Agenda packet, regular meeting — Cathedral City City Council, August 10, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

EKOS Software Setup Form:

Customer – General Information
Customer Name (full legal name)
Customer DBA
Address
Address
City
State
Zip

Customer – Authorized Officer or Key Contact
Email Address
Phone number

Packages (Please fill in the qty in the box next to the option desired) Package 1 – Fuel Site Module $80 per site per month
Package 2 – Bulk Fuel Module $100 per site per month
Package 3 – Fuel Card Module $70 per month
Package 4 – Fleet Maintenance
Module
*see section 3.5 for pricing
Rev application - $50 per device
Per month

Customer acknowledgement:

6.D.d
Packet Pg. 250
Attachment: 4. Sourcewell Gilbarco Contract 09292020 (3334 : PURCHASE AND IMPLEMENT FUEL MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE AND UPGRADE

SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT

Page 4 ends

1. Software License Agreement

1.1. This Software License Agreement (the “Agreement”) is entered into by and between GE Software, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina, and having its principal office and place of business at 1410 Commonwealth Drive, Suite 102B, Wilmington, NC 28403 (“GE Software”) and Customer listed on Page 1 of the Agreement. GE Software and Customer are referred to herein individually as “Party” or collectively as the “Parties”.

2. Software License

2.1. GE Software hereby grants to Customer a nonexclusive, nontransferable license to use the following software products and features (the “Software License” or “Software Products”):

2.1.1. “EKOS Software Core Suite” – this includes the Bulk Fuels, Fuel Sites, Fuel Cards, Alerts, Master Dashboard, and Reports module s and all related, non- optional apps contained therein.

2.1.1.1. Customer agrees that should it elect to use fuel cards, it sh all: (a) exclusively use a GE Software approved or qualified universal fuel card program; (b) provide a list of authorized card holders (“Authorized Card Hold ers”) to GE Software; (c) be solely responsible for determining whether a card holder is an Authorized Card Holder and is tax exempt for billing purposes; and (d) be solely responsible for controlling the use of the Fuel Cards. In exchange, GE Software shall issue Fuel Cards to the Authorized Card Holders designated by Customer, to facilitate fueling at Customer’s Private Sites.

2.1.2. “Inventory Monitoring” – this includes online presentment of inventory values as well as historical archiving and other related features.

3. Fees, Charges

3.1. Software Fee. Customer shall pay GE Software based on the Package selected on page 1 of the Agreement, per Private Site per month for any tra nsactions that occur at any Private Site (as hereinafter defined). Should Customer elect to access new Software Products developed by GE Software, Parties will agree on amended pricing.

3.1.1. A “Private Site” shall mean any fueling location owned and/or op erated by Customer and for which fuel transactions are processe d through the Software Products. The number of Private Sites shown on page 1 of the Agreement may change over time, and any modification of t he number or location of Private Sites shall be made by Customer using the form attached as Exhibit E.

3.2. Inventory Monitoring Fees (Optional). Customer shall pay to GE Software an inventory monitoring fee of Twenty Dollars ($20.00) per inventory monitoring device, per month for cellular based connections, Ten dollars ($10.00) per month for LAN based connections, and $20 per month for wireless tank level gauges.

3.3. Communication Fees (Optional). Customer shall pay to GE Software a communication fee of Sixty-Five Dollars ($65.00) per unit per month, provided, however that Customer shall not exceed a monthly data us age of 10 megabytes per device. Customer sh all be liable on a per device basis for a ll data charges incurred for exceeding the allotted 10 megabytes per de vice limit. Customer shall purchase an a nnual service plan for the fee of Two Hundred Forty dollars ($240.00) per communication device per year. This service plan shall be subject to the terms and conditions in effect and provided by GE Software at the time the annual service plan is activated. Customer shall also pur chase the equipment necessary to provide th e EKOS Brain Digital Communication Link at a price to be quoted by GE Software at the time Customer makes an election under this subsection.

3.4. Guest Management (Optional). Customer shall pay GE Software Three Cents ($0.03) per gallon, per month for all transactions by entities other than Customer that occur at a Private Site.

3.5. Fleet Maintenance Module (Optional). If Customer elects to use the EKOS Fleet Maintenance Module, customer shall pay an annual fee based on the Fleet Package Level chosen below and the number of assets to be managed in the Fleet Module at the start of each fiscal year. Customer can elect to purchase the Fleet Maintenance Module at any time during the life of this contract, and fees will be prorated based on date of purchase.

