Caltrans Traffic Operations Group are particularly keen to hear about any issues that people are having while driving along Highway 68 as Caltrans install, test and calibrate the AI Adaptive Traffic Signal System (ATSC) Pilot Program. The fastest way to provide real-time feedback is to submit a Customer Service Request through the Caltrans portal link: Submit Customer Service Request

 

Please put “Traffic Signal” as the type of Customer Service, and mention the “ATSC Pilot Project” in the description. Using the portal will ensure that requests are tracked until they are resolved.

 

You can also contact Monterey County Supervisor Kate Daniels directly with your input at District5@countyofmonterey.gov

 

 

 

TAMC’s Board is now positioning SR68 Improvements as two projects:

 

 

 

 

 

For those who want to dig a little deeper on the status of the Highway 68 AI/roundabout developments, here are the PDF report details of the TAMC Staff Paper and presentation materials, plus a video link of the TAMC Board Meeting Presentation, Board Discussion & Public Comments: 

 

 

Commenter O4: Pasadera HOA Board of Directors Comment O4-1: Dear Caltrans, We are writing on behalf of the Pasadera Homeowners Association Board of Directors ("Pasadera Board") to make our views known regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report - Scenic Route 68 Corridor Improvement Plan 0518000061. Pasadera is a community of 245 households that relies exclusively on the front entrance at Pasadera Drive for ingress into and egress from the community. The proposed project will substantially impact the operations of our front entrance, interfere with Pasadera property rights, and subject our residents to potentially severe safety issues and inconvenience in entering and leaving Pasadera. Indeed, we know of no other large-scale community along Highway 68 that will be as adversely affected by the proposed changes to the Highway 68 corridor as Pasadera. The Pasadera Board has specific concerns about the project, with respect to both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, in the following areas: (1) encroachment on private property rights, (2) safety issues, (3) traffic flow, and (4) noise levels.

 

Response to Comment O4-1: Refer to responses to comments O4-1a through 1e below.

 

Comment O4-1a: As outlined in the attached Comments, our major concerns are: Encroachment on Pasadera property rights. The Pasadera HOA has invested substantial sums of money in creating an efficient and aesthetically pleasing entrance to Pasadera through Pasadera Dr. If TAMC and Caltrans were to implement either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 as outlined in the EIR, they would destroy our signature monument walls, dig up a sizable portion of Pasadera Dr. owned by the HOA, and appropriate Pasadera property belonging to the HOA and The Club at Pasadera. Speaking for the current board, the Pasadera HOA is opposed to the taking of its private property.

 

Response to Comment O4-1a: As part of the right-of-way assessment process for state highway projects, Caltrans endeavors to minimize use and impacts to non-state highway properties. Design of the selected preferred alternative for the project will be the refined during the final design phase of the project; during that process, right-of-way estimates for easements or acquisitions, temporary or permanent, may be adjusted from what was presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment document. The commenter’s concerns about acquisition of property of the Pasadera residential community is acknowledged and shared with the project team. Your input is important for the decision-making and design processes for the project.

 

Comment O4-1b: Roundabout alternative lacks a merger lane. Pasadera residents, golf club members and guests can currently access Highway 68 West with an existing merger lane without safety or traffic flow issues. The proposed plan eliminates this merger lane, making it more difficult and dangerous for drivers from the Pasadera community to gain access to Highway 68 West. Any roundabout that fails to include a merger lane to access Highway 68 is totally unacceptable.

 

Response to Comment O4-1b: The function of a merge/acceleration lane is to allow motorists to merge with highway traffic at or near the speed of traffic. As discussed in response to comment O2-4, traffic on two-lane conventional highways tends to travel in platoons with a slow-moving lead vehicle, especially where passing opportunities do not exist within the corridor. Between the travel platoons are gaps allowing traffic to enter the traffic stream. In addition, speeds in the roundabout are 20 miles per hour or lower for single-lane roundabouts and 25 miles per hour or lower in multi-lane roundabouts. Slower speeds allow cross-street vehicles to enter the circulatory roadway with smaller gaps. Left-turning traffic using the roundabouts would create a break in the eastbound/westbound through traffic on State Route 68, providing opportunities for side street traffic to enter the roundabout.

 

At roundabouts, motorists approaching a roundabout must reduce their speeds, look for potential conflicts with vehicles already in the circular roadway and be prepared to stop for pedestrians and bicyclists. Vehicles travel counterclockwise around a raised center island, with entering traffic yielding the right-of-way to circulating traffic. Vehicles within the roundabout move at slow and consistent speeds, between 15 and 20 miles per hour. Slow speeds help vehicles move smoothly into, around, and out of a roundabout. In addition to the expected slower speeds, the traffic volumes into and from Pasadera Drive do not warrant an exclusive bypass/merger lane.

 

Comment O4-1c: Reduction of exit lanes in roundabout proposal will cause backup to Pasadera Gatehouse. The reduction from two exit lanes to one exit lane will require traffic leaving Pasadera and turning East to combine with the West-traveling traffic, likely causing backups reaching the Gatehouse. With a steady stream of Highway 68 Westbound traffic, which we fear will not be eager to yield to traffic entering the roundabout, it will be more difficult and dangerous for Pasadera residents to exit the community.

 

Response to Comment O4-1c: According to the traffic analysis, which forecasted traffic volumes using the regional model for a 20-year horizon, only a single-lane north (Pasadera Drive) leg entry is required due to the efficient operation of roundabouts.

 

Comment O4-1d: Signalized intersection option lacks future Al technology benefits. The plan appears to be short-sighted as it doesn't incorporate currently available or future Al technology-based systems designed for traffic management.

 

Response to Comment O4-1d: Refer to response to comment I44-1, Adaptive AI Signals.

 

Comment O4-1e: Alternative 2 creates a four-lane highway. While the alternate option to expand the signalized intersection with two straight through lanes in each direction provides the same entry/exit capabilities to Pasadera as the existing configuration, the additional lanes will create a four-lane highway at the intersection, creating an increased number of vehicles speeding through the intersection. This will exacerbate the risk of collisions and substantially increase highway noise. A reduction of the 55-mph speed limit to 40 mph through the four-lane section would help improve safety considerably and also reduce the increase in noise levels compared to two lanes traveling at 55 mph.

 

Response to Comment O4-1e: As discussed in Section 1.6, Caltrans has selected Alternative 1, Roundabouts, as the preferred alternative to move forward with to final design. Roundabouts are designed to slow traffic before entering and traversing the roundabout circle, on average designing for maximum entry speeds of 25 to 30 miles per hour, slowing to circulating speeds of 10 to 20 miles per hour, depending on the design of the roundabout. Speed limits for highway and roadway segments are determined by a speed engineering survey by measuring the operating speeds of passing vehicles and determining the 85th percentile speed. Alternative 2 would have used speed surveys and the 85th percentile speed to set the limit on the highway. Speed limits on roadway segments are reevaluated at least once every five years with the option for a 7- to 10-year extension as outlined in Section 5.3 of the California Manual for Setting Speed Limits.

