HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1990/04/18 AGENDA
City Planning Commission Workshop
Chula Vista, California
Wednesday, April 18, 1990 - 5:00 p.m. Conference Rooms 2 & 3
1. Traffic Threshold Report (Hal Rosenberg - Engineering)
(Dan Marum - JHK & Associates)
2. Otay Ranch Update (Vern Hazen, Otay Ranch Project)
Adjourned at 6:30 p.m. for dinner at Jake's
DATE: April 12, 1990
TO: Members of the Planning Commission ,~/-
FROM: John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Compliance with Traffic Threshold Standards for 1989
Our traffic consultant, JHK and Associates, has completed the Growth
Management Plan Traffic Monitoring Program Report for 1989. The report
provides an assessment of the current operational status of 108 signalized
intersections based on current year (1989) conditions. The study findings,
with few exceptions, disclosed that the existing transportation network
generally provides acceptable levels of service to its users.
It is worth notin9 that, of the 108 intersections analyzed, eight locations
experienced operational conditions with levels of service lower than the
threshold standards. These intersections are:
1. Third Avenue and "H" Street
2. Third Avenue and "L" Street
3. Fourth Avenue and "J" Street
4. Broadway and "I" Street
5. Broadway and "L" Street
6. Hilltop Drive and "H" Street
7. Hilltop Drive and "L" Street
8. Industrial Boulevard and "L" Street
All of these problem intersections are located west of Interstate-805 where
the Thresholds Standards allow for intersection to remain at current levels of
service.
The Citywide Threshold Standard stipulates that intersections must operate at
level of "C" or better; with the exception that level of service "D" may occur
at signalized intersections for a period not to exceed a total of two hours
per day. The standard further stipulates that intersections which do not meet
this two hour limitation of level of service "D" requirement west of 1-805 may
continue to operate at their current level of service but shall not worsen.
In conclusion, the Traffic Monitoring Program report represents a conservative
estimate of intersection operations based on the guideline developed by the
City of Chula Vista. The Traffic Monitoring Program provides staff with an
indication of the current status of the overall circulation system in terms of
intersection capacities and levels of service. The data presented in the
Traffic Monitoring Program report will be used as a tool by staff to assess
the traffic impacts of proposed developments on the circulation system
particularly at critical intersections. Specifically, the Traffic Monitoring
Program report identifies "hot spot" locations which warrant close attention
in the future as noted in the listing of the eight intersection locations
which exceed a level of service "D" for more than two hours.
WPC 4935E
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM
Prepared For
City of Chula Vista
Department of Public Works
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92010
Prepared By
JHK & Associates
2831 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 205
San Diego, California 92115
January~ 1990
_jhk
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pal~e
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
Project Background 1-1
Purpose of Report 1-1
Report Organization 1-~
Summary of Intersection Data Collection 1-5
2. SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS FINDINGS 2-1
Introduction 2-1
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis 2-1
Level of Service from the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual 2-3
Capacity Analysis Findings 2-4
3. ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL ANALYSIS 3-1
Introduction 3-1
Detailed ICU Analysis/Improve Geometric Deficiencies
(Optional Task t~) 3-2
Detailed HCM Analysis (Optional Task 5) 3-9
tS. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANS - RECOMMENDATIONS ~-1
Growth Management Research #-1
Growth Management Recommendations
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX A - ICU CALCULATION WORKSHEETS -
13 PROBLEM LOCATIONS
APPENDIX B - RECOMMENDED GEOMETRIC CONFIGURATIONS -
13 PROBLEM LOCATIONS
APPENDIX C - HCM CALCULATION WORKSHEETS -
13 PROBLEM LOCATIONS
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Intersection Location Map 1-3
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 City of Chula Vista Growth Management Plan - Traffic Element 1-2
1-2 Count Date Summary Sheet 1-6
2-1 Summary of Intersection Levels of Service 2-5
2-2 Summary of Intersection Capacity Analysis 2-9
3-1 Summary of Existing Geometrics at the 13 Problem Locations 3-3
3-2 Summary of Recommended Geometrics at the
13 Problem Locations 3-6
¢-1 Summary of Primary Elements - New City of Chula Vista Policy
"Guidelines and Instructions For Developing Traffic
Impact Analysis Reports" t~_3
1. INTRODUCTION
PROJECT BACKGROUND
In 1988 the City of Chula Vista adopted a Growth Management Plan. This
plan was based on a series of threshold standards which addressed the operational
aspects of the existing infrastructure on a city-wide basis. Traffic was one of the
elements included in this Growth Managemen'c Plan~ and Table 1-i summarizes the
critical sections of the "Traffic Element."
In reponse to these adopted Traffic Threshold Standards, the City of Chula
Vista Public Works Department developed a request for proposal (RFP) to perform
the initial Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) for the City. 3HK & Associates
(3HK) was retained by the City to conduct this important monitoring project. The
primary focus of the traffic analysis project was to determine the current
operating condition of all signalized intersections throughout the City. A study
area map highlighting the location ol the 108 project intersections is shown on
Figure 1-1. The summary information contained in this report will serve as the
base documentation of current Year 1989 conditions. In addition, this study forms
the basis for enforcing the "Implementation Measures" described in the final
section of Table 1-1.
PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of this Executive Summary Report is to address all of the
technical requirements of the Scope of Work. In addition to documenting the
current operational status of all signalized intersections in the City~ JHK has
included a section in this report to discuss the experience and practice ol other
Southern California cities regarding the implementation of growth management
policies in response to traffic monitoring programs. This section will assist City
staff in the development of a new policy containing directives to consultants
performing traffic impact work in the City of Chula Vista. Also, this new policy
will provide a clear understanding of the relationship between the Growth
Management Plan and all traffic impact reports for future development projects in
the City.
1-1
jhk associates
Table 1-1
CITY OF CHULA VISTA GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
TRAFFIC ELEMENT
GOALz
TO provide and maintain a safe end efficient street system within the City of Chain
Vista.
OBJECTIVE:
1. Ensure timely provision of adequate local circulation system capacity in
response to planned growth, maintaining aeeeptabla levels of service (LO~).
2. Plan new roadway Segments and signalized lntemeetions to maintain
acceptable standards at build-out of the General Plan - Circulation Element.
THRESHOLD STANDARD: ~
1. City-wide: Maintain LOS ~C~ or better at all interactions, with the exception
that LC~ 'D' may occur at signalized interseetion~ for a period not to exceed
a total of two hours per day.(P)
2. West of 1-805: Those signalized intersections which do not meet Standard #1
above, may continue to operate at their current (198'/) LOS, but shah not
worsen.(P)
3. City-wide: No intersection shall operate at LC)S 'F* as measured fo~ the
average weekday peak hour.(P)
policy.
Source: City of Chula Vista Growth Management Plan Exhibit "A" Traffic Element
November 17, 1987.
1-2
1-3
The primary objective of this summary document is to accurately present and
summarize the findings of this data intensive project. This TMP study required the
completion of the following project tasks:
· Task I Project Orientation
· Task 2 Intersection Movement Counts
· Task 3 Intersection Capacity Analysis Procedures
· Task #* Detailed ICU Analysis/Improve Geometric Deficiencies
· Task 5' Detailed HCM Analysis/Improve Traffic Signal Timing
· Task 6' Detailed Signal Coordination Analysis
*Note: These tasks were optional and the City of Chuia Vista authorized 3HK to
perform optional Tasks q and 5 in addition to the basic project tasks (1,
2~3~ and 7).
