Carlsbad City Council
November 15, 2022

CA Review CKM

Meeting Date: Nov. 15, 2022

To: Mayor and City Council

From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager

Staff Contact: John Kim, City Traffic Engineer
[email protected], 442-339-2757

Subject: Local Roadway Safety Plan

Districts: All

Recommended Action
Adopt a resolution adopting the City of Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan.

E
xecutive 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 o n 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 An alysis
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 E valuation
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

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

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

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

 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

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

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

Figure 2-1 Citywide Crash Tree (2015 – 2019)
Nov. 15, 2022
Item #14 Page 21 of 161
C 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

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 2634 47 39 36 24
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

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

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

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 Colli sio ns
. 4
• 3
• 2
•
• Nlidbl ock Pedestria n Collision
School
• •
•
•
• •
•
•
Pacific
Ocean
Encinitas
•
~ %.
"'<J)-
0 "
~"'' • C,~~,"~
•
•
""0 ~'l>~
-...~<ffP

0.5 San
Marcos
1 Miles
City of Carlsbad
Local Roadway Safety Plan

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
Vi
llage 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
No
rte
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
Ai
rport 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

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

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 - Unsafe
driver 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

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

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 Colli s ions
. 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

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 (r oundabout) 2 12 1 15 - Carlsbad Boulevard & Oak Avenue (side street stop) 2 - 2 4 - Carlsbad Boulevard & Shore Drive (S) (si de street stop) 2 2 - 4 - Celinda Drive & Carlsbad Village Drive (side street stop) 2 1 - 3 - Carlsbad Boulevard & Poinsettia Lane (s ignalized) 2 2 - 4 - Piraeus Street & La Costa Avenue (signalized) 2 4 - 6 - Cassia Road & Poinsettia Lane (s ignalized) 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

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

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 Involv ement
• Bike O nly
• Bike-Motor Vehicle
Oceanside
• •
• •
Encinitas
0 0.5
San
Marcos
1 Miles
City of Carlsbad
Local Roadway Safety Plan

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

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

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 Inter section Vehicle Collisions
11 - 15 Inter section Vehicle Collisions
e 6 - 10 Inte rsection Vehicle Collisions
• 2 - 5 Inter section Vehicle Collision s
• 1 In tersection Vehicle CoL!ision
• 1 Midblock Vehicle Collisio n
School
• .-t %
.i,~
• •
• • • • •
Encinitas
0 • ' ' • r:,'<:-••'"~
ee
,
• •"" . !'/>elf.
,~~ ..

0.5 •
San
Marcos
1 Miles
City of Carlsbad
Local Roadway Safety Plan

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 D ensity
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

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

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 - Unsafe
driver 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

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 Been
Drinking -
Impairment
Unknown
Had Been
Drinking -
Under
Influence
Impairment
Not Known
Not Stated /
Had Not Been
Drinking
Nov. 15, 2022
Item #14 Page 40 of 161
C R
■ -
City of Carlsbad
Local Roadway Safety Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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-mou nted through
signal head
   
S03, Improve signal timing    
S18PB, Install ped estrian
crossing: high visibility crosswalk

S20PB, Install advance stop bar
before crosswalk
  
Rat lights (re d 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

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
Vi
llage 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, 2022
Item #14 Page 49 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad
Local Roadway Safety Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 & Car lsbad 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 & Pa lomar
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
Ro
ad 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
Or
o 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, 2022
Item #14 Page 56 of 161
C R
City of Carlsbad
Local Roadway Safety Plan

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

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

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
In
frastructure 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

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

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

Figure 1.1 - Citywide Crash Tree (2015 – 2019)
Nov. 15, 2022
Item #14 Page 66 of 161
Intersection
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 11
4 1
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - No Street Lights Dusk - Dawn Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning
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

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 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM
8 PM
9 PM
10 PM
11 PM
Weekday 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 Less
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 or
More
UnknownFemale Male
Nov. 15, 2022
Item #14 Page 75 of 161
I 1 1 I I
• •
• •
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Descriptive Statistics Report

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 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 76 of 161
- - -
• • ■ •
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Descriptive Statistics Report