Package Level Features Price per asset per month
Level 1 – Track Numerous additional database fields to track all facets of vehicles and assets
FREE
Level 2 – Maintain Includes all features of Level 1 plus: PM’s, Inspections, Reminders
$4

Level 3 – Repair / Work
Includes all features of Level 1 and 2 plus: Work
orders, technicians, parts management, service
and expense entries, total vehicle cost
calculations, iPad and tablet responsive for
technicians

Level 4 – Manage
Includes all features of Levels 1,2, and 3 plus:

Time Clock, driver management, vehicle
assignments, GPS integrations, GPS discounts on
Teletrac Navman, passive telematic solutions

Number of Assets to be managed: __________________________

Total Annual Cost: _________________________

6.D.d
Packet Pg. 251
Attachment: 4. Sourcewell Gilbarco Contract 09292020 (3334 : PURCHASE AND IMPLEMENT FUEL MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE AND UPGRADE

SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT

Page 4 ends

4. Term and Termination

4.1 Term. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date (as hereinafte r defined) of this agreement an d shall continue in effect for Five (5) years thereafter.

The Agreement shall be automatically renewed for additional term s of three (3) years each, unle ss either party gives written no tice of termination to the other party as provided for herein (the “Renewal Term”).

4.2 Termination. This Agreement and the license granted hereby may be terminated by either party for any reason or no reason upon one-hundred twenty (120) days written notice to the other party (“Termination for Convenience”), or, to the extent provided below, this Agreement shall terminate automatically without notice, in the event that either Party:
a. fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement and such failure is not remedied within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice from the other party;
b. becomes insolvent;
c. initiates any proceedings under bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or receivership law, or proceedings for liquidation; d. is made a defendant in any such bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, liquidation or receivership proceedings or is placed in liquidation or receivership and such liquidation, proceedings or receivership is continued for sixty (60) days; e. has any lien, petition or execution levied against the property and assets of that Party and such lien, petition or execution is not discharged within thirty (30) days;
f. makes a general assignment of its assets for the benefit of creditors or is unable to meet its debts in the ordinary course of business;

Upon the occurrence of any event specified in subsections (a) thro ugh (f) of this Section, the fi rst Party to have notice of th e occurrence shall immediately, in writing, notify the other Party and shall identify both the type of occurrence and the date of occurrence.

5. Fuel Site

5.1 GE Software shall not be responsible for any replacement parts, fueling equipment or software products that are damaged due to Acts of God, Customer negligence or repairs and/or service provided by technicians.

6. Nonassignable and Nontransferable

6.1 The license granted herein shall not be assignable or transferrable in any manner whatsoever nor shall Customer have the right to grant any sublicenses, except by written consent of GE Software. Any permitted assignment or other transfer of this Agreement shall bind the assignee, subcontractor or transferee and shall not relieve Customer from its obligations under this Agreement.

7. Entire Agreement; Modification

7.1. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement and understanding between the parties as to the matters contained herein, and merges and supersedes all prior discussions, agreements and understandings of every kind between them as to the matters contained herein. No provision of this Agreement may be modified or amended unless such modification or amendment is agreed to in a writing signed by both of the parties hereto. Customer shall not assign its obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of GE Software.

8. Notices

8.1. Any notices required or permitted to be gi ven under this Agreement shall be deemed su fficiently given if hand delivered or mail ed by registered mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the party to be notified at its address shown at the beginning of this Agreement, or at such other address as may be furnished in writing to the notifying party.

9. Governing Law

9.1. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of North Carolina. For purposes of this Agreement, each party submits to the jurisdiction of the courts, both federal and state, in New Hanove r County, North Carolina, and each party hereby agrees that al l suits, actions and proceedings brought by any party hereunder may be brought in either federal or state court located in New Hanover County, North Carolina. Each party irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any objection which it may now or hereafter have to the laying of the venue of any such suit, action or proceeding brought in any such court, any claim that any such suit, action or proceeding brought in such a court has been brought in an inconvenient forum and the right to object, with respect to any such suit, action, or proceeding brought in any such court, that such court does not have jurisdiction over such party or the other party.

10. Intellectual Property

10.1. Customer acknowledges and agrees that: (i) it has no right, title or interest, pr oprietary or otherwise, in or to the Software Products or any other GE Software Intellectual Property (defined below); (ii) the GE Software Intellectual Property is owned solely by, and is proprietary to, GE Software and embodies valuable trade secrets of GE Software; and (iii) this Agreement does not give, and shall not be construed to give, Customer any vested right, title or interest in or with respect to the GE Software Intellectual Property, except for a non-exclusive, limited and terminable right of access to the Software Produ cts for the purposes of this Agreement. GE Software owns and will continue to own, without limitation, all GE Software Intellectual Property and all rights, title and interest in and to all ideas, works, custom reports, products, programs, procedures, plans, formats and other intellectual property of any kind created, prepared, developed or worked on by GE Software for Customer under this Agreement. As used herein , “GE Software Intellectual Proper ty” means any copyrights, patent rights, trademarks, trade names, trade secrets, service marks, know -how (including, without limitation, all id eas, inventions, products, programs, softwa re, procedures, customer lists, works, formats and other intellectual prop erty) and any other similar rights or inta ngible assets recognized under any laws or conventions in any country or jurisdiction in the world as intellectual creations to which ri ghts of ownership accrue, and al l registrations, applications, e xtensions or reissues of the foregoing now or hereafter in force.

