 reported at signalized intersection locations including all seven severe injuries
attributed to this cause.
Approximately 13% of the 133 Driving Under the Influence collisions resulted in a severe/fatal injury,
the highest rate of any cause. Driving Under Influence of Alcohol was the second most frequent
cause reported for collisions resulting in a severe injury/fatal situation, accounting for 13 severe
injury and 4 vehicular fatalities (one at a signalized intersection and 3 at midblock locations).
Table 4.4 - Vehicular Collision Cause by Roadway Location
Cause
Signalized
Intersection
All-Way
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection
Side-Street
Stop-
Controlled
Intersection Roundabout
Uncontrolled
Intersection
Mid-
Block Total
Unsafe Speed 134 2 29 3 4 317 489
Traffic Signals and
Signs
226 2 5 - - 7 240
Auto R/W Violation 50 4 47 1 5 44 151
Improper Turning 29 - 14 - 1 95 139
Driving Under
Influence
40 2 12 9 1 69 133
Following Too Closely 14 1 4 - - 34 53
Unknown 32 - 3 - - 5 40
Unsafe Lane Change 3 - 1 - - 22 26
Other Than Driver 3 1 2 - - 15 21
Other Improper Driving 3 - 2 - - 15 20
Unsafe Starting or
Backing
9 - - - - 9 18
Other Hazardous
Movement
9 - 1 - - 6 16
Not Stated 6 1 1 - - 2 10
Wrong Side of Road 4 - - - - 6 10
Improper Passing 1 - 1 - - 2 4
Impeding Traffic - - - - - 2 2
Pedestrian Violation 2 - - - - - 2
Total 565 13 122 13 11 650 1,374
S = Severe; F = Fatal
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 84 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 22
Table 4-5 presents violation codes by injury severity. The top ten violation codes reported for
vehicular collisions account for approximately 84% of all injury collisions. Figure 4-2 compares the
violation codes for the severe injury and fatal collisions to the leading 10 violations (26 or more collisions) assigned to all vehicular collisions.
Consistent with the collision causes reported in Table 4-4, violation 22350, unsafe speed for
prevailing conditions, was the most frequent code cited for all vehicular collisions (488 collisions)
and most frequent for severe/fatal injuries (21 collisions).
Violation code 22107, failing to turn safely, and violation 23152(a), driving under the influence of
alcohol, represent higher shares of severe/fatal injury collisions (15% and 17%, respectively) than
they do for all injury collisions (9% and 7%, respectively).
Combined, violation codes 22350, 22107, and 23152(a) account for 64% of all severe/fatal injury
collisions. Focusing recommendations on these issues may help reduce collisions resulting in the
greatest levels of injury severity.
Figure 4.2 - Vehicular Collision Violation Code Comparison
Note: Violation Code definitions are provided in Table 4-5.
22350
22350
21453(a)
21453(a)
22107
22107
23152(a)
23152(a)
21703
21801(a)
21801(a)
21453(c)
21453(c)
21804(a)
21804(a)
21802(a)21658(a)
21658(a)
Other/Not Stated
Other/Not Stated
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
All Injury Collisions
Severe/Fatal Collisions
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 85 of 161
i i l i i
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 23
Table 4.5 - Vehicular Collision Violation Code by Injury Severity
Violation
Code Definition1
Complaint
of Pain
Other
Visible
Injury
Severe
Injury Fatal Total
22350 Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions. 313 154 15 6 488
21453(a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but
if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to
proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
128 87 7 - 222
22107 No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a
roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety… 57 58 8 2 125
23152(a) It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage to
drive a vehicle. 33 57 8 3 101
21703 The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is
reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the
traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway.
43 10 - - 53
21801(a) The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or to complete a U-turn upon a
highway, or to turn left into public or private property, or an alley, shall yield the right-
of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close enough
to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to
yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be
made with reasonable safety.
24 22 1 - 47
21453(c) A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the
movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make a
movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if
none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none,
then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication
permitting movement is shown.
24 10 1 - 35
21804(a) The driver of any vehicle about to enter or cross a highway from any public or private
property, or from an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all traffic, as defined in
Section 620, approaching on the highway close enough to constitute an immediate
hazard, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that traffic until he or she can
proceed with reasonable safety.
20 9 1 1 31 Nov. 15, 2022Item #14 Page 86 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 24
Table 4.5 - Vehicular Collision Violation Code by Injury Severity
Violation
Code Definition1
Complaint
of Pain
Other
Visible
Injury
Severe
Injury Fatal Total
21802(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an
intersection shall stop as required by Section 22450. The driver shall then yield the
right-of-way to any vehicles which have approached from another highway, or which are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard, and shall continue
to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles until he or she can proceed with reasonable
safety.
23 7 - - 30
21658(a) Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for
traffic in one direction, the following rules apply: (a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly
as practical entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.
16 9 1 - 26
Other/Not Stated2 127 77 11 1 216
Total 808 500 53 13 1,374
Source: California Department of Motor Vehicles, 2015 California Vehicle Code (2015)
Notes:
1. Violation Code Definition obtained from California Department of Motor Vehicles 2015 California Vehicle Code.
2. This table identifies the ten most frequent violation codes reported for vehicular collisions. Remaining violation codes were grouped together as “Other/Not Stated”.
Nov. 15, 2022Item #14 Page 87 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 25
Table 4-6 displays driver movements preceding each of the 66 severe injury or fatal collisions. The
combination of reported movements accounting for the greatest number of severe injuries/fatalities
occurred when both drivers proceeding straight, 16 of the 66 records. Eight of these 16 records were broadside collisions.
Table 4.6 - Severe/Fatal Vehicle Collisions by Movement
Vehicle 2 Movement
Proceeding Straight Other/Not Stated Making Left-Turn Parked Stopped In Road Making U-Turn Slowing/Sopping Passing Other Vehicle Total Vehicle 1 Movement (party-at-fault) Proceeding Straight 16 18 4 4 3 - 1 1 47
Making Left-Turn 5 - - - - - - - 5
Other Unsafe Turning 1 3 - - - - - - 4
Changing Lanes 3 - - - - - - - 3
Making U-Turn 1 1 - - - 1 - - 3
Ran Off Road - 2 - - - - - - 2
Making Right-Turn - 1 - - - - - - 1
Passing Other Vehicle - - 1 - - - - - 1
Total 26 25 5 4 3 1 1 1 66
Figure 4-5 presents vehicle collisions by time of day. On weekdays, collision peaks are noticeable
during traditional work and school commute hours. Weekend collisions are more concentrated within
the afternoon hours.
Figure 4.3 - Vehicle Collisions by Time of Day
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
12 AM1 AM2 AM3 AM4 AM5 AM6 AM7 AM8 AM9 AM10 AM11 AM12 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PM7 PM8 PM9 PM10 PM11 PMWeekday Weekend
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 88 of 161
-
■ ■
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 26
5.0 Systemic Collision Matrices
Systemic collision matrices were created to help identify characteristics related to behaviors and
roadway environments where collisions were most prevalent. The matrices were constructed using
behaviors as the rows and roadway characteristics as the columns.
Separate matrices were prepared for intersection and mid-block location types. The resulting matrices depict collision frequencies within each behavior/environment combination. The matrices
were produced in Excel using a pivot table, enabling the records represented within each cell to be
easily retrieved. Conditional formatting is used to help identify the greatest collision concentrations.
This information may inform the identification of improvements intended to be deployed across
locations with similar environments citywide.
Table 5-1 displays the intersection matrix for the 878 injury collisions, encompassing all travel
modes. The rows are comprised of the crash types which are further expanded to depict the
associated violation codes for the top three crash types as well as pedestrian- and bicycle-involved
collisions. The columns are organized by control type followed by the number of through lanes on the
intersection approaches.
Broadside collisions were the most frequent crash type reported, largely due to the driver’s failure to
stop at the limit line. These collisions were most common within the following environments:
Signalized intersections where four-lane and two-lane roads intersect (55 collisions)
Signalized intersections where six-lane and two-lane roads intersect (34 collisions)
Signalized intersections where six-lane and four-lane roads intersect (32 collisions)
The leading three pedestrian collision behavior/roadway environment combinations include:
Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk at side-street stop-controlled
intersections where four-lane and two-lane roads intersect (11 collisions)
Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk at signalized intersections where four-
lane and two-lane roads intersect (9 collisions)
Pedestrians failing to yield to drivers at side-street stop-controlled intersections where two
two-lane roads intersect (8 collisions)
Four behavior/roadway environment combinations each experienced four bicycle-involved collisions,
including:
Unsafe turns at signalized intersections where six-lane and two-lane roads intersect
Unsafe turns at signalized intersections where four-lane and two-lane roads intersect
Unsafe turns at side-street stop-controlled intersections where four-lane and two-lane roads
intersect
Unsafe speed at side-street stop-controlled intersections where two two-lane roads intersect
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 89 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 27
Table 5.1 - Intersection Matrix for All Injury Collisions
Nov. 15, 2022Item #14 Page 90 of 161Si1nalized Side Stop AII-WavStoo None/Yield Roundabout Grand Total
2x2 4x2 4x4 6x2 6x4 6x6 Fwy Ramp 2x2 4x2 6x2 Fwy Ramp 2x2 2x2 4x2 6x4 2x2
Broadside
21453{a) -Failure to stop at limit line 2 53 22 34 32 20 11 1 175
21802fal -Failure to vield at stoo sien 18 6 2 1 27
21453(c) -Entered intersection against red arrow 5 11 6 3 25
Other 5 17 1 6 13 2 21 7 1 1 3 4 1 82
Not Stated 1 7 3 2 8 2 1 1 25
Rear-End
22350 -Unsafe soeed 5 29 9 25 30 3 3 9 4 4 1 1 123
21703 -Following too closely 6 6 1 1 2 1 1 18
23152(al -Drivine: under the influence 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 14
Other 4 10 6 2 22
Not Stated 1 1 1 1 1 5
Head-On
21453(al -Failure to stop at limit line 1 8 1 4 5 3 1 23
21453kl - Entered intersection aEainst red arrow 2 3 3 2 10
22107 -Unsafe turn 2 1 1 2 1 1 8
Other 2 4 3 2 1 1 3 6 2 1 2 4 31
Not Stated 1 3 2 2 1 9
Pedestrian -Vehicle
21950(al -Failure to vield to oedestrian in crosswalk 3 9 2 1 2 1 2 1 11 3 35
21954(al -Pedestrian failure to vield to vehicle 1 1 8 1 1 1 13
22350 -Unsafe soeed 1 1 2 4
21950(bl -Pedestrian crossini;?: into vehicle oath 1 1 2 4
Other 2 8 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 20
Not Stated 1 1 1 1 4
Bicvcle
21453(a) -Failure to stop at limit line 3 1 3 7
22107 -Unsafe turn 2 4 1 4 1 4 1 1 18
22350 -Unsafe speed 1 1 4 1 1 1 9
Other 2 5 1 1 2 2 12 5 1 1 1 1 1 3S
Not Stated 1 2 1 1 5
Sideswioe 2 8 2 9 6 3 1 6 2 1 1 41
HitObiect 1 11 5 3 3 1 6 2 1 1 3 37
Other/Not Stated 8 1 6 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 28
Overturned 6 2 1 2 2 1 3 1 3 21
Grand Total 32 202 57 135 139 47 30 112 56 12 1 20 17 1 1 16 878
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 28
Table 5-2 displays the matrix for the 805 mid-block injury collisions, combining all travel modes. The
rows were created using all crash types and further expanded to depict the associated violation
codes. The columns are organized by the posted speed limit followed by the number of through lanes.
Mid-block collisions were very concentrated within the rear end crash type due to the unsafe speed
violation code. The environments these collisions most often occurred within include:
Roadways with a posted speed limit of 55 mph and six lanes (92 collisions)
Roadways with a posted speed limit of 50 mph and four lanes (24 collisions)
Roadways with a posted speed limit of 55 mph and five lanes (16 collisions)
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 91 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan Descriptive Statistics Report
Page 29
Table 5.2 - Mid-Block Matrix for All Injury Collisions
Nov. 15, 2022Item #14 Page 92 of 16125mph 30mph 35mph 40mph 45mph 50mph 55mph Grand Total
2-ln 3-ln 4-ln 2-ln 4-ln 2-ln 4-ln 5-ln 6-Ln 2-Ln 3-ln 4-ln 4-Ln 5-Ln 6-Ln 7-ln 2-Ln 4-Ln 5-Ln 6-ln 4-ln 5-Ln 6-ln
Rear-End
22350 -Unsafe speed 10 5 9 6 12 7 l 11 1 1 6 13 1 2 4 24 1 6 5 16 92 233
21703 -Following too closely l 1 2 2 3 1 4 3 1 15 33
22107 -Unsafe turn 3 2 1 1 7 14
Other 6 2 1 2 1 3 1 l 5 1 4 1 14 42
Not Stated 1 1 1 1 2 6
Bicvcle
22350 -Unsafe speed 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 2 7 29
22107 -Unsafe turn 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 5 1 1 3 21
21658(a) -Unsafe lane change 1 1 2 1 2 7
21801(a} -Failure to yield left-or U-turn 2 l 2 1 1 7
Other 3 1 2 1 5 2 2 1 4 2 2 25
Not Stated 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 17
Hit Object
22350 -Unsafe speed 7 2 1 3 1 2 l 2 3 1 7 l 1 13 45
22107 -Unsafe turn 2 2 2 4 2 l 1 5 1 2 5 27
23152(a) -Driving under the influence l 5 2 l l 1 1 6 18
Other 2 1 1 1 2 7
Not Stated 3 2 1 1 l 8
Sideswioe
22107 -Unsafe turn 6 l l l 4 2 1 l 6 1 9 33
21658(a) -Unsafe lane change l l 3 3 5 13
23152(a) -Driving under the influence 2 2 1 1 2 8
Other 3 3 2 1 2 4 15
Not Stated 1 1 1 1 4
Broadside
22350 -Unsafe speed 1 2 l l 3 8
22107 -Unsafe turn 3 1 2 2 8
21801(a) -Failure to yield left-or U-turn 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 16
21804(a)-Failure to yield when entering traffic 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 16
Other 1 1 2 2 2 l 2 1 4 16
Not Stated 1 2 1 4
Pedestrian -Vehicle
22350 -Unsafe speed 2 1 3
21950(a)-Failure to yield to pedestrian in crosswalk 1 2 3
21950(b) -Pedestrian crossing into vehicle path 2 1 3
21954(a) -Pedestrian failure to yield to vehicle 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 4 19
Other 5 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 17
Not Stated 1 1 1 1 4
Other/Not Stated
22350 -Unsafe speed 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 9
22107 -Unsafe turn 1 2 3
23152(a) -Driving under the influence 1 1 1 1 4
Other 1 2 1 3 7
Not Stated 1 1 1 1 4
overturned
22350 -Unsafe speed 3 2 2 2 1 10
22107 -Unsafe turn 1 2 1 1 s
21658(a} -Unsafe lane change 1 1
23152(a) -Driving under the influence 1 3 1 1 1 7
Not Stated 1 1 1 3
Head-On
22350 -Unsafe speed 1 1 3 1 6
21804(a)-Failure to yield when entering traffic 1 2 3
23152(a)-Driving under the influence 2 1 3
Other 2 1 1 2 2 2 10
Not Stated 1 1
Grand Total 88 2 22 30 19 70 41 2 21 17 5 46 32 1 3 10 5 99 5 18 21 26 222 805
City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
Appendix B - Intersection & Segment Analysis
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 93 of 161
C R
Prepared For Prepared By
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
CR Associates
3900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310
San Diego, CA 92103
CITY OF CARLSBAD
LOCAL ROADWAY
SAFETY PLAN
NOVEMBER 2021
Intersection & Segment Analysis
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 94 of 161
{'city of
Carlsbad C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1
California Office of Traffic Safety Rankings ....................................................................................... 1
Strategic Highway Safety Plan Challenge Areas ............................................................................... 2
Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 3
2.0 Intersection Collisions ............................................................................................................................. 5
Intersection Collision Frequency.......................................................................................................... 5
Intersection Crash Rates ..................................................................................................................... 13
3.0 Segment Collisions ................................................................................................................................ 17
Segment Collision Frequency ............................................................................................................. 17
Segment Collision Rates ..................................................................................................................... 23
4.0 High Frequency Collision Intersections .............................................................................................. 27
Appendices
Appendix A - Crash Rate Inputs
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 95 of 161
C R
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page ii
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Severe/Fatal Injury Collisions ........................................................................................... 6
Figure 2-2 High Collision Frequency Intersections ............................................................................ 7
Figure 2-3 Vehicle-Only Collisions ....................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2-4 Pedestrian-Involved Collisions ....................................................................................... 10
Figure 2-5 Bicycle-Involved Collisions .............................................................................................. 12
Figure 3-1 High Collision Frequency Segments .............................................................................. 19
List of Tables
Table 1-1 California OTS Crash Ranking Comparison ...................................................................... 2
Table 2-1 Intersections with Multiple Severe/Fatal Injury Collisions .............................................. 5
Table 2-2 High Collision Frequency Intersections ............................................................................ 8
Table 2-3 Intersections with Multiple Pedestrian Collisions ............................................................ 8
Table 2-4 Intersections with Multiple Bicycle Collisions ............................................................... 11
Table 2-5 Intersection Crash Rates ................................................................................................ 14
Table 3-1 Segments by Severe/Fatal Injury Collision Frequency ................................................. 17
Table 3-2 Segments by Collision Frequency .................................................................................. 18
Table 3-3 Segments by Vehicle-Only Collision Frequency ............................................................. 20
Table 3-4 Segments with Multiple Pedestrian Collisions .............................................................. 20
Table 3-5 Segments with Multiple Bicycle Collisions .................................................................... 21
Table 3-6 Segment Crash Rates ..................................................................................................... 24
Table 4-1 High Collision Intersections ............................................................................................ 27
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 96 of 161
C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 1
1.0 Introduction
The City of Carlsbad embarked on development of the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) to identify
locations where transportation safety may be improved and to identify specific safety improvements.
A Descriptive Statistics Report was developed to identify citywide trends amongst collision records,
including an examination of collision causes, violations, movements, and roadway characteristics for
collisions involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. The Descriptive Statistics Report documents the construction of the five-year collision database (January 2015 – December 2019), which
resulted in a total of 1,683 injury collisions.
This Intersection and Segment Analysis Report is intended to compliment the Descriptive Statistics
Report by identifying collision frequencies and rates at individual intersections and roadway
segments across the City. A supplemental focus is placed on locations that experienced the greatest
collision frequencies. The findings from this report, combined with the Descriptive Statistics Report
and input from City staff and other stakeholders, will be used to determine specific locations and
topic areas to focus recommendation – or countermeasure – development on.
Following this introductory chapter, this report is divided into chapters for intersection collisions and
segment or mid-block collisions, followed by a chapter focusing on the highest collision frequency
locations.
California Office of Traffic Safety Rankings
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) provides comparisons of traffic safety statistics between
cities with similar sized populations. This data can help build an understanding of which areas cities
are doing well in or may need improvement in. The most recent year of OTS data is for 2018.
With an estimated 2018 population of 113,365, the City of Carlsbad falls within Group B, which
includes 59 cities with a population size between 100,001 – 250,000. Additional cities in San Diego
County categorized in Group B include Oceanside, Vista, Escondido, and El Cajon.