REPORT ORGANIZATION
Chapter I of this report presents an introduction to the project. The
Introduction is divided into the following sections:
· Project Background
· Purpose of Report
· Report Organization
· Summary of Intersection Data Collection
Chapter 2 contains a summary of intersection capacity analysis findings
based on the calculations completed during the course of this project. This
chapter contains a series of summary tables documenting the results of this
analysis.
Chapter 3 presents a summary of additional technical analysis which was
performed for certain high volume locations which had operational difficulties
during one of the three peak periods analyzed. This additional work was authorized
by the City and 3HK followed the detailed scope of work for optional Tasks # and 5
to perform the analysis.
Chapter q is entitled "Growth Management Plans - Recommendations". In
this chapter 3HK presents the major elements of Growth Management Plans and
Traffic Monitoring Programs from other Southern California cities. The purpose of
this discussion is to provide new information and feasible alternatives to the City
of Chula Vista as staff develops new policies to complement the current Growth
Management Plan.
Finally, a summary of all project activities is contained in Chapter 5. A
discussion of all relevant issues is presented along with recommendations for future
Traffic Monitoring Program work.
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION DATA COLLECTION
The City ol Chula Vista Growth Management Plan identified 108
intersections to be studied for the Traflic Monitoring Program. This project
required a significant amount ol data collection and JHK coordinated all field
activities. Data collection was conducted on Tuesday, Wednesday~ and Thursday of
each week and began March, 1989 and was completed by May~ 1989. The reduction
and analysis of the data for all 108 intersections completes the requirements of
Contract Tasks 1~ 2, and 3.
To perform this detailed data collection effort~ the JHK Project Team
supervised a staff of 8 t6 12 trained temporary personnel. Table i-2 lists the 108
intersections and the dates on which the turning movements were conducted. The
count number for each intersection directly corresponds to the reference numbers
shown previously of Figure 1-1. The data collection process consisted of manual
turn movement and pedestrian counts during three time periods: AM~ Mid-Day~ and
PM. The AM and PM count periods consisted of 3 hour counts (6:00 to 9:00 a.m.
and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.), while the Mid-Day was a 2 hour count (11:30 a.m. to 1:30
p.m.). Data was recorded in 15 minute increments during the count period to
ensure that during the data reduction process the peak hour volumes could be
determined accurately.
To aid in the data reduction, JHK developed a computer program to
determine the peak hour and perform intersection capacity analysis. The field data
was input into the progra~n and the results were summarized for each period for
each of the 108 project intersections. Peak hour inlormation can be found on the
first page of each intersection analysis summary sheet contained in Chapter 2 of
the Final Technical Report (December 1989).
i-5
Table 1~2
COUNT DATE SUMMARY SHEET
CITY OF CHULA ¥ISTA TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM
3HK & ASSOCIATES -
Count Count Scheduled
Number Intersection/Location Count Count
Da), Coml~leted
I 1st Avenue & E Street Thurs. 3/09/89
2 1st Avenue & H Street Thurs. 3/09/89
3 1st Avenue & L Street Wed. 3/29/89
# 2nd Avenue & E Street Thurs, 3/09/89
5 2nd Avenue & F Street Thurs, 3/09/89
6 2nd Avenue & H Street Thurs, 3/09/89
7 2nd Avenue & L Street Thurs. 3/30/89
8 2nd Avenue & Palomar Street Thurs, #/13/89
9 2nd Avenue & Orange Avenue Thurs, #/13/89
I0 3rd Avenue & E Street Wed, 3/05/$9
11 3rd Avenue & Davldson Street Wed. 3/08/89
12 3rd Avenue & F Street ~/ed, 3/08/89
13 3rd Avenue & G Street Wed. 3/15/89
lt~ 3rd Avenue & H Street Wed. 3/15/89
15 3rd Avenue & I Street Wed. 3/15/89
16 3rd Avenue & 3 Street Thurs. #/13/89
17 3rd Avenue & K Street Thurs. 4/13/89
18 3rd Avenue & L Street Thurs. 3/30/89
19 3rd Avenue & Moss Street Thurs. z~/06/89
20 3rd Avenue & Naples Street Thurs. 4/06/89
21 3rd Avenue & Oxford Street Thurs. 4/06/89
22 3rd Avenue & Palomar Street Thurs. 4/06/89
23 3rd Avenue & Quintard Street Thurs. #/06/89
24 3rd Avenue & Orange Avenue Thurs. 4/06/89
25 3rd Avenue & Montgomery Street Wed. 4/12/89
26 3rd Avenue & Main Street Thurs. #/12/89
1-6
Table 1-2 (Continued)
Scheduled
Count Count Count Count
Number Intersection/Location Day Completed
27 4th Avenue & C Street Wed. 3/08/89
28 4th Avenue dc D Street Wed. 3/08/89
29 4th Avenue & E Street Wed. 3/08/89
30 #th Avenue & F Street Wed. 3/08/89
31 t~th Avenue & G Street Wed. 23/15/89
232 4th Avenue dc H Street Wed. 3/15/89
33 4th Avenue & I Street Wed. 3/15/89
34 4th Avenue & J Street Thurs. 4/123/89
35 4th Avenue & K Street Thurs. 4/13/89
236 #th Avenue & L Street Thurs. 3/30/89
37 4th Avenue & Moss Street Wed. 4/05/89
238 4th Avenue & Naples Street Wed. 4/05/89
39 4th Avenue & Oxford Street Wed. 4/05/89
40 4th Avenue & Palomar Street Wed. 4/05/89
41 4th Avenue & Orange Avenue Wed. 4/05/89
42 5th Avenue & E Street Tues. 3/07/89
423 5th Avenue & F Street Tues. 3/07/89
44 5th Avenue & G Street Wed. 3/15/89
45 5th Avenue & H Street Wed. 3/15/89
46 5th Avenue dc I Street Tues. 3/21/89
47 5th Avenue & :J Street Thurs. 4/13/89
48 5th Avenue & K Street Tues. 3/21/89
49 5th Avenue & L Street Thurs. 3/30/89
50 5th Avenue & Palomar Street Thurs. #/12/89
51 Bonita Road & E/Flower Street Thurs. 3/09/89
52 Bonita Road & Bonita Glen Thurs. 3/09/89
53 Bonita Road dc Willow Street Thurs. 4/20[89
54 Bonita Road & Allen School Road Thurs. 4/20/89
55 Bonita Road & Otay Lakes Road Thurs. 4/20/89
56 Broadway & C Street Tues. 23/07/89
1-7
ihk ssocia es
Table 1-2 (Continued)
Count Count Scheduled
Number Intersection/Location Count Count
Day Completed
57 Broadway & D Street Tues. .3/07/89
58 Broadway & E Street Tues. 3/07/89
59 Broadway & F Street Tues. 23/07/89
60 Broadway & G Street Thurs. 23/16/39
61 Broadway & H Street Thurs. 3/16/89
62 Broadway & I Street Thurs. 23/16/89
623 Broadway & J Street Thurs. 3/16/89
6# Broadway & K Street Thurs. 3/16/89
65 Broadway & L Street Thurs. 3/230/89
66 Broadway & Moss Street Tues. #/0t4/89
67 Broadway 6: Naples Street Tues. t4/0t,/89
68 Broadway 6: Oxford Street Tues. 4/0#/89
69 Broadway & Palomar Street Tues. t~/0q/89
70 Broadway & Anita Street Wed. #/12/89
71 Broadway & Main Street Wed. 4/12/89
72 Cuyamaca Avenue & E. L Street Wed. 3/29/89
73 E. H Street & Hidden Vista Road Thurs. q/20/89
7q. E. H Street & Paseo del Rey Tues. t~/18/39
75 E. H Street & Buena Vista Way Tues. 4/18/89
76 E. H Street & Otay Lakes Road Wed. 4/19/89
77 E. H Street & Auburn Avenue Wed. t4/19/89
78 E. H Street & Rutgers Avenue Wed. 4/19/$9
79 E. H Street & Southwestern College
Driveway Wed. #/19/89
80 E. Orange Avenue & Max Avenue Tues. 4/11/89
81 E. Orange Avenue & Melrose Avenue Tues. 4/11/89
82 Hilltop Drive & H Street Thurs. .3/23/89
33 Hilltop Drive & I Street Wed. 3/29/89
1-8
j.hk associates
Table 1-2 (Continued)
