TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
MONTIEL ROAD OFFICE
San Marcos, California
January 17, 2019
LLG Ref. 3-18-3017
Prepared by: Under the Supervision of:
K.C. Yellapu, P.E. John Boarman, P.E.
Associate Principal Principal
&
Charlene Sadiarin, P.E.
Transportation Engineer II
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) has prepared the following transportation impact study to determine and evaluate the potential impacts to the local roadway system due to the proposed Montiel Road Office project. The project site is located at 2375/2355 Montiel Road in the City of San Marcos.
The project proposes the development of a 32,971 square -foot (sf) office building. Access to the proposed project is proposed via two driveways along Montiel Road.
The project is calculated to generate 659 average daily traffic (ADT) with 92 trips during the AM peak hour ( 83 entering and 9 exiting) and 86 trips during the PM peak hour ( 17 entering and 69 exiting).
Based on the analysis and the established significance criteria, no significant traffic impacts were determined. However, the following access related improvements should be considered:
Install stop signs at both access driveways.
Provide a left-turn pocket to the western driveway.
Participate in a regional carpool and vanpool matching program through iCommute. Provide sight distance and curb radius in conformance with City’s standards at all project driveways.
Provide sufficient ADA compliant pedestrian access to all the project facilities. Provide sufficient bicycle parking within the project.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 4
3.0 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Existing Street Network ...................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................... 7
4.0 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Conditions ......................................................................... 11
4.1 Exising Bicycle Network .................................................................................................. 11
4.2 Existing Pedestrian Conditions ......................................................................................... 11
4.3 Existing Transit Conditions .............................................................................................. 11
5.0 Analysis Approach and Methodology .................................................................................... 12
5.1 Intersections ...................................................................................................................... 12
5.2 Street Segments ................................................................................................................. 12
6.0 Significance Criteria ................................................................................................................ 13
6.1 City of San Marcos & City of Escondido ......................................................................... 13
6.2 County of San Diego ......................................................................................................... 13
6.2.1 Unsignalized Intersections .................................................................................... 14
7.0 Analysis of Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 16
7.1 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ......................................................................... 16
7.2 Daily Street Segment Levels of Service ........................................................................... 16
8.0 Cumulative Projects ................................................................................................................. 19
9.0 Trip Generation/Distribution/Assignment ............................................................................ 21
9.1 Trip Generation ................................................................................................................. 21
9.2 Trip Distribution/Assignment ........................................................................................... 21
10.0 Analysis of Near-Term Scenarios ........................................................................................... 26
10.1 Existing + Project .............................................................................................................. 26
10.1.1 Intersection Analysis ............................................................................................. 26
10.1.2 Segment Operations .............................................................................................. 26
10.2 Existing + Cumulative Projects ........................................................................................ 26
10.2.1 Near-Term Baseline Conditions ........................................................................... 26
10.2.2 Intersection Analysis ............................................................................................. 26
10.2.3 Segment Operations .............................................................................................. 26
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
iii
10.3 Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project ......................................................................... 26
10.3.1 Intersection Analysis ............................................................................................. 26
10.3.2 Segment Operations .............................................................................................. 27
11.0 Analysis of Long-Term Scenarios........................................................................................... 30
11.1 Year 2035 without Project Forecasted Volumes and Baseline Conditions ...................... 30
11.2 Year 2035 .......................................................................................................................... 30
11.2.1 Intersection Analysis ............................................................................................. 30
11.2.2 Segment Operations .............................................................................................. 30
11.3 Year 2035 + Project .......................................................................................................... 30
11.3.1 Intersection Analysis ............................................................................................. 30
11.3.2 Segment Operations .............................................................................................. 31
12.0 Access and Other Issues .......................................................................................................... 36
13.0 Significance of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................................ 37
APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A. Intersection and Segment Traffic Count Sheets
B. Intersection Methodology
C. City of San Marcos Roadway Classification Table
D. Existing Intersection Analysis Worksheets
E. Cumulative Projects List
F. Existing + Project Intersection Analysis Worksheets
G. Existing + Cumulative Projects Intersection Analysis Worksheets H. Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Intersection Analysis Worksheets I. K and D Factor Definitions
J. Year 2035 Intersection Analysis Worksheets
K. Year 2035 + Project Intersection Analysis Worksheets
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION—FIGURE # FOLLOWING PAGE
Figure 1–1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 1–2 Project Area Map ............................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2–1 Site Plan .......................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3–1 Existing Conditions Diagram .......................................................................................... 9 Figure 3–2 Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 10 Figure 8–1 Existing + Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes ......................................................... 20 Figure 9–1 Project Traffic Distribution ........................................................................................... 22 Figure 9–2 Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 23 Figure 9–3 Existing + Project Traffic Volumes .............................................................................. 24 Figure 9–4 Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Traffic Volumes ......................................... 25 Figure 11–1 Year 2035 Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................... 34 Figure 11–2 Year 2035 + Project Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 35
LIST OF TABLES
SECTION—TABLE # PAGE
Table 3–1 Existing Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................... 8 Table 6–1 Traffic Impact Significant Thresholds ............................................................................... 13 Table 6–2 Measures of Significant Project Impacts to Congestion on Intersections Allowable Increases on Congested Intersections ........................................................................................ 14 Table 7–1 Existing Intersection Operations ........................................................................................ 17 Table 7–2 Existing Street Segment Operations .................................................................................. 18 Table 9–1 Project Trip Generation ..................................................................................................... 21 Table 10–1 Existing + Cumulative Intersection Operations ............................................................... 28 Table 10–2 Near-Term Street Segment Operations ............................................................................ 29 Table 11–1 Long Term Intersection Operations ................................................................................. 32 Table 11–2 Long Term Street Segment Operations ........................................................................... 33
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
1 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
MONTIEL ROAD OFFICE
San Marcos, California
January 17, 2019
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) has prepared the following transportation impact study for the proposed Montiel Road Office project. The project site is located at 2375/2355 Montiel Road in the City of San Marcos . Figure 1 –1 shows the vicinity map. Figure 1 –2 shows a more detailed project area map.