 

Comment O4-1f: In conclusion, the Pasadera Board opposes both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Both alternatives are very expensive and entail numerous adverse effects, including the extensive taking of private property, elevated safety risks, increased emissions and noise pollution, and increased traffic and lifestyle burdens on Highway 68 residents. The downsides far outweigh the limited goal of shaving time off commutes that occur for only a couple hours per day five days a week. We don't question the good faith of the TAMC and Caltrans engineers, but the massive project they devised is an overreaction that will adversely affect our residents. We urge you to listen to the voices of the County residents who will be most affected. As an alternative approach, the Pasadera Board urges TAMC and Caltrans to implement Al- controlled adaptive signals at Pasadera Dr. We understand they can be installed for a fraction of the cost of the larger project and will produce tangible benefits meeting your goals without unduly burdening Pasadera residents. A trial project makes eminent sense

 

Response to Comment O4-1f: The project must balance local and regional access while improving operations and safety of the corridor. While the traffic analysis examined the peak period operations, the corridor would benefit from the same operational and safety benefits off-period with the project improvements as well.

 

Caltrans District 5 Traffic Operations was provided conceptual approval for the pilot use of AI controllers to implement Adaptive Signal Control Technology, and further discussions took place regarding potential funding for procurement of the firmware to support Adaptive Signal Control Technology. Discussions and approval shifted to review of existing traffic data, existing infrastructure, and firmware compatibility to support the pilot project. Regular meetings between the Transportation Agency for Monterey County and District 5 Traffic Operations took place for implementation of Adaptive Signal Control Technology at signalized intersections within the State Route 68 project corridor. Implementation at these intersections provides the ability to best implement the technology, make adequate observations and adjustments and learn lessons from an engineering and traffic operations perspective for installation at additional intersections along the corridor. Caltrans and the Transportation Agency for Monterey County are currently moving forward with the pilot project to procure, install, and use Adaptive Signal Control Technology on the project corridor as an interim solution.

 

Adaptive Traffic Signal Control can include the use of technology such as AI (Artificial Intelligence). The use of Adaptive Traffic Signal Control was evaluated in the traffic study for the project, and it was concluded that it would also require the construction of auxiliary through lanes to accommodate traffic volumes under the 20-year design horizon traffic conditions. This design was reflected in Alternative 2 of the project. Though a pilot project is proposed to install AI signals for the short term, it would not meet the traffic operational needs for the 20-year design horizon (2045).

 

Attachment Comments:

 

1.        A major concern is the lack of a merger lane. Currently Pasadera residents, golf club members and guests can safely and easily access Highway 68 West with a merger lane with no safety or traffic flow issues. The plan eliminates this merger lane, making it more difficult and dangerous for drivers from the Pasadera community to gain access to Highway 68 West. We understand from TAMC that placement of roundabouts on Highway 68 will make it far more difficult for traffic on side streets to access the highway. As flow increases on the highway, the side streets pay, to paraphrase one of the planners. In recognition of that reality, the planners devised merger lanes at York and Ryan Ranch. But not at Pasadera Dr. Without a merge lane, any plans for a roundabout at Pasadera Dr. are deficient from the start.

 

Response to Comment O4-2: Refer to response to comment O4-1b.

 

Comment O4-3: 2. The reduction from two exit lanes to one exit lane from Pasadera will require traffic wishing to leave Pasadera and turn East, to combine with the West traveling traffic and thus cause more backup to the Gatehouse. Consequently, exiting from Pasadera for Eastbound traffic will be more difficult and dangerous due to the stream of Westbound Highway 68 traffic not yielding to traffic entering the roundabout.

 

Response to Comment O4-3: The gatehouse is approximately 500 feet from the Pasadera Drive/State Route 68 intersection. The 500-foot space allows storage of 20 vehicles, assuming 25 feet per vehicle storage. The estimated 95th percentile queue is 125 feet or 5 vehicles for Alternative 2 and less than 50 feet or 2 vehicles for Alternative 1. The longest 95th percentile queue would occupy only about one-quarter of the distance between State Route 68 and the gatehouse. Motorists approaching a roundabout must reduce their speeds, look for potential conflicts with vehicles already in the circular roadway and be prepared to stop for pedestrians and bicyclists. Vehicles travel counterclockwise around a raised center island, with entering traffic yielding the right-of-way to circulating traffic. Vehicles within the roundabout maintain slow and consistent speeds, between 15 and 20 miles per hour, by the deflection of traffic around the center island and the relatively tight radius of the roundabout. Slow speeds help vehicles move smoothly into, around, and out of a roundabout.

 

Comment O4-4: 3. For years, Pasadera residents have had the experience of observing Westbound traffic coming from Salinas as they attempt to merge into traffic-with all of the rudeness and near collisions that occur far too often. We think TAMC/Caltrans engineers are being unrealistic in assuming that during rush hour Westbound drivers will be courteous and create space for exiting Pasadera drivers. The plans provide no measures for forcing the creation of openings to enter the roundabout if that courtesy fails to materialize. Pasadera drivers should not have to pay for illusions about how courteous rush hour drivers will be.

 

Response to Comment O4-4: Refer to response to comment O4-1b. Traffic on conventional two-lane highways with limited passing opportunities such as State Route 68 tends to flow in platoons, with a slower vehicle in the lead. Speeds in the roundabout are designed for 20 miles per hour or lower for single-lane roundabouts and 25 miles per hour or lower in multi-lane roundabouts. The slower speeds allow cross-street vehicles to enter the roundabout in the gaps in the traffic platoons. Refer also to response to comment O2-4.

 

Comment O4-5: 4. Alternative 1 would require Caltrans to acquire land from the HOA and The Club of Pasadera abutting Highway 68, including land on Pasadera Drive which is owned by the HOA. Pasadera Drive is privately owned, not a public street. Through this acquisition of property, the HOA would lose its well-known monument walls marking the entrance to the Pasadera Community and the associated landscaping. The appropriation of acreage abutting Highway 68 at Pasadera Dr. would result in the loss of mature landscaping, plants, and heritage oak trees, landscaping that adds immeasurably to the aesthetic appeal of the Pasadera entrance. Indeed, the Pasadera entrance is one of the most scenic features of the stretch of Highway 68 affected by the proposed project, and closely aligns with the "Scenic" designation of the highway. That landscaping will be replaced with asphalt, concrete, and retaining walls. And the proposed plans do not even require TAMC and Caltrans to landscape the roundabout. The loss of this aesthetic feature is directly contrary to the public goal of maintaining the beauty of Highway 68. Further, the government agencies cannot assume the Pasadera HOA will voluntarily cede its property, raising the prospect of protracted eminent domain litigation. The Draft EIR fails to adequately disclose, much less consider, any of these impacts and the complications they raise.