Count Count Scheduled
Number Intersection/Location Count Count
Da), Completed
Sq Hilltop Drive & 3 Street Wed. 3/29/89
85 Hilltop Drive & L Street Wed. 3/29/89
86 Hilltop Drive & Naples Street Thurs. 3/30/89
87 Hilltop Drive & Palomar Street Tues. #/11/89
88 Hilltop Drive & Quintard Street Tues. q/l 1/89
89 Hilltop Drive & Orange Avenue Tues. t~/l 1/89
90 Hilltop Drive & Main Street Tues. q/11/89
91 Hermosa Avenue & Anita Street Wed. #/05/89
92 Hermosa Avenue & Main Street Wed. tt./05/89
93 Hermosa Avenue & Beyer Way Wed. #/12/89
9t~ Industrial Blvd. & L Street Thurs. 3/30/89
95 Industrial Blvd. & Palomar Street Tues. #/0#/89
96 Melrose Avenue & Otay Valley Road Wed. #/12/89
97 Otay Lakes Road &
Allen School Street Thurs. #/20/89
98 Otay Lakes Road & Canyon Drive Wed. #/19/89
99 Otay Lakes Road &
Bonita Point Plaza Drive Wed. #/19/89
100 Palomar Street & Trolley Station Tues. #/0#/89
101 Palomar Street & Orange Avenue Tues.
i02 Telegraph Canyon Road &
E. L Street/Nacion Avenue Wed. 3/29/89
103 Telegraph Canyon Road &
Oleandar Avenue/Crest Drive Tues. ~/18/89
10# Telegraph Canyon Road &
Paseo del Rey Tues. #/18/89
105 Telegraph Canyon Road &
Medical Center Drive Tues. #/18/89
106 Woodlawn Avenue & E Street Tues. 3/07/89
107 Woodlawn Avenue & H Street Thurs. .3/16/89
i08 L Street & Monserate Avenue Wed. 3/29/89
1-9
jhk associ ,es
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION
An important part of the City of Chula Vista Growth Management Plan was
the accurate determination of intersection capacity and levels of service (LOS).
Intersection capacity analysis methods simulate traffic operations of the
intersection and typically summarize the operations by using ranges of LOS. LOS
is simply a measure used to evaluate the operating performance of an intersection.
LOS may range from A to F, with A being the best quality of service and F the
poorest.
The City of Chula Vista selected two separate intersection capacity analysis
methods: Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU), and Highway Capacity Manual
Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis - Operational Analysis (HCM). The
following sections of this report discuss the characteristics of the ICU procedure.
As requested by the City, the HCM procedures and calculations are contained only
in the Final Tehcnical Rerport (December 1989).
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
AND LOS DEFINITIONS
As stated above, LOS is a term which is used to describe prevailing conditions
and their effect on traffic. Broadly interpreted, the Level of Service concept
denotes any one of a number of differing combinations of operating conditions
which may take place as a roadway is accommodating various traffic volumes.
Level of Service is a qualitative measure of the effect of such factors as travel
speed, travel time, interruptions to traffic, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving
comJort and convenience.
Six levels of traffic service, Level of Service A through Level of Service F,
have been defined in the Highway Capacity Manual. Level of Service A describes a
condition of free flow, with low tralfic volumes and relatively high speeds, while
Level of Service F describes forced traffic flow at low speeds with occasional
stoppages.
2-i
A recently developed method of capacity analysis has been used in our studies
which directly relates available capacity to key intersection capacity, regardless of
present signal timing. This method calculates the capacity per hour of green time
for each approach according to the Highway Capacity Manual of 1965. It then
determines the proportion of total signal time needed in a single hour by each
conflicting key traffic movement and compares it to the total time available (100
percent of the hour), arriving at a percentage.
Conflicting key traffic movements are those opposing movements which,
when combined, require the highest amount of green time. For example, il a
northbound left turn opposed by a southbound through movement require 20 percent
ol the hour while the southbound left and the northbound through movements take
only 15 percent, the northbound left turn and southbound through would be
considered the key conflicting movements at the intersection in the north-south
direction.
The ICU method for calculating operational time requirements translates to a
level of service. ICU represents the proportion of the total hour required to
accommodate intersection demand volumes il all approaches are operating at
capacity (100 percent; Level of Service E). This does not mean, however, that
Level of Service E is appropriate for urban design, but that the evaluation of
present and future operating conditions in terms of total capacity is more realistic
than looking at a particular approach in terms of present signal timing.
The City of Chula Vista has established the following guidelines for the ICU
capacity analysis:
Lane Group Capacity Factors
Capacity (LOS E) Lane Confi/~urations
1500 vphgpl Left and Right
Turn Lanes
1700 vphgpl Through Lane
2700 vphg Dual Turn Lanes
.0. ther Adjustment Factors
· Lost Tbne (Yellow Clearance Interval) Allowance Factor; .10
· Minimum Default Value for Critical Lane Groups with Low Volumes =
Zero
2-2
When a level of service is determined for an intersection based on the ICU
method, which looks only at the key conflicting movements, it does not necessarily
indicate that the other movements through the intersection are also operating at
the same service level. Many movements may be operating at a significantly
better level of service.
The levels of service, as defined below and in the 1965 Highway Capacity
Manuals are listed in the following table with their corresponding ICU and Load
Factor equivalents.
Levels of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections - 1965 HCM
Levels of Service* Load Factor Equiv. ICU
A 0.0 0.0 - 0.6
B (rural design) 0.1 0.6 ~ 0.7
C (urban design) 0.3 0.7 - 0.8
D (maximum urban design) 0.7 0.8 - 0.9
E (capacity) 1.0 0.9- 1.0
F (forced flow) Not Applicable Greater than 1.0
~Levei of Service Definitions from 1965 Highway Capacity Manual.
Level of Service Definitions from the 1965 Highway Capacity Manna!
Service Level A
There are no loaded cycles and few are even close to loaded at this service
level. No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer
than one red indication. Typically, the approach appears quite open, turns are
made easily, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation.
Service Level B
This service level represents stable operation where an occasional aproach
phase is fully utilized and a substantial number are approaching full use. Many
drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons of vehicles.
2-3
_jhk a,sociates
Service Level C
This level still represents stable operating conditions. Loading is still
intermittent but more frequent than at Level B. Occasionally drivers may have to
wait through more than one red signal indication, and backups may develop behind
turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so.
Service Level D
This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching
instability at the intersection. Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial
during short peaks within the peak period, but enough cycles with lower demand
occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive
backups.