Table 1-1 displays the OTS rankings for Carlsbad and the other Group B cities in San Diego County. The rankings depict two numbers: the first number is the city’s ranking in that category, while the
second number is the total number of cities within that Group. Number 1 in the rankings is the
highest or worst, while 59 would be the lowest or best for Group B.
OTS provides the following description as to how the rankings are determined:
“Crash rankings are based on the Empirical Bayesian Ranking Method, which adds weights to
different statistical categories including observed crash counts, population and vehicle miles
traveled. The crash counts reflect the aggregated impacts of all influential factors containing
even the unrecognized or unmeasurable ones (e.g. level of enforcement), and the population
and vehicle miles traveled represent the important traffic exposure factors that affect crash
occurrence. The weights are assigned to the three components in a way that maximizes the
precision of estimated Bayesian crash counts.”
By comparison, areas that may be noteworthy in Carlsbad include collisions involving bicyclists and
collisions involving drivers that have been drinking under the age of 21. Bicycle collisions may be
addressed through a combination of engineering, education, and enforcement related measures. Underage drinking drivers could be addressed through enforcement and education programs.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 97 of 161
C R
1.1
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 2
Table 1-1 California OTS Crash Ranking Comparison for 2018
Type of Crash Carlsbad Oceanside Vista Escondido El Cajon
Total Fatal and Injury 47/59 36/59 56/59 9/59 4/59
Alcohol Involved 40/59 17/59 34/59 8/59 13/59
Has Been Drinking Driver < 21 8/59 5/59 35/59 3/59 26/59
Has Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 38/59 13/59 33/59 8/59 29/59
Motorcycles 33/59 3/59 20/59 6/59 2/59
Pedestrians 26/59 40/59 44/59 12/59 2/59
Pedestrians < 15 30/59 46/59 51/59 18/59 2/59
Pedestrians 65+ 37/59 52/59 46/59 18/59 3/59
Bicyclists 5/59 22/59 52/59 23/59 8/59
Bicyclists < 15 30/59 41/59 36/59 29/59 21/59
Composite 39/59 10/59 42/59 10/59 13/59
Speed Related 36/59 7/59 58/59 15/59 9/59
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 56/59 12/59 45/59 26/59 7/59
Hit and Run 36/59 31/59 46/59 25/59 5/59
Source: California Office of Traffic Safety (2021)
Strategic Highway Safety Plan Challenge Areas
The California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is a statewide traffic safety plan that provides a
framework and strategies for reducing fatalities, severe injuries, and total crashes. The SHSP
development is led by stakeholders representing California’s 5 Es of traffic safety: Education,
Enforcement, Engineering, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies.
The SHSP identifies safety “Challenge Areas” to focus resources. The 2020 – 2024 SHSP includes a
total of 16 Challenge Areas which were categorized into High Priority Areas and Focus Areas. Greater
resources are focused on High Priority Areas, as they are identified as having the greatest potential to significantly decrease statewide fatalities and severe injuries.
High Priority Areas
Active Transportation: Pedestrians &
Bicyclists
Impaired Driving
Intersections
Lane Departures
Speed Management/Aggressive Driving
Focus Areas
Aging Drivers (≥65 years in age)
Commercial Vehicles
Distracted Driving
Driver Licensing
Emergency Response
Emerging Technologies
Motorcyclists
Occupant Protection
Work Zones
Young Drivers (ages 15 – 20)
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 98 of 161
C R
1.2
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 3
Based on the Descriptive Statistics Report findings and OTS data, High Priority Areas relevant to
Carlsbad include Active Transportation: Pedestrians & Bicyclists, Impaired Driving, Intersections, and
Speed Management/Aggressive Driving.
Key Findings
Intersections
From the 1,683 collision records that were analyzed, 878 records were identified as intersection collisions, including 41 collisions resulting in severe injuries or fatalities. Intersection collisions are
dispersed throughout the City, primarily along roadways intended to carry relatively higher volumes of
traffic. Greater concentrations are present within the Village area and along Carlsbad Boulevard for
all travel modes. Relatively high levels of pedestrian and bicycle activity are also common in these
areas.
The two intersections that experienced multiple severe injury/fatal collisions are:
El Camino Real & Faraday Avenue (signalized) – 2 severe/fatal; 6 collisions total
Alicante Road & Colina De La Costa (uncontrolled)– 2 severe/fatal; 3 collisions total
From the 10 intersections with highest collision frequencies, 50% are located along El Camino Real
and 30% along Palomar Airport Road. The intersections with the highest collision frequencies when
combining for all travel modes are:
El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) – 18 collisions
Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) – 16 collisions
Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street (signalized) – 15 collisions
The intersections with the highest vehicle-only collision frequencies are:
El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) – 17 collisions
Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) – 16 collisions
El Camino Real & Alga Road (signalized) – 14 collisions
The intersections with the highest pedestrian collision frequencies are:
Roosevelt Street & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) – 4 pedestrian collisions
Carlsbad Boulevard & Hemlock Avenue (side street stop controlled) – 4 pedestrian collisions
The intersection with the highest bicycle collision frequency is:
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive (signalized)– 4 bicycle collisions
Intersection and segment crash rates were determined to provide a comparison that accounts for
vehicular activity in addition to collision frequency. The three intersections with the highest crash
rates include:
Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street (roundabout) – 0.510
Tamarack Avenue & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) – 0.337
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive (signalized) – 0.337
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 99 of 161
C R
1.3
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 4
Segments
From the 1,683 collision records that were analyzed, 805 records were identified as segment
collisions, including 67 collisions resulting in severe injuries or fatalities. Similar to intersection collisions, segment collisions are primarily located along roadways intended to carry relatively higher
volumes of traffic, with greater concentrations the Village area and along Carlsbad Boulevard.
Severe injury/fatal collision concentrations are depicted along multiple stretches of Carlsbad
Boulevard, eastern Palomar Airport Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Road. Five of the nine segments
identified to have multiple severe injury/fatal collisions were located along Carlsbad Boulevard. The
segments with highest severe injury/fatal collision frequencies are:
Carlsbad Boulevard from Solamar Drive to Island Way – 5 severe/fatal; 15 total collisions
Carlsbad Boulevard from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road – 4 severe/fatal; 21 total
collisions
The segments with greatest collision frequency when combining all travel modes are:
Carlsbad Boulevard from Tamarack Ave to Cannon Road – 21 collisions
Palomar Airport Road from El Camino Real to Loker Avenue/Innovation Way – 20 collisions
El Camino Real from Costa del Mar Road to La Costa Avenue – 18 collisions
The segments with greatest vehicle-only collision frequencies are:
Palomar Airport Road from El Camino Real to Loker Avenue/Innovation Way – 17 collisions
Palomar Airport Road from El Fuerte Street to Melrose Drive – 17 collisions
El Camino Real from Costa Del Mar Road to La Costa Avenue – 16 collisions
The segments with greatest pedestrian collision frequencies are:
Carlsbad Boulevard from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road – 3 pedestrian collisions
Carlsbad Village Drive from Harding Street to I-5 SB Ramps - 3 pedestrian collisions
Paseo del Norte from Palomar Airport Road to Camino De Las Ondas - 3 pedestrian collisions
The segments with greatest bicycle collision frequencies are:
Carlsbad Boulevard from Solamar Dr to Island Way – 7 bicycle collisions
Carlsbad Boulevard from Tamarack Ave to Cannon Road – 5 bicycle collisions
Carlsbad Boulevard from Avenida Encinas to La Costa Avenue – 5 bicycle collisions
The three segments with the highest crash rates also experienced some of the highest crash frequencies in the City and include:
Carlsbad Village Drive from Harding St to I-5 SB Ramps – 3.003
Carlsbad Boulevard from Solamar Drive to Island Way – 1.689
Carlsbad Boulevard from Cannon Road to Cerezo Drive – 1.435
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 100 of 161
C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 5
2.0 Intersection Collisions
Collisions with a reported intersection offset distance of 50 feet or less were categorized as
intersection collisions. This approach helps account for the influence that intersection characteristics
(ex., intersection control or markings) may have on records just outside of the physical intersection
footprint. This chapter focuses on the 878 records identified as intersection collisions, which include
41 collisions resulting in a severe injury or a fatality. Separate sections below are provided for intersection collision frequencies and collision rates.
Intersection Collision Frequency
Collision frequency was determined for severe injuries/fatalities all travel modes combined and for
each mode individually. The graphics presented in this chapter include and distinguish between intersection and mid-block collision locations to further make concentrations visible
Figure 2-1 displays the 39 unique intersections where severe injury or fatal collisions were reported
as well as the mid-block severe injury/fatal collisions. These collisions are primarily along roadways
intended to carry relatively higher volumes of traffic. Greater concentrations of severe injury/fatal
collisions at intersections are present within the Village area and along Carlsbad Boulevard.
Table 2-1 identifies the two intersections that experienced multiple severe injury/fatal collisions
during the five-year study period, and a breakdown of all injury collisions by travel mode.
Table 2-1 Intersections with Multiple Severe/Fatal Injury Collisions
Location
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
El Camino Real & Faraday Avenue (signalized) 6 5 - 1 2
Alicante Road & Colina De La Costa (uncontrolled) 3 3 - - 2
The signalized El Camino Real/Faraday Avenue intersection experienced two severe injury collisions,
one collision involved a westbound vehicle failing to stop at the limit line, resulting in a broadside
collision with a southbound vehicle. The second collision involved an eastbound travelling bicyclist
failing to stop at the limit line, resulting in a broadside collision with a southbound vehicle.
The Alicante Road/Colina De La Costa intersection – which is uncontrolled and provides access to a
multi-family residential development – experienced one fatal and one severe injury collision. The
fatal collision occurred when an eastbound vehicle making a left-turn failed to yield to a southbound
vehicle, resulting in a broadside collision. The severe injury collision involved a single northbound
vehicle (motorcycle) that was travelling at an unsafe speed and collided with a fixed object.
Figure 2-2 and Table 2-2 display the 10 intersections with the highest collision frequencies – those
with 10 or more collisions. Each of the ten locations identified in Table 2-2 are reviewed in greater
detail in Chapter 4. These 10 locations account for approximately 15% (130 of 878 collisions) of all
intersection collisions within the City. Five of the 10 intersections are located along El Camino Real and three along Palomar Airport Road – the signalized El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road
intersection being one of the locations. These roadways traverse the City while carrying some of the
greatest vehicular volumes with posted speed limits up to 55 mph. Three of the 10 intersections
experienced a severe or fatal injury collision – all are intersections along El Camino Real.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 101 of 161
C R
2.1
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan Figure 2-1
All Severe/Fatal Collisions
Vista
§¨¦5
·}78
College
Bl
A lga R d
AviaraPkwy
Marron R d
TamarackCarlsbadVillageDrElCaminoReal
CannonRd
Colle geB l
PoinsettiaLn
Melrose
Dr
FaradayAve
Cam VidaRoble
C a lle B a rcelonaAveMon
ro
e
St
Nort
ePaseo
DelOceanside
Encinitas
SanMarcos
PacificOcean
Batiquitos Lagoon
AguaHediondaLagoon
McClellan-PalomarAirport
BuenaVistaLagoon
PoinsettiaLnAvd
a
E
n
cin
a
s
Rancho S antaFeDrLaCostaAv
C
arlsbadBl
²
0 10.5 MilesPalomarAirportRd
Intersection Severe/Fatal Collisions
!(2
!(1
!(Midblock Severe/Fatal Collisions
School
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 102 of 161C R
... ~:· .•. ','\
' ' /~
.,,.-=:::~~~
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan Figure 2-2
High Collision Frequency Intersections
Vista
§¨¦5
·}78
College
Bl
A lga R d
AviaraPkwy
Marron R d
TamarackCarlsbadVillageDrElCaminoReal
CannonRd
Colle geB l
PoinsettiaLn
Melrose
Dr
FaradayAve
Cam VidaRoble
C a lle B a rcelonaAveMon
ro
e
St
Nort
ePaseo
DelOceanside
Encinitas
SanMarcos
PacificOcean
Batiquitos Lagoon
AguaHediondaLagoon
McClellan-PalomarAirport
BuenaVistaLagoon
PoinsettiaLnAvd
a
E
n
cin
a
s
Rancho S antaFeDrLaCostaAv
C
arlsbadBl
²
0 10.5 MilesPalomarAirportRd
High Frequency Collisions
!(15 - 18
!(12 - 14
!(10 - 11
School
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 103 of 161C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 8
Nine of the ten high collision frequency intersections are signalized, the exception being Carlsbad
Boulevard/State Street which is roundabout controlled. The roundabout experienced the third most
total collisions, including one pedestrian and two bicycle collisions, however no severe injury/fatal collisions. This aligns with one of the intended benefits of roundabouts, to reduce injury severity.
Table 2-2 High Collision Frequency Intersections
Location
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) 18 17 1 - 1
Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) 16 16 - - -
Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street (roundabout) 15 12 1 2 -
El Camino Real & Alga Road (signalized) 14 14 - - 1
College Boulevard & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) 12 12 - - -
El Camino Real & La Costa Avenue (signalized) 12 11 - 1 -
Rancho Santa Fe Road & La Costa Avenue (signalized) 12 12 - - -
El Camino Real & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) 11 11 - - -
El Camino Real & Cannon Road (signalized) 10 10 - - 1
Melrose Drive & Lionshead Avenue (signalized) 10 10 - - -
Figure 2-3 displays the 1,374 vehicle-only collisions across the City, differentiating between those
intersection and mid-block collisions. The ten intersections identified in Table 2-2 were also the ten
intersections with the greatest vehicle-only collision frequency. These intersections account for 125
vehicle-only collisions, approximately 17% of the 724 vehicle-only intersection collisions citywide.
Figure 2-4 displays pedestrian-involved collisions across the City, differentiating between those that
occurred at intersection and mid-block locations. Table 2-3 identifies the ten intersections where two
or more pedestrian collisions were reported.
Table 2-3 Intersections with Multiple Pedestrian Collisions
Location
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
Roosevelt Street & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) 7 2 4 1 -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Hemlock Avenue (side street stop) 5 1 4 - 1
Roosevelt Street & Grand Avenue (signalized) 3 - 3 - -
Harding Street & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) 8 4 3 1 -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Oak Avenue (side street stop) 4 - 2 2 -
Washington Street & Carlsbad Village Drive (signalized) 6 3 2 1 1
Carlsbad Boulevard & Maple Avenue (side street stop) 3 1 2 - -
Adams Street & Magnolia Avenue (all way stop) 2 - 2 - -
Paseo Del Norte & Palomar Airport Road (signalized) 9 7 2 - -
Faraday Avenue & College Boulevard (signalized) 9 7 2 - 1
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 104 of 161
C R
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan Figure 2-3Vehicle-Only Collisions
Vista
§¨¦5
·}78
College
Bl
A lga R d
AviaraPkwy
Marron R d
TamarackCarlsbadVillageDrElCaminoReal
CannonRd
Colle geB l
PoinsettiaLn
Melrose
Dr
FaradayAve
Cam VidaRoble
C a lle B a rcelonaAveMon
ro
e
St
Nort
ePaseo
DelOceanside
Encinitas
SanMarcos
PacificOcean
Batiquitos Lagoon
AguaHediondaLagoon
McClellan-PalomarAirport
BuenaVistaLagoon
PoinsettiaLnAvd
a
E
n
cin
a
s
Rancho S antaFeDrLaCostaAv
C
arlsbadBl
²
0 10.5 MilesPalomarAirportRd
Vehicle Collisions
!(16 - 17 Intersection Vehicle Collisions
!(11 - 15 Intersection Vehicle Collisions
!(6 - 10 Intersection Vehicle Collisions
!(2 - 5 Intersection Vehicle Collisions
!(1 Intersection Vehicle Collision
!(1 Midblock Vehicle Collision
School
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(!(
Jefferson
S
t CarlsbadVillageDrChestnutStTamarackAveCarls
bad
Bl
S
tateSt
Hard
ing
St
§¨¦5
PacificOcean
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 105 of 161
\
\
C R
I
L__l
l i L _______ l
I
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan Figure 2-4All Pedestrian Collisions
Vista
§¨¦5
·}78
College
Bl
A lga R d
AviaraPkwy
Marron R d
TamarackCarlsbadVillageDrElCaminoReal
CannonRd
Colle geB l
PoinsettiaLn
Melrose
Dr
FaradayAve
Cam VidaRoble
C a lle B a rcelonaAveMon
ro
e
St
Nort
ePaseo
DelOceanside
Encinitas
SanMarcos
PacificOcean
Batiquitos Lagoon
AguaHediondaLagoon
McClellan-PalomarAirport
BuenaVistaLagoon
PoinsettiaLnAvd
a
E
n
cin
a
s
Rancho S antaFeDrLaCostaAv
C
arlsbadBl
²
0 10.5 MilesPalomarAirportRd
Intersection Pedestrian Collisions
!(4
!(3
!(2
!(1
!(Midblock Pedestrian Collision
School
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
Jefferson
S
t CarlsbadVillageDrChestnutStTamarackAveCarls
bad
Bl
S
tateSt
Hard
ing
St
§¨¦5
PacificOcean
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 106 of 161C R
I
L__l
l i L _______ l
I
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 11
A concentration of intersection collisions is present within the Village area where relatively high
levels of pedestrian activity are common. The signalized Roosevelt Street/Carlsbad Village Drive
intersection within the Village was one of two locations where four pedestrian collisions were reported. In all four collisions, the driver was reported as the party at-fault while making a left-turn as
the pedestrian crossed Carlsbad Village Drive. The intersection is controlled by a permissive signal
on the minor street approaches (Roosevelt Street).
The side street stop-controlled Carlsbad Boulevard/Hemlock Avenue intersection was the other
location where four pedestrian collisions were reported, including one severe injury. The driver was
reported as the party at-fault during all four collisions, due to failing to yield the right-of-way to the
crossing pedestrian. The driver was headed southbound while proceeding straight during three
collisions, and westbound while making a right-turn during the fourth collision.
Five of the remaining eight intersections where multiple pedestrian collisions were reported are
located within the Village or the identified stretch of Carlsbad Boulevard. The countermeasure
development stage may focus on identifying potential treatments for these areas.
An additional concentration of intersection collisions is located along Carlsbad Boulevard, between the Village and Tamarack Avenue. Pedestrian activity is high in this area as people frequently seek
access to the beach and walkway along the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard. Many of the Carlsbad
Boulevard intersections along this stretch with consist of a marked crosswalk, stop sign on the minor
street, no control on Carlsbad Boulevard, and a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) with
additional signage and a pedestrian refuge. Where present, the pedestrian refuge/median also
restrict left-turns from the minor street onto southbound Carlsbad Boulevard.
Figure 2-5 displays bicycle-involved collisions citywide, differentiating between those that occurred at
intersection and mid-block locations. Table 2-4 identifies the nine intersections where two or more
bicycle collisions were reported. Five of the locations are intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. The
Carlsbad Boulevard/Cerezo Drive intersection experienced four bicycle collisions - the highest
collision frequency citywide. All four collisions occurred when the bicyclist was traveling northbound.
The intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard/State Street experienced two bicycle-involved collisions and
was also identified as the intersection with the third highest collision frequency for all travel modes
combined. The Carlsbad Boulevard/Oak Avenue intersection experienced two bicycle collisions and
two pedestrian collisions.