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 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 77 of 161
-
■ ■ ■
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Descriptive Statistics Report

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

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

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

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 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM
8 PM
9 PM
10 PM
11 PM
Weekday 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 Less
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 or
More
UnknownFemale Male
Nov. 15, 2022
Item #14 Page 81 of 161
I I I l IL I ~ I •
■ ■
I
■ ■
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Descriptive Statistics Report

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

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

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

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

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, 2022
Item #14 Page 86 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Descriptive Statistics Report

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, 2022
Item #14 Page 87 of 161
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Descriptive Statistics Report

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 AM
1 AM
2 AM
3 AM
4 AM
5 AM
6 AM
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
7 PM
8 PM
9 PM
10 PM
11 PM
Weekday Weekend
Nov. 15, 2022
Item #14 Page 88 of 161
-
■ ■
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Descriptive Statistics Report

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

Table 5.1 - Intersection Matrix for All Injury Collisions

Nov. 15, 2022
Item #14 Page 90 of 161
Si1nalized 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 2 0 11 1 175 21802fal - Failure to vield at stoo sien 18 6 2 1 27
21453(c) - Entered intersec t ion against r ed 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 2 5 30 3 3 9 4 4 1 1 123
21703 - Following too close ly 6 6 1 1 2 1 1 18
23152(al - Drivi ne: under the influence 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 14 Othe r 4 10 6 2 22
Not Stated 1 1 1 1 1 5
Head-On
21453(al - Failure to stop at lim it line 1 8 1 4 5 3 1 23 21453kl - Entered intersec t ion aEainst red arrow 2 3 3 2 10 22107 - Unsafe t urn 2 1 1 2 1 1 8
Ot her 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 vehi cle oath 1 1 2 4 Other 2 8 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 20
Not Stated 1 1 1 1 4
Bicvcl e
21453(a) - Failu re to sto p at limit line 3 1 3 7
22107 - Unsafe t urn 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 4 1
HitObi ect 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 5 6 12 1 20 17 1 1 16 878 Local Roadway Safety Plan
Descriptive Statistics Report

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

Table 5.2 - Mid-Block Matrix for All Injury Collisions

Nov. 15, 2022
Item #14 Page 92 of 161
25mph 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 Rea r-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 cha nge 1 1 2 1 2 7
21801(a} - Fa ilure to yie ld left- or U-turn 2 l 2 1 1 7 Other 3 1 2 1 5 2 2 1 4 2 2 25
Not Stat ed 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 t he infl uence l 5 2 l l 1 1 6 18 Other 2 1 1 1 2 7
Not Sta ted 3 2 1 1 l 8
Sideswio e
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 infl uence 2 2 1 1 2 8
Other 3 3 2 1 2 4 15
Not Stat ed 1 1 1 1 4
Broad side
22350 - Unsafe speed 1 2 l l 3 8
22107 - Unsafe tu rn 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 wh en entering traffic 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 16 Othe r 1 1 2 2 2 l 2 1 4 16
Not Sta ted 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) - Pedestria n fa ilure t o yie ld 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 t he influ ence 1 1 1 1 4
Other 1 2 1 3 7
Not Stated 1 1 1 1 4
ove rturned
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 unde r 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 enter ing traffic 1 2 3 23152(a) - Drivi ng under the influ ence 2 1 3
Other 2 1 1 2 2 2 10
Not Stat ed 1 1
Grand Total 88 2 22 30 19 70 4 1 2 21 17 5 46 32 1 3 10 5 99 5 18 2 1 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

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 Ran kings
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