11. Confidentiality

11.1 Customer acknowledges that it may become aware of or familiar with Confidential Information of GE Software. “Confidential Information” shall mean any information relating to the business or affairs of GE Software including, but not limited to, information relating to the Software Products, other GE Software Intellectual Property, customer and client lists, pricing lists and methods, products, software, inventions, processes, procedures, techniques, formulae, design or other technical data, trade secrets, sources of products or materials, financial statements, equipment, programs, strategies and information, analyses, profit margins, or other proprietary information used by GE Software in connection with its business. During the term of this Agreement and for so long thereafter as the Confidential Information remains proprietary to GE Software, Customer, for itself and its administrators, employees and agents, shall (a) keep the

6.D.d
Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: 4. Sourcewell Gilbarco Contract 09292020 (3334 : PURCHASE AND IMPLEMENT FUEL MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE AND UPGRADE

SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT

Page 4 ends

confidential Information secret and retain it in strictest confidence, and (b) not, without the prior written consent of GE Software, furnish, make available or disclose to any third party, or use for the benefit of Customer or any third party, any Confidential Information. Customer acknowledges that the Confidential Information is vital, sensitive, confidential and proprietary to GE Software and that this covenant is reasonable and necessary for the protection of GE Software’ business interests. Customer acknowledges that the violation of any of the provisions of this Agreement will cause irreparable loss and harm to GE Software which cannot be reasonably or adequately compensated by damages in an action at law, and, accordingly, that GE Software will be entitled, without posting bond or other security, to injunctive and other equitable relief to enforce the provisions of this Agreement and to prevent or cure any breach or threatened breach thereof; but no action for any such relief shall be deemed to waive the right of GE Software to an action for damages. The rights and remedies of GE Software are cumulative and the exercise or enforcement of any one or more of them will not preclude GE Software from exercising or enforcing any other right or remedy. The obligations of the Customer and the rights of GE Software under this Agreement shall survive the termination of this Agreement regardless of the reason for or cause of the termination.

12. Binding Effect; Authorized Signatory

12.1. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their su ccessors and permitted assigns. The indivi dual executing this Agreement on behalf of Customer is a duly authorized representative of Cust omer with full power and authorit y to execute and deliver this Ag reement on behalf of Customer and to bind Customer to its obligations hereunder.

13. Amendment

13.1. A modification, amendment or waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective only if made in writing and executed by the parties to this Agreement.

14. Waiver

14.1. A modification, amendment or waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be effective only if made in writing and executed by the parties to this Agreement.

15. Severability

15.1. If, in the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, said provision shall be considered void to the extent of such invalidity only, without invalidating any of the remaining provisions of this Agreement.

16. Counterparts

16.1. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, and all of which together constitute one and the same instrument. Any facsimile or emailed signature attached hereto will be deemed to be an original and will have the same force and effect as an original signature.

17. Disclaimer

17.1. Except for any warranty otherwise expressly provided for herein, GE Software provides their services, software, equipment and s ystems on an “AS IS” BASIS,

WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN OR EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ALL OF WHICH ARE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED BY GE SOFTWARE AND GE SOFTWARE. IN NO EVENT

SHALL GE SOFTWARE HAVE ANY LIABILITY TO CUSTOMER OR ANY THIRD PAR TY FOR ANY LOST PROFITS, LOSS OF DATA, LOSS OF USE, BUSINESS I NTERRUPTION,

OR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES HOWEVER CAUSED AND WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT, OR UNDER ANY OTHER THEORY OF LIABILITY. In addition, GE Software shall not be liable or held responsible for any delay or failure to perform or deliver all or any part of the services or products required to be performed or delivered here under as a direct or indirect re sult of any causes, contingencie s or circumstances beyond GE Software’s control or which make the fulfillment of this Agreement impracticable by GE Software.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreemen t under seal, or caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers, effective as of the last date of signing below (the “Effective Date”).

Customer GE Software, Inc.

By: (Printed Name)

Customer Signature:

Signature:

Title:

Date:

6.D.d
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: 4. Sourcewell Gilbarco Contract 09292020 (3334 : PURCHASE AND IMPLEMENT FUEL MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE AND UPGRADE

EXHIBIT E: CHANGE REQUEST FORM

ADDENDUM NO. to the SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT

THIS ADDENDUM NO. (“Addendum”), dated is between GE SOFTWARE, INC, and CUSTOMER (as defined below) is for the sole purpose of adding, deleting, or changing Site information to the Impulse Master Agreement dated , between Gilbarco and Customer (the “Agreement”). Except as modified by this addendum, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Gilbarco and Customer desire to amend the Agreement as follows:

Add/ Change/
Terminate
Site
Number Site Name Site Street Address City, State, Zip Site Contact Site Phone #

BILLING INFORMATION (Required for Processing)
Customer Name: Contact Name: Email:

Address: City: St: Zip:

Phone: Fax: Fed Tax ID:

All capitalized terms used herein, unless defined, shall have the same meanings set forth in the Agreement. This Addendum is incorporated into the Agreement and made a part thereof. If any term of this Addendum conflicts with the terms of the Agreement, the terms of this Addendum shall control. This Addendum may be executed (i) in counterparts, and/or (ii) through the use of an electronic signature.