Table 2-4 Intersections with Multiple Bicycle Collisions
Location
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive (signalized) 9 5 - 4 -
Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street (roundabout) 15 12 1 2 -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Oak Avenue (side street stop) 4 - 2 2 -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Shore Drive (S) (side street stop) 4 2 - 2 -
Celinda Drive & Carlsbad Village Drive (side street stop) 3 1 - 2 -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Poinsettia Lane (signalized) 4 2 - 2 -
Piraeus Street & La Costa Avenue (signalized) 6 4 - 2 -
Cassia Road & Poinsettia Lane (signalized) 5 3 - 2 1
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Avenida Soledad (signalized) 7 5 - 2 -
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 107 of 161
C R
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan Figure 2-5All Bicycle Collisions
Vista
§¨¦5
·}78
College
Bl
A lga R d
AviaraPkwy
Marron R d
TamarackCarlsbadVillageDrElCaminoReal
CannonRd
Colle geB l
PoinsettiaLn
Melrose
Dr
FaradayAve
Cam VidaRoble
C a lle B a rcelonaAveMon
ro
e
St
Nort
ePaseo
DelOceanside
Encinitas
SanMarcos
PacificOcean
Batiquitos Lagoon
AguaHediondaLagoon
McClellan-PalomarAirport
BuenaVistaLagoon
PoinsettiaLnAvd
a
E
n
cin
a
s
Rancho S antaFeDrLaCostaAv
C
arlsbadBl
²
0 10.5 MilesPalomarAirportRd
Intersection Bicycle Collisions
!(4
!(2
!(1
!(Midblock Bicycle Collision
School
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Jefferson
S
t CarlsbadVillageDrChestnutStTamarackAveCarls
bad
Bl
S
tateSt
Hard
ing
St
§¨¦5
PacificOcean
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 108 of 161C R
I
L__l
l i L _______ l
I
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 13
Intersection Crash Rates
The collision frequencies presented in the previous section indicate areas with higher occurrences of
collisions. This is important for identifying potential areas where improvements may have great
benefits, however, frequencies do not consider the varying levels of traffic unique to each location.
Crash rates take the vehicular activity into account to allow for a more normalized comparison.
Intersection crash rates were developed using the following formula:
𝑅𝑅=𝐶𝐶× 1,000,000𝑉𝑉𝑒𝑒× 365 × 𝑁𝑁
Where:
R = Crash rate per one million entering vehicles
C = Total collisions within the intersection during the study period
Ve = Daily vehicles entering the intersection
N = Number of years of data
All intersection collisions were used in this assessment, regardless of travel mode. ADT volumes
were obtained from the City of Carlsbad and SANDAG’s Series 14 Base Year 2016 Regional
Transportation Model for approaches to each intersection. The average of the north-south approach
was summed with the average of the east-west approach to estimate total daily vehicles entering the
intersection.
Table 2-5 presents the crash rate for each intersection with five or more reported collisions. The
table also identifies the frequencies of total crashes, severe injuries/fatalities, and each crash type.
The roundabout controlled intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard/State Street was determined to have
the highest crash rate (0.510) and the third highest collision frequency (15 collisions). This location
experienced a variety of crash types, with head-on, hit object, and overturned the most frequent
crash types, assigned to three collisions each. Eight collisions at this location were due to driving
under the influence. As previously stated, no severe injury or fatal collisions were reported at this
location, demonstrating the roundabout is fulfilling one of its primary intents of reducing injury severity.
The signalized Tamarack Avenue & Carlsbad Village Drive intersection experienced the second
highest collision rate (0.340), with seven of the eight collisions reported as broadside crash types.
Five of the seven broadside collisions were due to traffic signal violations such as failure to stop at
the limit line. Of those five, the party-at-fault was traveling westbound during three collisions,
eastbound during one collision, and northbound during one collision. Two additional westbound
collisions were reported. The westbound approach has a 40 mile per hour posted speed limit and is
on a downward slope. Implementing a high visibility crosswalk could help better define the
intersection limit, while an additional overhead mounted signal head may help improve driver
awareness of the signal.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 109 of 161
C R
2.2
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 14
Table 2-5 Intersection Crash Rates
Intersection Control Crash Rate Total Collisions Severe/Fatal Injuries Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Head-On Other Hit Object Overturned Pedestrian Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street Roundabout 0.510 15 - 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 1
Tamarack Avenue & Carlsbad Village Drive Signal 0.340 8 - 7 1 - - - - - -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive Signal 0.337 9 - 4 1 1 1 2 - - -
Roosevelt Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Signal 0.285 7 - 2 - 1 - - - - 4
Paseo Avellano & Calle Barcelona Signal 0.276 5 - 2 1 - - - 1 - 1
Washington Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Side Stop 0.274 6 1 3 - - - 1 - - 2
State Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Signal 0.238 5 - 1 2 2 - - - - -
Monroe Street & Marron Road Signal 0.229 5 - 1 2 - 1 - - - 1
Harding Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Signal 0.209 8 - 3 1 1 - - - - 3
Carlsbad Boulevard & Avenida Encinas Signal 0.188 5 1 - - - - 2 1 1 1
Faraday Avenue & College Boulevard Signal 0.182 9 1 5 - - - 1 - 1 2
Carlsbad Boulevard & Hemlock Avenue Side Stop 0.179 5 1 1 1 - - - - - 3
Cassia Road & Poinsettia Lane Side Stop 0.176 5 1 - 1 - 1 1 1 1 -
Car Country Drive & Cannon Road Signal 0.171 8 - 3 4 - - - 1 - -
Avenida Encinas & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.168 7 1 6 - - - - - - 1
Valley Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Signal 0.168 6 - 1 - - 3 1 - 1 -
Alicante Road & Alga Road Signal 0.160 7 - 4 1 1 1 - - - -
Melrose Drive & Lionshead Avenue Signal 0.159 10 - 6 1 1 - 2 - - -
El Camino Real & Carlsbad Village Drive Signal 0.153 11 - 7 1 1 - 1 1 - -
Faraday Avenue & Cannon Road Signal 0.151 6 1 1 3 1 - - - 1 -
Monroe Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Signal 0.150 6 - 4 1 - 1 - - - - Nov. 15, 2022Item #14 Page 110 of 161C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 15
Table 2-5 Intersection Crash Rates
Intersection Control Crash Rate Total Collisions Severe/Fatal Injuries Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Head-On Other Hit Object Overturned Pedestrian El Camino Real & Chestnut Avenue Signal 0.149 8 - 2 4 - 2 - - - -
Rancho Santa Fe Road & La Costa Avenue Signal 0.128 12 - 2 8 1 1 - - - -
Aviara Parkway & Poinsettia Lane Signal 0.126 7 1 3 1 2 - - - 1 -
El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.123 18 1 9 3 1 2 1 - 1 1
El Camino Real & Alga Road Signal 0.118 14 1 4 7 1 2 - - - -
Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.116 16 - 8 1 1 2 1 3 - -
College Boulevard & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.116 12 - 8 1 1 2 - - - -
Paseo Valindo & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.112 8 - 6 2 - - - - - -
El Camino Real & Cassia Road Signal 0.108 8 - 1 3 2 1 - - 1 -
El Camino Real & Camino Vida Roble Signal 0.107 8 - 4 2 - 1 - - - 1
Palomar Oaks Way & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.107 8 - 4 3 - - 1 - - -
El Camino Real & Dove Lane Signal 0.105 8 - 4 3 - - 1 - - -
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Camino Junipero Signal 0.104 9 1 2 5 - 1 - - - 1
Cannon Road & El Camino Real Signal 0.096 10 1 4 4 - 1 - - 1 -
I-5 SB Ramps & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.096 5 - 5 - - - - - - -
Avenida Encinas & Cannon Road Signal 0.094 5 - 4 - - 1 - - - -
El Camino Real & La Costa Avenue Signal 0.091 12 - 5 5 2 - - - - -
El Camino Real & Tamarack Avenue Signal 0.091 6 - 1 2 1 2 - - - -
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Camino De Los Coches Signal 0.088 7 - 4 3 - - - - - -
Piraeus Street & La Costa Avenue Signal 0.087 6 - 3 2 1 - - - - -
Paseo Del Norte & Poinsettia Lane Signal 0.086 6 - 4 1 - - 1 - - - Nov. 15, 2022Item #14 Page 111 of 161C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 16
Table 2-5 Intersection Crash Rates
Intersection Control Crash Rate Total Collisions Severe/Fatal Injuries Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Head-On Other Hit Object Overturned Pedestrian Paseo Del Norte & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.086 9 - 4 1 - 2 - - - 2
El Camino Real & Arenal Road Signal 0.081 8 1 2 5 - - - - - 1
I-5 NB Ramps & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.079 5 - 1 1 - - - 1 - 2
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Avenida Soledad Signal 0.074 7 - 6 1 - - - - - -
I-5 NB Ramps & Cannon Road Signal 0.072 5 - 2 2 - - - - 1 -
El Fuerte Street & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.071 8 - 5 1 - 1 - - 1 -
El Camino Real & Levante Street Signal 0.068 5 - 1 3 - 1 - - - -
Camino Vida Roble & Palomar Airport Road Signal 0.067 5 - 2 1 1 1 - - - -
El Camino Real & Plaza Drive Signal 0.065 6 - 2 2 1 - - - - 1
El Camino Real & Faraday Avenue Signal 0.057 6 2 4 1 - 1 - - - -
College Boulevard & El Camino Real Signal 0.056 5 - 3 1 1 - - - - -
El Camino Real & Costa Del Mar Road Signal 0.052 5 - 2 1 - 1 1 - - -
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Melrose Drive Signal 0.047 5 - 3 - - - - 1 - 1
Nov. 15, 2022Item #14 Page 112 of 161C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 17
3.0 Segment Collisions
All collisions reported outside of intersections and the 50-foot offset distance were categorized as
segment or mid-block collisions. Roadways were broken up into individual segments at the
intersections of two Circulation Element roadways, cross-section changes, roadway terminus, or City
limit. The minimum segment length was set at 1/10-mile long – adjacent segments shorter than this
length were typically combined.
This chapter reviews the 805 segment collisions, which include 67 collisions resulting in a severe
injury or a fatality. Sections below are dedicated to collision frequencies and crash rates.
Segment Collision Frequency
Collision frequency was determined for severe injuries/fatalities, all travel modes combined, and for
each mode individually. The length of each segment is also presented in this section.
All severe injury or fatal collisions were previously depicted in Figure 2-1, distinguishing between
intersection and mid-block collisions. The 67 mid-block collisions occurred along 39 unique
segments. Severe injury/fatal collision concentrations are depicted along multiple stretches of
Carlsbad Boulevard, eastern Palomar Airport Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Table 3-1 displays collision frequency for the nine segments that experienced two or more severe
injury/fatal collisions. As shown, only two segments experienced more than three severe/fatal
collisions, both located along Carlsbad Boulevard. Five of the nine segments were located along
Carlsbad Boulevard – the only roadway containing multiple segments with two or more severe/fatal
collisions.
Table 3-1 Segments by Severe/Fatal Injury Collision Frequency
Street From To
Length
(miles)
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
Carlsbad Blvd Solamar Dr Island Way 0.68 15 7 1 7 5
Carlsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave Cannon Rd 1.18 21 13 3 5 4
Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Rd Loker Ave /
Innovation Way 0.44 20 17 1 2 3
Carlsbad Blvd Ponto Rd Avenida Encinas 0.50 6 6 - - 3
Carlsbad Blvd Avenida Encinas La Costa Ave 0.67 7 2 - 5 3
Paseo Del Norte Palomar Airport Rd Camino De Las
Ondas 1.15 11 7 3 1 2
Carlsbad Blvd Palomar Airport Rd Solamar Dr 0.52 8 7 1 - 2
Marron Rd El Camino Real Avenida De Anita 0.31 7 7 - - 2
Carlsbad Village Dr Donna Dr El Camino Real 0.47 3 3 - - 2
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 113 of 161
C R
3.1
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 18
Figure 3-1 and Table 3-2 identify the ten segments with the greatest collision frequency when
combining all travel modes. These ten segments account for approximately 19% (155) of the 805
mid-block collisions. Four of the segments were also found to experience two or more severe injury/fatal collisions. Roadways with multiple high frequency collision segments represented
include:
Carlsbad Boulevard (3 segments)
Palomar Airport Road (3 segments)
Table 3-2 Segments by Collision Frequency
Street From To
Length
(miles)
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
Carlsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave Cannon Rd 1.18 21 13 3 5 4
Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Real Loker Ave /
Innovation Way 0.44 20 17 1 2 3
El Camino Real Costa Del Mar Rd La Costa Ave 0.27 18 16 - 2 -
Palomar Airport Rd El Fuerte St Melrose Dr 0.43 17 17 - - -
Carlsbad Blvd Solamar Dr Island Way 0.68 15 7 1 7 5
Carlsbad Blvd Cannon Rd Cerezo Dr 0.32 13 12 0 1 -
Carlsbad Village Dr Harding St I-5 SB Ramps 0.12 13 7 3 3 -
Palomar Airport Rd Paseo Del Norte Armada Dr 0.32 13 11 2 - -
La Costa Ave Saxony Rd El Camino Real 1.13 13 9 1 3 -
Paseo Del Norte Car Country Dr Palomar Airport Rd 0.50 12 8 2 2 -
Table 3-3 presents the ten segments with the greatest vehicle-only collision frequency. These ten segments account for 20% (127) of all 650 vehicle-only collisions reported at mid-block locations.
Only three different roadways are represented among the ten segments, including:
El Camino Real (4 segments)
Palomar Airport Road (4 segments)
Carlsbad Boulevard (2 segments)
Two of the segments experienced multiple severe/fatal injury collisions. The six segments with the
highest vehicle-only collision frequency were also identified in Table 3-2 as having the greatest
collision frequencies when combining all travel modes.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 114 of 161
C R
Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan Figure 3-1
High Collision Frequency Segments
Vista
§¨¦5
·}78
College
Bl
A lga R d
AviaraPkwy
Marron R d
TamarackCarlsbadVillageDrElCaminoReal
CannonRd
Colle geB l
PoinsettiaLn
Melrose
Dr
FaradayAve
Cam VidaRoble
C a lle B a rcelonaAveMon
ro
e
St
Nort
ePaseo
DelOceanside
Encinitas
SanMarcos
PacificOcean
Batiquitos Lagoon
AguaHediondaLagoon
McClellan-PalomarAirport
BuenaVistaLagoon
PoinsettiaLnAvd
a
E
n
cin
a
s
Rancho S antaFeDrLaCostaAv
C
arlsbadBl
²
0 10.5 MilesPalomarAirportRd
High Frequency Midblock/Segment Collisions
19 - 21
16 - 18
14 - 15
12 - 13
School
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 115 of 161
--
C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 20
Table 3-3 Segments by Vehicle-Only Collision Frequency
Street From To
Length
(miles)
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Real Loker Ave / Innovation Wy 0.44 20 17 1 2 3
Palomar Airport Rd El Fuerte St Melrose Dr 0.43 17 17 - - -
El Camino Real Costa Del Mar Rd La Costa Ave 0.27 18 16 - 2 -
Carlsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave Cannon Rd 1.18 21 13 3 5 4
Carlsbad Blvd Cannon Rd Cerezo Dr 0.32 13 12 - 1 -
Palomar Airport Rd Paseo Del Norte Armada Dr 0.32 13 11 2 - -
El Camino Real Faraday Ave Palomar Airport Rd 0.62 11 11 - - -
El Camino Real College Blvd Faraday Ave 0.77 11 10 1 - 1
El Camino Real Cannon Rd Jackspar Dr / Rancho Carlsbad
Dr
0.50 11 10 - 1 -
Palomar Airport Rd Armada Dr The Crossings Dr /
Hidden Valley Rd 0.45 10 10 - - -
Table 3-4 displays the seven segments where multiple pedestrian collisions were reported. An
additional 26 segments each experienced a single pedestrian collision. Pedestrian collisions were
graphically displayed in Figure 2-3. These seven segments account for approximately 35% (17) of the
49 mid-block pedestrian collisions. Five of the seven segments were also identified as high
frequency for all modes combined (11 or more total mid-block collisions), and two segments were in
the top ten locations for vehicle-only collisions.
Table 3-4 Segments with Multiple Pedestrian Collisions
Street From To
Length
(miles)
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
Carlsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave Cannon Rd 1.18 21 13 3 5 4
Carlsbad Village Dr Harding St I-5 SB Ramps 0.12 13 7 3 3 -
Paseo Del Norte Palomar Airport Rd Camino De Las
Ondas 1.15 11 7 3 1 2
Paseo Del Norte Car Country Dr Palomar Airport Rd 0.50 12 8 2 2 -
Carlsbad Blvd Island Way Breakwater Rd 0.42 3 - 2 1 1
Palomar Airport Rd Paseo Del Norte Armada Dr 0.32 13 11 2 - -
Magnolia Ave Pio Pico Dr Monroe St 0.79 2 - 2 - -
The three pedestrian collisions along Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon
Road were dispersed across the segment. All three records were due to pedestrian violations while
crossing Carlsbad Boulevard. Two of the three pedestrian collisions along Carlsbad Village Drive
between Harding Street and I-5 Southbound Ramps were also due to pedestrian violations, with the
remaining collision attributed to a driver being under the influence.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 116 of 161
C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 21
Multiple severe injury/fatal pedestrian collisions were reported in the Paseo Del Norte from Palomar
Airport Road to Camino De Las Ondas segment (1 severe and 1 fatal pedestrian collision). These
collisions were concentrated near the Tip Top Meats deli with the records indicating it was dark out, however, streetlights were present and functioning.
Table 3-5 identifies the 17 segments where multiple mid-block bicycle collisions were reported.
These segments total 50 bicycle collisions, approximately 47% of the 106 mid-block bicycle
collisions citywide. Bicycle collisions were graphically displayed in Figure 2-4. The three segments
with the greatest bicycle collision frequency are located along Carlsbad Boulevard.
Table 3-5 Segments with Multiple Bicycle Collisions
Street From To Length (miles) All Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike Severe/ Fatal
Carlsbad Blvd Solamar Dr Island Way 0.68 15 7 1 7 5
Carlsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave Cannon Rd 1.18 21 13 3 5 4
Carlsbad Blvd Avenida Encinas La Costa Ave 0.67 7 2 - 5 3
Carlsbad Village Dr Harding St I-5 SB Ramps 0.12 13 7 3 3 -
La Costa Ave Saxony St El Camino Real 1.13 13 9 1 3 -
La Costa Ave Piraeus St Saxony Rd 0.57 8 5 - 3 1
El Camino Real Lisa St / West
Ranch St Cannon Rd 0.37 4 1 - 3 -
Chestnut Ave Pio Pico Dr Monroe Rd 0.80 3 - - 3 1
Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Real Loker Ave /
Innovation Wy 0.44 20 17 1 2 3
El Camino Real Costa Del Mar Rd La Costa Ave 0.27 18 16 - 2 -
Paseo Del Norte Car Country Drive Palomar Airport Rd 0.50 12 8 2 2 -
Avenida Encinas Palomar Airport Rd Poinsettia Lane 1.59 11 8 1 2 1
Carlsbad Blvd N City Boundary Beech Ave 0.59 8 6 - 2 1
Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad Village Dr Pine Ave 0.22 7 4 1 2 1
El Camino Real
Jackspar Dr /
Rancho Carlsbad
Dr
College Blvd 0.45 7 5 - 2 -
Adams Street Tamarack Ave Park Dr 1.00 5 3 - 2 -
Harding St / Carol Pl Carlsbad Village Dr Jefferson St 0.81 3 1 - 2 -
The Carlsbad Boulevard segment between Solamar Drive and Island Way experienced seven bicycle
collisions, three of which were concentrated just south of Solamar Drive. The driver was reported as
at fault for all three collisions, which occurred along the southbound carriageway where angled
parking and a bicycle lane are located. Two severe bicycle collisions were reported along this
segment, both collisions involved two bicyclists and no vehicles.