The following items are included in this traffic study:
Project Description
Existing Conditions Discussion
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Conditions Discussion Analysis Approach and Methodology
Significance Criteria
Existing Conditions Analysis
Trip Generation/Distribution/Assignment
Cumulative Projects Discussion
Near-Term Analysis
Horizon Year Analysis
Access and Other Issues Discussion
Significance of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" " " "
"
"
"
" "
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"" " " " " " " " " "
"
" " "
"" " " "
"
" " "
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
" " " "
" " "
""
" "
""""
"
"
"
" " " " " "
"
"
" " "
"
"" "
" "
"
"
" " "
"
" " " " " "
"
""
"""
"
"
" " "
""
"
"
" " " " "
"
"
"
"
" " "
"
"
" "
"
""
" " " " "
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
""
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
""
""
"
""""
"
"
"
""
"
"
""
"
"
""
"
" "
"
"
" """
"
""""
"
""""
"""
""
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
"
" " "
" "
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""""""""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
""
""""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
" "
" "
"
"""
"
"" " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"" " " " " " " " "
"
"""""""""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""
"
"
""""""
"
"
"
"
""
"""
" " "
" "
" ""
"""
""
""
"
""
""
"""
"
"
"""""
"
"
"
"
"
""
""
"
""""
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" " "
"
" "
""" "
" "
"
" " " " " " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"" "" "
" "
""
""
""
"" "
" """
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"" " " "
"
" "
" "
"
"
"
" ""
" "
""
"
"""
"
"
"
"
""
" " "" " "
"
"" "
"
" "
"
"""
"
"
""
"
"
""
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"""
""""
""
""
"""""
"
"
""""
""
"
"
""""
"
""
"
"""""""
"
""
"
""
" "
"
"""
""
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""
"
"
"
"
"
" " ""
"""""
""""
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" " " " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
" " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" " " " ""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
""
"
"
"
"
"""
"
"""""""""""
"
"
"
""
""
"""
"
"
"
" " " " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
" " "
" " " " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
" " "
" " " " " " " " ""
"
" "
"
" " " " "
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" " " " "
"
"
"
"
" " " " " " " ""
"
"
"
"
"
" " " " " " "
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""""""
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
" "
"
""
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""""
"
"""""
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
" " "
" " ""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""
"
"
""""
"
"
"
" ""
"
"
"
"
"
""""
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"""""
"
" " " " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
""
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" ""
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"" "
"
" " " "
"""
"
"
" " " " "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
"
" " "
"
"
"
"
"
""""
"
"
""
"
"
"""""""
"""
"
"
"
"
"
"
" " "
""
"""
""
"
""
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
""
"" "
""
"" "
"
""
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" " " " "
"
""
"
"
"
"
""
"
"""
"""
" ""
"
"""
"
"
" "
"
"
"""""
""
"
"
"
"
" " "
"
""
" "
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
""
"""
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
""
""
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
""
""
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
" " "
"
" " " " "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
" " " "
" " "
"
" " " " " " "
"
"""
"""""""""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
""""
"
""
""
"""
""""""""
"
""""
" "
""
""
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"""
"
"""
""
""
"""""
""""
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
""
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
" "
""
"
""
"
" ""
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
" "
"
""
"
"
"
"""""
"
"
""""
""
"
"
""
"
""""
"
"
"""
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
""
"
"
" "
" "
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" " "
" " "
"
" " " " "
"
""
"
"
""
""
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
" " " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" " "
"
"
"
"
" " "
" " "
"" " ""
"
"
"
"
" " " "
"
" " "
" " "
" ""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
""
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
" " " "
"
""
""
"
""
""
"
" "
"
""
"" "
"
" "" "
" " " " " " " " " " " "
"
"
" " " "
"
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
" " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
" " " " "
""
"
"
"
"
" " "
" "
"
"
"
"" " "
" "
"
""
" "
""" " "
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"" " " "
"
""
"""
"
"
"
"
"
""
""
"
"
""
"
" " " " " " "
"
""
" " "
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"" "
"
"
"
"
" " "
" " """
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" " " "
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
" " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"""
"
"""""
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"""""
""
""
"""
"""
" "
" " "
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"""
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"""
" " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
" "
"
"
" " "
"""
" "
"
" "
"
" "
"" "
"
"
"
" " "
"
"
""
"
" "
"
" " ""
"
" "
"
"
"
""
""
""
""
""
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"""
""
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"""
"
"
" "
""
"
"
"""
""
"
" """
"
"
" "
"
"
PACIFIC
OCEAN
CARLSBAD
ESCONDIDO
ENCINITAS
SAN DIEGO
SANTEE
POWAY
SOLANA BEACH
DEL MAR
CORONADO
NATIONAL
CITY
LEMON
GROVE
LA MESA
EL CAJON
§¨¦5
§¨¦15
§¨¦805
§¨¦8
§¨¦15
§¨¦5
·|}54
·|}125
·|}94
·|}94
·|}75
·|}15
·|}163
·|}67
§¨¦8·|}52
·|}56
·|}125
OCEANSIDE VISTA
SAN MARCOS·|}78
[
Legend
""""
City Boundary
Incorporated
Unincorporated
1 04 2 Miles
Vicinity Map
MONTIEL ROAD OFFICE PROJECT
Figure 1-1N:\3017\Figures
Date: 1/3/19
[_PROJECT SITE
Figure 1-2
Project Area Map
MONTIEL ROAD OFFICE PROJECT
N:\3017\Figures
LEGEND
Project Location
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
4 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes the development of a 32,971 square-foot (sf) office building . Access to the proposed project is proposed via two driveways along Montiel Road.
Figure 2–1 depicts the project’s site plan.
Figure 2-1
Site Plan
MONTIEL ROAD OFFICE PROJECT
N:\3017\Figures
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
6 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Effective evaluation of the traffic impacts associated with the proposed project requires an understanding of the existing transportation system within the project area. Figure 3 –1 shows an existing conditions diagram including , intersection control and lane configurations. The study area includes the following intersections and street segments based on the anticipated distribution of the project traffic:
Intersections
1. Nordahl Road / Center Drive (South)
2. Nordahl Road / Montiel Road
3. Nordahl Road / SR-78 WB Ramps
4. Nordahl Road / SR-78 EB Ramps
5. Mission Road / Auto Park Way
6. Rock Springs Road / Montiel Road
Segments
Montiel Road, from Nordahl Lane to Leora Lane
Montiel Road, from Leora Lane to Rock Springs Road
Nordahl Road, from Montiel Road to SR 78 Ramps
3.1 Existing Street Network
The following is a description of the existing street network in the study area.