 

Response to Comment O4-5: In Section 2.1.6, Table 2.1.6.12, the Alternative 1 roundabout at the Pasadera Drive-Boots Road intersection with State Route 68 would impact one parcel within The Club At Pasadera golf course property, APN 173-072-041, for an estimated 0.6 percent of the 59- acre parcel, which would not result in a significant encroachment such that dwellings or business buildings would require relocation. The estimates of property acquisition in Section 2.1.6 and Appendix J are based on the conceptual designs for the Build Alternatives. Based on the current conceptual design for the roundabout, the monument entrance walls and some of the associated landscaping would be impacted by the roundabout components. During the next phase of the project, property impacts necessitating acquisition areas would be addressed in a Right of Way appraisal report prepared by Caltrans; for any acquisitions, property owners would receive just compensation through a process of negotiation.

 

Section 2.1.10 addresses the visual impacts of vegetation removal and landscape alteration for the project as a whole. Avoidance and minimization measure VIS-9 prescribes that, if feasible, roundabout center islands shall be landscaped, and hardscape features will receive aesthetic treatments, with input from the County of Monterey and local communities. Mitigation measure VIS-15 requires replacement planting and new planting to the greatest extent feasible, including some large container plants as well as maintaining the planting until it is established. Planting design will pay particular attention to scale and plant palette when designing around entrances such as the Pasadera entrance to be consistent with what is currently in place as well as residents’ expectations.

 

Comment O4-6: 5. Noise levels generated by vehicles slowing to navigate the roundabout and then accelerating on exit, especially large vehicles, will increase considerably. This will be significantly noticeable to residents, not only during the peak periods but during the rest of the day. Similarly, the increase in emission levels generated by the slow down/accelerate cycle will have an adverse effect on the environment and residents.

 

Response to Comment O4-6: Compared to signalized intersections, roundabouts can reduce the number and duration of full stops (see the Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycles Section 2.1.9). By reducing the number of acceleration/deceleration cycles and time spent idling, roundabouts can decrease noise and air quality impacts. Even during times of heavy traffic volumes, vehicles continue to advance slowly in moving queues rather than coming to a full stop.

 

The proposed roundabouts will be placed with minimal change from the existing intersection configurations, leading to no substantial change in distance between the sensitive receptors and noise sources. Based on noise modeling, the residences near the Pasadera Drive-Boots Road intersection are expected to experience a noise level change between -1 and 1 decibel in year 2045 compared to existing conditions. In typical environments, changes in noise of 1 to 2 decibels are generally not perceptible. Further, the noise level at the residence is predicted to be below the Noise Abatement Criteria and therefore does not require further noise abatement analysis.

 

Regarding the comment about increasing emission levels generated by vehicles slowing down then accelerating through roundabouts, this is also addressed in response to comment I106-2, as follows: Alternative 1, Roundabouts, would not increase greenhouse gas emissions overall. At signalized intersections, a large percentage of the vehicles would come to a dead stop (red phase during the higher volume periods), idle, then accelerate to full speed from 0 miles per hour. At roundabouts, accelerating after slowing to 15 to 20 miles per hour through the roundabout, in most instances not requiring a stop, generally causes less emissions than accelerating from a full stop.

 

While there are numerous studies that can be found on emission generation at various intersection designs, one study conducted by the Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety as part of a seven-part series of studies on roundabouts is particularly relevant to this topic. The study, “Accelerating Roundabouts in the U.S.: Volume III of VII, “Assessment of the Environmental Characteristics of Roundabouts” Publication SA-15-071, September 2015, developed a method of estimating pollutant emissions generated at roundabouts and comparing them to emissions at signalized intersections. The study models considered various factors, including driver behavior such as acceleration/deceleration, vehicle characteristics, e.g., engine size and age, traffic conditions, weather conditions, and infrastructure design. The study found that emissions rates at roundabouts tended to be lower than those at signalized intersections in general for oversaturated traffic periods.

 

Comment O4-7: 6. The significant encroachment of the roundabout on Pasadera land, coupled with the reduction of two exit lanes to one exit lane, will cause backups approaching and leaving the Pasadera Gatehouse (due to shorter distance from Highway to Gatehouse).lf these backups become a major issue, the HOA would have to consider repositioning the Gatehouse.

 

Response to Comment O4-7: As noted in response to comment O4-5, the Alternative 1 roundabout at Pasadera Drive-Boots Road intersection with State Route 68 would impact one parcel within The Club At Pasadera golf course property, APN 173-072-041, for an estimated 0.6 percent of the 59- acre parcel, which would not result in a significant encroachment such that dwellings or business buildings would require relocation.

 

The estimates of property acquisition in the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment are based on conceptual design for both of the Build Alternatives. Concern regarding potential traffic queueing to exit onto State Route 68 is acknowledged. Roundabout designs are intended to slow traffic on approach to and through the circle but not necessarily require traffic to stop, depending on the amount of traffic in the roundabout.

 

Comment O4-8: Alternative 2: Signal Controlled Intersection 1. This option requires somewhat less acquisition of Pasadera land, but nonetheless will entail the destruction of our signature monument walls and the excavation of Pasadera Dr.

 

Response to Comment O4-8: As discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment, Section 2.1.6, Table 2.1.6.13, Alternative 2 improvements would require an estimated 2.5 (two and one-half) percent acquisition of the over 59-acre parcel at The Club At Pasadera, whereas the roundabout alternative would require just over one-half of 1 percent of the same parcel, for the conceptual designs. During the next phase of the project, final design plans will be refined for the selected preferred alternative, and the amount of property acquisition and areas for temporary construction easements will be confirmed or refined according to final design.

 

Comment O4-9: 2. While the alternate option to expand the signalized intersection with two straight through lanes in each direction provides the same entry/exit capabilities to Pasadera as the existing configuration, the additional lanes will create a four-lane highway at the intersection, creating an increased number of vehicles speeding through the intersection. Two lanes of speeding traffic will increase the risk of collisions and add significant noise pollution to the Pasadera community. People did not move to Pasadera to live next to a four-lane highway. A four-lane highway will significantly change the nature of Highway 68 and the reasons it has been designated a Scenic Highway. A reduction of the 55-mph speed limit to 40 mph through the four-lane section would help improve safety considerably and also reduce the increase in noise levels compared to two lanes traveling at 55 mph.

 

Response to Comment O4-9: Refer to response to comment O4-1e.

 

Comment O4-10: Al Controlled Traffic Signals

 

1.        Alternative 2 appears to be short-sighted as it does not incorporate any currently available or future Artificial Intelligence technology-based systems designed for traffic management. There are proven Al controlled traffic management solutions which could provide similar or better improvements to the traffic management, flows and safety along the entire corridor, compared to either Alternative 1 or 2. These improvements could be implemented at a much lower cost and environmental impact, using much of the existing control equipment and no additional carriageway construction/landscaping.