Five bicycle collisions were reported along Carlsbad Boulevard between Tamarack Avenue and
Cannon Road, three involved parked vehicles. One fatal bicycle collision was reported in the
southbound direction, with the bicyclist identified as at-fault for an unsafe lane change.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 117 of 161
C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 22
The five bicycle collisions along Carlsbad Boulevard between Avenida Encinas and La Costa Avenue
were all reported as bicyclists at-fault collisions. The causes and locations along this segment varied.
High frequency collision segments identified for more than one travel mode are summarized below.
The following segments experienced high vehicular and high pedestrian collision frequency:
• Carlsbad Boulevard, from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road: 13 vehicular; 3 pedestrian
• Palomar Airport Road, from Paseo Del Norte to Armada Drive: 11 vehicular; 2 pedestrian
Three segments experienced high vehicular and bicycle collision frequency:
• Palomar Airport Road, from El Camino Real to Loker Avenue/Innovation Way: 17 vehicular; 2
bicycle
• El Camino Real, from Costa Del Mar Road to La Costa Avenue: 16 vehicular; 2 bicycle
• Carlsbad Boulevard, from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road: 13 vehicular; 5 bicycle
Multiple pedestrian and bicycle collisions were reported along the following three segments:
• Carlsbad Boulevard, from Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road: 3 pedestrian; 5 bicycle
• Carlsbad Village Drive, from Harding Street to Interstate 5 Southbound Ramps: 3 pedestrian;
3 bicycle
• Paseo Del Norte, from Car Country Drive to Palomar Airport Road: 2 pedestrian; 2 bicycle
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 118 of 161
C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 23
Segment Collision Rates
Segment crash rates were developed using the following formula:
𝑅𝑅=𝐶𝐶× 1,000,000𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴× 365 × 𝑁𝑁× 𝐿𝐿
Where:
R = Crash rate per one million vehicle miles travelled
C = Total collisions along the segment during the study period
ADT = Average daily traffic along the segment
N = Number of years of data
L = Length of the roadway segment in miles
ADT volumes were obtained from the City of Carlsbad and SANDAG’s Series 14 Base Year 2016
Regional Transportation Model.
Table 3-5 presents the crash rate for each segment with five or more reported collisions. The table
also identifies the frequencies of total crashes, ADT volumes, segment length, severe
injuries/fatalities, and each crash type. The three segments with the highest crash rates also
experienced some of the highest crash frequencies in the City.
The Carlsbad Village Drive segment between Harding Street and Interstate 5 southbound ramps was
found to have a crash rate just over 3.0. This short segment (.12 miles) experienced 13 collisions.
No severe or fatal collisions were reported along this segment. The most frequent crash type was
rear end collisions (5), followed by broadside collisions (4), and bicycle (3).
Carlsbad Boulevard from Solamar Drive to Island Way experienced the second highest crash rate
(1.69) and 15 total collisions, including five collisions resulting in a severe injury or fatality. The five
severe/fatal collisions consisted of three bicycle-involved collisions (including two that did not involve
a vehicle), one pedestrian collision due to improper turning, and one vehicular collision due to
improper turning.
Carlsbad Boulevard from Cannon Road to Cerezo Drive experienced the third greatest crash rate
(1.44) and 13 total collisions. No severe injuries or fatalities were reported along this segment. Ten
of those13 collisions were rear end collisions. Nine of the ten collisions were due unsafe speeds.
These locations, and other high crash rate segments may be further reviewed during the
countermeasure development stage.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 119 of 161
C R
3.2
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 24
Table 3-6 Segment Crash Rates
Segment From To Crash Rate ADT Length (miles) Total Injury Collisions Severe/Fatal Injuries Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Head-On Other Hit Object Overturned Pedestrian Bike Carlsbad Village Dr Harding St I-5 SB Ramps 3.003 19,111 0.124 13 - 4 5 1 1 - - - 2 3
Carlsbad Blvd Solamar Dr Island Wy 1.689 7,200 0.676 15 5 2 3 1 1 4 1 2 1 7
Carlsbad Blvd Cannon Rd Cerezo Dr 1.435 15,667 0.317 13 - 1 10 1 - 1 - - - 1
Carlsbad Blvd Palomar Airport Rd Solamar Dr 1.434 5,826 0.525 8 2 - 2 - - 2 1 2 1 -
Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad Village Dr Pine Ave 1.128 15,757 0.216 7 1 - 3 2 - - 1 - 1 2
Palomar Airport Rd I-5 NB Ramps Paseo Del Norte 1.105 24,631 0.101 5 - 1 2 2 - - - - - -
Marron Rd El Camino Real Eastern Terminus 0.928 13,388 0.309 7 2 4 1 1 - 1 - - - -
Paseo Del Norte Palomar Airport Rd Camino De Las Ondas 0.909 5,782 1.147 11 2 5 1 2 - - - - 3 1
Lionshead Ave Melrose Dr Eastern City Boundary 0.829 3,812 0.867 5 1 3 - - - - 1 1 - 1
Palomar Airport Rd I-5 SB Ramps I-5 NB Ramps 0.754 24,631 0.177 6 - 1 5 - - - - - - -
El Camino Real Costa Del Mar Rd La Costa Ave 0.692 52,663 0.270 18 - 4 11 1 - - 2 - - 2
Jefferson St Marron Rd Las Flores Dr 0.634 6,889 0.753 6 1 - - 2 - - 2 1 1 1
Cannon Rd Wind Trail Wy Hilltop St 0.610 24,283 0.259 7 - 1 3 - 1 - 1 1 - 1
Avenida Encinas Palomar Airport Rd Poinsettia Ln 0.598 6,318 1.595 11 1 8 - 2 - - - - 1 2
Paseo Del Norte Car Country Dr Palomar Airport Rd 0.587 22,296 0.503 12 - 5 3 1 1 - - - 2 2
Cannon Rd Hilltop St College Blvd 0.586 24,059 0.272 7 - - 7 - - - - - - 1
Carlsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave Cannon Rd 0.576 16,853 1.185 21 4 1 10 2 - 4 2 - 2 5
Carlsbad Blvd Ponto Rd Avenida Encinas 0.568 11,608 0.499 6 3 - 2 3 - - - 1 - -
Carlsbad Blvd Northern City
Boundary Beech Ave 0.560 13,218 0.593 8 1 - 6 1 - - 1 - - 2
Adams St Tamarack Ave Park Dr 0.549 5,007 0.997 5 - - - - - 2 2 1 - 2 Nov. 15, 2022Item #14 Page 120 of 161C ♦R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 24
Table 3-6 Segment Crash Rates
Segment From To Crash Rate ADT Length (miles) Total Injury Collisions Severe/Fatal Injuries Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Head-On Other Hit Object Overturned Pedestrian Bike Carlsbad Village Dr Harding St I-5 SB Ramps 3.003 19,111 0.124 13 - 4 5 1 1 - - - 2 3
Carlsbad Blvd Solamar Dr Island Wy 1.689 7,200 0.676 15 5 2 3 1 1 4 1 2 1 7
Carlsbad Blvd Cannon Rd Cerezo Dr 1.435 15,667 0.317 13 - 1 10 1 - 1 - - - 1
Carlsbad Blvd Palomar Airport Rd Solamar Dr 1.434 5,826 0.525 8 2 - 2 - - 2 1 2 1 -
Carlsbad Blvd Carlsbad Village Dr Pine Ave 1.128 15,757 0.216 7 1 - 3 2 - - 1 - 1 2
Palomar Airport Rd I-5 NB Ramps Paseo Del Norte 1.105 24,631 0.101 5 - 1 2 2 - - - - - -
Marron Rd El Camino Real Eastern Terminus 0.928 13,388 0.309 7 2 4 1 1 - 1 - - - -
Paseo Del Norte Palomar Airport Rd Camino De Las Ondas 0.909 5,782 1.147 11 2 5 1 2 - - - - 3 1
Lionshead Ave Melrose Dr Eastern City Boundary 0.829 3,812 0.867 5 1 3 - - - - 1 1 - 1
Palomar Airport Rd I-5 SB Ramps I-5 NB Ramps 0.754 24,631 0.177 6 - 1 5 - - - - - - -
El Camino Real Costa Del Mar Rd La Costa Ave 0.692 52,663 0.270 18 - 4 11 1 - - 2 - - 2
Jefferson St Marron Rd Las Flores Dr 0.634 6,889 0.753 6 1 - - 2 - - 2 1 1 1
Cannon Rd Wind Trail Wy Hilltop St 0.610 24,283 0.259 7 - 1 3 - 1 - 1 1 - 1
Avenida Encinas Palomar Airport Rd Poinsettia Ln 0.598 6,318 1.595 11 1 8 - 2 - - - - 1 2
Paseo Del Norte Car Country Dr Palomar Airport Rd 0.587 22,296 0.503 12 - 5 3 1 1 - - - 2 2
Cannon Rd Hilltop St College Blvd 0.586 24,059 0.272 7 - - 7 - - - - - - 1
Carlsbad Blvd Tamarack Ave Cannon Rd 0.576 16,853 1.185 21 4 1 10 2 - 4 2 - 2 5
Carlsbad Blvd Ponto Rd Avenida Encinas 0.568 11,608 0.499 6 3 - 2 3 - - - 1 - -
Carlsbad Blvd Northern City
Boundary Beech Ave 0.560 13,218 0.593 8 1 - 6 1 - - 1 - - 2
Adams St Tamarack Ave Park Dr 0.549 5,007 0.997 5 - - - - - 2 2 1 - 2 Nov. 15, 2022Item #14 Page 121 of 161C ♦R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 25
Table 3-6 Segment Crash Rates
Segment From To Crash Rate ADT Length (miles) Total Injury Collisions Severe/Fatal Injuries Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Head-On Other Hit Object Overturned Pedestrian Bike Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Real Loker Ave / Innovation
Wy 0.485 51,834 0.436 20 3 1 15 - - 2 1 - 1 2
Palomar Airport Rd Paseo Del Norte Armada Dr 0.438 50,476 0.322 13 - 1 8 2 - - 1 - 1 -
College Blvd Tamarack Ave Tamarack Ave 0.406 28,980 0.233 5 1 - 5 - - - - - - 1
Carlsbad Blvd Avenida Encinas La Costa Ave 0.396 14,458 0.670 7 3 - 2 1 - 1 - 3 - 5
Avenida Encinas Cannon Road Palomar Airport Rd 0.393 9,007 0.929 6 - 2 1 - - - 2 - 1 1
Palomar Airport Rd El Fuerte St Melrose Dr 0.390 55,355 0.432 17 - 1 11 5 - - - - - -
El Camino Real Dove Ln Aviara Pkwy / Alga Rd 0.351 38,647 0.202 5 - - 5 - - - - - - -
Paseo Del Norte Cannon Rd Car Country Dr 0.326 16,900 0.597 6 - 2 - - - 3 1 - - -
Palomar Airport Rd Chipotle / Lowe's
Parking Lot El Camino Real 0.311 35,328 0.250 5 - - 1 1 - - 2 1 - -
El Camino Real Kelly Dr West Ranch St / Lisa
St 0.302 31,438 0.404 7 1 1 - 1 1 2 1 - 1 -
Rancho Santa Fe Rd La Costa Ave Camino De Los
Coches 0.301 41,538 0.395 9 1 - 5 2 - - 1 - 1 1
Melrose Dr Northern City
Boundary Palomar Airport Rd 0.290 39,164 0.338 7 1 - 6 - - - 1 - - 1
El Camino Real Cannon Rd Jackspar Dr / Rancho
Carlsbad Dr 0.287 42,068 0.499 11 - - 9 2 - - - - - 1
El Camino Real Town Garden Rd Camino Vida Roble 0.282 36,486 0.266 5 - - 4 1 - - - - - -
El Camino Real La Costa Ave La Costa Towne
Center 0.272 36,303 0.278 5 - - 3 - - - 2 - - 1
El Camino Real Faraday Ave Palomar Airport Rd 0.267 36,641 0.616 11 - - 10 1 - - - - - -
Palomar Airport Rd Hidden Valley Road College Blvd 0.250 48,772 0.269 6 - - 4 2 - - - - - 1 Nov. 15, 2022Item #14 Page 122 of 161C ♦R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 25
Table 3-6 Segment Crash Rates
Segment From To Crash Rate ADT Length (miles) Total Injury Collisions Severe/Fatal Injuries Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Head-On Other Hit Object Overturned Pedestrian Bike Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Real Loker Ave / Innovation
Wy 0.485 51,834 0.436 20 3 1 15 - - 2 1 - 1 2
Palomar Airport Rd Paseo Del Norte Armada Dr 0.438 50,476 0.322 13 - 1 8 2 - - 1 - 1 -
College Blvd Tamarack Ave Tamarack Ave 0.406 28,980 0.233 5 1 - 5 - - - - - - 1
Carlsbad Blvd Avenida Encinas La Costa Ave 0.396 14,458 0.670 7 3 - 2 1 - 1 - 3 - 5
Avenida Encinas Cannon Road Palomar Airport Rd 0.393 9,007 0.929 6 - 2 1 - - - 2 - 1 1
Palomar Airport Rd El Fuerte St Melrose Dr 0.390 55,355 0.432 17 - 1 11 5 - - - - - -
El Camino Real Dove Ln Aviara Pkwy / Alga Rd 0.351 38,647 0.202 5 - - 5 - - - - - - -
Paseo Del Norte Cannon Rd Car Country Dr 0.326 16,900 0.597 6 - 2 - - - 3 1 - - -
Palomar Airport Rd Chipotle / Lowe's
Parking Lot El Camino Real 0.311 35,328 0.250 5 - - 1 1 - - 2 1 - -
El Camino Real Kelly Dr West Ranch St / Lisa
St 0.302 31,438 0.404 7 1 1 - 1 1 2 1 - 1 -
Rancho Santa Fe Rd La Costa Ave Camino De Los
Coches 0.301 41,538 0.395 9 1 - 5 2 - - 1 - 1 1
Melrose Dr Northern City
Boundary Palomar Airport Rd 0.290 39,164 0.338 7 1 - 6 - - - 1 - - 1
El Camino Real Cannon Rd Jackspar Dr / Rancho
Carlsbad Dr 0.287 42,068 0.499 11 - - 9 2 - - - - - 1
El Camino Real Town Garden Rd Camino Vida Roble 0.282 36,486 0.266 5 - - 4 1 - - - - - -
El Camino Real La Costa Ave La Costa Towne
Center 0.272 36,303 0.278 5 - - 3 - - - 2 - - 1
El Camino Real Faraday Ave Palomar Airport Rd 0.267 36,641 0.616 11 - - 10 1 - - - - - -
Palomar Airport Rd Hidden Valley Road College Blvd 0.250 48,772 0.269 6 - - 4 2 - - - - - 1 Nov. 15, 2022Item #14 Page 123 of 161C ♦R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 26
Table 3-6 Segment Crash Rates
Segment From To Crash Rate ADT Length (miles) Total Injury Collisions Severe/Fatal Injuries Broadside Rear-End Sideswipe Head-On Other Hit Object Overturned Pedestrian Bike Palomar Airport Rd Armada Dr The Crossings Dr /
Hidden Valley Rd 0.250 48,772 0.450 10 - - 8 1 - - 1 - - -
Rancho Santa Fe Rd Calle Barcelona Camino Alvaro 0.238 40,759 0.339 6 - - 4 - - - 1 1 - 1
Rancho Santa Fe Rd Camino De Los
Coches Calle Barcelona 0.234 41,538 0.339 6 1 - 3 1 - - 1 1 - 1
El Camino Real College Boulevard Faraday Ave 0.213 36,641 0.771 11 1 - 6 - - - 4 - 1 -
La Costa Ave Piraeus Street Saxony Rd 0.202 38,040 0.570 8 1 - 3 1 - - 3 1 - 3
El Camino Real Arenal Rd Costa Del Mar Rd 0.194 51,765 0.381 7 - - 6 - - 1 - - - 1
Rancho Santa Fe Rd Paseo Lupino/Via
Mercato Camino Junipero 0.190 41,269 0.419 6 1 2 4 - - - - - - -
Rancho Santa Fe Rd San Elijo Road Avenida Soledad 0.189 50,645 0.286 5 - - 2 - 1 1 - 1 - -
Palomar Airport Rd Loker Ave El Fuerte St 0.189 52,066 0.390 7 - - 2 2 1 - 2 - - -
El Camino Real Jackspar Dr / Rancho
Carlsbad Dr College Blvd 0.186 45,813 0.449 7 - 1 4 - - - 1 1 - 2
La Costa Ave Saxony Road El Camino Real 0.164 38,415 1.134 13 - - 6 3 - 2 1 - 1 3
La Costa Ave El Camino Real Viejo Castilla Wy 0.161 16,845 1.007 5 - 1 1 - 2 - 1 - - -
Palomar Airport Rd Eagle Dr Eastern City Boundary 0.152 35,733 0.503 5 1 - 4 - - - 1 - - -
El Camino Real Alga Rd Arenal Rd 0.151 52,663 0.550 8 1 1 5 - - 1 1 - - -
Rancho Santa Fe Rd Fire Station 6
Driveway Camino Junipero 0.149 50,645 0.509 7 1 - 2 2 - - 3 - - 1
Nov. 15, 2022Item #14 Page 124 of 161C ♦R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 27
4.0 High Frequency Collision Intersections
Table 4-1 identifies the high frequency collision intersections – intersections with ten or more
collisions for all modes combined – that are reviewed in further detail throughout this section to
better understand location specific collision trends. Locations with high pedestrian or bicycle
collision frequencies were previously discussed. Segments were not addressed in this chapter due to
the varying segment lengths, however, countermeasures may still be considered in future project phases.
For each location, a diagram is provided depicting the collision locations by crash type and level of
injury severity. The diagram also depicts any mid-block collisions in the location vicinity for reference
– those beyond 50’ from the intersection – however the remaining data and narrative focus on the
intersection records.
Tables identifying collisions by year and mode are also provided. Charts are used to display collisions
by time of day, as well as the collisions by crash type. Descriptions of trends related to the most
common crash type at each location are also provided. This information may be used to aid in the
countermeasure/improvement selection process.
Table 4-1 High Collision Intersections
Rank Location
All
Injury Vehicle Pedestrian Bike
Severe/
Fatal
1 El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road 18 17 1 - 1
2 Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road 16 16 - - -
3 Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street 15 12 1 2 -
4 El Camino Real & Alga Road 14 14 - - 1
5 College Boulevard & Palomar Airport Road 12 12 - - -
6 El Camino Real & La Costa Avenue 12 11 - 1 -
7 Rancho Santa Fe Road & La Costa Avenue 12 12 - - -
8 El Camino Real & Carlsbad Village Drive 11 11 - - -
9 Cannon Road & El Camino Real 10 10 - - 1
10 Melrose Drive & Lionshead Avenue 10 10 - - -
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 125 of 161
C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 28
El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road
A total of 18 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The crash rate was
determined to be 0.123 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. The 18
collisions resulted in one severe injury (vehicle), nine visible injuries, and eight complaint of pain
injuries.