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

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

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

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
CollegeBl
Alga Rd
Aviara Pkwy
Marro n Rd
Tamarack
Carlsbad
Village Dr
El Camino Real
Cannon Rd
Colle ge Bl
Poinsettia Ln
Melrose
Dr
FaradayAve
Cam Vida
Roble
Calle Barcelona
Ave
MonroeSt
Norte
PaseoDel
Oceanside
Encinitas
San
Marcos
Pacific
Ocean
Batiquitos Lagoon
Agua
Hedionda
Lagoon
McClellan-Palomar
Airport
Buena
Vista
Lagoon
Poinsettia Ln
Avda
Encinas
Rancho SantaFeDr
La CostaAv
CarlsbadBl
²
0 10.5 Miles
PalomarAirport Rd
Intersection Severe/Fatal Collisions
!( 2
!( 1
!( Midblock Severe/Fatal Collisions
School
Nov. 15, 2022
Item #14 Page 102 of 161
C R
... ~:· .•.
','\
' '
/~
.,,.-=:::~~~
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Carlsbad Local Roadway Safety Plan Figure 2-2
High Collision Frequency Intersections
Vista
§¨¦5
·}78
CollegeBl
Alga Rd
Aviara Pkwy
Marro n Rd
Tamarack
Carlsbad
Village Dr
El Camino Real
Cannon Rd
Colle ge Bl
Poinsettia Ln
Melrose
Dr
FaradayAve
Cam Vida
Roble
Calle Barcelona
Ave
MonroeSt
Norte
PaseoDel
Oceanside
Encinitas
San
Marcos
Pacific
Ocean
Batiquitos Lagoon
Agua
Hedionda
Lagoon
McClellan-Palomar
Airport
Buena
Vista
Lagoon
Poinsettia Ln
Avda
Encinas
Rancho SantaFeDr
La CostaAv
CarlsbadBl
²
0 10.5 Miles
PalomarAirport Rd
High Frequency Collisions
!( 15 - 18
!( 12 - 14
!( 10 - 11
School
Nov. 15, 2022
Item #14 Page 103 of 161
C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

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 2-3
Vehicle-Only Collisions
Vista
§¨¦5
·}78
CollegeBl
Alga Rd
Aviara Pkwy
Marro n Rd
Tamarack
Carlsbad
Village Dr
El Camino Real
Cannon Rd
Colle ge Bl
Poinsettia Ln
Melrose
Dr
FaradayAve
Cam Vida
Roble
Calle Barcelona
Ave
MonroeSt
Norte
PaseoDel
Oceanside
Encinitas
San
Marcos
Pacific
Ocean
Batiquitos Lagoon
Agua
Hedionda
Lagoon
McClellan-Palomar
Airport
Buena
Vista
Lagoon
Poinsettia Ln
Avda
Encinas
Rancho SantaFeDr
La CostaAv
CarlsbadBl
²
0 10.5 Miles
PalomarAirport Rd
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
CarlsbadVillage Dr
Chestnut St
Tamarack Ave
CarlsbadBl
StateSt
Hard
ing
St
§¨¦5
Pacific
Ocean
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 2-4
All Pedestrian Collisions
Vista
§¨¦5
·}78
CollegeBl
Alga Rd
Aviara Pkwy
Marro n Rd
Tamarack
Carlsbad
Village Dr
El Camino Real
Cannon Rd
Colle ge Bl
Poinsettia Ln
Melrose
Dr
FaradayAve
Cam Vida
Roble
Calle Barcelona
Ave
MonroeSt
Norte
PaseoDel
Oceanside
Encinitas
San
Marcos
Pacific
Ocean
Batiquitos Lagoon
Agua
Hedionda
Lagoon
McClellan-Palomar
Airport
Buena
Vista
Lagoon
Poinsettia Ln
Avda
Encinas
Rancho SantaFeDr
La CostaAv
CarlsbadBl
²
0 10.5 Miles
PalomarAirport Rd
Intersection Pedestrian Collisions
!( 4
!( 3
!( 2
!( 1
!( Midblock Pedestrian Collision
School
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Jefferson S
t
CarlsbadVillage Dr
Chestnut St
Tamarack Ave
CarlsbadBl
StateSt
Hard
ing
St
§¨¦5
Pacific
Ocean
Nov. 15, 2022
Item #14 Page 106 of 161
C R
I
L__l
l
i L _______ l
I
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