Nordahl Road, between Center Drive (South) and the SR -78, is classified as a 4 -Lane Major Arterial in the City of San Marcos General Plan Mobility Element. It is currently constructed as a 5 to 8 lane divided roadway depending on the location due to turn pockets and/or the extension of turn pockets. The posted speed limit is 40 mph.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
7 Montiel Road, between Nordahl Road and Leora Lane, is unclassified in the City of San Marcos General Plan Mobility Element . It is currently constructed as a 2 lane undivided roadway with a two-way left-turn lane. The posted speed limit is 40 mph.
Montiel Road , between Leora Lane and Rock Springs Road, is unclassified in the City of San Marcos General Plan Mobility Element. It is constructed as a 2 lane undivided roadway. Th e posted speed limit is 40 mph, and on-street parking is permitted.
3.2 Existing Traffic Volumes
Table 3–1 summarizes available Average Daily Traffic volumes (ADTs) from counts conducted in December 2018. Counts at the study area intersections, including bicycle and pedestrian counts, were also conducted in September and December 2018 between 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00 -6:00 PM.
Traffic counts were conducted while schools were in session.
Figure 3–2 shows the existing traffic volumes. Appendix A contains the count sheets.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
8 TABLE 3–1
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Street Segment ADTa
Montiel Road
Nordahl Lane to Leora Lane 7,350
Leora Lane to Rock Springs Road 4,620
Nordahl Road
Montiel Road to SR 78 Ramps 39,870
Footnotes:
a. Average Daily Traffic Volumes (rounded up to the nearest ten).
Existing Traffic Conditions
Montiel Road Office Project
Figure 3-1N:\3017\Figures
Date: 12/28/2018
[
!! !! !! !! !! !!
Êe
e
e
Êe
e
e
Êe
e
e
Êe
e
e
Êe
e
e
ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ
M Ln Montiel Rd Mission RdCenter Dr (S) Rock Spring RdSR-78 WB Ramps Montiel Rd
Nordahl Rd
Auto Park Way
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
654321
}78
§¨15
^_
Project
Site
2 1
3 4
5 6
SR-78 EB Ramps
MONTIEL RD
NORDAHL RD
ROCK SPRINGS ROAD
CENTER DR
MISSION RD
!"$
YIELD YIELD
FREE
RTOL
2U
2U
8D
8D
É=
=
Study Intersections
!!#
Turn Lane Configuration
Number of Travel Lanes
Posted Speed LimitXXMPH
#
!"$ Êe
e
e
Intersection Control
Divided / Undivided RoadwayD/U
40 MPH
40 MPH
Existing Traffic Volumes
Montiel Road Office Project
Figure 3-2N:\3017\Figures
Date: 12/28/2018
[
!! !! !! !! !! !!
ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ
4 / 7
0 / 5
8 / 75 26 / 1120 / 66
15 / 66
27 / 39
34 / 44
35 / 48
97 / 35
64 / 82
51 / 30
74 / 135 485 / 411
405 / 622
360 / 755
351 / 860
344 / 428
328 / 526
308 / 250
292 / 349
284 / 434
280 / 525
271 / 205
260 / 364
257 / 264 257 / 165
249 / 144
238 / 429
192 / 270
185 / 447
167 / 476
139 / 488
103 / 227
412 / 434
427 / 985
479 / 701
482 / 388
566 / 331
596 / 522 602 / 562
644 / 619
652 / 780
683 / 747
648 / 1453
501 / 1219
593 / 1006
M Ln Montiel Rd Mission RdCenter Dr (S) Rock Spring RdSR-78 WB Ramps Montiel Rd
Nordahl Rd
Auto Park Way
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
654321
}78
§¨15
^_
Project
Site
2 1
3 4
5 6
7,350
4,620
39,870
SR-78 EB Ramps
MONTIEL RD
NORDAHL RD
ROCK SPRINGS ROAD
CENTER DR
MISSION RD
AM / PM Intersection
Peak Hour Volumes
AM / PM
Study Intersections
Average Daily
Traffic VolumesX,XXX
!!#
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
11 4.0 BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT CONDITIONS
4.1 Existing Bicycle Network
Currently, Class II bicycle facilities (i.e. bike lane s) are provided on the following study street segments:
Nordahl Road, north of Center Drive (south) to Mission Road (both sides); Auto Park Way, south of Mission Road (both sides); and Montiel Road, from Nordahl Road to Alsing Drive (south side).
4.2 Existing Pedestrian Conditions
Pedestrian sidewalks are generall y provided along Nordahl Road within the study area and on the south side of Montiel Road between Nordahl Road and Alsing Drive . Pedestrian crossings are prohibited at the following locations:
Nordahl Road / Montiel Road (across the south leg);
Nordahl Road / SR-78 WB Ramps (across the east and west legs); Nordahl Road / SR-78 EB Ramps (across the east and west legs); San Marcos Boulevard / SR-78 WB Ramps (across the west and south legs).
4.3 Existing Transit Conditions
Transit service is provided to the projec t area via the Breeze Bus Route 3 53 and Bus Route 305 .
Route 353 provides bus service between the Nordahl Marketplace and Escondido Transit Center , with a stop within the study along Auto Park Way. The route operates hourly between the hours of 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM every day. Route 305 provides bus service between the Vista Transit Center and the Escondido Transit Center, with a stop within the study along Mission Road. The route operates hourly between the hours of 4:00 AM and 12 midnight, Monday through Fr iday, and between the hours of 5:00 AM and 11:30 PM on Saturday and Sunday.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
12 5.0 ANALYSIS APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Level of service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating conditions which occur on a given roadway segment or intersection under various traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure used to describe a quantitative analysis taking into account factors such as roadway geometries, signal phasing, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. Level of service provides an index to the operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection. Level of service designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. Level of service designation is reported differently for signalized and unsignalized intersections, as well as for roadway segments.
5.1 Intersections
Signalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay was determined utilizing the methodology found in Chapter 19 of the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6), with the assistance of the Synchro 10 computer software. The delay values (represented in seconds) were qualified with a corresponding intersection Level of Service (LOS). Signalized intersection calculation worksheets and a more detailed explanation of the methodology are attached in Appendix B.
Unsignalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay and Levels of Service (LOS) was determined based upon the procedures found in Chapter 20 and Chapter 21 of the HCM 6 with the assistance of the Synchro 10 computer software. A more detailed explanation of the methodology is attached in Appendix B.
5.2 Street Segments
Street segment analysis is based upon the comparison of daily traffic volumes (ADTs) to the City of San Marcos ’s Roadway Classification, Level of Service, and ADT Table . This table provides segment capacities for different street classifications, based on traffic volumes and roadway characteristics. The City of San Marcos’s Roadway Classification, Level of Service, and ADT Table is attached in Appendix C.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
13 6.0 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
6.1 City of San Marcos & City of Escondido
A project is considered to have a significant impact if the new project traffic has decreased the operations of surrounding roadways by a defined threshold. The defined thresholds shown in Table 6–1 below for freeway segments, roadway segments, intersections, and ramp meter facilities are based on published San Diego Traffic Engineers’ Council (SANTEC) guidelines . If the project exceeds the thresholds in Table 6–1, then the project may be considered to have a significant project impact. A feasible mitigation measure will need to be identified to return the impact within the thresholds (pre -project + allowable increase) or the impact will be considered significant and unmitigated.
TABLE 6–1
TRAFFIC IMPACT SIGNIFICANT THRESHOLDS
Level of Service with
Projecta
Allowable Increase Due to Project Impactsb
Freeways Roadway Segments Intersections Ramp Metering
V/C Speed
(mph) V/C Speed
(mph)
Delay
(sec.)
Delay
(min.)
D, E & F
(or ramp meter delays
above 15 minutes)
0.01 1 0.02 1 2 2c
Footnotes:
a. All level of service measurements are based upon HCM procedures for peak -hour conditions. However, V/C ratios for Roadway Segments may be estimated on an ADT/24 -hour traffic volume basis (using Table 2 or a similar LOS chart for each jurisdiction). The acceptable LOS for freeways, roadways, and intersections is generally “D” (“C” for undeveloped or not densely developed locations pe r jurisdiction definitions). For metered freeway ramps, LOS does not apply. However, ramp meter delays above 15 minutes are con sidered excessive.
b. If a proposed project’s traffic causes the values shown in the table to be exceeded, the impacts are deemed to be significant . These impact changes may be measured from appropriate computer programs or expanded manual spreadsheets. The proje ct applicant shall then identify feasible mitigations (within the Traffic Impact Study [TIS] report) that will maintain the traffic facility at an ac ceptable LOS. If the LOS with the proposed project becomes unacceptable (see note a above), or if the proje ct adds a significant amount of peak hour trips to cause any traffic queues to exceed on - or off -ramp storage capacities, the project applicant shall be responsible for mitigating significant impact changes.
c. The impact is only considered significant if the total delay exceeds 15 minutes.
General Notes:
1. V/C = Volume to Capacity Ratio
2. Speed = Arterial speed measured in miles per hour
3. Delay = Average stopped delay per vehicle measured in seconds for intersections, or minutes for ramp meters.
4. LOS = Level of Service. The acceptable level of service for freeways, roadways and intersections is generally LOS A through LOS D.
6.2 County of San Diego
Since the Montiel Road / Rock Spring s Road intersection is within County of San Diego limits, t his section describes the criteria utilized to evaluate potential significant impacts based on the County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance —Transportation and Traffic , dated June 30, 2009 with a second modification effective August 24, 2011.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
14 6.2.1 Unsignalized Intersections
Table 6–2 was obtained from County guidelines and summarizes the allowable increases in delay or traffic volumes at intersections. Exceeding the thresholds in Table 6–2 would result in a significant impact.
TABLE 6–2
MEASURES OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS TO CONGESTION ON INTERSECTIONS
ALLOWABLE INCREASES ON CONGESTED INTERSECTIONS
Level of service Signalized Unsignalized
LOS E Delay of 2 seconds or less 20 or less peak hour trips on a critical movement
LOS F Either a Delay of 1 second, or 5 peak
hour trips or less on a critical movement
5 or less peak hour trips on a critical
movement
General Notes:
1. A critical movement is an intersection movement (right -turn, left-turn, through -movement) that experiences excessive queues, which typically operate at LOS F.
2. By adding proposed project trips to all other trips from a list of projects, these same tables are used to determ ine if total cumulative impacts are significant. If cumulative impacts are found to be significant, each project is responsible for mitigating its share of the cumulative impact.
3. The County may also determine impacts have occurred on roads even when a p roject’s traffic or cumulative impacts do not trigger an unacceptable level of service, when such traffic uses a significant amount of remaining road capacity.
4. For determining significance at signalized intersections with LOS F conditions, the analysis must evaluate both the delay and the number of trips on a critical movement, exceedance of either criteria result in a significant impact.
The operating parameters and conditions for unsignalized intersections differ dramatically from those of signalized intersections. Very small volume increases on one leg or turn and/or through movement of an unsignalized intersection can substantially affect the calculated delay for the entire intersection. Significance criteria for unsignalized intersections are based upon a minimum number of trips added to a critical movement at an unsignalized intersection.
Traffic volume increases from public or private projects that result in one or more of the following criteria will have a significant traffic impact on an unsignalized intersection as listed in Table 6–2 and described as text below:
The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will add 21 or more peak hour trips to a critical movement of an unsignalized intersection, and cause an unsignalized intersection to operate below LOS D, or
The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will add 21 or more peak hour trips to a critical movement of an unsignalized intersection currently operating at LOS E, or
The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will add 6 or more peak hour trips to a critical movement of an unsignalized intersection, and cause the unsignalized intersection to operate at LOS F, or
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
15 The additional or redistributed ADT generated by the proposed project will add 6 or more peak hour trips to a critical movement of an unsignalized intersection currently operating at LOS F, or
Based upon an evaluation of existing accident rates, the signal priority list, intersection geometrics, proximity of adjacent driveways, sight distance or other factors , the project would significantly impact the operations of the intersection.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
16 7.0 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
7.1 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Table 7–1 summarizes the peak hour intersection operations for the existing conditions. As seen in Table 7–1, all intersections are calculated to currently operate at LOS D or better.
Appendix D contains the existing intersection analysis worksheets.