Broadside Collisions
Nine of the 18 vehicular collision records
were broadside collisions. Six of the nine
broadside collisions were due to violation
code 21453(a)1, failing to stop at the limit
line, and following under the violation
category of “Traffic Signs and Signals”. The
party-at-fault was travelling in the east or
south direction in six of the nine broadside
records. Also, in six of the nine broadside
collisions, the party-at-fault was proceeding straight.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 6 5 1 - - -
2016 3 3 - - 1 -
2017 5 5 - - - -
2018 1 1 - - - -
2019 3 3 - - - -
Total 18 17 1 - 1 -
1 21453(a) – A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 126 of 161
C R
Cra,-h Type
Broad5ide
Rear-•ud
Bicycle
Sideswipe
Pedestrian
Tiead-On
I-lit Object
Ovcrn1rncd
Other/Not 'tated
Injury Severity
1 Fatal
2 Severe Injury
3 0th r Visible Injury
4 Comphint of P,1i,1
N Ao so 100
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 29
Rear-End Collisions
Two of the three rear-end collisions were
caused by a vehicle proceeding straight, one vehicle heading south and one vehicle
heading west. The third collision was caused
by a stopped vehicle in the westbound
direction.
Pedestrian-Involved Collision
The vehicle was at-fault for the only collision
involving a pedestrian, failing to yield to the
pedestrian while the pedestrian was crossing
in the (unmarked) crosswalk at the
intersection. The vehicle was heading north
and making right-turn.
Sobriety
Alcohol was not reported as a factor during
any of the 18 collisions at this location.
Lighting and Time of Day
Eleven of 18 collisions (61%) were reported
during daylight. 33% of the collisions occurred
during in the nighttime, when visibility may be
limited. Lighting is provided on all four signal
poles and was reported as functioning.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
Broadside,
50%
Head-On, 11%
Other, 5%
Overturned, 5%
Rear-End, 17%
Sideswipe, 6%
Vehicle -Pedestrian, 6%
Dark -
Street Lights, 33%
Daylight, 61%
Dusk -Dawn,
6%
0
1
2
3
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 127 of 161
C R
I I I I I I I I I I
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 30
Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road
A total of 16 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.116 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. All 16 collisions
were vehicle collisions and there were no fatal or severe injury collisions reported.
Broadside Collisions
Eight of the 16 collision records were broadside collisions. Seven of the eight
broadside collisions were due to violation
code 21453(a)2, failing to stop at the limit
line. In four of the eight broadside collisions,
the driver was making either a left-turn,
right-turn, or other unsafe turning, and the
remaining four were proceeding straight. In
all instances, the party-at-fault was heading
either south or east.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 - - - - - -
2016 7 7 - - - -
2017 1 1 - - - -
2018 2 2 - - - -
2019 6 6 - - - -
Total 16 16 - - - -
2 21453(a) – A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 128 of 161
C R
Broadside
Rear-End
Bicycle
Sideswipe
Pedestrian
Head-On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other/I ot Stated
Injury Severity
1 Fatal
2 Severe Injury
3 Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pa.in
50 100 •••c:::::=::::J Feet
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 31
Hit Object Collisions
Three of the 16 collision records were hit
object collisions. Two of them were attributed to violation code 223503, unsafe
speed, and one of them was due to a
person driving under the influence of
alcohol. In all three instances, the vehicles
were heading in the east-west direction.
Two of them were proceeding straight and
one was making a left-turn.
Sobriety
Only one of the 16 collisions at this location
involved a driver under the influence of
alcohol. This resulted in other visible injury.
Lighting and Time of Day
Nine of the 16 collisions (56%) reported at
this location occurred during nighttime,
when visibility may be limited. Lighting is
provided on all four signal poles and was
reported as functioning.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collision by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
3 22350 - Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions.
Broadside,
50%
Head-On, 13%
Hit Object,
19%
Not Stated, 6%
Rear-End, 6%
Sideswipe,
6%
Dark -Street
Lights, 56%
Daylight,
44%
0
1
2
3
4
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 129 of 161
C R
I I I I I I I I I
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 32
Carlsbad Boulevard & State Street
A total of 15 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.510 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. From the 15
collisions, there were two bicycle-involved collisions and one pedestrian involved collision reported.
None of them resulted in a severe injury or fatal collision.
Head-On Collisions Three of the 15 vehicular collision records were
head-on collisions. All three head-on collisions
were due to violation code 23152(a)4, driving
under influence of alcohol. The party-at-fault
was proceeding straight and going south in all
head-on collisions.
Hit Object Collisions
Three of the 15 vehicular collision records were
hit object collisions. They were all attributed to
the party-at-fault driving under the influence of
alcohol. All vehicles were proceeding straight in
the north-south direction.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 4 3 1 - - -
2016 8 7 - 1 - -
2017 1 1 - - - -
2018 2 1 - 1 - -
2019 - - - - - -
Total 15 12 1 2 - -
4 23152(a) – It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage to drive a vehicle.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 130 of 161
C R
Crash Type
Broadside
Rear-End
Bicycle
• Sideswipe
• Pedestrian
• Head-On
• Hi t Object
• Overturned
• Other/ ot Stated
Injury Severity
1 Fatal
2 Severe Injury
3 Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pa.in
0 so 100
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 33
Overturned Collisions
Three of the 15 vehicular collisions were overturned
collisions. Two of them were caused by a driver under the influence of alcohol and one was due to
unsafe speed. All party-at-fault vehicles were
heading in the north-south direction. All of them
were making different movements.
Pedestrian Collision
The only pedestrian collision reported was attributed
to violation code 21456(a)5, a pedestrian failing to
yield the right-of-way to a vehicle already in the
crosswalk. In this case, the vehicle was proceeding
straight in the west direction.
Bicycle Collisions
Two bicycle-involved collisions were reported. One of
them was attributed to violation code 21703(b)6, a
vehicle driving too closely to the bicycle resulting in a
rear-end collision. No violation code was assigned to
the other bicycle collision, but the bicyclist was
identified as the party-at-fault while making a
merging movement. In both bicycle-involved
collisions, the party-at-fault was heading north.
Sobriety
Nine of the 15 collisions involved drivers under the
influence of alcohol. None of these resulted in a
severe or fatal injury. One impairment was unknown.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Lighting and Time of Day
14 of the 15 collisions (93%) were reported during nighttime or dusk when visibility may be limited.
Lighting is provided via one traditional pole over the intersection and a series of pedestrian-scaled
poles. Streetlights were reported as Not Functioning for two collisions, the most recent in December 2018.
Collisions by Time of the Day
5 21456(a) – A pedestrian facing the “WALK” signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal, but shall yield the right-
of-way to vehicles lawfully within the intersection at the time that signal is first shown.
6 21703 – The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard
for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway.
Broadside,
6%
Head-On,
20%
Hit Object,
20%
Other, 13%
Overturned, 20%
Rear-End,
7%
Sideswipe,
7%
Vehicle -
Pedestrian, 7%
Dark -Street Lights, 73%
Daylight,
7%
Dusk -Dawn, 20%
0
1
2
3
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 131 of 161
C R
I I I I I I I
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 34
El Camino Real & Alga Road
A total of 14 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.118 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. The 14
collisions resulted in one severe injury (auto), four visible injuries, and nine complaint of pain
injuries.
Rear-End Collisions
Seven of the 14 vehicular collision records
were rear-end collisions. Five of the seven
rear-end collisions were attributed to violation
code 223507, vehicles going at unsafe
speed, one was due to a vehicle driving too
closely to another, and one was caused by
the party-at fault using an electronic device while driving. The party-at-fault was travelling
in the northbound or southbound direction
preceding six of the seven rear-end collisions.
Five of them were proceeding straight and
only one was making a right-turn.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 1 1 - - - -
2016 4 4 - - - -
2017 2 2 - - 1 -
2018 3 3 - - - -
2019 4 4 - - - -
Total 14 14 - - 1 -
7 22350 – Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 132 of 161
C R
Crash Type
Broadside
• Rear-End
Bicycle
• Sideswipe
• Pedestrian
• Head-On
• Hit Object
• Overturned
• Other/Not Stated
Injury Severity
1 Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
50 100
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 35
Broadside Collisions
Four of the 14 collisions at this intersection
were reported as broadside collisions, including one severe injury. The party-at fault
was driving in a different direction in each
collision. The only one heading east was
making a left-turn, and the remaining three
were proceeding straight. Two of the four
broadside collisions were due to a vehicle
failing to stop at the limit line, violation code
21453(a)8. The severe/injury collision was
caused by a vehicle failing to yield the right-
of-way to other traffic, violation code
21451(a)9. The party-at-fault was proceeding
straight heading south.
Sobriety
Alcohol was not reported as a factor during
any of the 14 collisions at this location.
Lighting and Time of Day
Nine of 14 collisions (64%) were reported
during daylight. Lighting is provided on all
four signal poles and was reported as
functioning.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
8 21453 (a) – A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to
proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
9 21451 (a) – A driver facing a circular green signal shall proceed straight through or turn right or left or make a U-turn unless a sign
prohibits a U-turn. Any driver, including one turning, shall yield the right-of-way to other traffic and to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.
Broadside,
29%
Head-On,
14%
Rear-End,
50%
Sideswipe,
7%
Dark -
Street
Lights, 36%
Daylight, 64%
0
1
2
3
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 133 of 161
C R
I I I I I I I I I I I I
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 36
College Boulevard & Palomar Airport Road
A total of 12 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.116 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. The 12
collisions resulted in four visible injuries and eight complaint of pain injuries.
Broadside Collisions
Seven of the eight collisions were attributed
to violation code 2145310, a driver failing to
stop at the limit line facing a circular red
signal. The party-at-fault in six of the eight
broadside collisions were proceeding
straight, and two were making a left-turn. In
five of these incidents, the vehicle was heading in the east direction.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 1 1 - - - -
2016 1 1 - - - -
2017 3 3 - - - -
2018 3 3 - - - -
2019 4 4 - - - -
Total 12 12 - - - -
10 21453(a) – A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 134 of 161
C R
Broadside
Rear-End
Bicycle
Sideswipe
Pedestrian
Head-On
Hit Object
e Overturned
Other/ ot Stated
Injury Severity
1 Fatal
2 Severe Injury
3 Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
50
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 37
Sobriety
Alcohol was not reported as a factor during
any of the 12 collisions at this location. However, one collision was reported to be
involved with a driver under drug influence.
It resulted in complaint of pain.
Lighting and Time of Day
Eight of 12 collisions (67%) were reported
during daylight. Street lights were reported
as not present for one collision which
occurred in December 2017, however,
lighting is provided on all four signal poles
and reported as functioning for the
remaining three collisions that occurred
when it was dark.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
Broadside,
67%
Head-On,
17%
Rear-End, 8%
Sideswipe,
8%
Dark -No Street
Lights, 8%
Dark -
Street
Lights, 25%
Daylight,
67%
0
1
2
3
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 135 of 161
C R
I I I I I I I I
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 38
El Camino Real & La Costa Avenue
A total of 12 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.091 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. The 12
collisions resulted in five visible injuries, and seven complaint of pain injuries.
Rear-End Collisions Rear-end collisions accounted for 42% of the
collisions at this intersection. Three of the
five rear-end collisions were attributed to
violation code 2235011, driving at an unsafe
speed. The party-at-fault was proceeding
straight during all five rear-end collisions and
travelling in the eastbound direction in three
of the five rear-end collisions.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 3 3 - - - -
2016 2 1 - 1 - -
2017 1 1 - - - -
2018 1 1 - - - -
2019 5 5 - - - -
Total 12 11 - 1 - -
11 22350 – Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 136 of 161
C R
Broadside
• Rear-End
Bicycle
• Sideswipe
• Pedestrian
• Head-On
• Hit Object
• Overturned
• Other/Not Stated
Injury Severity
1 Fatal
2 Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
50 100
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 39
Broadside Collisions
Broadside collisions accounted for 41% of the
collisions at this intersection. Two of the five broadside collisions were attributed to
violation code 21453(a)12, failing to stop at
the limit line. The party-at-fault was travelling
in the east- or westbound direction in three of
the five records. There was not a pattern
found in the party-at-fault movement
preceding the incident. Two of them were
proceeding straight, two were making either a
left- or right-turn, and one was travelling
wrong way.
Bicycle Collision
The party-at-fault for the only bicycle-involved
collision was reported to be the bicyclist.
Violation code attributed to this incident was
21453(a), failing to stop at the limit line,
crosswalk, or intersection. Preceding the
accident, the bicyclist was heading south,
and the driver was proceeding straight east.
Sobriety
The driver had been drinking alcohol before
one of the 12 collisions, however, the level of
impairment was stated as unknown.
Lighting and Time of Day
Ten of 12 collisions (83%) were reported
during daylight. Nine of the 12 collisions
occurred between 2:00pm and 7:00pm.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
12 21453(a) – A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
Broadside, 41%
Rear-End, 42%
Sideswipe,
17%
Dark -Street
Lights, 9%
Daylight,
83%
Dusk -
Dawn, 8%
0
1
2
3
4
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 137 of 161
C R
I I I I I
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 40
Rancho Santa Fe Road & La Costa Avenue
A total of 12 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.128 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. The 12
collisions resulted in five visible injuries, and seven complaint of pain injuries.
Rear-End Collisions
Rear-end collisions were the leading crash type at 67% of collisions at this intersection
(8/12). The main violations associated with
the rear-end collisions were related to the
driver driving at unsafe speed, 2235013. The
party-at-fault was travelling in the north-
southbound direction during all rear-end
collisions and proceeding straight during
seven of eight rear-end collisions.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 3 3 - - - -
2016 5 5 - - - -
2017 - - - - - -
2018 4 4 - - - -
2019 - - - - - -
Total 12 12 - - - -
Sobriety
One of the 12 collisions reported at this
location was involved with a driver under the
influence of alcohol. It resulted in other
visible injury.
13 22350 – Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 138 of 161
C R
Broadside
Rear-End
Bicycle
Sideswipe
Pedestrian
Head-On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other/Not Stated
Injury Severity
1 Fatal
2 Severe Injury
3 Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 41
Lighting and Time of Day
Eight of 12 collisions (67%) were reported
during daylight. Lighting is provided on all four signal poles and was reported as
functioning.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
Broadside,
17%
Head-On,
8%
Rear-End,
67%
Sideswipe,
8%
Dark -
Street
Lights, 33%
Daylight, 67%
0
1
2
3
4
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 139 of 161
C R
I I I I I I I
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 42
El Camino Real & Carlsbad Village Drive
A total of 11 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.153 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. The 11
collisions resulted in four visible injuries and seven complaint of pain injuries.
Broadside Collisions
Broadside collisions were the leading crash type at this intersection, accounting for 64%
(7/11) of the collisions. Six of the seven
broadside collisions occurred while the party-
at-fault was travelling north- or southbound
and proceeding straight through the
intersection. As well, six broadside collisions
were due to violation code 21453(a)14,
failing to stop at the limit line while facing a
red signal.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 1 1 - - - -
2016 2 2 - - - -
2017 5 5 - - - -
2018 1 1 - - - -
2019 2 2 - - - -
Total 11 11 - - - -
14 21453(a) – A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 140 of 161
C R
Crash Type
Broadside
• Rear-End
Bicycle
• Sideswipe
• Pedestrian
• Head-On
• Hit Object
• Overturned
• Other/Not Stated
Injury Severity
1 Fatal
2 Severe Injury
3 Other Visible Injury
4 Complaint of Pain
50 100
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 43
Sobriety
Two of the 11 collisions reported at this
location were involved with a driver under the influence of alcohol or drugs. None of these
resulted in a severe or fatal injury.
Lighting and Time of Day
Six of 11 collisions (55%) were reported
during daylight. Lighting is provided on all
four signal poles and was reported as
functioning.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
Broadside, 64%Hit Object, 9%
Other, 9%
Rear-End, 9%
Sideswipe, 9%
Dark -Street
Lights, 45%
Daylight, 55%
0
1
2
3
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 141 of 161
C R
I I I I I I I I I
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 44
Cannon Road & El Camino Real
A total of 10 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.096 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. The 10
collisions resulted in one severe injury (auto), two visible injuries, and seven complaint of pain
injuries.
Broadside Collisions Broadside collisions accounted for 40%
(4/10) of the collisions, including one severe
injury collision. Three of the four broadside
collisions, including the severe injury
collision, were due to violation code
21453(a)15, failing to stop at the limit line
while facing a red signal. There was no clear
trend identified in reference to movement or
direction preceding the collisions.
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 - - - - - -
2016 5 5 - - 1 -
2017 - - - - - -
2018 2 2 - - - -
2019 3 3 - - - -
Total 10 10 - - 1 -
15 21453(a) – A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 142 of 161
C R
Broadside
• Rear-End
Bicycle
• Sideswipe
• Pedestrian
• Head-On
• Hit Object
• Overturned
• Other/Not Stated
Injury Severity
1 Fatal
2 Severe Injury
3 Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
0 50
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 45
Rear-End Collisions
Similar to broadside collisions, rear-end
collisions accounted for 40% (4/10) of the collisions at this location. All four rear-end
collisions occurred while the party-at-fault
was travelling north- or southbound. The
movement preceding the collision was evenly
split between proceeding straight and
slowing/stopping. Each rear-end collision was
attributed to a different violation code, so
there were no cause trends identified.
Sobriety
One of the 10 collisions involved a driver
under the influence of alcohol. This resulted
in a complaint of pain collision.
Lighting and Time of Day
Eight of 10 collisions (80%) were reported
during daylight. Four of the 10 collisions
occurred between 4:00pm and 6:00pm,
which coincides with commute time.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
Broadside,
40%
Head-On, 10%Overturned, 10%
Rear-End,
40%
Dark -Street
Lights, 20%
Daylight,
80%
0
1
2
3
4
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 143 of 161
C R
I I I I I I
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 46
Melrose Drive & Lionshead Avenue
A total of 10 collisions were reported at this intersection (2015-2019). The collision rate was
determined to be 0.159 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. The 10
collisions resulted in one visible injury, and nine complaint of pain injuries.
Broadside Collisions
Broadside collisions were the leading crash type at this intersection, accounting for 60%
(6/10) of the collisions. Five of the six
broadside collisions occurred while the party-
at-fault was travelling north- or southbound
and proceeding straight through the
intersection. Four of the six broadside
collisions were attributed to violation code
21453(a)16, failing to stop at the limit line
while facing a red signal. One of the
remaining broadside collisions was due to
violation code 21453(c)17, failing to stop at
Collisions by Year and Mode
Year Total Auto Ped Bike Severe Fatal
2015 2 2 - - - -
2016 2 2 - - - -
2017 2 2 - - - -
2018 4 4 - - - -
2019 - - - - - -
Total 10 10 - - - -
16 21453(a) – A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk
on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to
proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
17 21453(c) – A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication permitting movement is shown.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 144 of 161
C R
Crash Type
Broadside
• Rear-End
Bicycle
• Sideswipe
• Pedestrian
• Head-On
• Hit Object
• Overturned
• Other/Not Stated
, Injury Severity
1 Fatal
2 Severe Injury
3 Other Visible Injury
4 Complaint of Pain
100
Feet
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Page 47
the limit line while facing a red signal and
making a left-turn. The vehicle was turning
east.
Sobriety
Alcohol was not reported as a factor during
any of the 10 collisions at this location.
Lighting and Time of Day
All 10 collisions reported at this location
occurred during daylight.