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 2-5
All Bicycle Collisions
Vista
§¨¦5
·}78
CollegeBl
Alga Rd
Aviara Pkwy
Marro n Rd
Tamarack
Carlsbad
Village Dr
El Camino Real
Cannon Rd
Colle ge Bl
Poinsettia Ln
Melrose
Dr
FaradayAve
Cam Vida
Roble
Calle Barcelona
Ave
MonroeSt
Norte
PaseoDel
Oceanside
Encinitas
San
Marcos
Pacific
Ocean
Batiquitos Lagoon
Agua
Hedionda
Lagoon
McClellan-Palomar
Airport
Buena
Vista
Lagoon
Poinsettia Ln
Avda
Encinas
Rancho SantaFeDr
La CostaAv
CarlsbadBl
²
0 10.5 Miles
PalomarAirport Rd
Intersection Bicycle Collisions
!( 4
!( 2
!( 1
!( Midblock Bicycle Collision
School
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Jefferson S
t
CarlsbadVillage Dr
Chestnut St
Tamarack Ave
CarlsbadBl
StateSt
Hard
ing
St
§¨¦5
Pacific
Ocean
Nov. 15, 2022
Item #14 Page 108 of 161
C R
I
L__l
l
i L _______ l
I
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

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 × 1,000,000
𝑉𝑉𝑒𝑒 × 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

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, 2022
Item #14 Page 110 of 161
C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

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, 2022
Item #14 Page 111 of 161
C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

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, 2022
Item #14 Page 112 of 161
C R
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

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

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
CollegeBl
Alga Rd
Aviara Pkwy
Marro n Rd
Tamarack
Carlsbad
Village Dr
El Camino Real
Cannon Rd
Colle ge Bl
Poinsettia Ln
Melrose
Dr
FaradayAve
Cam Vida
Roble
Calle Barcelona
Ave
MonroeSt
Norte
PaseoDel
Oceanside
Encinitas
San
Marcos
Pacific
Ocean
Batiquitos Lagoon
Agua
Hedionda
Lagoon
McClellan-Palomar
Airport
Buena
Vista
Lagoon
Poinsettia Ln
Avda
Encinas
Rancho SantaFeDr
La CostaAv
CarlsbadBl
²
0 10.5 Miles
PalomarAirport Rd
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

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

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

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

Segment Collision Rates
Segment crash rates were developed using the following formula:

𝑅𝑅 = 𝐶𝐶 × 1,000,000
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 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

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, 2022
Item #14 Page 120 of 161
C ♦ R
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

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, 2022
Item #14 Page 121 of 161
C ♦ R
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

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, 2022
Item #14 Page 122 of 161
C ♦ R
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

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, 2022
Item #14 Page 123 of 161
C ♦ R
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

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, 2022
Item #14 Page 124 of 161
C ♦ R
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

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

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
Sidesw ipe
Pedestrian
Tiead-On
I-lit Object
Ovcrn1rncd
Other /Not ' tated
Injury Sever ity
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

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

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 Seve rity
1 Fatal
2 Severe Injury
3 Other Visible Injur y
Complaint of Pa.in
50 100
•••c:::::=::::J Feet
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

Hit Object Collisions
Three of the 16 collision records were hit
object collisions. Two of them were
attributed to violation code 22350
3, 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

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
•
Hit Object
•
Overturned
• Other / ot Stated
Injury Severity
1 Fatal
2 Severe In jury
3 Other Visible Injury
Co mplaint of Pa.in
0 so 100
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

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

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 22350
7, 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

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

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 21453
10, 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
Compl aint of P ain
50 Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

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

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 22350
11, 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 Obj ect
• Overturn ed
•
Other / Not Stated
Injury Severity
1 Fatal
2 S evere Injur y
Other Visible Injur y
Complaint of Pain
50 100
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

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

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, 22350

13. 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

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

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
• Overtur ned
•
Other / Not Stated
Injury Severity
1 Fatal
2 Severe Injur y
3 Other Visible Injur y
4 Complaint of Pain
50 100
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

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

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
• Overturn ed
• Other / Not Stated
Injury Severity
1 Fatal
2 S evere Injur y
3 Other Visible Injur y
Complaint of Pain
0 50
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis

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

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 Objec t
• Overturn ed
• Other / Not Stated
, Injury Severity
1 Fatal
2 S evere Injur y
3 Other Visible Injur y
4 Complaint of Pain
100
Feet
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Intersection & Segment Analysis