 

2.        Estimates for this solution are known to be in the order of $500,000 versus the estimates in the EIR of $210,000,000 and $270,000,000 for Alternate 1 and 2 respectively. This solution could be installed within 6 -12 months, rather than waiting for a 2028 construction start date for the current project construction.

 

3.         The Pasadera Board has been advised that TAMC/Caltrans have recently been discussing a   possible trial of such a system with MioVison. The Pasadera Board requests that TAMC/Caltrans commit to a trial of the Al Controlled Signal solution in the next few months so that a more informed decision can be made with the benefit of detailed and accurate traffic flow data before TAMC/Caltrans pursue Alternatives 1 and 2 further.

 

Response to Comment O4-10: Refer to response to comment I44-1, AI Signal Control.

 

Comment O4-11: Scenic Highway, Community Expectations and Traffic Flow

1. For decades, Highway 68 has been designated a California Scenic Highway, an honor that Monterey County actively sought in order to preserve the natural beauty and environmental needs of the Highway 68 corridor. The designation of Highway 68 as a Scenic Highway creates an expectation among those County residents living along the highway that County and State government will preserve its beauty, rural nature, and restrained traffic flow. Highway 68 residents will bear the brunt of TAMC's/Caltrans massive project, with loss of property, years of construction disturbance, and impaired ability to enter and leave their homes. The interests of Highway 68 residents, including Pasadera residents, should not be sacrificed to appease commuters.

 

2. Pasadera is one of the largest residential communities along Highway 68, with more than 245 family homes occupied, 15 more planned or under construction, and an additional 12 apartments within the site that are also occupied. Our Gatehouse has recorded between 184,000 and 214,000 resident related vehicles entering Pasadera from Highway 68 per year over the past four years. An additional 65,000 - 81,000 Golf Club related vehicles were recorded for the same period. The Draft EIR does not appear to take into account the growth within the Pasadera community and Golf Club, nor the significant increase in traffic due to the increased number of events that Laguna Seca Racetrack is holding. Since the last traffic flow study, , the number of homes has increased, country club membership has grown from 200 to 500+ memberships, and there has been exponential growth of large club events, all of which has increased the number of cars utilizing this intersection.

 

Response to Comment O4-11: 1. State Route 68 is a designated Scenic Highway as discussed in Chapter 1 and Section 2.1.10 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment. The proposed improvements to traffic flow operations through reduced delay as well as reducing the rate and severity of collisions along the project corridor is part of an evolution of highway functionality improvement efforts studied over decades for the highway corridor. Most recently, the 2017 State Route 68 Scenic Highway Plan evaluated existing and future travel patterns between the Salinas Valley and the Monterey Peninsula along State Route 68. As discussed in Section 1.1, ongoing concerns for residents and commuters using State Route 68 have been and continue to be congestion, safety, and reliability of the route.

 

2. Existing approved developments have been accounted for in the traffic analysis. The traffic forecast analyses for the project used the Regional Growth Forecast traffic model prepared by AMBAG (2014) and information from the 2018 AMBAG 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The Metropolitan Transportation Plan incorporates planning data from the jurisdictions within the region for both existing developments (and the recorded master plan build out of those) and planned (foreseen) new development.

**********************************************************************

 

 

Commenter I126: Mike and Rene Locke Comment I126-1: Me and My wife have lived in the Highway 68 corridor for 52 years. This project is going to slow down emergency response time drastically, make evacuation incase of wildfire slower and could cost lives for no reason.

There has been talk about AI signal lights that would do a better job than roundabouts. The exits from Toro, Corral, San Benancio etc. would be so hard to enter the roundabouts as the Highway 68 would have the right away besides the mess it would cause during the construction.

Please reconsider the this poor decision, Me and my wife would like Caltrans to either adopt the installation of the expanded signalized intersections or artificial intelligence controlled signals instead of the nine roundabouts.

 

Please do the right thing abandon this project and save our county millions of dollars we don’t have.

 

Response to Comment I126-1: Refer to response to comment I44-1, which discusses a pilot project that the Transportation Agency for Monterey County and Caltrans will implement with AI Signal control technology. Your preference for Alternative 2 is acknowledged and has been shared with the project team. Your input is an important part of the decision-making process for the project.

 

Caltrans has selected Alternative 1, Roundabouts, as the preferred alternative for the project because it best accomplishes the purposes of the 20-year design horizon, including reduction of travel time delay and rate and severity of traffic collisions. Refer to Section 1.6 for further discussion.

 

Commenter I127 through I130: Barry Jones Comment I127-1: Please find attached letter outlining details of Wells and pipelines etc near the Pasadera Drive entrance and in the Area of Impact, that have not been picked up by the TAMC/Caltrans survey investigations.

Text of the comment letter contents are provided below. Volume 2 of this Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment contains the complete letter with images that were included. Volume 2 is available upon request.

 

Dear Caltrans/TAMC

 

At the Pasadera Home Owners Association Town Hall Meeting on 4th Doug Bilse (TAMC) requested that we send information about services that may not be identified on the Area of Impact on the proposed plans in the Draft EIR for Highway 68 Corridor.

 

Regarding the Pasadera/Boots Intersection proposals, We have identified the following information about the Wells and pipelines etc near the Pasadera Drive entrance and in the Area of Impact, that have not been picked up by the TAMC/Caltrans survey investigations. We understand that this information has been included in the response to the Draft EIR from Concert, however we are also sending this information to you from representation on the Pasadera HOA, as some of the wells and services are on Pasadera HOA controlled land. Information is provided and complied by Brad Coleman Pasadera Golf Course Superintendent Steve Keyser ( Pasadera resident) Barry Jones (Pasadera resident) This information provided in good faith and neither TCAP nor Pasadera HOA can verify or be held responsible for their accuracy. We hope it is helpful. Please confirm receipt of this email.

 

Sincerely Barry Jones

 

Attached comments:

Highway 68 Pasadera Drive/Boots Road Intersection.

 

Wells/Services that are not identified in the DEIR

1. Storm Drainage pipes are present flowing from i) the pond at Hole 10 to the culvert west of the entrance to Pasadera Drive.. and ii) from the east side of the Pasadera Drive entrance. under Pasadera Drive to the culvert.

 

2. Sewer drainage pipes are also present in the Area of Impact and under Pasadera Drive roadway entrance from the Sewer Plant to sewer pump number 2 located west of the entrance

 

3. The Old Bishop Ranch well and pumping station is located just east of Pasadera Drive near the entrance. Both are active and in use.

 

4. The CalAm well is located on the west side of Pasadera Drive.

 

5.Waterlines run between the 2 wells and under Pasadera Drive which is Pasadera HOA controlled land.

 

6.Wells are our primary source of water for the golf course and essential to irrigation.

 

7. Several of the pipes also flow under the Pasadera HOA controlled land which would have to be disturbed during construction of either Alternative.

 

8. These copies of parts of old diagrammatic drawings and photograph showing the locations of pipes and wells are provided in good faith. Neither TCAP nor Pasadera HOA can verify or be held responsible for their accuracy.