By signing below, the parties have executed this Addendum by their duly authorized representatives as set forth below. This Addendum is effective as of the date fully executed.

Customer:

Signature:

Name:

Title:

Date:

GE Software, Inc.

Signature:

Name:

Title:

Date:

Return signed Addendum to EKOS Contract Services Team: Email: [email protected]

6.D.d
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: 4. Sourcewell Gilbarco Contract 09292020 (3334 : PURCHASE AND IMPLEMENT FUEL MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE AND UPGRADE

Cathedral City Page 1 of 4 Printed on 8/4/2022

Staff Report

City Council

Item No. 6.E

Meeting Date: August 10, 2022
From: John Corella, Director of Engineering/Public Works Title: HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation

City Council

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the Director of Engineering/ Public Works to execute Task Order No. 1, in the not to exceed amount of $25,000, with City On -Call Traffic Engineering Consultant STC Traffic Inc. (STC) to provide engineering assistance and complete the four (4) grant applications for the HSIP Cycle 11 C all-for-Projects Funding Program; and, once completed authorize the Director of Engineering/Public Works to submit the HSIP Cycle 11 grant application packages to Caltrans.

BACKGROUND:

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core federal -aid program to achieve significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal land. The HSIP is one of the core federal -aid programs in the new federal surface transporta tion act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which was signed into law on November 6, 2021.

The California local HSIP program funds local highway safety improvement projects on a two-year Call-for-Projects cycle. The timing and size of the cal l is determined by the program apportionments, HSIP Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) capacity and the delivery of the existing HSIP Projects.

The Division of Local Assistance (DLA) manages California’s local agency share of HSIP funds. C alifornia’s Local HSIP prioritizes infrastructure projects with nationally recognized crash reduction factors (CR F). Local HSIP projects are ranked on the basis of crash severity, crash potential, crash rate, or other data-supported means.

On June 25, 20 21, the City completed the final Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) which provides a framework for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements on local roads (copy attached to this Staff Report) . The LRSP is required for upcoming HSI P Cycle 11 Grant and will be the basis for current and future HSIP grant application requests.

6.E
Packet Pg. 255

Cathedral City Page 2 of 4 Printed on 8/4/2022
Further background, the City has been very successful in securing HSIP grants in the past. The following is a list of HSIP Cycle awards:

• HSIP Cycle 8: 20 Intersection Upgrades (completed)
o Grant award amount: $1,674,000.00
• HSIP Cycle 9A: 12 Intersection Upgrades (in design)
o Grant award amount: $1,302,500
• HSIP Cycle 9B: Date Palm Drive – Varner Road Safety Improvements (in design) o Grant award amount: $1,089,700
• HSIP Cycle 10: Pedestrian Crossing at Ramon Road and Candlewood Drive (in design)
o Grant award amount: $776,600

Note: These grants represent 100% funding. The latest call for grants under the HSIP Cycle 11 Program has variable grant participation amounts ba sed on a “maximum reimbursement ratio” of either 100%, 90% and 50% depending on the project’s safety countermeasure utilized. Under this new requirement, t he Projects outlined in the discussion below will require a 10% or a 0% participation amount with a 90% and 100% “reimbursement ratio”, respectively.

DISCUSSION:

For the HSIP Cycle 11 Call-For-Projects, City Staff and STC Traffic, Inc. (STC) identified four potential projects to submit for funding:

1. Citywide Pedestrian Crosswalk Upgrades (10% participation)

2. Pedestrian Signals/Hybrid Beacons (High Intensity Activated CrossWalk Beacon (HAWK)) (10% participation)

3. Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Improvements (10% participation)

4. Pedestrian School Crossing Upgrades (0% participation)

The Citywide Pedestrian Crosswalk Upgrades, Pedestrian Signals/HAWK, Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Improvements Projects were identified in the Cathedral City LRSP as priority projects. The Pedestrian School Crossing Upgrades Project was not listed in the LRSP, and with further evaluation it was still determined to be able to score competitively. STC conducted a feasibility analysis based on latest crash data to validate the above HSIP Cycle 11 grant Projects’ competitiveness. The scope of the Project and results of the feasibility analysis are discussed below.

Citywide Pedestrian Crosswalk Upgrades
The Project includes providing pedestrian upgrades such as light emitting diode ( LED) street lighting, curb extensions, Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA) ramps, flashing stop signs, high visibility crosswalk striping, and advanced warning pavement markings and signs at 10 unsignalized intersections in the City.

The results of the feasibility analysis indicate that the scope of the Project improvements could be expanded whil e maintaining a competitive Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) range. Up to five additional pedestrian crossings near schools may be added to

6.E
Packet Pg. 256

Cathedral City Page 3 of 4 Printed on 8/4/2022
the Project depending on the scope of the improvements and impacts to the BCR calculations.