7.2 Daily Street Segment Levels of Service
Table 7–2 summarizes the existing roadway segment operations. As seen in Table 7–2, all the study area segments are calculated to currently operate at LOS C or better.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
17 SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED
DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS
Delay LOS Delay LOS
0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A
10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B
20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C
35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D
55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F
TABLE 7–1
EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Existing
Delaya LOSb
1. Nordahl Road / Center Drive (South) Signal AM 23.7 C PM 38.6 D
2. Nordahl Road / Montiel Road Signal AM 16.5 B
PM 26.6 C
3. Nordahl Road / SR-78 WB Ramps Signal AM 27.0 C
PM 47.2 D
4. Nordahl Road / SR-78 EB Ramps Signal AM 16.7 B
PM 32.4 C
5. Mission Road / Auto Park Way Signal AM 48.8 D
PM 54.1 D
6. Rock Springs Road / Montiel Road OWSCc AM 24.1 C
PM 15.0 C
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
c. OWSC – One-Way Stop Controlled intersection. Minor street left turn delay is reported.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
18 TABLE 7–2
EXISTING STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Street Segment Existing Roadway
Configurations
Capacity
(LOS E) a ADT b V/C d LOS c
Montiel Road
Nordahl Lane to Leora Lane 2-Lane Collector w/ TWLTLe 15,000 7,350 0.490 C Leora Lane to Rock Springs Road 2-Lane Collector 8,000 4,620 0.578 C Nordahl Road
Montiel Road to SR 78 Ramps 8-Lane Prime Arterial 70,000 39,870 0.570 B Footnotes:
a. Capacities based on the City of San Marcos’s Roadway Classification Table. b. Average Daily Traffic Volumes.
c. Level of Service.
d. Volume to Capacity.
e. TWLTL: Two-Way Left-Turn Lane
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
19 8.0 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
There are other planned project within the vicinity which could potentially add traffic to the roadways and intersections in the study area. Based on research at the City of San Marcos, City of Escondido and County of San Diego, the cumulative projects listed in Appendix E were included in the traffic analysis.
Land use assumptions contained in the SANDAG Series 12 Model within the project area were reviewed, and cumulative projects which were not already included in the model were added. In order to account for other unforeseen cumulative projects and regional t raffic growth, traffic forecasts from the SANDAG Series 12 Model were also utilized to forecast cumulative projects traffic volumes.
Figure 8–1 illustrates the peak hour and ADT segment volumes for the Existing + Cumulative Projects scenario.
Existing + Cumulative Projects Traffic Volumes
Montiel Road Office Project
Figure 8-1N:\3017\Figures
Date: 12/28/2018
[
!! !! !! !! !! !!
ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ
6 / 8
10 / 10
20 / 70
31 / 21
36 / 60
37 / 50
40 / 80
50 / 70
51 / 92
53 / 73
84 / 87 99 / 187
101 / 66
311 / 682
550 / 520
540 / 851
496 / 760
461 / 734
448 / 407
437 / 652
381 / 462 359 / 607
340 / 545
334 / 203
319 / 596
580 / 340
292 / 692
290 / 602
273 / 535
266 / 174
261 / 435
260 / 493
166 / 490
103 / 232
630 / 750
638 / 563
725 / 972
732 / 710
892 / 548
909 / 1352
1270 / 702
469 / 1078
622 / 1423
717 / 1368
820 / 1567
1068 / 1133
1028 / 1122
M Ln Montiel Rd Mission RdCenter Dr (S) Rock Spring RdSR-78 WB Ramps Montiel Rd
Nordahl Rd
Auto Park Way
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
654321
}78
§¨15
^_
Project
Site
2 1
3 4
5 6
11,600
4,930
40,370
SR-78 EB Ramps
MONTIEL RD
NORDAHL RD
ROCK SPRINGS ROAD
CENTER DR
MISSION RD
AM / PM Intersection
Peak Hour Volumes
AM / PM
Study Intersections
Average Daily
Traffic VolumesX,XXX
!!#
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
21 9.0 TRIP GENERATION/DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT
9.1 Trip Generation
Table 9–1 tabulates the total project traffic generation based on the data contained in the SANDAG’s trip generation guide for a standard commercial of fice building . The total project is calculated to generate approximately 659 ADT with 83 inbound / 9 outbound trips during the AM peak hour and 17 inbound / 69 outbound trips during the PM peak hour.
TABLE 9–1
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Land Use Size
Daily Trip Ends
(ADTs) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Ratea Volume % of
ADT
In:Out Volume % of
ADT
In:Out Volume
Split In Out Split In Out
Office 32.97 KSF 20 / KSF 659 14% 9:1 83 9 13% 2:8 17 69 Footnotes:
a. Rate is based on SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002 b. KSF = 1,000 square feet
9.2 Trip Distribution/Assignment
The traffic generated by the proposed project was distributed and assigned based on anticipated traffic patterns to and from the site. Figure 9–1 shows the project traffic distribution. Figure 9–2 shows the project traffic volumes. Figure 9–3 shows the Existing + Project traffic volumes. Figure 9–4 shows the Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project traffic volumes.
Project Traffic Distribution
Montiel Road Office Project
Figure 9-2N:\3017\Figures
Date: 12/28/2018
[
!! !! !! !! !! !!
ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ
8%
2%5%
30% 25%75%
15%
10%
45%
50%
20%
25%15%
8%
20%
30%
15%
5% 5%
75%
2%
5%
15%
10%
M Ln Montiel Rd Mission RdCenter Dr (S) Rock Spring RdSR-78 WB Ramps Montiel Rd
Nordahl Rd
Auto Park Way Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
654321
}78
§¨15
^_
Project
Site
2 1
3 4
5 6
SR-78 EB Ramps
MONTIEL RD
NORDAHL RD
ROCK SPRINGS ROAD
CENTER DR
MISSION RD
15%
E
E
15%
E
E
75%
E
E
20%
E
E
10%
E
E
CENTER DR
90% E
E
25% E
E
30% E
E
5% E
E
5% E
E
2% E
E
8% E
E
Project Traffic AssignmentAM / PM
Study Intersections
Project Traffic Distribution
!!#
XX%
E
E
10% E
E
Project Traffic Volumes
Montiel Road Office Project
Figure 9-2N:\3017\Figures
Date: 12/28/2018
[
!! !! !! !! !! !!
ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ
0 / 1
0 / 3
0 / 4
1 / 6
1 / 7
2 / 04 / 1
7 / 1
8 / 2
12 / 3
1 / 14
1 / 10
16 / 4
2 / 1721 / 4
25 / 5
3 / 21
3 / 31
41 / 9
6 / 52 62 / 13
12 / 3 4 / 1
1 / 10
M Ln Montiel Rd Mission RdCenter Dr (S) Rock Spring RdSR-78 WB Ramps Montiel Rd
Nordahl Rd
Auto Park Way
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
654321
}78
§¨15
^_
Project
Site
2 1
3 4
5 6
593
66 494
SR-78 EB Ramps
MONTIEL RD
NORDAHL RD
ROCK SPRINGS ROAD
CENTER DR
MISSION RD
AM / PM Intersection
Peak Hour Volumes
AM / PM
Study Intersections
Average Daily
Traffic VolumesX,XXX
!!#
132
99 99
66 33
33 13
53 Existing + Project Traffic Volumes
Montiel Road Office Project
Figure 9-3N:\3017\Figures
Date: 12/28/2018
[
!! !! !! !! !! !!
ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ
4 / 8
0 / 5
8 / 75 28 / 11
15 / 66
76 / 85
51 / 30
27 / 39
20 / 66
34 / 44 97 / 35
35 / 48
75 / 145
655 / 811 485 / 411
360 / 755
352 / 870
344 / 428
331 / 547
309 / 439
308 / 250
292 / 352
280 / 525
271 / 205
264 / 365
264 / 166263 / 316
254 / 283
249 / 148
240 / 446
189 / 448
167 / 476
160 / 492
104 / 233
405 / 622
412 / 434
435 / 987
479 / 701
483 / 395
566 / 331
596 / 522 602 / 562
656 / 622
684 / 761
664 / 1457
501 / 1219
634 / 1015
M Ln Montiel Rd Mission RdCenter Dr (S) Rock Spring RdSR-78 WB Ramps Montiel Rd
Nordahl Rd
Auto Park Way
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
654321
}78
§¨15
^_
Project
Site
2 1
3 4
5 6
7,943
4,686
40,364
SR-78 EB Ramps
MONTIEL RD
NORDAHL RD
ROCK SPRINGS ROAD
CENTER DR
MISSION RD
AM / PM Intersection
Peak Hour Volumes
AM / PM
Study Intersections
Average Daily
Traffic VolumesX,XXX
!!#
Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project Traffic Volumes Montiel Road Office Project
Figure 9-4N:\3017\Figures
Date: 12/28/2018
[
!! !! !! !! !! !!
ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ
6 / 9
10 / 10
20 / 70
33 / 21
36 / 60
37 / 50
40 / 80
50 / 70
51 / 92
53 / 73
96 / 90 101 / 66
630 / 750
580 / 340
550 / 520
540 / 851
496 / 760
462 / 657
461 / 734
448 / 407
387 / 514 359 / 607
343 / 566
334 / 207
323 / 448
321 / 613
315 / 683
292 / 695
290 / 602
277 / 536
273 / 175
260 / 493
187 / 494
104 / 238
100 / 197
638 / 563
725 / 972
744 / 713
892 / 548
917 / 1354
1271 / 709
470 / 1088
622 / 1423
758 / 1377
836 / 1571
1069 / 1147
1031 / 1153
M Ln Montiel Rd Mission RdCenter Dr (S) Rock Spring RdSR-78 WB Ramps Montiel Rd
Nordahl Rd
Auto Park Way
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
654321
}78
§¨15
^_
Project
Site
2 1
3 4
5 6
12,193
4,996
40,864
SR-78 EB Ramps
MONTIEL RD
NORDAHL RD
ROCK SPRINGS ROAD
CENTER DR
MISSION RD
AM / PM Intersection
Peak Hour Volumes
AM / PM
Study Intersections
Average Daily
Traffic VolumesX,XXX
!!#
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
26 10.0 ANALYSIS OF NEAR-TERM SCENARIOS
10.1 Existing + Project
10.1.1 Intersection Analysis
Table 10 –1 summarizes the intersection operations for the Existing + Project scenario. As seen in Table 10–1, with the addition of project traffic, all of the study intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better.
Appendix F contains the Existing + Project intersection analysis worksheets.
10.1.2 Segment Operations
Table 10–2 summarizes the roadway segment operations for the Existing + Project scenario. As seen in Table 10–2, with the addition of project traffic, all of the study segments are calculated to operate at LOS C or better.
10.2 Existing + Cumulative Projects
10.2.1 Near-Term Baseline Conditions
No network changes were identified or assumed for the Near-Term analysis.
10.2.2 Intersection Analysis
Table 10–1 summarizes the intersection operations for the Existing + Cumulative Projects scenario.
As seen in Table 10–1, all of the study intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except at the following intersections:
Nordahl Road / SR-78 WB Ramps (LOS E during the PM peak hour) Nordahl Road / SR-78 EB Ramps (LOS F during both the AM & PM peak hours) Nordahl Road / Mission Road / Auto Park Way (LOS F during both the AM & PM peak hours)
Appendix G contains the Existing + Cumulative Projects intersection analysis worksheets.
10.2.3 Segment Operations
Table 10–2 summarizes the roadway segment operations for the Existing + Cumulative Projects scenario. As seen in Table 10–2, all of the study segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better.
10.3 Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project
10.3.1 Intersection Analysis
Table 10–1 summarizes the intersection operations for the Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project scenario. As seen in Table 10–1, with the addition of project traffic, all of the study intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except at the following intersections:
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
27 Nordahl Road / SR-78 WB Ramps (LOS E during the PM peak hour); Nordahl Road / SR-78 EB Ramps (LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours) Mission Road / Auto Parkway (LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours)
Although the intersections listed above are operating at LOS E or LOS F, the increase in delay due to the project is less than 2 seconds. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified for the Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project scenario.
Appendix H contains the Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project analysis worksheets.
10.3.2 Segment Operations
Table 10–2 summarizes the roadway segment operations for the Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project scenario. As seen in Table 10–2, with the addition of project traffic, all of the study segments are calculated to operate at LOS D.