 

Response to Comment I127-1: Thank you for sharing the drawings and for the good faith offered in providing additional details regarding facilities located within the area of potential impact, otherwise known as the study area. While these subsurface utilities that provide services to residents of Pasadera are within the study area, initial review did not reveal direct impacts to facilities. As the project moves to the final design phase, any subsurface utilities will be positively located to ensure there are no design or construction conflicts. Should conflicts result, they will be identified and resolution via a right-of-way contract would be executed.

 

I128-1: Having been to 2 Public Meetings and also various discussions with TAMC/Caltrans staff… I have not received a specific answer to why the Draft EIR is for “All Roundabout or All Traffic signal Alternatives. Please send me an answer that includes the Basis of Decision to choose these 2 alternatives for the entire corridor… rather than taking the approach of determining the best choice for each individual intersection. I am expecting to receive facts and figures including traffic flow data at the ends of the corridor for either Alternative , for Peak and off peak periods , together with the same for each individual intersection, to substantiate the decision.

 

Response to Comment I128-1: Roundabouts require continuous flow to operate efficiently. If a queue from a downstream signalized intersection backs up into an upstream roundabout, the roundabout will gridlock. This has a cascading effect for intersections farther upstream. Since traffic signals must stop mainline traffic to service traffic on the side street, having a continuous flowing roundabout upstream would continuously increase the queue length at the traffic signal until the next green cycle. With high traffic flows and closely spaced intersections, both of which the State Route 68 corridor has, mixing traffic signals with roundabouts is not advised for improving traffic flow and operations, which is a key part of the purpose of the project.

 

Section 2.1.9, Traffic and Transportation, Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, includes tables and discussion about the traffic operations performance metrics applied in the traffic analyses for the project; see specifically Tables 2.1.9.9 through 2.1.9.12, which provide daily and peak hour savings of delay for the forecast years 2025, 2035, and 2045 for both Build Alternatives and the No-Build Alternative. Section 2.1.9 summarizes the information in the technical traffic studies prepared for the project, which are listed in Appendix M and contained in Volume 2 of this Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment. Volume 2 is available upon request.

 

Comment I129-1: The DEIR lacks detail regarding traffic flow census data and simulation flow data… at the entry and exit of the corridor and also at each intersection…through traffic, turning etc

 

It is also not clear as to when the census where carried out ..ie dates and times ,peak/non-peak and whether they cover the dates when Laguna Seca Racetrack had huge events, Car Week traffic, seasonal traffic..high volumes in summer etc.

 

With the huge increase size and frequency of Laguna Seca Racetrack activities and consequential traffic volumes.. Please send to me details about the data used and how these are taken into account in the simulations

 

Please also provide me with send to me details/dates and sizes of which housing and business developments are being accounted for in the traffic flow data contained in the DEIR.

 

Also please provide data regarding the impact on traffic that the Monterey Airport expansion/growth plans will have on projected traffic flows.

 

Thank you in anticipation.

 

Response to Comment I129-1: Section 2.1.9, Traffic and Transportation, provides the results of the traffic analyses in the project traffic studies for both Build Alternatives 1 and 2 and the No-Build Alternative for daily vehicle hours of delay, daily person hours of delay and peak hour vehicle hours of delay for the forecast years 2025, 2035, and 2045 (see Tables 2.1.9.9 through 2.1.9.12).

 

Peak hour traffic flow data (i.e., turning movement counts and other traffic flow data) are presented in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report (2020) for existing conditions and future traffic demand for 2025, 2035, and 2045. The Traffic Operations Analysis Report and other traffic studies referenced in Section 2.1.9 are contained in Volume 2 of this Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment, which is available upon request. State highway projects are designed for typical midweek (Tuesday through Thursday) peak hour operation in line with the industry practice. Seasonal high, low, and special event traffic are outliers that do not represent a typical midweek day. Designing projects that cater to outliers often leads to the challenge of managing facility capacity, either resulting in underuse or, conversely, insufficient capacity. Determining effective travel forecast demand, assessing current capacity, and developing plans that align resources with projected needs are crucial in system optimization.

 

The 20-year traffic forecast used for the Traffic Operations Analysis Report was based on the Regional Growth Forecast traffic model prepared by AMBAG (2014) and the AMBAG 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (2018), which incorporates transportation planning information for the region. Planned future developments not included in the AMBAG 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan are not accounted for in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report. It is important to note that this is an operational improvement project and not one that adds capacity. That said, traffic impacts from all planned development are required to mitigate both project-specific and cumulative impacts as needed to either maintain acceptable level of service and/or reduce vehicle miles traveled on both the state highway system and local road network.

 

Any expansion projects and/or access modifications planned for the Monterey Peninsula Airport are addressed in responses to comments A1-1 and A1-2. As the Olmsted Road/State Route 68 roundabout moves into the final design phase, Caltrans and the City of Monterey will coordinate construction efforts with any improvements planned by the airport management. The 20-year traffic demand analysis conducted for this Scenic Route 68 Corridor Improvements project and the traffic forecast based on AMBAG’s Regional Growth Forecast determined that the proposed designs for the roundabouts (now preferred alternative for the project) and for Alternative 2 would meet the 20-year (2045) design horizon for the highway corridor. Planned developments that are not included in the regional growth forecast model would be responsible to mitigate their proportional additional traffic impacts on the highway.

 

Comment I130-1: The DEIR Alt1 Roundabout design does not include a merge lane for exit onto Westbound 68. At present there is one that helps for safe entry to the highway. In the roundabout proposals for York and also Ryan Ranch intersections, a merge lane for right turn from their respective exit roads is included. Clearly Pasadera has a similar need for ease and safe access onto westbound onto Highway 68. Why is such a lane not included in the Pasadera Intersection design? Please confirm that TAMC/Caltrans will include a merge lane in the next phase of the roundabout design.

 

Response to Comment I130-1: Refer to response to comment O4-1b. Right-turn lanes were included for the York Road and Ragsdale Drive intersections at State Route 68 because both locations were found to have heavy right turn volumes onto westbound State Route 68, particularly during the evening peak period. A right-turn bypass lane was not included at Pasadera Drive because the right turn volumes were not found to be high enough to justify a designated right-turn bypass lane. A merge lane for vehicles turning right from Pasadera Drive onto westbound State Route 68 is not necessary at the roundabout because, once a vehicle enters the flow of traffic in the roundabout, no additional merging maneuvers are required to continue onto westbound State Route 68.

 

Commenter I131: Lucy Ablan Comment I131-1: As a York Hills resident adjacent to Highway 68 in Monterey for 13 years, I fully support the $500,000 AI signaling as opposed to the $200,000,000 nine roundabout option.

 

Response to Comment I131-1: Your opposition to the roundabouts alternative is acknowledged and was shared with the project team. Your input is an important part of the decision-making process for the project. Caltrans has selected Alternative 1, Roundabouts, as the preferred alternative as discussed in Section 1.6.