Collisions by Crash Type
Collisions by Lighting Condition
Collisions by Time of the Day
Broadside, 60%Not Stated, 20%
Rear-End, 10%
Sideswipe, 10%
Daylight, 100%
0
1
2
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 145 of 161
C R
I I I I I I
Local Roadway Safety Plan Intersection & Segment Analysis
Appendix A - Crash Rate Inputs
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 146 of 161
C R
Appendix A – Crash Rate Inputs
Intersection Control Type Total Collisions Crash Rate
Vehicles Entering Intersection
Approach Volume (South)
Approach Volume (South)
Approach Volume (East)
Approach Volume (West)Source Notes
Interstate 5 Northbound Ramps & Cannon Road Signalized 5 0.072 37,816 14041 4841 28375 28375 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East & West Volumes; SANDAG North & South Volumes
I-5 Southbound Ramps & Palomar Airport Road Signalized 5 0.096 28,672 8082 0 24631 24631 Carlsbad & SANDAG
South Volumes Does Not Exist; SANDAG North Volumes only
I-5 Northbound Ramps & Palomar Airport Road Signalized 5 0.079 34,463 8338 11325 24631 24631 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East & West Volumes; SANDAG North & South Volumes
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Avenida Soledad Signalized 7 0.074 51,863 50645 50645 1589 846 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East & West Volumes
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Melrose Drive Signalized 5 0.047 58,803 41050 50645 5293 20618 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad South & West Volumes; SANDAG North & East Volumes
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Camino Junipero Signalized 9 0.104 47,374 50645 41269 1874 960 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East & West Volumes
Rancho Santa Fe Road & La Costa Avenue Signalized 12 0.128 51,344 12791 7090 41269 41538 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East & West Volumes; SANDAG North & South Volumes
Paseo Valindo & Palomar Airport Road Signalized 8 0.112 38,967 3355 3058 35733 35787 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East & West Volumes
Rancho Santa Fe Road & Camino De Los Coches Signalized 7 0.088 43,571 41538 41538 4066 0 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East Volumes; West Volumes Does Not Exist
Melrose Drive & Lionshead Avenue Signalized 10 0.159 34,417 32473 31911 4449 0 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East Volumes; West Volumes Does Not Exist
Melrose Drive & Palomar Airport Road Signalized 16 0.116 75,466 31911 27879 35787 55355 Carlsbad -
Paseo Avellano & Calle Barcelona Signalized 5 0.276 9,936 4847 650 6052 8322 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North Volumes; SANDAG South, East, and West Volumes
El Fuerte Street & Palomar Airport Road Signalized 8 0.071 61,830 6080 10158 55355 52066 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East & West VolumesAlicante Road & Alga Road Signalized 7 0.160 23,959 3438 2588 20018 21874 SANDAG -
El Camino Real & Levante Street Signalized 5 0.068 40,167 36303 36303 5090 2637 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North, South, and East Volumes; SANDAG West Volumes
El Camino Real & Palomar Airport Road Signalized 18 0.123 80,145 36641 36486 51834 35328 Carlsbad -
El Camino Real & Alga Road Signalized 14 0.118 65,199 38647 52663 23132 15956 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East & West Volumes
El Camino Real & Dove Lane Signalized 8 0.105 41,564 38647 38647 592 5241 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East & West Volumes
El Camino Real & Camino Vida Roble Signalized 8 0.107 40,798 36486 33236 2746 9127 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North, South, and West Volumes; SANDAG East Volumes
El Camino Real & Arenal Road Signalized 8 0.081 54,304 52663 51765 1775 2404 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East & West Volumes
El Camino Real & La Costa Avenue Signalized 12 0.091 72,113 52663 36303 16845 38415 Carlsbad -
El Camino Real & Costa Del Mar Road Signalized 5 0.052 52,819 51765 52663 1209 0 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East
Volumes; West Volumes Does Not Exist
El Camino Real & Cassia Road Signalized 8 0.108 40,731 33236 33236 1000 13990 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG
West Volumes; No East Volumes
El Camino Real & Faraday Avenue Signalized 6 0.057 57,484 36641 36641 20398 21288 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North, South, and West Volumes;
SANDAG East VolumesCassia Road & Poinsettia Lane Side Stop 5 0.176 15,551 13990 0 1561 15551 SANDAG South Volumes Does Not Exist
Camino Vida Roble & Palomar Airport Road Signalized 5 0.067 41,021 4309 8147 33576 36010 Carlsbad -
College Boulevard & El Camino Real Signalized 5 0.056 49,089 2709 13015 36641 45813 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad South, East, and West Volumes; SANDAG North Volumes
Faraday Avenue & College Boulevard Signalized 9 0.182 27,087 12568 15576 13015 13015 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad South, East, and West Volumes; SANDAG North Volumes
Palomar Oaks Way & Palomar Airport Road Signalized 8 0.107 41,136 8190 2062 36010 36010 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East & West Volumes; SANDAG North & South Volumes
Aviara Parkway & Poinsettia Lane Signalized 7 0.126 30,422 13263 12251 10330 24999 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North, South, and East Volumes; SANDAG West Volumes
Piraeus Street & La Costa Avenue Signalized 6 0.087 37,626 0 2774 38040 34438 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East Volumes; SANDAG South & West Volumes, North Volumes Does Not ExistCannon Road & El Camino Real Signalized 10 0.096 57,278 24283 15740 42068 32464 Carlsbad -
Tamarack Avenue & Carlsbad Village Drive Signalized 8 0.340 12,892 2600 5389 10425 7370 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East Volumes; SANDAG South & West
Volumes; No North VolumesCollege Boulevard & Palomar Airport Road Signalized 12 0.116 56,911 15777 13262 36010 48772 Carlsbad -
Faraday Avenue & Cannon Road Signalized 6 0.151 21,844 15740 21842 6105 0 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East Volumes; West Volumes Does Not Exist
Paseo Del Norte & Poinsettia Lane Signalized 6 0.086 38,398 9960 2168 26975 37693 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East Volumes; SANDAG North, South, and West Volumes
El Camino Real & Tamarack Avenue Signalized 6 0.091 36,081 9765 7731 29582 25083 Carlsbad -Carlsbad Boulevard & Avenida Encinas Signalized 5 0.188 14,546 11608 14459 3025 0 SANDAG West Volumes Does Not Exist
Paseo Del Norte & Palomar Airport Road Signalized 9 0.086 57,660 25740 14473 50476 24631 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East & West Volumes; SANDAG North & South Volumes
El Camino Real & Chesnut Avenue Signalized 8 0.149 29,323 25083 25083 2462 6017 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East & West Volumes
El Camino Real & Carlsbad Village Drive Signalized 11 0.153 39,329 31356 25083 10830 11388 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad South & West Volumes; SANDAG North & East Volumes
Car Country Drive & Cannon Road Signalized 8 0.171 25,615 0 5359 21957 23914 Carlsbad North Volumes Does Not Exist
Avenida Encinas & Palomar Airport Road Signalized 7 0.168 22,797 9007 5079 24631 6876 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North, East, and West Volumes; SANDAG South VolumesEl Camino Real & Plaza Drive Signalized 6 0.065 50,424 46929 38478 5433 10007 SANDAG No East Volumes
Avenida Encinas & Cannon Road Signalized 5 0.094 29,006 10970 9007 28375 9659 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North, South, and East Volumes; SANDAG West Volumes
Monroe Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Signalized 6 0.150 21,983 11365 4625 11326 16649 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East & West Volumes; SANDAG North & South Volumes
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cerezo Drive Signalized 9 0.337 14,631 15667 11493 2101 0 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North Volumes; SANDAG South & East
Volumes; West Volumes Does Not Exist
Valley Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Signalized 6 0.168 19,584 755 3033 16649 18731 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East Volumes; SANDAG North, South,
and West Volumes
Monroe Street & Marron Road Signalized 5 0.229 11,949 603 7213 8538 7543 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad South Volumes; SANDAG North, East,
and West VolumesHarding Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Signalized 8 0.209 20,996 5322 6163 19111 11396 SANDAG -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Hemlock Avenue Side Stop 5 0.179 15,330 14830 14830 1000 0 SANDAG
No East Volumes; West Volumes Does Not Exist
Roosevelt Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Signalized 7 0.285 13,441 2744 2791 11081 10266 SANDAG -State Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Signalized 5 0.238 11,508 1360 1100 10266 10290 SANDAG No South Volumes
Washington Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Side Stop 6 0.274 11,990 1750 1650 10290 10290 SANDAG No North & South VolumesCarlsbad Boulevard & State Street (Roundabout)Roundabout 15 0.510 16,120 15732 12078 4430 0 SANDAG Roundabout
Jefferson Street & Laguna Drive Signalized 4 0.335 6,538 4375 4562 1298 2841 SANDAG -Carlsbad Boulevard & Island Way Signalized 4 0.270 8,128 7203 8008 804 240 SANDAG Two Volumes for North & South
Carlsbad Boulevard & Beech Avenue Signalized 4 0.184 11,887 11845 6639 3132 2158 SANDAG -Jefferson Street & Carlsbad Village Drive Signalized 4 0.183 11,966 570 0 11396 11966 SANDAG No South Volumes
Calle Madero & La Costa Avenue Side Stop 4 0.178 12,279 0 0 8857 15701 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad West Volumes; SANDAG East Volumes; North Volumes Does Not Exist, No South VolumesCarlsbad Boulevard & Poinsettia Lane Signalized 4 0.151 14,505 8263 12618 8129 0 SANDAG No West Volumes
Carlsbad Boulevard & Shore Drive Side Stop 4 0.140 15,667 15667 15667 0 0 Carlsbad
No West Volumes; East Volumes Does Not Exist
Carlsbad Boulevard & Oak Avenue Side Stop 4 0.139 15,757 15757 15757 0 0 SANDAG No East & West VolumesMarron Road & Jefferson Street Signalized 4 0.131 16,749 15271 7543 3795 6889 SANDAG -
Viejo Castilla Way & La Costa Avenue Signalized 4 0.120 18,215 3957 0 15701 12814 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East Volumes; SANDAG North & West Volumes; South Volumes Does Not ExistNov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 147 of 161
Highland Drive & Carlsbad Village Drive Signalized 4 0.111 19,766 1594 2472 18731 16734 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad West Volumes; SANDAG North, South, and East Volumes
Ambrosia Lane & Poinsettia Lane Signalized 4 0.106 20,606 5052 4268 15551 16341 SANDAG -
Melrose Drive & Carrillo Way Signalized 4 0.098 22,363 20618 20618 1477 2013 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East
& West Volumes
Rancho Bravado & Melrose Drive Signalized 4 0.074 29,454 27879 27879 2335 814 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East
& West Volumes
College Boulevard & Tamarack Avenue Signalized 4 0.070 31,090 28980 28980 2110 0 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East
Volumes; West Volumes Does Not Exist
College Boulevard & Cannon Road Signalized 4 0.062 35,357 22161 0 2333 24059 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & West Volumes; SANDAG East
Volumes; South Volumes Does Not Exist
Yarrow Drive & Palomar Airport Road Signalized 4 0.056 38,926 3828 5119 35328 33576 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad South, East, and West Volumes; SANDAG North Volumes
Paseo Del Norte & Cannon Road Signalized 4 0.049 44,677 0 18532 23914 28375 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East & West Volumes; SANDAG South Volumes; North Volumes Does Not Exist
El Camino Real & Poinsettia Lane Signalized 4 0.048 45,271 33236 38647 17807 851 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North, South, and West Volumes; SANDAG East Volumes
Armada Drive & Palomar Airport Road Signalized 4 0.037 58,501 11920 5833 48772 50476 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East & West Volumes; SANDAG North & South Volumes
Rancho Sante Fe Road & San Elijo Road Signalized 4 0.037 59,470 50645 50645 16440 1209 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East & West Volumes
Alicante Road & Colina De La Costa Side Stop 3 0.879 1,870 1370 1370 0 500 SANDAG
East Volumes Does Not Exist; No West VolumesRoosevelt Street & Grand Avenue Signalized 3 0.801 2,053 1403 1470 1149 84 SANDAG -
Monroe Street & Chestnut Avenue Signalized 3 0.269 6,110 2357 2471 5085 2307 SANDAG -Carlsbad Boulevard & Christiansen Way Side Stop 3 0.248 6,639 6639 6639 0 0 SANDAG No East & West Volumes
La Costa Avenue & Esfera Street Side Stop 3 0.161 10,190 10190 10190 0 0 SANDAG
No East Volumes; West Volumes Does Not Exist
Celinda Drive & Carlsbad Village Drive Side Stop 3 0.139 11,810 0 1979 11388 10252 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East Volumes; SANDAG South & West Volumes; No North Volumes
Highland Drive & Tamarack Avenue All-Way Stop 3 0.132 12,444 652 3263 9192 11781 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East Volumes; SANDAG North, South, and West Volumes
Glasgow Drive & Carlsbad Village Drive Signalized 3 0.123 13,352 3520 3356 9402 10425 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad South & West Volumes; SANDAG North & East Volumes
Carlsbad Boulevard & Maple Avenue Side Stop 3 0.111 14,791 14791 14791 0 0 SANDAG
No East Volumes; West Volumes Does Not Exist
Paseo Escuela & Poinsettia Lane Signalized 3 0.102 16,148 413 1159 14959 15764 SANDAG -Carlsbad Boulevard & Chestnut Avenue Side Stop 3 0.101 16,248 12098 14791 2803 0 SANDAG West Volumes Does Not Exist
Adams Street & Tamarack Avenue Signalized 3 0.099 16,627 1036 5007 12069 15142 SANDAG -Black Rail Road & Poinsettia Lane Signalized 3 0.095 17,251 1708 1775 16341 14678 SANDAG -
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cherry Avenue Side Stop 3 0.091 18,045 14791 14830 3234 0 SANDAG West Volumes Does Not Exist
El Fuerte Street & Alga Road Signalized 3 0.088 18,651 5131 1321 19396 11454 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad West Volumes; SANDAG North, South, and East VolumesCarlsbad Boulevard & Tamarack Avenue Signalized 3 0.086 19,084 14830 16853 5815 669 SANDAG -
Pio Pico Drive & Tamarack Avenue Signalized 3 0.080 20,423 4018 0 15142 17668 SANDAG South Volumes Does Not ExistPalmer Way & Faraday Avenue Side Stop 3 0.078 21,182 1387 0 19191 20398 SANDAG South Volumes Does Not Exist
Paseo Del Norte & Car Country Drive Signalized 3 0.075 21,941 15267 18652 4981 0 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East Volumes; SANDAG North & South Volumes; West Volumes Does Not Exist
El Fuerte Street & Poinsettia Lane Signalized 3 0.074 22,249 6175 5612 15764 16946 SANDAG -
College Boulevard & Rift Road Signalized 3 0.073 22,641 22161 22161 959 0 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East
Volumes; No West Volumes
Grand Pacific Drive & Cannon Road Signalized 3 0.071 23,047 0 1205 21842 21842 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East
Volumes; est Volumes
Carlsbad Boulevard & Cannon Road Signalized 3 0.063 25,919 16853 15667 9659 0 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad South Volumes; SANDAG North & South Volumes; West Volumes Does Not Exist
Batiquitos Drive & Poinsettia Lane Signalized 3 0.055 29,998 1893 4990 26138 26975 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad West Volumes; SANDAG North, South, and East Volumes
Interstate 5 Southbound Ramps & Poinsettia Lane Signalized 3 0.052 31,685 5291 11114 28196 18769 SANDAG -
Poinsettia Lane & Melrose Drive Signalized 3 0.050 33,011 2566 14959 20618 27879 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East & West Volumes; SANDAG North & South VolumesEl Fuerte Street & Faraday Avenue Signalized 3 0.050 33,114 0 6293 26022 27620 SANDAG North Volumes Does Not Exist
El Camino Real & Hosp Way Signalized 3 0.048 34,595 27867 31356 5693 4273 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North Volumes; SANDAG South, East, and West Volumes
Interstate 5 Southbound Ramps & Cannon Road Signalized 3 0.045 36,505 10973 5286 28375 28375 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East & West Volumes; SANDAG North & South Volumes
El Camino Real & Town Garden Road Signalized 3 0.042 38,985 36486 36486 4997 0 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North & South Volumes; SANDAG East Volumes; No West Volumes
Legoland Drive & Cannon Road Signalized 3 0.040 41,531 0 19631 21842 21957 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbas East & West Volumes; SANDAG South Volumes; North Volumes Does Not Exist
El Camino Real & Marron Road Signalized 3 0.038 43,528 38478 27867 13388 7322 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad South Volumes; SANDAG North, East, and West Volumes
Camino Alvaro & Olivenhain Road Signalized 3 0.035 46,452 40759 32689 17785 1670 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad North Volumes; SANDAG South, East, and West Volumes
El Camino Real & Haymar Drive Side Stop 3 0.035 46,929 46929 46929 0 0 SANDAG No East & West Volumes
Jackspar Drive & El Camino Real Signalized 3 0.034 47,840 3588 4210 45813 42068 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East & West Volumes; SANDAG North
& South VolumesCalle Barcelona & Rancho Santa Fe Road Signalized 3 0.034 47,950 41538 40759 5297 8305 Carlsbad -
Hidden Valley Road & Palomar Airport Road Signalized 3 0.031 53,341 4276 4862 48772 48772 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East & West Volumes; SANDAG North & South Volumes
Innovation Way & Palomar Airport Road Signalized 3 0.029 56,362 5421 3402 52066 51834 Carlsbad & SANDAG
Carlsbad East & West Volumes; SANDAG North & South Volumes
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 148 of 161
Street Name From (Street Name)To (Street Name)
Total
Collisions Crash Rate
Average
Daily
Traffic Source
Carlsbad Village Drive Harding Street
Interstate 5 Southbound
Ramps 13 3.003 19111 SANDAG
Carlsbad Boulevard Solamar Drive Island Way 15 1.689 7200 SANDAG
Carlsbad Boulevard Cannon Road Cerezo Drive 13 1.435 15667 Carlsbad
Carlsbad Boulevard Palomar Airport Road Solamar Drive 8 1.434 5826 SANDAG
Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad Village Drive Pine Avenue 7 1.128 15757 SANDAG
Palomar Airport Road Interstate 5 Northbound Ramps Paseo Del Norte 5 1.105 24631 Carlsbad
Marron Road El Camino Real Eastern Terminus 7 0.928 13388 SANDAG
Paseo Del Norte Palomar Airport Road Camino De Las Ondas 11 0.909 5782 SANDAG
Lionshead Avenue Melrose Drive Eastern City Boundary 5 0.829 3812 SANDAG
Palomar Airport Road
Interstate 5 Southbound
Ramps
Interstate 5 Northbound
Ramps 6 0.754 24631 Carlsbad
El Camino Real Costa Del Mar Road La Costa Avnue 18 0.692 52663 Carlsbad
Jefferson Street Marron Road Las Flores Drive 6 0.634 6889 SANDAG
Cannon Road Wind Trail Way Hilltop Street 7 0.610 24283 CarlsbadAvenida Encinas Palomar Airport Road Poinsettia Lane 11 0.598 6318 SANDAG
Paseo Del Norte Car Country Drive Palomar Airport Road 12 0.587 22296 SANDAG
Cannon Road Hilltop Street College Boulevard 7 0.586 24059 Carlsbad
Carlsbad Boulevard Tamarack Avenue Cannon Road 21 0.576 16853 SANDAG
Carlsbad Boulevard Ponto Road Avenida Encinas 6 0.568 11608 SANDAG
Carlsbad Boulevard Northern City Boundary Beech Avenue 8 0.560 13218 SANDAG
Adams Street Tamarack Avenue Park Drive 5 0.549 5007 SANDAGPalomar Airport Road El Camino Real Loker Avenue/Innovation Way 20 0.485 51834 Carlsbad
Palomar Airport Road Paseo Del Norte Armada Drive 13 0.438 50476 CarlsbadCollege Boulevard Tamarack Avenue (N) Tamarack Avenue (S)5 0.406 28980 Carlsbad