Base on the significance criteria, no significant impacts are calculated along the study street segments as the Project contribution does not exceed the allowable thresholds.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
28 SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED
DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS
Delay LOS Delay LOS
0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A
10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B
20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C
35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D
55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F
TABLE 10–1
NEAR-TERM INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Existing Existing + Project
Δc
Existing +
Cumulative
Existing + Cumulative
+ Project Δ
Delaya LOSb Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Nordahl Road / Center Drive (South) Signal AM 23.7 C 23.9 C 0.2 38.5 D 39.3 D 0.8 PM 38.6 D 39.4 D 0.8 52.0 D 52.5 D 0.5
2. Nordahl Road / Montiel Road Signal AM 16.5 B 16.7 B 0.2 22.4 C 22.5 C 0.1 PM 26.6 C 27.5 C 0.9 30.3 C 32.9 C 2.6
3. Nordahl Road / SR-78 WB Ramps Signal AM 27.0 C 27.1 C 0.1 24.7 C 24.8 C 0.1 PM 47.2 D 47.6 D 0.4 57.0 E 57.5 E 0.5
4. Nordahl Road / SR-78 EB Ramps Signal AM 16.7 B 17.0 B 0.3 79.6 F 81.2 F 1.6 PM 32.4 C 33.6 C 1.2 118.7 F 120.0 F 1.3
5. Mission Road / Auto Park Way Signal AM 48.8 D 48.8 D 0.0 96.8 F 97.0 F 0.2 PM 54.1 D 54.1 D 0.0 176.6 F 177.2 F 0.6
6. Rock Springs Road / Montiel Road OWSCd AM 24.1 C 24.4 C 1c 37.2 D 34.0 D 1c PM 15.0 C 15.3 C 7c 16.1 C 16.6 C 7c
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
c. For San Marcos intersections, Δ denotes a project-induced increase in delay. For County intersections, Δ denotes a project-induced increase in traffic on the critical movement.
d. OWSC – One-Way Stop Controlled intersection. Minor street left turn delay is reported.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
29 TABLE 10–2
NEAR-TERM STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Street Segment
Existing
Capacity
(LOS E)a
Existing Existing + Project
Δe
Existing +
Cumulative Projects
Existing +
Cumulative Projects +
Project Δ
ADTb V/Cc LOSd ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS
Montiel Road
Nordahl Lane to Leora Lane 15,000 7,350 0.490 C 7,943 0.530 C 0.040 11,600 0.773 D 12,193 0.813 D 0.040 Leora Lane to Rock Springs Road 8,000 4,620 0.578 C 4,686 0.586 C 0.008 4,930 0.616 C 4,996 0.625 C 0.008 Nordahl Road
Montiel Road to SR 78 Ramps 70,000 39,870 0.570 B 40,364 0.577 B 0.007 40,370 0.577 B 40,864 0.584 C 0.007 Footnotes:
a. Capacities based on City of San Marcos’s Roadway Classification & LOS table b. Average Daily Traffic
c. Volume to Capacity ratio
d. Level of Service
e. Δ denotes a project-induced increase in the Volume to Capacity ratio
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
30 11.0 YEAR 2035 ANALYSIS
11.1 Year 2035 without Project Forecasted Volumes and Baseline Conditions To forecast future traffic volumes for Year 2035, the SANDAG Series 12 Model was utilized. The forecasted ADT volumes were obtained from the model and used to calculate peak hou r volumes based partially on the existing relationship between the ADT and peak hour volumes.
Several other Traffic Engineering principals and factors such as the K -factor and D-factor were also considered in the forecast analysis (see Appendix I for definitions). The forecast volumes were also checked for consistency between intersections, where no driveways or roadways exist between intersections and were compared to existing volumes for accuracy.
No network improvements were assumed for the Year 2035 analysis.
Figure 11–1 shows the Year 2035 forecasted traffic volumes. Figure 11–2 shows the Year 2035 + Project traffic volumes.
11.2 Year 2035
11.2.1 Intersection Analysis
Table 11–1 summarizes the intersection operations for the Year 2035 scenario. As seen in Table 11– 1, the following intersections are calculated to operate at LOS E or LOS F:
Nordahl Road / Center Drive (South) (LOS E during the PM peak hour); Nordahl Road / SR-78 WB Ramps (LOS F during the PM peak hour); Nordahl Road / SR-78 EB Ramps (LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours); Mission Road / Auto Parkway (LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours); and Rock Springs Road / Montiel Road (LOS F during the AM peak hour).
Appendix J contains the Year 2035 intersection analysis worksheets.
11.2.2 Segment Operations
Table 11–2 summarizes the roadway segment operations for the Year 2035 scenario. As seen in Table 11–2, all of the study segments are calculated to operate at LOS D.
11.3 Year 2035 + Project
11.3.1 Intersection Analysis
Table 11–1 summarizes the intersection operations for the Year 2035 + Project scenario. As seen in Table 11–1, with the addition of project traffic, the following intersections are calculated to operate at LOS E or LOS F:
Nordahl Road / Center Drive (South) (LOS E during the PM peak hour) Nordahl Road / SR-78 WB Ramps (LOS F during the PM peak hour) Nordahl Road / SR-78 EB Ramps (LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours)
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
31 Mission Road / Auto Parkway (LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours) Rock Springs Road / Montiel Road (LOS F during the AM peak hour) Although the intersections listed are operating at LOS E or LOS F, the increase in delay due to the project is less than 2 seconds with the exception of the Rock Spring s Road / Montiel Road intersection. This unsignalized intersection falls within the County of San Diego’s jurisdiction, and a different significance criterion is applied. See Section 6.2.1 for more information. As such, the increase in traffic due to the project during the AM peak hour is less than 5 on the critical movement (i.e. northbound left -turn). Therefore, no significant impacts are identified for the Year 2035 + Project scenario.
Appendix K contains the Year 2035 + Project intersection analysis worksheets.
11.3.2 Segment Operations
Table 11–2 summarizes the roadway segment operations for the Year 2035 + Project scenario. As seen in Table 11–2, with the addition of project traffic, all of the study segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better.