Pedestrian Signals/Hybrid Beacons (HAWK)
The Project includes providing pedestrian signals/hybrid beacons (HAWK) at the following locations:

• Cathedral Canyon Drive and Ortega Drive
• 30th Ave and Avenida La Paz

The results of the feasibility analysis indicate the Project would be compe titive based on the projected BCR. STC will review the Project costs identified in the LRSP to ensure estimates are conservative and account for recent inflation.

Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Improvements
The Project includes providing LED safety lig hting, LED internally illuminated street name signs, retro -reflective backplates, and new signal heads at 4 7 traffic signals citywide.

The results of the feasibility study indicate that the scope of the Project could be expanded while maintaining a compe titive BCR range. Additional improvements to consider include cabinet and controller upgrades, replacing deficient signal heads due to missing or fading backplates, and retroreflective backplates at existing HAWK signals.

Pedestrian School Crossing Upgrades
The Project includes pedestrian crossing safety enhancements for an existing unsignalized intersection near a local school. Improvements may include curb extensions, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB), LED lighting, high visibility crosswalk striping, and advanced pavement markings and signs. The Project location and scope of improvements will be coordinated with the City.

HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for-Projects was announced on May 9, 2022. The Application deadline is September 12, 2022. The submittal process for the HSIP Call-for-Projects is getting increasingly sophisticated and requires the specialized skills of a traffic engineering firm, especially with the short time window Caltrans has given in which to propose, evaluate, complete and submit the four (4) Applications (with attachments) for each Project. Thus, Staff has solicited a task order proposal fro m the City’s On -Call Traffic Engineering Consultant, STC Traffic Inc. , to assist Staff and prepare the four HSIP Cycle 11 applications for a not-to-exceed cost of $25,000.

The scope of STC’s services will include project description and information, safety countermeasures, responses to narrative questions, LRSP Certification, engineer’s checklist, vicinity/location Maps, project maps, pictures of ex isting conditions, benefit cost ratio (BCR) HSIP Analyzer calculations, crash data analysis, project schedule, detailed cost estimate, collision diagrams, collision summary reports, and additional narration, documentation and letters of support.

6.E
Packet Pg. 257

Cathedral City Page 4 of 4 Printed on 8/4/2022
Further, STC has a proven track record with over $ 40 million in successful grant awards, most of which were HSIP and Active Transportation Program funding. STC’s extensive experience with local, State, and Federal requirements for grant funded projects will give t he City the best opportunity for success in developing these competitive Applications.

The proposed cost will include STC guiding the initial evaluation and compiling the necessary data for each Project. When all the information is collected, STC will ass ist the City on the submittal of the formal project applications.

Staff requests that the City Council Authorize the Director of Engineering/Public Works to execute Task Order No. 1, in the not to exceed amount of $25,000, with City On -Call Traffic Engineering Consultant STC to provide engineering assistance and complete the four (4) grant applications for the HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for-Projects Funding Program; and, once completed authorize the Director of Engineering/Public Works to submit the HSIP Cycle 11 grant application packages to Caltrans.
.
.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The $25,000 cost to prepare the application will be paid out of the Engineering Professional and Technical Services fund 100-8601.

Historically, there was no local match required to receive HSIP grant funding. However, per the April 2022 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), the Citywide Pedestrian Crosswalk Upgrades, Pedestrian Signals/HAWK, Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Improvements Projects will require a 10% local match. As the tota l cost and benefit of the proposed Projects have not been completely analyzed at this time, a budgeted percentage participation amount has not been determined.

The Pedestrian School Crossing Upgrades Project, which will be classified as a Pedestrian Cro ssing Enhancements Set -Aside (SA) Project, does not require a local match.

Upon success of an award of a grant and/or grants under this program, the required local match requirements will be programmed into the upcoming FY 2023 -24 and 2024- 25 Capital Improvement Project Program.

ATTACHMENTS:

Vicinity Maps
Cathedral City_TO No. 1_HSIP 11 Scope and Fee_22.07.15
Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program

6.E
Packet Pg. 258

6.E.a
Packet Pg. 259
Attachment: Vicinity Maps (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

6.E.a
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: Vicinity Maps (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

6.E.a
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: Vicinity Maps (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

1 July 15, 2022

John Corella
Director of Public Works / City Engineer
City of Cathedral City
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234

RE: Task Order No. 1 - HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Applications

Dear Mr. Corella,

STC Traffic, Inc. (STC) is pleased to submit this scope and fee proposal to the City of Cathedral City (City) for Task Order No. 1 to prepare grant applications for the Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 11 "Call for Projects". The following describes the scope of services.

HSIP Cycle 11 Applications Project Description and Scope

1. Citywide Pedestrian Crosswalk Upgrades : The project includes providing pedestrian crosswalk upgrades such as LED street lighting, curb extensions, ADA ramps, flashing stop signs, high visibility crosswalk striping, and advanced warning pavement markings and signs at 10 unsignalized intersections citywide. The following table summarizes the preliminary list of locations and improvements. Refinements may be made based on review of existing conditions inventories and discussions with the City.

# SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LED
STREET
LIGHT
CURB
EXT
PED
RAMP

FLASHING
STOP
SIGN
1 MCCALLUM WAY & WHISPERING PALMS TRL 2 4 4
2 AVENIDA LA VISTA & MINERVA RD 1 2 1
3 ASISTENCIA DR & SAN LUIS REY DR 1 1 1
4 AVENIDA LA PALOMA & BARISTO RD 1 4 4
5 VAQUERO RD & VICTORIA DR 0 4 4
6 JUDY LN & VICTORIA DR 2 4 2
7 AVENIDA MARAVILLA & TACHEVAH DR 0 3 4
8 AVENIDA LA PAZ & TACHEVAH DR 1 4 4
9 AVENIDA LA VISTA & TORTUGA RD 1 4 4
10 TERRACE RD & CATHEDRAL CANYON DR 1 2 1 3
TOTAL 12 2 34 33

This project was identified in the Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) as a priority project.

STC conducted a feasibility analysis based on the latest crash data to validate HSIP Cycle 11 grant competitiveness. The results of the feasibility analysis indicate th at the scope of project improvements could be expanded while maintaining a competitive BCR range. Up to 5 additional pedestrian crossings near schools may be added to the project depending on the scope of the

6.E.b
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: Cathedral City_TO No. 1_HSIP 11 Scope and Fee_22.07.15 (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

2 improvements and impacts to the BCR calculations . Per the April 2022 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM v1.6), countermeasure s NS1 (Add intersection lighting) and NS21PB (Install/upgrade crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) ) will require a 10% local match. The scope of the BCR application includes:

• Project Description and Information
• Safety Countermeasures
• Responses to Narrative Questions
• Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) Certification
• Engineer’s Checklist
• Vicinity/Location Maps
• Project Maps/Illustrations of Existing Conditions and Proposed Improvements • Pictures of Existing Conditions
• Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) HSIP Analyzer Calculations
• Crash Data Analysis
• Project Schedule
• Detailed Cost Estimate
• Collision Diagrams
• Collision Summary Reports
• Additional Narration, Documentation, and Letters of Support

2. Pedestrian Signals/ Hybrid Beacons (HAWK): The project includes providing pedestrian signals/hybrid beacons (HAWK) at the following locations:

• Cathedral Canyon Dr & Ortega Dr
• 30th Ave & Avenida La Paz

This project was identified in the Cathedral City LRSP as a priority project. STC conducted a feasibility analysis based on the latest crash data to validate HSIP Cycle 11 grant competitiveness.

The results of the feasibility analysis indicate the project would be competitive based on the projected BCR. STC will review the project costs identified in the LRSP to ensure estimates are conservative and account for recent inflation. Per the April 2022 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM v1.6), countermeasures NS23PB (Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) will require a 10% local match. The scope of the BCR application includes:

6.E.b
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: Cathedral City_TO No. 1_HSIP 11 Scope and Fee_22.07.15 (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

3 • Collision Diagrams
• Collision Summary Reports
• Additional Narration, Documentation, and Letters of Support

3. Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades: The project includes providing a combination of LED safety lighting, LED internally illuminated street name signs, retro-reflective backplates, and new signal heads at 47 traffic signals citywide. The project will also install retro-reflective backplates at all existing HAWK signals c itywide. The following table summarizes the preliminary list of locations and improvements. Refinements may be made based on review of existing conditions inventories and discussions with the City.

# SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LED

LUMINARE IISNS

RETROREFLECTIVE

BACKPLATE

UPGRADE
1 DATE PALM DR & 30TH AVE 4 4 X
2 DATE PALM DR & CONVERSE RD 3 3 X
3 DATE PALM DR & DINAH SHORE DR 4 4 X
4 DATE PALM DR & FIRE STATION #2 2 2 X
5 DATE PALM DR & GERALD FORD DR 2 3 X
6 DATE PALM DR & MARKET PLACE 3 2 X
7 DATE PALM DR & MCCALLUM WAY 4 4 X
8 DATE PALM DR & ORTEGA RD/ DAVE KELLY RD 6 4 X
9 DATE PALM DR & VIA OLIVERIA/CATHEDRAL VILLAGE S 3 4 X 10 DATE PALM DR & VICTORIA DR 3 4 X
11 DATE PALM DR & VISTA CHINO 4 4 X
12 DINAH SHORE DR & CATHEDRAL CANYON DR 3 4 X
13 DINAH SHORE DR & PLUMLEY RD 4 4 X
14 E PALM CANYON DR & CANYON PLAZA 4 4 X
15 E PALM CANYON DR & CATHEDRAL CANYON DR 4 4 X
16 E PALM CANYON DR & DATE PALM DR 4 3 X
17 E PALM CANYON DR & E CANYON PLAZA/ EL DORADO 4 4 X
18 E PALM CANYON DR & OFFICER JERMAINE GIBSON AVE 4 3 X 19 E PALM CANYON DR & PEREZ RD 6 4 X
20 E PALM CANYON DR & W BANKSIDE DR 3 1 X
21 E PALM CANYON DR & WEST BUDDY RODGERS AVE 4 4 X
22 E RAMON RD & CATHEDRAL CANYON DR / AVENIDA MARAVILLA 6 4 X 23 E RAMON RD & CATHEDRAL VILLAGE E 5 4 X
24 E RAMON RD & DATE PALM DR 4 4 X
25 E RAMON RD & DESERT VISTA RD/ AVENDIA DEL YERMO 3 3 X 26 E RAMON RD & LANDAU BLVD 3 3 X
27 E RAMON RD & VIA CAMPANILE/ OUTDOOR RESORTS 4 4 X
28 E RAMON ROAD & WHISPERING PALMS TRAIL 5 4 X
29 PALM DR & PAUL RD 4 3 X