Carlsbad Boulevard Avenida Encinas (S)
Southern City Boundary (La
Costa Ave)7 0.396 14458 SANDAG
Avenida Encinas Cannon Road Palomar Airport Road 6 0.393 9007 Carlsbad
Palomar Airport Road El Fuerte Street Melrose Drive 17 0.390 55355 Carlsbad
El Camino Real Dove Lane Aviara Parkway/Alga Road 5 0.351 38647 Carlsbad
Paseo Del Norte Cannon Road Car Country Drive 6 0.326 16900 SANDAGPalomar Airport Road Chipotle/Lowe's Parking Lot El Camino Real 5 0.311 35328 Carlsbad
El Camino Real Kelly Drive West Ranch Street/Lisa Street 7 0.302 31438 Carlsbad
Rancho Santa Fe Road La Costa Avenue Camino De Los Coches 9 0.301 41538 Carlsbad
Melrose Drive Northern City Boundary Palomar Airport Road 7 0.290 39164 SANDAG
El Camino Real Cannon Road
Jackspar Drive/Rancho
Carlsbad Drive 11 0.287 42068 Carlsbad
El Camino Real Town Garden Road Camino Vida Roble 5 0.282 36486 Carlsbad
El Camino Real La Costa Avenue La Costa Towne Center 5 0.272 36303 CarlsbadEl Camino Real Faraday Avenue Palomar Airport Road 11 0.267 36641 Carlsbad
Palomar Airport Road Hidden Valley Road College Boulevard 6 0.250 48772 Carlsbad
Palomar Airport Road Armada Drive
The Crossings Drive/Hidden
Valley Road 10 0.250 48772 Carlsbad
Rancho Santa Fe Road Calle Barcelona Camino Alvaro 6 0.238 40759 Carlsbad
Rancho Santa Fe Road Camino De Los Coches Calle Barcelona 6 0.234 41538 Carlsbad
El Camino Real College Boulevard Faraday Avenue 11 0.213 36641 CarlsbadLa Costa Avenue Piraeus Street Saxony Road 8 0.202 38040 Carlsbad
El Camino Real Arenal Road Costa Del Mar Road 7 0.194 51765 CarlsbadRancho Santa Fe Road Paseo Lupino/Via Mercato Camino Junipero 6 0.190 41269 Carlsbad
Rancho Santa Fe Road San Elijo Road Avenida Soledad 5 0.189 50645 Carlsbad
Palomar Airport Road Loker Avenue El Fuerte Street 7 0.189 52066 Carlsbad
El Camino Real
Jackspar Drive/Rancho
Carlsbad Drive College Boulevard 7 0.186 45813 Carlsbad
La Costa Avenue Saxony Road El Camino Real 13 0.164 38415 Carlsbad
La Costa Avenue El Camino Real Viejo Castilla Way 5 0.161 16845 CarlsbadPalomar Airport Road Eagle Drive Eastern City Boundary 5 0.152 35733 Carlsbad
El Camino Real Alga Road Arenal Road 8 0.151 52663 Carlsbad
Rancho Santa Fe Road Fire Station 6 Driveway Camino Junipero 7 0.149 50645 Carlsbad
Alga Road El Camino Real Alicante Road 4 0.176 22503 SANDAG
Alga Road Alicante Road Corinita Street 4 0.117 19194 SANDAG
Alicante Road Town Garden Road Poinsettia Lane 4 0.859 3118 SANDAG
Alicante Road/El Fuerte Strret Alga Road Corinita Street 4 0.755 1568 SANDAG
Cannon Road Grand Pacific Drive Faraday Avenue 4 0.224 21842 CarlsbadNov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 149 of 161
Carlsbad Boulevard Pine Avenue Tamarack Avenue 4 0.256 13906 SANDAG
El Camino Real Plaza Drive Marron Road 4 0.481 38478 SANDAG
El Camino Real Tamarack Avenue Kelly Drive 4 0.413 29628 Carlsbad
El Camino Real Northern City Boundary Plaza Drive 4 0.386 46929 SANDAG
El Camino Real Lisa Street/West Ranch Street Cannon Road 4 0.181 32464 Carlsbad
La Costa Avenue Rancho Santa Fe Road Circulo Sequoia 4 0.764 4385 SANDAG
Loker Avenue (W)Palomar Airport Road El Fuerte Street 4 0.530 6004 SANDAG
Marron Road Jefferson Street Monroe Street 4 1.094 7543 SANDAG
Park Drive Tamarack Avenue Kelly Drive 4 0.663 1917 SANDAG
Rancho Santa Fe Road La Costa Avenue Paseo Lupino 4 0.148 41269 Carlsbad
Rancho Santa Fe Road
Melrose Drive/Eastern City
Boundary San Elijo Road 4 0.079 50645 Carlsbad
Avenida De Anita Marron Road Carlsbad Village Drive 3 0.720 3765 CarlsbadCannon Road Legoland Drive Grand Pacific Drive 3 0.307 21842 Carlsbad
Cannon Road Car Country Drive Legoland Drive 3 0.213 21957 Carlsbad
Car Country Drive Cannon Road Paseo Del Norte 3 0.512 5170 SANDAG
Carlsbad Boulevard Beech Avenue Grand Avenue 3 1.706 6639 SANDAG
Carlsbad Boulevard Island Way Breakwater Road 3 1.069 3631 SANDAG
Carlsbad Village Drive Pontiac Drive Chatham Road 3 0.331 6417 SANDAG
Carlsbad Village Drive Donna Drive El Camino Real 3 0.310 11388 CarlsbadChestnut Avenue Pio Pico Drive Monroe Street 3 0.635 3217 SANDAG
El Camino Real Marron Road Hosp Way 3 0.311 27867 CarlsbadEl Camino Real Palomar Airport Road Gateway Road 3 0.228 36486 Carlsbad
El Camino Real Carlsbad Village Drive Chestnut Avenue 3 0.121 25083 Carlsbad
El Camino Real Chestnut Avenue Tamarack Avenue 3 0.076 25083 Carlsbad
El Fuerte Street Greenhaven Drive Poinsettia Lane 3 2.343 6175 SANDAG
Faraday Avenue Priestly Drive El Camino Real 3 0.398 21288 Carlsbad
Faraday Avenue Whiptail Loop (E)Eastern City Boundary 3 0.307 26047 SANDAG
Faraday Avenue El Fuerte Street Whiptail Loop (W)3 0.259 26022 SANDAGFaraday Avenue Whiptail Loop (W)Whiptail Loop (E)3 0.201 26022 SANDAG
Loker Avenue El Fuerte Street Palomar Airport Road 3 0.784 3755 SANDAG
Marron Road Monroe Street El Camino Real 3 0.381 6907 SANDAG
Melrose Drive Poinsettia Lane Carrillo Way 3 0.248 20618 Carlsbad
Oak Avenue Tyler Street Eastern Terminus 3 2.898 1291 SANDAG
Olivenhain Road Amargosa Drive Camino Alvaro 3 0.094 32689 SANDAG
Palomar Airport Road Melrose Drive Paseo Valindo 3 0.105 35787 Carlsbad
Palomar Airport Road Aviara Parkway Palomar Oaks Way 3 0.064 36010 Carlsbad
Pio Pico Drive Carlsbad Village Drive Chestnut Avenue 3 1.650 2376 SANDAGPoinsettia Lane Crystalline Drive Aviara Parkway 3 0.307 24999 SANDAG
Tamarack Avenue Carlsbad Village Drive College Boulevard 3 0.303 3934 SANDAG
Tamarack Avenue Adams Street Park Drive 3 0.114 10033 Carlsbad
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 150 of 161
Page 1 of 11
Council Chambers
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Sept. 6, 2022, 4:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: 4 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Linke, Penseyres, Fowler, Coelho and Newlands
Absent: Perez and Proulx
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Acting Chair Linke led the Pledge of Allegiance
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Motion by Commissioner Penseyres, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to approve Consent Item No. 1.
Motion carried: 5/0/0/2 (Absent: Chair Perez and Commissioner Proulx)
1.INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND COLLEGE BOULEVARD, CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PROJECT NO. 6028 – The Traffic & Mobility Commission supported staff’s
recommendation to approve the plans and specifications of the intersection improvement at Palomar
Airport Road and College Boulevard, Capital Improvement Program, Project No. 6028.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS:
2.ORDINANCE UPDATE AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT: CHAPTER 10.56 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL
CODE – OPERATION OF REGULATED MOBILITY DEVICES – Receive an update on the newly-enacted
ordinance, Chapter 10.56 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code - Operation of Regulated Mobility Devices;
review a proposed amendment to the trail dismount provision in the ordinance. (Staff Contact: Jason
Jackowski, Police Department and Marissa Kawecki, City Attorney’s Department)
Staff’s Recommendation: Receive an update, review the proposed amendment, and provide
feedback.
City Attorney Kawecki and Lieutenant Jackowski presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint
presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Scott Hansen from the San Diego Mountain Bike Association spoke about the positive changes. He
appreciates and support the city’s response to the feedback regarding this provision. With the adoption
of the proposed amendment, the City of Carlsbad will have a model ordinance which he knows other
jurisdictions will want to adopt.
Exhibit 2
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 151 of 161
TRAFFIC AND MOBILITY COMMISSION
Minutes
Page 2 of 11
Commissioner Coelho asked if the Traffic and Mobility Commission can see what the Diversion Class
curriculum entails.
Lieutenant Jackowski responded that the curriculum being used is from the League of American Bicyclists
Smart Cycling Program. He will have that curriculum forwarded to the commission.
Commissioner Coelho inquired about the number of citations that were given out to this date.
Lieutenant Jackowski responded that the presentation was only current up to Aug. 23, 2022. With the
recent declaration of emergency many more citations have been issued. They have done 428 enforcement
contacts just since the declaration of the state of emergency on Aug. 23, 2022.
Commissioner Fowler said that if these e-bike riders start to ride on trails this could cause confusion in
the future as it is hard to enforce. The hardship is that riders have to stop and get off their bike if they are
within 50 feet of a pedestrian or on a trail that is less than five feet wide.
Lieutenant Jackowski said the hardship is that the riders have to estimate the distance themselves and
the Police Officer would have to make the same estimation at the exact same time. This would be difficult
to prove and the citation could be dismissed outright. Using the catch all of riding with regard to safety is
simpler.
Deputy City Attorney Kawecki responded that the ordinance can always be amended in the future if the
need arises. In order to amend an ordinance, there needs to be specific findings to support the ordinance.
The city needs to articulate reasons for having the ordinance and we have no evidence that there is a need
for it currently.
Acting Chair Linke asked if we interface with the schools in the City of Carlsbad that fall within the San
Marcos or Encinitas Unified School Districts?
Lieutenant Jackowski replied that the collaboration will fall on San Diego Unified Schools and Encinitas
Schools to identify the schools.
Motion by Commissioner Penseyres, seconded by Commissioner Newlands to support staff’s
recommendation on the proposed amendment to the newly-enacted ordinance, Chapter 10.56 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code – Operation of Regulated Mobility Devices; review a proposed amendment to
the trail dismount provision in the ordinance. Motion carried: 5/0/0/2 (Absent: Chair Perez and
Commissioner Proulx)
3. POLICE REPORT REGARDING TRAFFIC & MOBILITY-RELATED MATTERS DURING THE MONTH OF
AUGUST 2022 – Receive a presentation from a representative of the City of Carlsbad’s Police
Department that provide an overview of traffic and mobility-related police matters during the month
of August 2022. (Staff Contact: Lieutenant Jason Jackowski, Police Department)
Staff’s Recommendation: Receive a presentation
Lieutenant Jackowski presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office
of the City Clerk)
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 152 of 161
Page 3 of 11
4. STATUS UPDATE ON THE BICYCLE, E-BICYCLE, AND MOTORIZED MOBILITY DEVICE SAFETY
LOCAL EMERGENCY – Receive an update and solicit feedback from the public and Traffic &
Mobility Commission on the declaration of a local emergency of bicycle, e-bicycle, and
motorized mobility device safety. (Staff Contact: Paz Gomez, Public Works)
Staff’s Recommendation: Receive a presentation
Deputy City Manager Gomez presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the
Office of the City Clerk)
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Tom Lichterman is a resident of Oceanside and the Chairman of the Oceanside Bicycle and Pedestrian
Committee. He provided a presentation on his cycling accident that took place on Carlsbad Boulevard near
Chandler’s restaurant. He requested that the T&MC direct staff to investigate and develop a remediation
plan for a clear roadway defect that is a hazard to cyclists.
Acting Chair Linke responded that the Commission is unable to direct staff to do anything, but that he
should contact the Transportation Department. He believes they already have this location down as being
an issue.
Tim Morgan spoke about the corner of Tamarack Avenue and Valley Street and it’s Phase II of the Traffic
Calming Study. There was a lack of engagement and community involvement, and this does not align with
the messages being conveyed.
Mark Embree spoke about the accident on Valley Street and Basswood Avenue and measures to slow
traffic down. How do we force irresponsible people to be responsible? They need to become aware with
something different like a traffic circle or speed bump. Please don’t let Christine’s death go unnoticed.
Commissioner Coelho inquired about the function of the Emergency Operations Center.
Deputy City Manager Gomez responded that the function is to help facilitate communication and ensure
that everything that is going on with regards to the proclamation is coordinated and collaborated across
the city.
Commissioner Newlands said that the rise of the e-bikes has been the real issue that is being shown in the
data, as fatalities and accidents are up. What can we do about this?
Deputy City Manager Gomez replied that on September 27, during City Council meeting staff will get
direction on how to proceed and how to prioritize the projects. The intent of staff is to cover the different
areas such as enforcement, education, engineering and infrastructure. We will review areas of concern,
projects and input given by the public.
Commissioner Coelho asked if this will require another review of these projects post City Council by the
Traffic and Mobility Commission and other commissions as well? What is the timeline of the
implementation of these projects?
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 153 of 161
Page 4 of 11
Deputy City Manager Gomez said that the Traffic and Mobility Commission is aware that there is a new
way of approaching projects across the board. We are trying to get feedback earlier in the design process.
Some of the projects coming forward won’t be new as they will have been presented before. Other
projects will be newer and not fully vetted yet. Timelines will be discussed. Projects that are further along
may be able to be accelerated. Other newer projects can be accelerated into the design phase as well.
Motion by Commissioner Penseyres, seconded by Commissioner Coelho to include the following
comments:
a.The plan should include a comprehensive training program that addresses traffic safety for all
roadway users including adults, youths, e-bikes, manual bikes, and vehicle drivers.
b.Support for the implementation of infrastructure projects that address traffic safety including
traffic calming including, roundabouts, lane reductions, vertical and horizontal measures
c.Accelerate implementation of traffic safety infrastructure improvements and high priority
projects identified in the Sustainable Mobility Plan
d.Prioritize Safe Routes to School projects in particular focus on preparing school access plans
as a near-term Safe Routes to School action items
e.Provide instructions to educate the drivers on how to use the green conflict zone striping
through variable message signs and the city’s communication channels (“No Right Hook”)
Motion carried: 5/0/0/2 (Absent: Chair Perez and Commissioner Proulx)
5.FINAL DESIGN PLANS FOR CARLSBAD BOULEVARD RESTRIPING BETWEEN MANZANO DRIVE AND
ISLAND WAY, AND THREE SUSTAINBLE MOBILITY PLAN BIKE LANE ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS -
Support staff’s recommendation to City Council to approve the final design plans and specifications
of the Carlsbad Boulevard Restriping between Manzano Drive and Island Way, bike lane
improvements at five locations on Carlsbad Boulevard, Capital Improvement Project No. 6096, and
Three Sustainable Mobility Plan Bike Enhancement Projects - La Costa Avenue at the intersections
of Piraeus; Saxony and El Camino Real, Capital Improvement Project No. 6101; Jefferson Street
between Las Flores Drive and I-5 Overpass, Capital Improvement Project No. 6100; and Paseo Del
Norte and Cannon Road intersection, Capital Improvement Project No. 6095. (Staff Contact:
Miriam Jim and John Kim, Public Works)
Staff’s Recommendation: Support staff’s recommendation to the City Council.
City Traffic Engineer Kim and Senior Engineer Jim presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint
presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Michael Von Newman, Chair of the Encinitas Mobility and Traffic Safety Commission and resident
of Encinitas. He is in support of the staff proposal to restripe southbound Carlsbad Boulevard and
to reduce travel lanes from two to one. He believes these improvements will improve safety for
bicyclists and all users of the road.
Bill Fenner is a resident of the Solamar development on Carlsbad Boulevard. He is in support of staff
proposal but he believes that the city needs to reduce the traffic on the northbound lane as well as
southbound. The Solamar Community submitted a petition to Transportation Director Frank that
had 42 signatures on it. Everyone signed the petition wanting to reduce the speed limit to 35 mph,
reduce the travel lanes and make that lane a bike lane.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 154 of 161
Page 5 of 11
Commissioner Coelho inquired if after the striping project is completed, is there a feedback loop to
evaluate the condition of the road after the treatment?
City Traffic Engineer Kim responded that typically if a problem is identified staff would do the
appropriate before and after studies. For example, on residential traffic calming projects where
we have a speed target of 25 mph, we complete a before and after study. For a situation where
the posted speed limit is based on prevailing speeds but staff wants to enhance the bicycle lane the
staff would probably do more of an observational type of analysis.
Commissioner Penseyres commented on an alternative to just using green paint in the bike lane
area would be to use sharrows to direct cyclists left and allow the motorists to turn right. The goal
is to reduce right hooks without excessive motorist delay. This should be used on northbound
Carlsbad Boulevard at Ponto Road, Breakwater Road and Island Way. It should be used southbound
at Solamar Drive.
Commissioner Penseyres also recommended as follows:
• Providing a bike box or retain sharrow on northbound/eastbound Jefferson Street at Las
Flores
• Leave the sharrows on northbound/eastbound of Jefferson Street
• Widen the WB climbing lane and installing a new green or black backed sharrow as soon as
the bike lane ends.
• Provide a green bike box La Costa Avenue at Piraeus Street
• Dashed green paint from La Costa up to the park & ride.
• Provide a green bike box on Cannon Rd. in the westbound direction at Paseo del Norte
City Traffic Engineer Kim responded that he appreciates the suggestions but cannot commit to
make changes to this project at this late stage in the design process. These set of plans have come
in front of the Traffic and Mobility Commission before and we are trying to expedite this project.
Commissioner Penseyres asked staff to not add the bike lane on Jefferson Street. He asked to leave
the road as it is right now.
City Traffic Engineer Kim responded that staff is comfortable with a marked bike lane in this position
and thinks it will be beneficial. Transportation and Mobility Manager Schmidt said that this area
was identified as a critical gap in the city’s bike lane network and staff saw this an opportunity to
improve this location.
Acting Chair Linke spoke about one public comment concerned about eliminating the lanes to
accommodate the road diet. He wanted to note the volume changes on that stretch of road. This
year there has been an increase or drivers on that road. Our roads are just as congested now as
they were pre-covid.
City Traffic Engineer Kim agreed but added that he sees a different pattern post-covid. The studies
we conduct give us information on what those patterns tend to be. He feels that the stretch of road
on Carlsbad Boulevard would be sufficient to handle the flow of traffic based on a one-year closure.