Service Level E
Capacity occurs at this service level. It represents the most vehicles that
any particular intersection approach can accommodate. Full utilization of every
signal cycle is seldom attained no matter how great the demand, unless the street
is highly friction free.
Delay may be estimated by using procedures presented in Chapter 9 of the
1985 HCM. Delay is a complex measure, and is dependent on a number of
variables, including the quality of progression, the cycle length, the green ratio,
and the v/c ratio for the lane group or approach in question.
Capacity Analysis Findings
3HK & Associates performed detailed capacity analysis for ali 108 project
intersections using the two procedures described in the previous section of this
chapter. A summary of the results of this analysis for the AM peak hour, Mid-Day
peak hour, and the PM peak hour is shown on Table 2-i. It is important to note
that Chapter 2 of the companion document to this report (entitled "Final Technical
Reportf December~ 1989) contains a total of seven pages o;[ data and capacity
calculation worksheets for each of the 108 project intersections.
Table 2-1
CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRO~/TH MANAGEMENT
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Intersection Capacity Utili?ation Method
Count Count AM Peak Mid-Day Peak PM Peak
Number Intersection/Location V-~-~S V/C LOS VC~s
I First Avenue and E Street .46 A .41 A .55, A
2 First Avenue and H Street .50 A .52 A .72 A
3 First Avenue and L Street .33 A .33 A .44 A
4 Second Avenue and E Street .57 A .63 B .70 C
5 Second Avenue and F Street .57 A .57 A .77 C
6 Second Avenue and H Street .57 A .57 A .77 C
7 Second Avenue and L Street .34 A .37 A .43 A
8 Second Avenue and Palomar Street .31 A .29 A .36 A
9 Second Avenue and Orange Avenue .42 A .32 A .43 A
10 Third Avenue and E Street .42 A .67 B .79 C
Il Third Avenue and Davidson Street .23 A .45 A .51 A
12 Third Avenue and F Street .38 A .63 B .75 C
13 Third Avenue and G Street .39 A .50 A .58 A
lt~ Third Avenue and H Street .58 A .90 D .85 D
15 Third Avenue and I Street .42 A .66 B .79 C
16 Third Avenue and :I Street .53 A .72 C 1.02 F
17 Third Avenue and K Street .38 A .60 B .75 C
18 Third Avenue and L Street .50 A .70 C .83 D
19 Third Avenue and Moss Street .42 A .60 A .55 A
20 Third Avenue and Naples Street .39 B .62 B .65 B
21 Third Avenue and Oxford Street .t~0 A .69 B .81 D
22 Third Avenue and Palomar Street .41 A .58 A .61 B
23 Third Avenue and Quintard Street .44 A .47 A .54 A
24 Third Avenue and Orange Avenue .39 A .48 A .57 A
25 Third Avenue and Montgomery Street .27 A .31 A .35 A
26 Third Avenue and Main Street .45 A .55 A .61 B
27 Fourth Avenue and C Street .42 A .64 B .65 B
28 Fourth Avenue and D Street .28 A .37 A .44 A
29 Fourth Avenue and E Street .47 A .66 B .72 C
2-5
.jhk
Table 2-I (Continued)
Intersection Capacity Utilization Method
Count Count AM Peak Mid-Day Peak PM Peak
Number Intersection/Location vT~ LOS V/C LOS VC~s
30 Fourth Avenue and F Street .q0 A .6I B .66 B
31 Fourth Avenue and G Street .43 A .58 A .70 B
32 Fourth Avenue and H Street .50 A .74 C .79 C
33 Fourth Avenue and I Street .#4 A .60 A .73 C
30 Fourth Avenue and 3 Street .56 A .60 A .86 D
35 Fourth Avenue and K Stret .46 A .52 A .66 B
36 Fourth Avenue and L Street .48 A .47 A .71 C
37 Fourth Avenue and Moss Street .45 A .46 A .53 A
38 Fourth Avenue and Naples Street .40 A .47 A .54 A
39 Fourth Avenue and Oxford Street .41 A .58 A .62 B
40 Fourth Avenue and Palomar Street .41 A .45 A .57 A
4I Fourth Avenue and Orange Avenue .52 A .44 A .58 A
42 Fifth Avenue and E Street .42 A .43 A .55 A
43 Fifth Avenue and F Street .49 A .46 A .67 B
44 Fifth Avenue and G Street .42 A .44 A .48 A
t~5 Fifth Avenue and H Street .44 A .62 B .64 B
46 Fifth Avenue and I Street .31 A .44 A .50 A
47 Fifth Avenue and 3 Street .52 A .49 A .71 C
48 Fifth Avenue and K Street .44 A .36 A .43 A
49 Fifth Avenue and L Street .49 A .40 A .54 A
50 Fifth Avenue and Palomar Street .32 A .33 A .38 A
51 Bonita Road and E Street/
Flower Street .47 A .53 A .70 C
52 Bonita Road and Bonita Glen Drive .48 A .53 A .70 C
53 Bonita Road and Willow Street .66 B .56 A .78 C
54 Bonita Road and Allen School Road .49 A .45 A .63 B
55 Bonita Road and Otay Lakes Road .76 C .50 A .73 C
56 Broadway and C Street .43 A .51 A .56 A
57 Broadway and D Street .36 A .46 A .52 A
2-6
_jhk associates
Table 2-1 (Continued)