6.E.b
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: Cathedral City_TO No. 1_HSIP 11 Scope and Fee_22.07.15 (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

4 # SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LED

LUMINARE IISNS

RETROREFLECTIVE

BACKPLATE

UPGRADE
30 PEREZ RD & CATHEDRAL CANYON DR 4 4 X
31 VISTA CHINO & AVENIDA QUINTANA 4 3 X
32 VISTA CHINO & AVENIDA MARAVILLA 6 4 X
33 VISTA CHINO & LANDAU BLVD 4 4 X
34 E RAMON RD & DA VALL DR 0 4 X
35 CATHEDRAL CANYON DR & OFFICER DAVID VASQUEZ RD 3 3 X 36 DATE PALM DR & BARISTO RD 4 4 X
37 DATE PALM DR & PEREZ RD 0 3 X
38 E PALM CANYON DR & ALLEN AVE 4 4 X
39 E PALM CANYON DR & AUTO PARK DR 6 4 X
40 E PALM CANYON DR & SUNGATE WAY 4 2 X
41 E PALM CANYON DR & VAN FLEET ST/ MONTY HALL DR 4 4 X 42 GERALD FORD DR & PLUMLEY RD/ AVENIDA DEL SOL 4 4 X
43 LANDAU BLVD & 30TH AVE 3 4 X
44 EAST PALM CANYON DR & E BANKSIDE DR 3 4 X
45 VARNER RD & BOB HOPE DR 8 4 X
46 VARNER RD & METROPLEX DR 0 4 X
47 RAMON RD & EL TORO RD 4 4 X
- HAWK SIGNALS (ALL CITYWIDE) - - X
TOTAL 177 169

This project was identified in the Cathedral City LRSP as a priority project. STC conducted a feasibility analysis based on the latest crash data to validate HSIP Cycle 11 grant competitiveness.

The results of the feasibility analysis indicate th at the scope of project improvements could be expanded whil e maintaining a competitive BCR range. Additional improvements to consider include cabinet and controller upgrades and replacing deficient signal heads due to missing backplates or fading . Per the April 2022 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM v1.6) , countermeasure S2 (Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number) will require a 10% local match. The scope of the BCR application includes:

6.E.b
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment: Cathedral City_TO No. 1_HSIP 11 Scope and Fee_22.07.15 (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

5 • Detailed Cost Estimate
• Collision Diagrams
• Collision Summary Reports
• Additional Narration, Documentation, and Letters of Support

4. Pedestrian School Crossing Upgrades: The project includes pedestrian crossing safety enhancements for an existing unsignalized intersection near a local school. Improvements may include curb extensions, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), LED lighting, high visibility crosswalk striping, and advanced pavement markings and signs. The project location and scope of improvements will be coordinated with the City.

This project will be pursued as a Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Set -Aside (SA) which has a $250,000 maximum award. There is no local match requirement for SA applications. The scope of the SA application includes:

• Project Description and Information
• Safety Countermeasures
• Responses to Narrative Questions
• Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) Certification
• Engineer’s Checklist
• Vicinity/Location Maps
• Project Maps/Illustrations of Existing Conditions and Proposed Improvements • Pictures of Existing Conditions
• HSIP Analyzer
• Project Schedule
• Detailed Cost Estimate
• Additional Narration, Documentation, and Letters of Support

Schedule

STC will schedule a kick-off meeting with City staff sh ortly after receiving authorization to proceed to discuss the projects in more detail and confirm the scope of improvements. STC will present alternative approaches to the HSIP project improvements to maximize scoring opportunities for the grant applications. STC will provide one submittal of the draft HSIP applications to City staff well in advance of the due date to allow time for review and comments . STC will incorporate comments and finalize the applications for submittal to Caltrans DLAE by the September 12, 2022 due date.