The intersection capacity plays a large part in roadway capacity.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 155 of 161
Page 6 of 11
Acting Chair Linke said that he does not agree with earlier statements that the max speed limit
should be 35 mph within city limits. Major corridors like El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road
need to move along.
Commissioner Penseyres said that he fully supports the removal of the lane and the approach to
do it in the southbound direction.
Motion by Commissioner Penseyres, seconded by Acting Chair Linke to approve staff’s recommendation
to City Council to approve the final design plans and specifications of the Carlsbad Boulevard Restriping
between Manzano Drive and Island Way, bike lane improvements at five locations on Carlsbad Boulevard,
Capital Improvement Project No. 6096, and Two Sustainable Mobility Plan Bike Enhancement Projects -
La Costa Avenue at the intersections of Piraeus; Saxony and El Camino Real, Capital Improvement Project
No. 6101 and Paseo Del Norte at Cannon Road Capital Improvement Project No. 6095. Motion carried:
5/0/0/2 (Absent: Chair Perez and Commissioner Proulx)
Motion by Acting Chair Linke, seconded by Commissioner Fowler to support supported staff’s
recommendation to City Council to approve the final design plans and specifications of the Sustainable
Mobility Plan Bike Enhancement Project - Jefferson Street between Las Flores Drive and I-5 Overpass,
Capital Improvement Project No. 6100. Motion carried: 4/1/0/2 (No: Commissioner Penseyres; Absent:
Chair Perez and Commissioner Proulx) 6. UPDATE ON PLUM TREE ROAD IN RESPONSE TO RESIDENT CONCERNS WITH SPEEDING –
Receive an informational report on the traffic engineering evaluation of Plum Tree Road. (Staff
Contact: Lindy Pham and John Kim, Public Works)
Staff’s Recommendation: Receive the report.
City Traffic Engineer Kim and Associate Engineer Pham presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint
presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Eric Stephenson – representing a group of residents from Plum Tree Road and is requesting that
their neighborhood be included in phase 2 of the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program
Nichola Riggle –Residents must insist that something be done to make the neighborhood safer.
Speed cushions should be a minimal solution. Expedite the Phase 2 plan as soon as possible.
Julie Schwartz – spoke to reiterate on what the previous speakers said about the dangers and speed
issues on Plum Tree Road. Please include this neighborhood in Phase 2 of the Residential Traffic
Program.
Commissioner Coelho asked if any progress on this project for this street will be made prior to the
meeting with the neighborhood in early 2023? Do we work with consultants?
Acting Chair Linke said that there is a paradox where some residents want additional stop signs
placed in their neighborhood to reduce speed where other residents may say that no one pays
attention to the stop signs. He also asked about vegetation issues arising and how to keep this
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 156 of 161
Page 7 of 11
under control.
City Traffic Engineer Kim said that the vegetation issues are usually on private property. Staff
contacts the private property owner and asks them to cut back the vegetation. Normally, if it is not
in the public right of way then it becomes the responsibility of the owner of the property.
Acting Chair Linke asked when the sight measurements were taken were all of the parked cars also
taken into consideration? Sight distance is worse with many parked cars in the way. One of the
public comments requested a red curb, does staff consider these type of request?
City Traffic Engineer Kim said that they do take parked cars into consideration when they measure
sight distance to an intersection. He said they will take a look at the red curb request and evaluate.
The sight evaluations were done at Redknot Street, Robinea Street and Windflower Drive.
Commissioner Penseyres expressed his concern about waiting until 2023 to start this project. He
hopes that staff can speed up this project including it as part of the emergency declaration.
City Traffic Engineer Kim said that he is confident that staff is proceeding with the projects as fast
as possible. Nine streets in a three-month span is aggressive and he knows his staff is working fast.
Tamarack Avenue has already been prioritized as part of the emergency, so staff is also going to
squeeze that project in. Staff will take a look at all of the streets again to see if there are any new
considerations, but those streets and neighborhoods are waiting as well.
Commissioner Penseyres asked if a traffic circle could be looked at for this location as well?
City Traffic Engineer Kim answered yes. Staff likes to talk about the solutions and to clearly present
the positives and negatives of all solutions with the community when they hold the neighborhood
meeting.
Acting Chair Linke said that he supports traffic circles in certain circumstances but when you have
a smaller side street it forces the car to get closer to people’s houses and sidewalks.
7. UPDATE ON THE CITY OF ENCINITAS E-BIKE SHARE PROGRAM – Receive an informational report
on the development and performance of the City of Encinitas E-Bike share program. (Staff
Contact: Nathan Schmidt, Public Works)
Staff’s Recommendation: Receive the report.
Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager Schmidt presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint
presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
8. DRAFT LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN – Receive feedback on the draft Local Roadway Safety Plan,
a study that analyzes citywide traffic collisions to identify and prioritize citywide roadway safety
improvements. (Staff Contact: Miriam Jim and John Kim, Public Works)
Staff’s Recommendation: Receive a presentation and provide feedback.
Senior Engineer Jim and Traffic Planner Andrew Prescott from Chen Ryan Associates presented the report
and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 157 of 161
Page 8 of 11
Commissioner Penseyres said the data shown regarding collisions that take place mid-block is misleading
as they aren’t actually mid-block. SWITTERS always include how far you are from the intersection. The
police use the center line of the intersection as the starting point. A crash that is reported being 20 to 30
feet from the intersection is still in the intersection. In the report, is this being shown as being mid-block?
Traffic Planner Prescott responded that they use the offset distance in the report, not where the actual
pin drops. They use the offset distance of 50 feet to define their intersections. Any crash reported within
50 feet of the intersection would be identified as an intersection collision.
Commissioner Penseyres asked about driveways and alleys and other areas that are related to the
intersections. Do these get reported as mid-block?
Traffic Planner Prescott responded that they look at these instances on a case-by-case basis. Driveways
that might function more as an intersection might be flagged as an intersection collision. Generally
driveways and alleys would be looked at as mid-block unless they fall within 50 feet of the intersection.
Commissioner Penseyres suggested that they look at the car-bicycle crashes separately from the solo
bike crashes. He suggested that we fix that in the data as we know that 90% of the bicycle-car crashes
take place at intersections, driveways or with a vehicle making a turning movement. It is this
kind of data that causes the push towards class IV.
Acting Chair Linke asked if part of the feedback from the Commission could be to add an asterisk to the
mid-block collisions and note that these might not necessarily be mid-block but could be driveways or
alleys. Could we also add a figure in the presentation that accurately reflects that right hook are the most
dangerous cause of collisions for bicycles.
Traffic Planner Prescott responded that their data did show that right hooks are the most common cause
of collision. They did separate non-vehicle bicycle collisions from bicycle-car collisions. They created a map
that shows all of the collisions and distinguishes between the two types. They also created a new figure
that identifies the causes of the bicycle collisions that did not include motor vehicles and includes any
potential objects that were involved.
Acting Chair Linke suggested making the figure that shows the right hook frequency a more prominent
aspect of the report. Include that in the executive summary to highlight the issue. Many people only have
time to read the executive summary. He asked why a few projects didn’t make the list that had fatal
collisions. They are El Camino Real, Faraday Avenue, Alicante Road and Colina De La Costa. Why is there
not a project associated with these intersections that had the highest level of injuries or fatalities? The
third location was Carlsbad Village Drive from Harding Street to the I-5 ramp. He suggested adding these
two intersections and the segment of Carlsbad Village Drive to the project list or look at them more closely
for the priority list.
Motion by Acting Chair Linke, seconded by Commissioner Newlands to include the following comments:
1) The LRSP report should highlight the issues with the right hook collisions specifically for
vehicle vs. bike collisions
2) Consider adding the following additional locations to the priority project list:
a. The roadway segment of Carlsbad Village Drive between Harding Street and the I-5
Southbound ramps
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 158 of 161
Page 9 of 11
b. The intersection of El Camino Real & Faraday Avenue
c. The intersection of Alicante Road and Colina de la Costa
Motion carried: 5/0/0/2 (Absent: Chair Perez and Commissioner Proulx)
9. CARLSBAD RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE – Receive a presentation and
provide feedback on the proposed changes to the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program
2022 Revision which outlines the process to plan and implement traffic calming measures on
residential streets throughout the city. (Staff Contact: John Kim and Miriam Jim, Public Works)
Staff’s Recommendation: Receive a presentation and provide feedback.
City Traffic Engineer Kim and Senior Engineer Jim presented the report and reviewed a PowerPoint
presentation (on file in the Office of the City Clerk)
Commissioner Fowler asked about the criteria for the phase III.
City Traffic Engineer Kim responded that there is an evolution of how we got to this point. When staff
received comments at the last meeting about the phase III criteria, it was said that the criteria was difficult
to meet. We started unofficially using speed cushions to replace the stop signs, and in order
to address intersections, we utilized traffic circles. Once we started doing this, we realized we were doing
what is considered traditional traffic calming. Phase II was intended as “cost effective traffic calming”.
Phase III is traditional traffic calming. He thought it would be easier to understand if we consolidate
Phase II and III. We can apply any tools in the toolbox for phase II. We eliminated some tools that were
geared towards grid networks like the list of diverters. They wouldn’t be of much use in Carlsbad. We can
however, use any type of traffic calming tools if appropriate. There is no best feature. Speed cushions
have shown to be very effective and simple, and we tend to apply those because of that. There are
positives and negatives to every feature.
Commissioner Penseyres asked if they can put the speed cushions or pillows midblock? He asked about
raised intersections or speed tables. Are these still part of the program?
City Traffic Engineer Kim responded that we will still be retaining such things as a raised intersection,
raised crosswalk and those types of features. There will be certain things that we consider when we
propose a toolbox and drainage is one of the things. A raised intersection would have drainage issues.
This is why we default to speed cushions and traffic circles that won’t polarize the community as they are
easier to implement with fewer drawbacks. He also wanted to touch on Vice-Chair Linke’s earlier
comment about roundabouts. There are perception issues that they push traffic toward the pedestrian
path. We do try to point that out. We do want to make sure that cars aren’t in the pedestrian path but
yes the cars will be pointed in that direction. This is an issue we lay out to the community when we propose
options.
Commissioner Penseyres shared his concern that we use the 32 mph as a criterion. We need to work on
slowing down the 15% that is driving way too fast as those are the drivers that kill people.
City Traffic Engineer Kim responded that the 32-mph speed limit was based on a couple of considerations.
One of these was speaking to the Police Department and asking them what speed they start enforcing on
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 159 of 161
Page 10 of 11
a residential street. This was the common number where the officers started issuing citations on a
residential street. When staff was looking at the streets that had traffic calming complaints, we looked at
a whole cross section of streets and threw the 32-mph limit in there to see which streets would be
excepted and which ones not. We didn’t want all of the streets to be accepted or all excluded.
The 32 mph bisected the number that looked reasonable to staff. For neighborhoods that don’t meet the
32-mph criteria, there is an exception that can be made by the Traffic & Mobility Commission. From a
data perspective he does not recommend lowering that threshold. After conducting a collision search of
the 19 streets that had traffic calming implemented over the past six years, there were only three injury
collisions. These are typically low volume, low collision streets.
Acting Chair Linke stated if the critical speed of 32-mph works for many streets but isn’t working for Plum
Tree Road than that neighborhood can asked to be put into the exception. The Plum Tree Road residents
mentioned the volume component as many cars travel down the road. They also talk about the grade
being very steep on the roadway. Could these issues, volume and grade help them become an exception?
Could staff use volume, grade, injury collisions, people ignoring stop signs, etc. to help prioritize a project
in the queue over other projects.
Commissioner Penseyres asked staff if stop signs were added back into the Residential Traffic
Management Program in 2011.
City Traffic Engineer Kim responded that yes, staff was given the direction to add stop signs back in 2011.
Residential stop signs were justified at that time to be used in low volume situations.
Motion by Commissioner Coelho, seconded by Commissioner Newlands to include the following
comments:
a. Consider additional criteria to supplement prioritization of Carlsbad Residential Traffic
Management Program streets such as traffic volumes, average grade, or proximity to schools.
Motion carried: 5/0/0/2 (Absent: Chair Perez and Commissioner Proulx)
CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER COMMENTS:
TRAFFIC AND MOBILITY COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Coelho asked staff about the proper way to get items added to the agenda. Would it be
worded as “the commission would like to ask staff to bring forth these items to the commission at a future
date.”
Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager Schmidt said yes that would be appropriate.
Commissioner Coelho said that he would like staff to bring an item to the T&MC to amend the City of
Carlsbad Municipal Code to require all riders of bicycles or other mobility devices to wear helmets.
Assistant City Attorney Contreras asked Commissioner Coelho to point out what part of the commission’s
work plan related to this request. When no portion of the work plan was identified, Mr. Contreras advised
the Commission to table this matter until it could be tethered to an identifiable part of the work plan.
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 160 of 161
Page 11 of 11
ADJOURNMENT:
Acting Chair Linke adjourned the Traffic & Mobility Commission Special Meeting on Sept. 6, 2022, at 9:30
p.m.
___________________________
Eliane Paiva, Minutes Clerk
Nov. 15, 2022 Item #14 Page 161 of 161r r
John Kim, City Traffic Engineer
Transportation Department
Public Works Branch
November 15, 2022
Local Roadway Safety Plan
{ City of
Carlsbad
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution adopting the City of
Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan
ITEM 14: Local Roadway Safety Plan
{ City of
Carlsbad
BACKGROUND
•In 2019, Caltrans announced that agencies will
require a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) to
qualify for future Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) grants
•In 2020, City received a $72,000 grant from
Caltrans to prepare a LRSP
ITEM 14: Local Roadway Safety Plan
{ City of
Carlsbad
WHAT IS AN LRSP?
•A data-driven traffic safety plan
•A plan that provides a framework to identify, analyze and prioritize roadway safety improvements to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on the local roadway network
•A living document that will be periodically reviewed and updated, every five years or less, to reflect changing local needs and priorities
ITEM 14: Local Roadway Safety Plan
{ City of
Carlsbad
2020
Dec. 2020
City received a grant
from Caltrans to prepare
a LRSP
Early 2021
Began developing
City’s LRSP Sept. 2022
Presented draft LRSP
to Traffic and Mobility
Commission
Aug. 2022
City declared a local
state of emergency
for bikes, e-bikes
and traffic safety
Nov. 2022
City Council LRSP
Presentation
CARLSBAD LRSP TIMELINE
ITEM 14: Local Roadway Safety Plan
0
0
0
0
0
(city of
Carlsbad
CITY OF CARLSBAD LRSP
•Involved a comprehensive analysis of citywide
collision data from 2015-2019
•Excluded data from 2020 -traffic and travel
patterns were an anomaly due to COVID-19
pandemic
•Took into account of roadway data like number
of lanes, intersection types, speed limits and
traffic volumes
ITEM 14: Local Roadway Safety Plan
{ City of
Carlsbad
CITY OF CARLSBAD LRSP
•Analysis provided various collision statistics for
motorists, bikes and pedestrians
•Identified locations where collisions are more frequent, collision patterns and roadway safety trends across the city
•Took input from other city departments and engagement with city’s safety partners, including local school districts, NCTD and transportation advocacy groups
ITEM 14: Local Roadway Safety Plan
{ City of
Carlsbad
SAFETY ENHANCEMENT AREAS
Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorists
•Drivers failing to yield to
pedestrians in crosswalk
•Pedestrians failing to yield
to drivers while crossing
outside of crosswalks
•Drivers failing to yield to
bikes while making right-
turns
•Bicyclists at-fault due to
unsafe speed
•Increase in e-bike use
•Unsafe speed
•Failure to stop at stop line
•DUI
•Broadside collisions at intersections
•Rear-end collisions approaching intersections
ITEM 14: Local Roadway Safety Plan
SAFETY IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
ITEM 14: Local Roadway Safety Plan
Engineering•Safety improvement recommendations
that integrate the “3 E’s” approach;
•Programmatic –Education and
Enforcement strategies
•Infrastructure –Engineering approach
using proven countermeasures to
reduce certain type of collision
SAFETY IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
ITEM 14: Local Roadway Safety Plan
Education and Enforcement –Programmatic
•Safe Route to School Program
•Bicycle education courses
•Targeted enforcement on DUI and speed
•E-Bike collision tracking
City Cycli ..
for -
SAFETY IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
ITEM 14: Local Roadway Safety Plan
Engineering –Infrastructure Improvements
•Implement proven safety
countermeasures to reduce a certain
type of collision to improve roadway
safety
•City-wide recommendations
•Recommendations for locations having
most frequent collisions (2015-2019)
Local Roadway Safety
A Manual for California's Local Road Owners
Version 1.5
April 2020 ~
!
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
Safe Transportation
Research&EducationCenter
5afeTREC
SAFETY IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
ITEM 14: Local Roadway Safety Plan
Retroreflective
backplate borders
Red Light
Indicator
High Visibility Crosswalk
Stop line before
crosswalk Green paint bike lane
in conflict areas
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons
Leading
Pedestrian
intervals
SAFETY IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
ITEM 14: Local Roadway Safety Plan
Location Recommended countermeasure
Intersection
Roosevelt Street and Carlsbad Village Drive Curb extension
Advance stop line before crosswalk
Harding Street and Carlsbad Village Drive
High visibility crosswalk
Curb extension
Advance stop line before crosswalk
Roosevelt Street and Grand Avenue
Curb extension
Advance stop line before crosswalk
Install leading pedestrian interval
El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road
Additional overhead-mounted signal heads
High visibility crosswalk
Advance stop line before crosswalk
Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road
Additional overhead-mounted signal heads
High visibility crosswalk
Advance stop line before crosswalk
Carlsbad Boulevard and State Street Add intersection lighting
El Camino Real and Alga Road Additional overhead-mounted signal heads
Palomar Airport Road and Loker Avenue/Innovation Way Additional overhead-mounted signal heads
Carlsbad Boulevard and CerezoDrive
Install flashing beacons as advance warning
Green paint bike lane in conflict areas
Speed reduction markings
Segment
Paseo Del Norte, from Palomar Airport Road to Camino Del
Parque/Sea Gate Road
Road reconfiguration including vehicle lane reduction and buffer
for bike lanes
Install new pedestrian crossing with rectangular rapid flashing
beacons and pedestrian refuge island
Carlsbad Boulevard, from Carlsbad Village Drive to Cannon Road Road reconfiguration including vehicle lane reduction and add
buffer to bike lanes
Carlsbad Boulevard, from Tierra Del Oro Street to La Costa
Avenue Install multi-use path along west side of roadway
Pacific Ocean
Oceanside
EMERGENCY EFFORT UNDERWAY
ITEM 14: Local Roadway Safety Plan
•Traffic safety improvements already underway as
part of the city’s emergency efforts
•Implementation of green paint bike lane in conflict areas
•Installation of speed feedback signs and electronic message
boards in areas where there are more frequent collision
•Implementation of leading pedestrian intervals at targeted
signalized intersections
•Resurfacing and restriping on targeted streets, including
Carlsbad Blvd { City of
Carlsbad
NEXT STEPS
ITEM 14: Local Roadway Safety Plan
•Submit Local Roadway Safety Plan to Caltrans as
required by the grant received
•Watch for future Highway Safety Improvement
Program grant opportunities
{ City of
Carlsbad
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt a resolution adopting the City of Carlsbad
Local Roadway Safety Plan
ITEM 14: Local Roadway Safety Plan
{ City of
Carlsbad