Intersection Capacity Utilization Method
Count Count AM Peak Mid-Day Peak PM Peak
Number Intersection/Location V C'7~---~S V/C LOS VC~S
58 Broadway and E Street .63 B .72 C .78 C
`59 Broadway and F Street .38 A .§9 A .68 B
60 Broadway and G Street .#0 A .58 A .62 B
61 Broadway and H Street .#3 A .73 C .80 D
62 Broadway and I Street .~ A .78 C .SS D
63 Broadway and 3 Street .03 A .67 B .70 B
60 Broadway and K Street .38 A .57 A .61 B
65 Broadway and L Street .t~8 A .Tt~ C .8g D
66 Broadway and Moss Street .t~3 A .70 B .g2 D
67 Broadway and Naples Street .3# A .52 A .72 C
68 Broadway and Oxford Street .30 A .65 B .7# C
69 Broadway and Palomar Street .50 A .7t~ C .7t~ C
70 Broadway and Anita Street .33 A .#3 A .51 A
71 Broadway and Main Street .t~7 A .68 B .82 D
72 Cuyamaca Avenue and East L Street .t~2 A .06 A .30 A
73 East H Street and Hidden Vista Drive .65 B .67 B .7# C
70 East H Street and Paseo Del Rey .50 A .37 A .58 A
75 East H Street and Buena Vista Way .59 A .33 A .58 A
76 East H Street and Otay Lakes Road .72 C .52 A .63 B
77 East H Street and Auburn Avenue .50 A .62 A .03 A
78 East H Street and Rutgers Avenue .67 B .30 A .00 A
79 East H Street and SW College
Driveway .07 A .03 A .`51 A
80 East Orange Avenue and Max .39 A .27 A .02 A
81 East Orange Avenue and
Melrose Avenue .3`5 A .00 A .6.5 B
82 Hilltop Drive and H Street .57 A .13 C 1.00 E
83 Hilltop Drive and I Street .56 A .36 A .55 A
84 Hilltop Drive and J Street .78 C .55 A .78 c.
85 Hilltop Drive and L Street .76 C .63 B .8t~ D
2-7
Table 2-1 (Continued)
Intersection Capadty Utilization Method
Count Count AM Peak Mid-Day Peak PM Peak
Number Intersection/Location V-~ LOS Y/C LOS V/~S
86 Hilltop Drive and Naples Street .51 A .#9 A .73 C
87 Hilltop Drive and Palomar Street .52 A .40 A .53 A
88 Hilltop Drive and Quintard Street .53 A .30 A .46 A
89 Hilltop Drive and Orange Avenue .51 A .36 A .55 A
90 Hilltop Drive and Main Street .50 A .44 A .52 A
91 Hermosa and Anita Street .32 A .34 A .44 A
92 Hermosa and Main Street .41 A .44 A .53 A
93 Hermosa and 15eyer Way .53 A .65 B .77 C
9t~ Industrial Boulevard and L Street .62 B .62 15 .93 E
95 Industrial 15oulevard and
Palomar Street .53 A .63 B .72 C
96 Melrose Avenue and
Otay Valley Road .45 A .39 A .52 A
97 Otay Lakes Road and
Allen School Lane .34 A .29 A .32 A
98 Otay Lakes Road and Canyon Drive .49 A .35 A .41 A
99 Otay Lakes Road and
Plaza Point Drive .33 A .31 A .36 A
100 Palomar Street and
Trolley Station Ent. .40 A .53 A .54 A
101 Palomar Street and Orange Avenue .47 A .42 A .54 A
102 Telegraph Canyon Road and
E.L./Nacion Avenue .74 C .58 A .80 C
103 Telegraph Canyon Road and
Oleander/Crest .79 C .45 A .66 B
104 Telegraph Canyon Road and
Paseo Del Rey .64 A .52 A .68 B
105 Telegraph Canyon Road and
Medical Center Drive .42 15 .34 A .54 A
106 Woodlawn Avenue and E Street .52 A .55 A .65 B
107 Woodlawn Avenue and H Street .51 A .54 A .66 B
108 L Street and Monserate Avenue .41 A .36 A .55 A
2-8
Each capacity analysis procedure (ICU and HCM) utilizes a different criteria
for determining LOS. Thus, the results of the capacity analysis differ even though
identical traffic volume and geometric information is used. A technical appendix
contained in the Final Technical Report (December 1989) provides further
discussion towards understanding the relationship of the calculated LOS for both
the ICU and HCM procedures.
The summary of the ICU calculations on Table 2-1 identify various
intersections which operate at unacceptable levels (LOS D, E or F). This LOS
summary table also highlights (in bold type face) those intersections which operate
in the poor LOS range. The information shown on Table 2-2 below, summarizes the
findings of the capacity and LOS calculations for reference purposes.
Table 2-2
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
IGU - ANALYSIS
Levels of Service
PEAK HOUR A - C D E F
AM 108 0 0 0
Mid-Day 107 i 0 0
PM 95 10 2 I
As shown in Table 2-2, a total of 1# ICU calculations indicate intersection
operation levels at or below LOS D conditions according to the ICU method. This
portion of the table was subdivided to allow the City to determine how many of the
108 project intersections actually conform to the Growth Management Plan
Threshold Standards. Upon closer review of the capacity analysis summary table
(Table 2-i), it is apparent that only 13 intersections are included in the LOS D-F
range. The following summary information details the findings of this ICU analysis
in relation to the Threshold Standards Policy.
2-9
jhk associates
THRESHOLD STANDARD CONFORMANCE LIST
· STANDARD NUMBER I- City-wide: Maintain LOS C or better at all
intersections; with the exception that LOS D~
may occur at signalized intersections for a
period not to exceed a total of two hours per
day. (P)
Note: * For the purpose of this study, the
City Traffic Engineering Department
recommended that LOS D be changed
to LOSDorE.
Statement ol Conformance
· AM Peak - All 108 intersections operate in the LOS
A-C range in the AM Peak.
· Mid-Day Peak - 107 intersections operate in the LOS A-C
range in the Mid-Day Peak, while 1
intersection operates in the LOS D range.
MID-DAY PEAK SUMMARY
Duration
Count Number Intersection ¥]C LOS (Hours)
14 Third Avenue and H Street .90 D 2.00
· PM Peak - 95 intersections operate in the LOS A-C
range in the PM Peak, while 13 intersections
operate at LOS D, E or F.
PM PEAK SUMMARY
Duration
Count Number Intersection ¥/C LOS (Hours)
1# Third Avenue and H Street .85 D 2.50
16 Third Avenue and 3 Street 1.02 F N/A
18 Third Avenue and L Street .83 D 2.75
(*) 21 Third Avenue and Oxford Street .81 D 1.00
3°, 0,th Avenue and J Street .86 D 2.50
(*) 6i Broadway and H Street .80 D 1.00
62 Broadway and I Street .88 D 2.75
65 Broadway and L Street .88 D 2.00
(*) 66 Broadway and Moss Street .82 D 1.25
(*) 71 Broadway and Main Street .82 D 1.50
82 Hilltop Drive and H Street 1.00 E 2.75
85 Hilltop Drive and L Street .80, D 2.50
90, Industrial Boulevard and L Street .93 E 2.75
Note: * These four intersections actually conform to Threshold Standard
Number 1 by operating at LOS D for a period not to exceed a total of
two hours per day.
2-10
_jhk ,,oc atc,
Summary Statement
In summary, of the 14 ICU calculations which indicate poor levels
service, only 13 intersections are impacted. Upon close review of the
summary information listed above, it is apparent that 12 of the 13
impacted intersections operate in the LOS D or E range. Further
review reveals that four of these 12 intersections actually d_.q conform
to Threshold Standard Number I based on the fact that these
intersections (Nos. 21, 61, 66, and 71) operate at LOS D for a period
not to exceed a total of two hours per day.
Thus, the following 8 intersections; 1% 18, 3% 62, 65, 82, 85 and 9#
do not conform to Threshold Standard Number I and further analysis is
required at these locations {see Standard Number 2 below).
· STANDARD NUMBER 2 - West of I-$0~: Those signalized
intersections which do not meet Standard
Number I abov% may continue to operate
at their current (1987) LOS, but shall not
worsen. (P)
Statement of Conformance
The following list identifies the 3 intersections which qualify for
further analysis under Standard Number 2 criteria, based on the
Threshold Standards policy.
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTIONS 1//HICH DO NOT CONFORM TO
THRESHOLD STANDARD NUMBER 7
Count Number Intersection Period V/C LOS*
lt~ Third Avenue and H Street Mid-Day .90 D
PM .85 D
lg Third Avenue and L Street PM .83 D
3# Fourth Avenue and 3 Street PM .86 D
62 Broadway and I Street PM .88 D
65 Broadway and L Street PM .$$ D
82 Hilltop Drive and H Street PM 1.00 E
85 Hilltop Drive and L Street PM .$# D
9t~ Industrial Boulevard and L Street PM .93 E
2-11
Summary Statement
The ICU analysis revealed that the 8 intersections listed above~
which are located in the central portion of Chula Vista (west of 1-805),
must be monitored closely to determine if current (Year 1989) levels
of service deteriorate in the future. This is due to the fact that
current operations at these intersections result in extended periods of
LOS D or E conditions.
· STANDARD NUMBER 3- City-wide: No intersection shall operate
LOS F as measured for the average
weekday peak hour. (P)
Statement of Conformance
The only intersection that qualifies for Threshold Standard
Number 3 is Third Avenue and 3 Street (Intersection Number 16). This
intersection experiences a significant increase in traffic activity
during the PM peak hour (LOS F). The east and westbound approaches
are substandard and the addition of exclusive right turn only lanes on
these approaches will result in improved conditions during all peak
periods and level of service D during the critical PM peak hour.