 

Commenter I132: Barry Jones Comment I132-1: The current speed limit throughout the corridor is 55mph. I understand this is the max for this type of road.

 

It is well known that very many drivers speed.. .. often excessively along various sections…

 

As safety is one of TAMC/Caltrans key reasons for developing the Alternatives… I would ask that you consider reducing the speed limit through the Pasadera/Boots intersection to 40mph for a length of at least 1500 feet either side.

 

With the increased number of lanes and consequential traffic volume going through the alt2 intersection at speed..I believe this would be key to increasing safety at the redesigned intersection.

 

Of course there will still be some drivers that exceed the speed limit going through…but it should reduce the number of the 70 and 80+mph instances happening. I do not believe that the reduction would have a severe impact on the length of overall time it takes for people using 68 but clearly help with the safety aspect this expanded intersection.

 

I ask you to compare the General Jim Moore Boulevard, Monterey situation… it is a lengthy dual two-lane carriageway…..divided by hard/landscaped central reserve and has signal controls to all intersections. .. and indeed stop signs at some junctions. The traffic volumes are extremely low when compared to even existing Hwy68 traffic.The speed limit is 45mph….with the section nearest to The University end being reduced to 40 mph.

 

So surely a reduction through Pasadera could be instituted as part of Alt 2. Indeed I would propose that a request is put to TAMC/Caltrans to take this action now..since it will be 4 - 8 years before works starts on the Pasadera intersection.

 

Please given the reasons why there is a difference between General Jim and Hwy68. and also the process i should take to formally request a revision to the speed limit through the intersection.

 

Response to Comment I132-1: After public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment and receipt of public input, the Caltrans Project Development Team selected Alternative 1, Roundabouts, as the preferred alternative for continuation to the final design phase of the project. Both Build Alternatives 1 and 2 were considered in a rigorous scored evaluation that compared the alternatives’ relative achievement in meeting the purpose and need of the project, environmental impacts, cost, and reduction of vehicle miles traveled.

 

In response to the points raised in the comment, many factors influence drivers and their perception of the safe speed at which to operate a vehicle. The design and physical characteristics of the roadway (e.g., grade, alignment, sight distance, lane width, condition of roadway surface, type and width of shoulders, frequency of intersections), place limitations on the safe operating speed of vehicles. The design speed is a selected speed used to determine the various geometric design features (e.g., vertical curve, horizontal curve, sight distance, superelevation) of the roadway. The design speed on State Route 68 within the project limits is 55/60 miles per hour. The General Jim Moore Boulevard may have the geometric characteristics that limit to speed to 40 to 45 miles per hour.

 

An engineering and traffic survey (E&TS) is required to modify the posted speed limit on the state highway. However, the E&TS may be valid for seven or 10 years if certain conditions exist, as outlined in California Vehicle Code Section 40802. You can request a formal review of E&TS through Caltrans’ Public Records Center portal: https://caltrans.mycusthelp.com/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(cmubwyn0obay04xskgymxobi) )/supporthome.aspx.

 

I133: Kathleen Catania Comment I133-1: Let me start by stating the form presented at the meeting to comment on the recommendations for Highway 68 in Monterey didn't seem to reach you. I mailed it using the form address and it was returned "Unable to forward"! Why would you provide a form to comment and then not provide a correct address?? Thus I am now re-writing my comments to you now...

 

"It seems quite a lot of money to be spent on a project that does not address the congestion currently or in the future (with all the additional housing planned along that highway). It also does not allow for emergency vehicles to pass quickly ( the fire department is against the proposed plan for this reason.).

 

 

... the technology industry and know that most of the problems with Highway 68 traffic is due to this and newer signals with better technology will likely solve the problem better than year construction and spending millions of dollars on roundabouts. Roundabouts were reasonably well in developing countries, or in Europe, where they are used to it, but as as evidenced in the roundabout at Highway 68 and Highway one, our population just does not know how to use them. I am confident that roundabouts will create even more traffic as well as significantly increased rates of accident.

 

As a long term resident I see the need to improve traffic on Highway 68 as it will double or triple commute time. At the same time it does not make sense to take the time or spend the money on roundabouts when leveraging, newer technology as AI signals is at least the right place to start.

 

Please take my comments and many others who deal with this daily two serious consideration, and do not move forward with building roundabouts at this point.

 

Response to Comment I134-1: Your opposition to the roundabouts and preference for signalized intersection expansions with AI signal control technology have been acknowledged and were shared with the project team. Your input is an important part of the decision-making process for the project. Refer to response to comment I44-1 regarding AI Signal Control technology and a planned interim pilot project on State Route 68. Regarding the comment about roundabouts increasing traffic collisions, see response to comment I-60.

Comment I135-1: I note that Table 1.2 shows Collision Rates for the various sections SR68 for the period prod Jan 1, 2017 to Dec 31 2019.. 3 years.

 

I am pleased to see that the section that Pasadera intersection falls into, has much lower collision rates than the Total Statewide averages. The length of the section considered is quite long (somewhere east of York Road to somewhere east of Laureles Grade) so it is difficult to assess where the actual collisions occurred.

 

This 2.77 mile section between End Posts at 8.33 and 11.10 miles has Actual Total rate 0.87 vs Statewide Average of 1.20 ie 28% lower…. and an Actual F+I rate of 0.37 vs Statewide Average of 0.49. ie 25% , plus thankfully zero fatalities.

 

Can you supply more recent and up to date data in the same table...as this is now 4 years old and surely we should be using more current data than in the DEIR. Please provide me with the most up to date data that you have for the entire corridor and also the Pasadera Intersection.

 

It would appear from my analysis that the majority of accidents that occur in the Pasadera Intersection area, are bumper to bumper collisions..probably due to cars traveling above the posted speed limit and trying to dash through the signals.. or drivers not stopping quickly enough/or too quickly at the signals ...but without more detailed data it is difficult to drawn a factual supported conclusion.

 

Response to Comment I135-1: Table 2.1.9.8 in the Traffic section provides three-year collision data for selected locations within the project limits for the years 2019 through 2022.

 

Comment I135-2: My question is…what collision rates are you predicting with either alt1 or alt2? The generic response that roundabouts are safer than signals will not suffice I’m afraid. We need to be making decisions on the last 4 years factual data.

 

Response to Comment I135-2: As addressed in Section 2.1.9 under “Roundabout Traffic Safety,” the Insurance Institute of Traffic Safety in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration has shown that compared to traditional signalized intersections, roundabouts result in up to 37 percent fewer overall collisions and 75 percent reduction in injury collisions. Roundabouts have also been shown to reduce the number of fatal collisions by 90 percent as roundabouts have 76 percent fewer conflict points than signalized intersections.

 

Comment I136-1: Like most people I seldom write letters to bureaucrats but unfortunately I am compelled to voice my opinion on this matter. As a point of reference I have lived on the Hwy 68 corridor (San Benancio and Toro Park) for 36 years so I am well aware of the traffic issues along this stretch of road.