Base on the significance criteria, no significant impacts are calculated along the study street segments as the Project contribution does not exceed the allowable thresholds.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
32 SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED
DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS
Delay LOS Delay LOS
0.0 ≤ 10.0 A 0.0 ≤ 10.0 A
10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B
20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C
35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D
55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
≥ 80.1 F ≥ 50.1 F
TABLE 11–1
LONG TERM INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Intersection Peak
Hour
Year 2035 Year 2035
With Project Δc Sig?d
Delaya LOSb Delay LOS
1. Nordahl Road / Center Drive (South) AM 51.8 D 54.1 D 2.3 No PM 76.7 E 77.3 E 0.6 No
2. Nordahl Road / Montiel Road AM 23.1 C 24.5 C 1.4 No
PM 36.9 D 40.0 D 3.1 No
3. Nordahl Road / SR-78 WB Ramps AM 28.0 C 28.0 C 0.0 No PM 80.4 F 80.8 F 0.4 No
4. Nordahl Road / SR-78 EB Ramps AM 116.7 F 118.3 F 1.6 No PM 156.2 F 157.3 F 1.1 No
5. Mission Road / Auto Park Way AM 140.0 F 140.2 F 0.2 No PM 232.1 F 233.5 F 1.4 No
6. Rock Springs Road / Montiel Road AM 311.1 F 348.5 F 1c No PM 26.5 D 28.1 D 7c No
Footnotes:
a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b. Level of Service.
c. For San Marcos intersections, Δ denotes a project-induced increase in delay. For County intersections, Δ denotes a project-induced increase in traffic on the critical movement. d. Sig = Significant project impacts based on Significance Criteria.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
33 TABLE 11–2
YEAR 2035 STREET SEGMENT OPERATIONS
Street Segment Capacity
(LOS E) a
Year 2035 Year 2035 With Project
Δe Sig? f
ADTb V/C d LOS c ADT V/C d LOS c
Montiel Road
Nordahl Lane to Leora Lane 15,000 11,610 0.774 D 12,203 0.814 D 0.040 No Leora Lane to Rock Springs Road 8,000 5,530 0.691 D 5,596 0.700 D 0.008 No Nordahl Road
Montiel Road to SR 78 Ramps 70,000 43,370 0.620 C 43,864 0.627 C 0.007 No Footnotes:
a. Capacity based on roadway classification operating at LOS E. b. Average Daily Traffic.
c. Level of Service.
d. Volume to Capacity.
e. Δ denotes a project-induced increase in the Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio. f. Sig = Significant project impact based on Significance Criteria.
Year 2035 Traffic Volumes
Montiel Road Office Project
Figure 10-1N:\3017\Figures
Date: 12/28/2018
[
!! !! !! !! !! !!
ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ
11 / 11
20 / 20
30 / 80
38 / 70
39 / 53
41 / 31
60 / 80
60 / 90
94 / 97
61 / 102
107 / 80
50 / 100
113 / 252
740 / 660 730 / 690710 / 840
521 / 850
520 / 820
517 / 772
500 / 460
410 / 502 390 / 660
374 / 233
372 / 752
357 / 573
349 / 646
341 / 742
333 / 595
302 / 652
281 / 465
280 / 500
280 / 194
186 / 530
770 / 460
109 / 217
854 / 827
1050 / 650
1464 / 904
527 / 1225
670 / 1050
690 / 1580
780 / 1050
785 / 1515
938 / 1793
1119 / 1225
1160 / 1239
1044 / 1506
M Ln Montiel Rd Mission RdCenter Dr (S) Rock Spring RdSR-78 WB Ramps Montiel Rd
Nordahl Rd
Auto Park Way
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
654321
}78
§¨15
^_
Project
Site
2 1
3 4
5 6
11,610
5,530
43,370
SR-78 EB Ramps
MONTIEL RD
NORDAHL RD
ROCK SPRINGS ROAD
CENTER DR
MISSION RD
AM / PM Intersection
Peak Hour Volumes
AM / PM
Study Intersections
Average Daily
Traffic VolumesX,XXX
!!#
Year 2035 + Project Traffic Volumes
Montiel Road Office Project
Figure 11-2N:\3017\Figures
Date: 12/28/2018
[
!! !! !! !! !! !!
ÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏÏ
11 / 12
20 / 20
30 / 80
38 / 70
39 / 53
43 / 31
60 / 80
60 / 90
61 / 102
107 / 80
50 / 100
114 / 258
110 / 227
740 / 660 730 / 690710 / 840
542 / 777
521 / 850
520 / 820
500 / 460
416 / 554 390 / 660
374 / 237
372 / 755
360 / 594
351 / 663
345 / 743
343 / 478
337 / 596
302 / 652
287 / 195
280 / 500
207 / 534
770 / 460
866 / 830
106 / 100
1465 / 911
1050 / 650
528 / 1235
670 / 1050
690 / 1580
780 / 1050
826 / 1524
954 / 1797
1161 / 1253
1122 / 1256
1052 / 1508
M Ln Montiel Rd Mission RdCenter Dr (S) Rock Spring RdSR-78 WB Ramps Montiel Rd
Nordahl Rd
Auto Park Way
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
Nordahl Rd
654321
}78
§¨15
^_
Project
Site
2 1
3 4
5 6
12,203
5,596
43,864
SR-78 EB Ramps
MONTIEL RD
NORDAHL RD
ROCK SPRINGS ROAD
CENTER DR
MISSION RD
AM / PM Intersection
Peak Hour Volumes
AM / PM
Study Intersections
Average Daily
Traffic VolumesX,XXX
!!#
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
36 12.0 ACCESS AND OTHER ISSUES
As shown in Figure 2–1, the project plans to provide two full access driveways along Montiel Road.
The western driveway aligns with Hillsboro Way. Due to the property boundary, the eastern driveway does not quite align with Deodar Road. Given the low volumes at the Montiel Road and Deodar Road intersection, this is not expected to be problematic.
Based on a review of the site plan, the following access-related improvements should be considered:
Install stop signs at both access driveways.
Provide a westbound left-turn pocket on Montiel Road at the western driveway. Participate in a regional carpool and vanpool matching program through iCommute. Provide sight distance and curb radius in conformance with City’s standards at all project driveways.
Provide sufficient ADA compliant pedestrian access to all the project facilities. Provide sufficient bicycle parking within the project.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-18-3017 Montiel Road Office
N:\3017\Text\3017.Montiel Rd Office TIA.docx
37 13.0 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Based on the analysis and the established significance criteria, no significant traffic impacts were determined. Therefore, mitigation measures are not necessary.
It is recommended that a westbound left turn pocket be provided on Montiel Road at the western driveway.