It should also be noted that the intersection of Hilltop Drive and
H Street is operating at the threshold of LOS E/F. Thus, close
monitoring ol this intersection is also warranted and as traffic activity
increases at this Location in the future, geometric modifications may
be required.
2-12
ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
As stated in the Cit¥ of Chula Vista Request For Proposals (RFP) and the
proposal developed by 3HK, there are two optional tasks which were conceived to
provide the City with additional capacity analysis information at selected
locations. A brief description of the scope of work for each of these optional tasks
is provided below.
The purpose of the first optional task (Task #) was to define geometric
deficiences at study intersections operating below Level of Service C and to
recommend geometric improvements to achieve acceptable Levels of Service as
defined in the Threshold/Standards Growth Management Policy outlined in Table 1-
1. All geometric modification improvements recommended in this task were tested
using the ICU analysis method.
The product of this first optional task is the technical summary presented in
this section of the Executive Summary. In addition to this technical analysis, JHK
produced conceptual drawings showing the proposed layout of the recommended
improvements. A technical appendix contains a set of sketches detailing these new
recommended geometrics for each of the problem locations.
The purpose of the second optional task (Task 5) included in this chapter was
to test and confirm that the geometric modifications which were proposed in the
previous optional task (Task ~) will provide adequate improvements at each high
volume intersection using the HCM Operational Analysis procedure. Once again
LOS C operations were the goal in completing this additional HCM analysis. The
fo[lowing section of this chapter provides the technical information which was
generated during this detailed evaluation process for both optional Tasks # and 5.
_jhk
DETAILED ICU ANALYSIS]IMPROVE GEOMETRIC DEFICIENCIES (OPTIONAL TASK
The previous chapter contained a discussion of those intersections which
failed to conform to the Growth Management Threshold Standards adopted by the
City. These problem intersections are the focus of the additional technical
analysis presented in this section of the Executive Summary.
The following list summarizes the 13 intersections which were analyzed in
greater detail under this task.
ICU CAPACITY ANALYSIS - EXISTING GEOMETRICS
LOS SUMMARY OF PROBLEM LOCATIONS
Duration
Count Number Intersection Period VIC LOS (Hours)
14 Third Avenue and H Street Mid-Day .90 D 2.00
14 Third Avenue and H Street PM .85 D 2.50
16 Third Avenue and 3 Street PM 1.02 F N/A
18 Third Avenue and L Street PM .83 D 2.75
21 Third Avenue and Oxford Street PM .81 D 1.00
34 4th Avenue and 3 Street PM .86 D 2.50
61 Broadway and H Street PM .g0 D 1.00
62 Broadway and I Street PM .88 D 2.75
65 Broadway and L Street PM .88 D 2.00
66 Broadway and Moss Street PM .82 D 1.25
71 Broadway and Main Street PM .82 D 1.50
82 Hilltop Drive and H Street PM 1.00 E 2.75
85 Hilltop Drive and L Street PM .84 D 2.50
94 Industrial Boulevard and L Street PM .93 E 2.75
Table 3-1 presents the existing geometric configuration of each of the 13
problem intersections. The ICU calculations shown above were based on existing
geometrics and current Year 1989 volume conditions for each location. The goal of
this reanalysis task was to develop the optimal solution to address the primary
geometric deficiency at each location. To accomplish this goal, 3HK tested a
series of geometric modifications for each intersection using the same existing
volumes as input to the ICU program. These new geometrics were refined to
produce the best most cost-effective solution according to the ICU analysis
procedures. The final recommended geometrics for each intersection is shown on
Table 3-2 and the resulting peak period ICU calculations are summarized in the
following table:
3-2
_jhk ,,soci,t s
Table 3-1
SUMMARY OF EXISTING GEOMETRICS AT THE 13 PROBLEM LOCATIONS
Count Number
Number Intersection Approach Of Lanes Movements*
It) Third/H Street Northbound 3 1LT, ITH, ITH + RT
Southbound 3 iLT, ITH, ITH + RT
Eastbound 5 2LT) 2TH, IRT
Westbound ~ 2LT, ITH, ITH + RT
16 Third/J Street Northbound 3 ILT, ITH~ ITH + RT
Southbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
Eastbound 2 iLT~ ITH + RT
Westbound 2 ILT, ITH + RT
18 Third/L Street Northbound 3 ILT, iTH, ITH + RT
Southbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
Eastbound 3 ILT) ITH, ITH + RT
Westbound 3 iLT, ITH, ITH + RT
21 Third/Oxford Northbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
Southbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
Eastbound I ILT + TH + RT
Westbound I ILT + TH + RT
34 Fourth/J Street Northbound 3 iLT) ITH, ITH + RT
Southbound 3 ILT, iTH, iTH + RT
Eastbound I ILT + TH + RT
Westbound i ILT + TH + RT
61 Broadway/H Street Northbound 5 2LT~ 2TH~ IRT
Southbound 5 2LT, 2TH, IRT
Eastbound 5 2LT, 2TH, iRT
Westbound # 2LT) ITH, ITH + RT
3-3
jhk as,oc ate,
Table 3-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF EXISTING GEOMETRICS AT THE 13 PROBLEM LOCATIONS
Count Number
Number Intersection Approach Of Lanes Movements*
62 Broadway/I Street Northbound 3 ILT, iTH, ITH + RT
Southbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
Eastbound I !.LT + TH + RT
Westbound 2 ILT, ITH + RT
65 Broadway/L Street Northbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
Southbound 3 ILT, ITH, iTH + RT
Eastbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
Westbound 3 ILT, ITH, 1TH + RT
66 Broadway/Moss Northbound 3 1LT, ITH~ ITH + RT
Southbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
Eastbound 2 ILT + TH, IRT
Westbound 3 [LT, iTH, IRT
71 Broadway/Main Northbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
Southbound ~ ILT, 2TH, IRT
Eastbound 3 iLT, ITH, ITH + RT
Westbound 3 ILT, 1TH) ITH + RT
82 Hiiltop/H Street Northbound 3 iLT, ITH, IRT
Southbound 2 ILT, iTH + RT
Eastbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
Westbound 3 ILT, iTH, iTH + RT
85 Hilltop/L Street Northbound I ILT + TH + RT
Southbound 2 ILT) 1TH + RT
Eastbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
Westbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
jhk assoc tc
Table 5-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF EXISTING GEOMETRICS AT THE 13 PROBLEM LOCATIONS
Count Number
Number Intersection Approach Of Lanes Movements*
9# Industrial/L Street Northbound 2 ILT + TH, IRT
Southbound I ILT + TH + RT
Eastbound 2 ILT + TH~ ITH + RT
Westbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
Note: ~ LT: Exclusive Left Turn Lane
TH = Exclusive Through Lane
TH + RT = Shared Through plus Right Turn Lane
RT = Exclusive Right Turn Lane
LT + TH = Shared Left Turn plus Through Lane
LT + TH * RT = Shared Left Turn plus Through plus Right Turn Lane
LT + RT = Shared Left Turn plus Right Turn Lane
3-5
Table 3-2
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED GEOMETRICS AT THE 13 PROBLEM LOCATIONS
Count Number
Number Intersection Approach Of Lanes Movements*
14 Third/H Street Northbound t~ ILT, 2TH~ IRT
Southbound t, ILT, 2TH, IRT
Eastbound 5 2LT, ZrH, ITH + RT
Westbound 5 2LT, 2TH, ITH + RT
16'* Third/3 Street Northbound t~ ILT, 2TH, IRT
Southbound t~ ILT, 2TH, IRT
Eastbound 3 ILT~ ITH, IRT
Westbound 3 ILT, ITH~ IRT
18 Third/L Street Northbound t~ ILT, 2TH~ IRT
Southbound ~ ILT~ 2TH~ IRT
Eastbound 3 ILT~ ITH~ ITH + RT
Westbound 3 ILT, ITH, iTH + RT
21'* Third/Oxford Northbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
Southbound 3 ILT~ ITH, ITH + RT
Eastbound 2 ILT, ITH + RT
Westbound 2 ILT, ITH + RT
34 Fourth/J Street Northbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
Southbound 3 ILT, ITH, iTH + RT
Eastbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
Westbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
61 groadway/H Street Northbound 5 2LT, 2TH, iRT
Southbound 5 2LT, 2TH, IRT
Eastbound 5 2LT~ 2TH, iTH + RT
Westbound 5 2LTs 2TH~ IRT
Note: ** Indicates the need for phasing modifications in addition to the geometric
recommendations (see HCM worksheets in Appendix C for recommended phasing
improvements).