 

Note that I am sending this on to Senator Laird and Assemblywoman Addis. They are ultimately responsible for the efficient and cost effect spending of our tax dollars and they need to step up and stop this! The proposed “solution” to the traffic issues is to build nine roundabouts on an eight mile stretch of HWY 68 at an estimated cost of over a quarter BILLION dollars. This is the estimate but when was the last time that Caltrans actually completed a project on budget – so in all likelihood this boondoggle will cost much more. THS IS INSANE!

 

More importantly this project is very unlikely to do anything to solve the problem of traffic congestion along this route let alone be anything near cost effective.

 

Let’s consider:

The same is happening in other UK cities, which have decided that signal junctions are better for traffic flow and safer for cyclists.”

 

An article published in VELO in March 2021 titled “Roundabouts suck for Cyclists” states “A 2008 study of 91 roundabouts in Flanders, Belgium showed that the installation of roundabouts led to a 27% increase in “bicyclist injury collisions” and an increase of more than 40% in the number of fatal or serious injury crashes involving cyclists. Meanwhile, a 2013 study of more than 300 roundabouts in Denmark found that the installation of roundabouts led to a 65% increase in bike crashes and a 40% increase in injuries.”

 

If safety is so important, why is this data not being considered or addressed?

Response to Comment I141-1: According to the article cited, the Newcastle double-roundabout does not adhere to the design principles of modern roundabout design. As the article alluded to, “…the double-roundabout at Haddricks Mill in South Gosforth has achieved notoriety among cyclists for its blind spots, narrow lanes and confusing road markings.” The roundabout design process includes checking the stopping sight distance on the approaches, stopping sight distance on circulatory roadway, sight distance to crosswalks, and intersection sight distance to eliminate blind spots for all users.

 

Also, the State Route 68 roundabouts will include a shared path for pedestrians and bicycles on the outer perimeter for improved safety for cyclists. The VELO article stated that the “Danish researchers found in 2013 that marked lanes within a roundabout increased bike crashes by 33% compared to a roundabout with a separated cycle path reduced crashes by 84% compared to roundabouts with no bike facilities.”

 

Commenter I142: Barry Jones Comment I142-1: Some of you know that I am a retired Chartered Civil and Chartered Municipal Engineer from the UK with highway design and construction experience relating to Motorways(freeways) and town(city) development, which of course includes roundabouts and signal junction design. In reviewing the proposed roundabout layout for Pasadera/Boots intersection in the DEIR, it is immediately apparent that the design of the main through route East/West is severely challenged and I would like to hear your response to the following design recommendations.

 

The fundamental issue is that the approach design to the roundabout from the east combines the current 3 lanes of traffic into one lane arriving at approach to the roundabout. Both the traffic wishing to turn left into Boots , which would be waiting at the signals at the same time as the through traffic, and the traffic that would be using the slip road/lane to turn right into the Pasadera Club and community, together with the westbound through traffic itself, is all squeezed into the single lane. Clearly the back up situation is obvious…. just by adding the volumes..and then of course further back up will be caused by traffic yielding to cross/turning traffic from Pasadera and Boots Rd.

 

A similar layout needs to be adopted for the Eastbound traffic approaching the intersection during the PM Peak from Monterey. In the UK , if we were looking at a roundabout option, instead of a signal controlled one, for a similar intersection. ( 55mph, single carriageway, same peak/cross flows and collision data) we would have created 2 approach lanes.. probably 1000 - 1500ft long either side for through traffic. The roundabout itself would be designed for two lane width around the roundabout..by slightly increasing the ICD and reducing the central island diameter somewhat. Suitable exit width would be needed for both east and west sides…but there seems to be space to be able to do that.. We would also reduce the speed limit to 40mph at the 1500 ft points.

 

In addition, by moving the roundabout by about 100-150 feet east..a much better design can be created to handle the traffic, enable emergency response vehicles to navigate easily and also dramatically reduce the amount of services and utilities that have to be disturbed /rerouted with the current design. This could also potential preserve a lot of the existing landscaping and monuments at the entrance to The Club at Pasadera.

 

Response to Comment I142-1: The Traffic Operational Analysis Report considered the traffic volumes to determine the size of the roundabout for the 20-year design period. The analysis shows that a single-lane roundabout can accommodate the volume of traffic at this intersection. There will be queuing of traffic, but the roundabouts have the advantage of generating rolling queues where traffic will slow but, in most instances, not come to a complete stop. Required signage and flashing beacons as appropriate will be installed to give advance warning of queued traffic ahead.

 

Moving the roundabout 100 to 150 feet east will affect known environmental resources both to the north and south of State Route 68. South of State Route 68, a regulated floodway flows west and parallel to State Route 68 and crosses under Boots Road, then flows north under State Route 68 and continues parallel and to the west. The design of the roundabout in that area intends to minimize impacts to this resource.

 

Micro-simulation analysis of the selected design alternative shows Pasadera having comparable delay during the morning and evening peak periods as the next two single-lane roundabouts at York and Ragsdale. Turning traffic and side street volumes were not found to be high enough to justify expanding the roundabout design.

 

Comment I142-2: Also as you may know, I am a staunch an AI Controlled Signal Solution for the entire corridor, but if you have to include roundabout design as an integral part of the next version of EIR, I would be happy to share my experience, and discuss the ideas/inputs in more detail. I look very much look forward to hearing from your team.

 

Response to Comment I142-2: Your preference regarding implementing AI signal control technology is appreciated and has been shared with the project team. Refer to response to comment I44-1 regarding AI controlled signals and a pilot project planned for implementation on an interim basis.

 

I am writing on behalf of Concert Golf Partners the new owners of the The Club At Pasadera (“TCAP”) to make our views known regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report - Scenic Route 68 Corridor Improvement Plan 0518000061.(DEIR”)

 

TCAP was previously known as Pasadera Golf and Country Club (“PGCC”) therefore references to PGCC in the DEIR should be changed to TCAP. The acquisition of TCAP is Concert Golf’s entry into the California market, another significant step forward in our mission to preserve and enhance premier private country clubs across the United States. Concert Golf now has 33 private clubs in its portfolio and is committed to maintaining TCAP’s unique culture, legacy and presence, furthering its status as one of the world’s premier clubs. TCAP is already recognized as a premier destination site for weddings on the Monterey Peninsula, ranking second in the region after Pebble Beach, for ceremonies hosted each year. We rely heavily on Highway 68 corridor for safe and easy access of members, guests, and international visitors.

 

Entry to TCAP relies exclusively on the front entrance at Pasadera Drive for ingress into and egress from the Club facilities. The proposed project will substantially impact the operations of the front entrance, interfere with TCAP property rights, subject our members, local/out of town/international visitors and service vehicles to potentially severe safety issues all resulting in a major impact on TCAP business. i.