3-6
_jhk associates
Table 3-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED GEOMETRICS AT THE 13 PROBLEM LOCATIONS
Count Number
Number Intersection Approach Of Lanes Movements*
62 Broadway/I Street Northbound q ILT, 2TH, IRT
Southbound t~ ILT, TI'H, IRT
Eastbound 2 ILT, ITH + RT
Westbound 2 ILT, ITH + RT
65 Broadway/L Street Northbound t~ ILT, 2TH, IRT
Southbound t~ ILT~ 2TH, IRT
Eastbound t~ ILT, 2TH, IRT
Westbound t~ ILT, 2TH, IRT
66 Broadway/Moss Northbound tt ILT~ 2TH, ITH + RT
Southbound t~ ILT~ 2TH, ITH + RT
Eastbound 2 ILT + TH, IRT
Westbound 3 ILT~ ITH~ IRT
71 Broadway/Main Northbound q ILT, 2TH, IRT
Southbound # ILT~ 2TH~ IRT
Eastbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH * RT
Westbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
82 Hilltop/H Street Northbound 3 ILT, 1TH, IRT
Southbound 2 ILT~ ITH + RT
Eastbound t~ ILT, 2TH, ITH + RT
Westbound tt ZLT, ITH, ITH + RT
85 Hilltop/L Street Northbound 3 ILT, ITH, IRT
Southbound 3 ILT, ITH, IRT
Eastbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
Westbound 3 ILT, ITH, ITH + RT
3-7
.jhk associates
Table 3-2 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED GEOMETRICS AT THE 13 PROBLEM LOCATIONS
Count Number
Number Intersection Approach Of Lanes Movements.
9# lndustrial/L Street Northbound 2 ILT + TH, IRT
Southbound I ILT + TH + RT
Eastbound 3 ILT + TH, ITH + RT~ IRT
Westbound 3 ILT~ ITH, ITH + RT
Note: * LT = Exclusive Left Turn Lane
TH = Exclusive Through Lane
TH + RT = Shared Through plus Right Turn Lane
RT = Exclusive Right Turn Lane
LT + TH = Shared Left Turn plus Through Lane
LT + TH + RT = Shared Left Turn plus Through plus Right Turn Lane
LT + RT = Shared Left Turn plus Right Turn Lane
3-8
_jhk a,,oc tc,
ICU CAPACITY ANALYSIS - RECOMMENDED GEOMETRICS
LOS SUMMARY OF PROBLEM LOCATIONS
RECOMMENDED GEOMETRICS
Count Number Intersection Period V/C LOS
1¢ Third Avenue and H Street Mid-Day .75 C
1# Third Avenue and Ft Street PM .72 C
16 Third Avenue and J Street PM .8~ D
18 Third Avenue and L Street PM .79 C
21 Third Avenue and Oxford Street PM .72 C
34 #th Avenue and 3 Street PM .60 B
61 Broadway and H Street PM .75 C
62 Broadway and I Street PM .gl D
65 Broadway and L Street PM .79 C
66 Broadway and Moss Street PM .70 B
71 Broadway and Main Street PM .g0 C
82 Flilltop Drive and lq Street PM .77 C
85 lqilltop Drive and L Street PM .68 B
9~ Industrial Boulevard and L Street PM .75 C
Note: For the intersections which operate in the LOS D range under revised
geometric conditions, it is assumed that these recommended improvements
represent the maximum configuration of new lanes without major roadway
construction/widening to increase through lane capacity. Also, LOS D
conditions will not exceed a total of two per day at these locations.
Appendix A contains the ICU calculation worksheets for each intersection
while Appendix B provides the City with a detailed sketch of the recommended
geometric configuration for each intersection. These concept drawings are
intended to assist City staff in the development of improvement projects for each
of these intersections. These improvement projects could be implemented as new
development/redevelopment occurs adjacent to each individual intersection.
Another option for the City would be to proceed with the intersection
improvements as City funded projects.
DETAILED HCM ANALYSIS (OPTIONAL TASK 5)
3lqK & Associates performed a detailed HCM analysis of the impact that the
recommended geometric modifications had on the calculated LOS for each
intersection. This capacity analysis revealed a reduction in average delay per
vehicle at each intersection as a result of the improved geometrics recommended
on Table 3-2.
3-9
_jhk ssoc a,es
A summary of the before (existing geometries) and after (recommended
geometries) conditions at each intersection included in this reanalysis is shown on
the table below. This table lists the average delay per vehicle in seconds along
with the calculated levels of service. Appendix C contains the HCM calculation
worksheets for each intersection. It is important to note that in addition to
analyzing the impact of the recommended geometric modifications, the HCM
analysis also reports the impact (to calculated LOS) of providing new signal phasing
and timing to optimize operations.
HCM CAPACITY ANALYSIS
LOS SUMMARY OF PROBLEM LOCATIONS
EXISTING VS. RECOMMENDED GEOMETRICS
Existing Recommended
Geometrics Geometrics
Count Delay Delay
Number Intersection Period (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS
14 Third Avenue andHStreet Mid-Day 63.4 F 32.0 D
14 Third Avenue and H Street PM 44.2 E 31.1 D
16 Third Avenue and 3 Street PM * F 36.2 D
18 Third Avenue and L Street PM 38.2 D 25.0 C
21 Third Avenue and Oxford Street PM 58.4 E 21.6 C
34 Fourth Avenue and 3 Street PM * F 9.3 B
61 Broadway and H Street PM 21.6 C 21.0 C
62 Broadway and I Street PM 40.6 E 17.7 C
65 Broadway and L Street PM * F 41.7 E
66 Broadway and Moss Street PM 18.7 C 12.3 B
71 Broadway and Main Street PM 58.8 E 57.4 E
82 Hilltop Drive and H Street PM 74.5 F 24.8 C
85 Hilltop Drive and L Street PM 23.0 F 10.1 B
94 Industrial Boulevard and L Street PM * F 26.9 D
Note: * Indicates that the volume to capacity ratio for the intersection exceeds
1.20.
3-10
~. GRO~/TH MANAGEMENT PLANS - RECOMMENDATIONS
As stated in the proposal dated December 6~ 19gg~ one of the most important
elements of a successful Growth Management Plan is the Traffic Monitoring
Program, This program provides the City with the ability to continuously monitor
the cumulative impact of development and resulting traffic growth within the
community. The periodic conduct of this monitoring program will allow the City to
track the operational conditions of all signalized intersections on a city-wide basis
and compare the calculated levels of service to the adopted Threshold Standards.
The next step in an effective Growth Management Plan is the accurate
assessment of traffic impacts associated with each phase of development or
redevelopment. This critical element provides the most direct means of ensuring
that both major circulation system construction and minor traffic engineering
improvements are implemented prior to growth occuring beyond development
thresholds. The goal of this element of the Growth Management Plan is to
establish a set of instructions and guidelines for the preparation of traffic impact
studies for qualifying projects in the City of Chula Vista. The development of City
Policy addressing all aspects of preparing an acceptable traffic impact analysis
report will allow the Traffic Engineering Department to continue to provide a safe
and efficient circulation system as planned growth occurs. This Policy will identify
and define all applicable criteria to be included in these reports~ thus enabling City
staff to maintain acceptable levels of service on a system-wide basis.
GRO~/TH MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
3HK & Associates conducted research to identify the primary elements and
components of growth managemeat policies which are currently in place in
jurisdictions throughout the State of California. A technical appendix in the Final
Technical Report (December 1989) contains a tabular list of the cities which were
included in this research along with the most critical elements of each plan.
jhk associates
It is important to recognize that many of the components identified during
this research re[ate directly to the method for conducting a traffic impact
analysis. The overall method to be developed by the City of Chula Vista Traffic
Engineering Department will direct all future traffic impact work and will include
detailed instructions for producing acceptable reports. This policy will describe
the guidelines and procedures to be followed by all traffic engineers performing
work in the City.
GRO~/TH MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on review of the information generated by the research conducted,
JHK and the City of Chula Vista have developed a set of preliminary procedures
and criteria to provide a basis for the creation of a new policy. The intent of this
initial research is to guide the development of this new policy document which will
provide direction to those preparing tralfic impact analysis reports for City
review. Table ~-i details the primary elements to be included in the new document
entitled "Guidelines and Instructions for Developing Traffic Impact Analysis
Reports."
jhk
Table 4-1
SUMMARY OF PRIMARY ELEMENTS - NEW CITY OF CHULA VISTA POLICY
"GUIDELINES AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR DEVELOPING TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORTS"
POLICY
ELEMENT RECOMMENDED ACTION
Qualifying Projects Minimum 10 DU or I0,000 sq. ft. o_Er 130 trips/day.
Study Area All Signalis with 596 increase on I or more
approaches and LOS D/E/F exists or will exist with
project.
Peak Periods Analyzed AM and PM peak hours. Mid-day analysis may be
required at certain locations.
Traffic Counts 2O-hour counts are required if current counts (within
I year) are not available.
Capacity Analysis
Procedures Retain the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
method with the understanding that the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) operational analysis method
may be considered in the future.
Flow Rates
(Service Volumes) Thru Lane = 1700 vphg
Turn Lane = 1500 vphg
Dual Turn Lanes = 2700 vphg
Adjustment Factors Minumum Default Value for Critical Lane Groups
with Low Volumes = Zero
Lost Time (Yellow Clearance Interval) Allowance
Factor = .10
Study Years Existing, Project Opening, Major Phases, and
Buildout.
Traffic Projections Actual Historical Trends or Computer Forecasts.
Minimum LOS Level of Service C operations are the g~oal for all
signalized intersections city-wide. However, the
Growth Management Plan Threshold Standards
should remain in effect.
jhk associates
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The scope of work for this project was developed to provide the City of Chula
Vista with an accurate assesment of the current operational status of all existing
signalized intersections based on current Year 1989 conditions. Study findings
discussed in Chapters 2) 3 and #, illustrate that with few exceptions, the existing
transportation network generally provides acceptable levels of service to its users.
The study found that a limited number of intersections operated poorly during
certain peak periods. The peak hour analysis of traffic flow conditions at the 108
project intersections revealed that 13 locations experience congested operations
with levels of service ranging from D to F.
The following list identifies these locations:
Count Number Intersection
1# Third Avenue and H Street
16 Third Avenue and J Street
18 Third Avenue and L Street
21 Third Avenue and Oxford Street
4th Avenue and J Street
61 Broadway and H Street
62 Broadway and I Street
65 Broadway and L Street
66 Broadway and Moss Street
71 Broadway and Main Street
82 Hilltop Drive and H Street
85 Hilltop Drive and L Street
94 Industrial Boulevard and L Street
All of these problem intersections are located west of Interstate 805. This
portion of the circulation system is constrained by existing development and the
design of many of these older intersections were based on out-dated standards.
The primary difficulty in this developed area of the City is the limited amount of
right-of-way available to construct additional turn lanes or through lanes at many
of these intersections. Thus, the only solution in some instances is to optimize
signal timing and provide good coordination between signalized intersections. The
current project to install a master computer system for controlling all traffic
signals throughout the City will aid in this effort to maintain high quality traffic
flow through and between signalized intersections.
5-1
jhk associates
The periodic monitoring of the performance of the transportation system
within Chu]a Vista is an important element of we]] balanced Growth Management
Plan. Thus, it is further recommended that ail future traffic monitoring programs
include the most critical intersections (with peak hour operations of LOS C or
lower) in both Central ChuJa Vista, west of Interstate 805, and the newly
developing areas east of Interstate $05 in the Eastern Territories. This wi]] ensure
that conditions at these high volume capacity constrained locations are analyzed on
a frequent basis and intersection LOS trends can be established over time.
The information contained in Chapter 3 identifies a set of geometric
improvements for each of the J3 problem intersections. The mitigation measures
were developed to provide additional capacity and improved levels of service.
Each of the recommended stategies were tested using both the ICU and HCM
intersection capacity analysis procedures to confirm that acceptable (LOS A-C) or
optima] operations would result at each location. Based on the results of this study
it is recommended that these intersections be reviewed by the City to determine if
these mitigation measures should be implemented. It can be concluded that
operations at these [3 intersections require periodic monitoring and an additional
geometric need analysis may be warranted if the geometric solutions recommended
in this document and not implemented in the short term ([-3 years).
In conclusion, this report was developed for the City of Chula Vista as the
first Traffic Monitoring Program for the recently developed Growth Management
Plan. Critical intersections have been identified and potential mitigation have
been discussed. The report represents a conservative estimate of intersection
operations based on the guidelines developed by the City of Chu]a Vista. The
intent of this document is to provide City staff with an indication of the current
status of the overall circulation system in terms of intersection capacities and
levels of service. In the future, this report will be used as a too] for the accurate
identification of traffic flow conditions in specific areas of the City. Also, this
project identified "hot-spot" locations which warrant close attention in the future.
The City may utilize the conclusions of this report to aid in the creation of a
future scope of work for additional traffic monitoring.
5-2
APPENDIX A
ICU CALCULATION WORKSHEETS - 13 PROBLEM LOCATIONS
WITH RECOMMENDED GEOMETRIC MODIFICATIONS
Count Number Intersection Pal~e
lg Third Avenue and H Street
16 Third Avenue and 3 Street A-5
18 Third Avenue and L Street A-9
21 Third Avenue and Oxford Street A-13
3~ Otb Avenue and 3 Street A-17
61 Broadway and H Street A-21
62 Broadway and I Street A-2~5
65 Broadway and L Street A~29
66 Broadway and Moss Street A-33
71 Broadway and Main Street A-37
82 Hilltop Drive and H Street A-t~I
85 Hilltop Drive and L Street A-45
9~ Industrial Boulevard and L Street A-09