 

Concert has specific concerns about the project, with respect to both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, in the following areas: (1) encroachment on private property rights, (2) Wells and water/drainage services not identified in DEIR (3) Impact on Business (4) safety issues, (5) traffic flow, and (6) noise levels.

 

Response to Comment I143-1: References to the Pasadera Golf and Country Club have been revised in this final environmental document to The Club At Pasadera.

Regarding the concerns raised in the comment about the proposed project impacting the operations of the front entrance of the property, encroachment and private property rights, impacts on water and drainage infrastructure services, business, safety, traffic flow and noise, refer to responses to comments I143-2 through I143-10 below.

 

 

… that this will increase traffic by at least 5,000 trips per day. This would result in a marked increase in traffic congestion in the Hwy 68corridor, already hampered by overuse. This proposal is extremely poorly thought out and, as far as I know, has not been evaluated by the appropriate police departments (Monterey, Seaside) as well as fire. Various organizations that might have alternate points of view were not notified in a timely fashion, if at all, of actions regarding this development. On the basis of overall planning for the community, this proposal for development is one of the worst thought out, shoddiest and deceitful that I have ever com across. I think the TAMC, amongst many other involved bodies, needs to scrutinize the effects of this potential development on traffic flow and other functions, as well as the disingenuous and secretive manner in which various actions have been done.

 

Response to Comment I153-1: Refer to response to comment I36-1 regarding potential land use development near the Olmsted Road intersection with State Route 68.

 

 

Comment I154-1: I am concerned that there has not been adequate analysis of the impact proposed developments on Garden Road and adjacent to Olmsted Road. What steps are being taken to ensure that any such development is consistent with the overall plan for Highway 68?

 

Response to Comment I154-1: Refer to response to comment I36-1 regarding potential land use development near the Olmsted Road intersection with State Route 68.

 

 

Comment I155-1: In the Tables and content of Chapter 2….The Daily Person Hours of Delay Savings and Daily Vehicle Hours Delay Savings tables show enormous savings implementing Alt 2 ..signals vs implementing roundabouts. This of course would be very well received by all!

 

This mammoth saving of time for commuters and visitors alike, makes for a clear decision to implement Alt 2 ….Signals..even if they are not AI controlled..when the savings would be even more!

 

I feel that the savings are “ politely dismissed” as the “safety” of roundabouts is declared in the same Chapter. Whilst the following declaration from EIR Chapter 2, is probably true of some specific traffic signal to roundabout conversions… it is definitely not the case in many instances. Comparisons should be done with "like layout and traffic flow intersections”, rather than taking the highest percentage reductions to tempt high expectations , and thus be indicative of what will more likely happen at each of the Intersections on highway 68….

 

excerpt from Chapter 2

 

"Following intersection conversion to roundabout, crash frequencies at converted intersections have been shown to be reduced by up to 29 percent at multilane intersections and 51 percent at single-lane intersections. Studies also show that collisions resulting in severe, debilitating injuries and fatalities in roundabout intersections are rare..”

 

As you are aware…..studies and reports are available that will dispute those claims with data…both in the USA and around the world.

 

I request that TAMC/Caltrans provide predictions based on calculations of historical collision data of similar flows at similar roundabout layouts to each of the roundabouts on Highway 68, to establish how their collision frequency claims will compare to the 29 and 51 per cent figures.

 

Response to Comment I155-1: Section 2.1.9 concludes that Build Alternative 2 would have the greatest amount of delay savings through the project corridor compared with the No-Build Alternative and Alternative 1 (Roundabouts). Alternative 1, however, would provide significant delay savings of 28 percent compared to the No-Build Alternative in the afternoon peak period and would also reduce the rate and severity of traffic collisions through the project corridor better than Alternative 2 as roundabout designs provide fewer potential conflict points than signalized intersections.

 

Caltrans used Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) from the Federal Highway Administration in the analysis of roundabout alternatives. Crash Modification Factors from the Federal Highway Administration Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse are developed from research papers in which researchers gather before and after data and aggregated data based on intersection characteristics to develop collision reduction metrics based on statistical analysis.

 

The 29 percent collision reduction at multilane intersections and 51 percent collision reduction at single-lane intersections cited in the comment from Chapter 2 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment represent the highest expected reduction in collisions for each roundabout configuration, based on the Crash Modification Factors study data from the Federal Highway Administration researched by Caltrans. As stated in the Roundabout Traffic Safety discussion in Section 2.1.9: “Following intersection conversion to roundabout, crash frequencies at converted intersections have been shown to be reduced by up to 29 percent at multilane intersections and 51 percent at single-lane intersections.” Therefore, the collision reduction data cited does not guarantee that the collision rates would be reduced by these percentages as the traffic patterns of each roundabout are unique. However, it is a reasonable representation from studies collected by the Federal Highway Administration.

 

Comment I155-2: In addition….Would TAMC/Caltrans therefore answer the question…"Why does the EIR proposal have to be all roundabouts or all Signal controlled intersections?". Please explain why there is not a Alternate proposal for a hybrid solution of some signal controlled and some roundabouts.. where each intersection has had a solution created to match it's specific needs and rural impact.

 

Response to Comment I155-2: Roundabouts work most efficiently with a consistent flow of traffic. If a queue from a downstream signalized intersection backs up into an upstream roundabout, the roundabout will gridlock, which has a cascading effect for intersections farther upstream. Since traffic signals must stop mainline traffic to service traffic on the side street, having a continuous flowing roundabout upstream would continuously increase the queue length at the traffic signal until the next green cycle. With high traffic flows and closely spaced intersections, both of which the State Route 68 corridor has, mixing traffic signals with roundabouts is not advised for improving traffic flow and operations, which is a key part of the purpose of the project.

 

Comment I156-1: You are probably aware that I have been involved in trying to get TAMC/Caltrans to consider implementing an Artificial Intelligence (AI) controlled signals solution instead of either of the total $200+m Alternates.

 

I am aware of the various discussions ongoing between TAMC/Caltrans and Miovision regarding this..and the possibility of a trial implementation to gather some real details…which indeed would be very prudent and well received.

 

The fact that the trial could be carried out very soon and then a full installation along the whole route implemented within 12 withs is very exciting to our community here at Pasadera…both the HOA and the New owners, Concert, of The Club at Pasadera.witness their individual comprehensive submissions.

 

Following the Town Hall meeting that Doug Bilse kindly attended on 4th Jan 2024 the feedback from the attendees has been virtually 100 % that the community favors the AI Signal Solution approach

 

Clearly for around $500k ,significant improvements would be realized over the existing situation and masses of valuable up to date data collected for analysis before embarking on decisions to commit a $200m+ project that is perceived by many in the County to be not a prudent decision at all..

 

So rather than me ask questions relating to the AI Solution…I have attached below the submission fm Dwight Stump that I fully support and ask you to answer the questions that he poses.

 

Response to Comment I156-1: Refer to response to comment I44-1 and other responses to comments herein pertaining to suggested AI signal controls instead of roundabouts and the planned interim pilot project.