Fee Proposal

# HSIP Grant Application Sub Total
1 Citywide Pedestrian Crosswalk Upgrades (BCR) $15,000
2 Pedestrian Signals/Hybrid Beacons (BCR) $10,000
3 Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades (BCR) $0
4 Pedestrian School Crossing Upgrades (Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Funding Set-Aside) $0
Total $25,000

6.E.b
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment: Cathedral City_TO No. 1_HSIP 11 Scope and Fee_22.07.15 (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

6 STC will coordinate with the City on the existing equipment inventory and will verify existing conditions and proposed improvements for each project location. STC will perform the scope of services listed above for a lump sum fee of $25,000, which includes staff time and outsourced reimbursable expenses such as printing and reproduction, deliveries and overnight shipping, computerized plotting, materials, etc. Billing rates will be consistent with those approved under our Master On-Call Agreement with the City.

By signing below and returning a copy of this letter, you will have authorized STC to proceed with this Task Order No. 1. I appreciate the opportunity to work with you on these projects. If you have any questions regarding this scope and fee proposal, feel free to contact me at 608 -469-1169 or by email at [email protected]
.

Sincerely,

Stephen Manganiello, TE
Principal

Jason Stack, TE
President
STC Traffic, Inc.

Accepted by:

Signature

Print Name

Date

6.E.b
Packet Pg. 267
Attachment: Cathedral City_TO No. 1_HSIP 11 Scope and Fee_22.07.15 (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

LOCAL ROAD

SAFETY PLAN
June 2021 Final Report
Cathedral City

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
City of Cathedral City Team
John Corella, City Engineer / Public Works Director
Crystal Sandoval, Assistant Civil Engineer
Carlos Rodriguez, Public Works Supervisor
NAI Consulting
Alexander Klan, Assistant Project Manager
Josh Nickerson, Senior Engineer
Safety Partners
Cathedral City Police Department
Jeffrey Barnett, Police Officer / Traffic Division
Lianna Quintero, Crime Analyst – CCIA
Cathedral City Fire Department
John Muhr, Fire Chief
LRSP Consultant Team
STC Traffic
Jason Stack, Principal Manager
Nick Minicilli, Project Manager
Ashley Adamos, Project Engineer
Ivan Gonzalez, Associate Engineer
Brandon Ramirez, Engineering Intern

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Cathedral City At A Glance ............................................................................................... 2

1.2 Local Road Safety Plan Process ........................................................................................ 4

1.3 Vision, Mission, and Goals................................................................................................ 5

1.4 Safety Partners ................................................................................................................. 5 2 Collision Analysis ................................................................................................................. 8

2.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Annual Trends .................................................................................................................. 8

2.3 California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Traffic Rankings ................................................. 9

2.4 Location Type ................................................................................................................. 11

2.5 Severity ........................................................................................................................... 12

2.6 Crash Type ...................................................................................................................... 14

2.7 Primary Collision Factor ................................................................................................. 16

2.8 Roadway User Involvement ........................................................................................... 19

2.9 Nighttime Crashes .......................................................................................................... 23

2.10 Property Damage Collisions ........................................................................................ 25

2.11 Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) Scoring .................................................... 27

2.12 Roadway Characteristics Screening ............................................................................ 38 3 Countermeasure Toolbox ................................................................................................. 40

3.1 Engineering ..................................................................................................................... 40

3.2 Enforcement ................................................................................................................... 44

3.3 Education ........................................................................................................................ 46

3.4 Emergency Response ..................................................................................................... 47

3.5 Emerging Technologies .................................................................................................. 48 4 Priority Projects ................................................................................................................. 50

4.1 Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades ................................................................... 50

4.2 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons ............................................................................................ 50

4.3 Pedestrian Crosswalk Upgrades ..................................................................................... 50

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - iii

4.4 Funding Set-Asides ......................................................................................................... 52 5 Implementation and Evaluation ...................................................................................... 55

5.1 Implementation .............................................................................................................. 55

5.2 Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 56

5.3 Future LRSP Updates ...................................................................................................... 56

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - iv

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A …………………………………………………….. California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Rankings Appendix B ……………………………………………………………………….. Priority Location Collision Summaries Appendix C ………………………………………………….…………………….. Roadway Characteristics Data Table Appendix D ………………….………………………………………………….. Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox Appendix E …………………………………………..………………………………………….. Priority Project Summaries

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - v

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 1-2 Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1-3 Safety Partners Feedback by Topic ................................................................................ 7 Figure 2-1 Annual Citywide Crash Incidence (2015-2019) .............................................................. 9 Figure 2-2 Citywide Collisions by Location Type ........................................................................... 12 Figure 2-3 Citywide Collisions by Crash Severity (2015-2019) ..................................................... 13 Figure 2-4 Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019) ........................................................... 14 Figure 2-5 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019) ...................................... 17 Figure 2-6 Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2015-2019) ................................ 19 Figure 2-7 Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2015-2019) ................................................. 20 Figure 2-8 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2015-2019) ......... 21 Figure 2-9 Citywide Collisions Involving Pedestrians and Bicyclists Under 15 (2015-2019) ........ 22 Figure 2-10 Crash Severity by Time Period (2015-2019) .............................................................. 23 Figure 2-11 Citywide Nighttime Crashes (2015-2019) .................................................................. 24 Figure 2-12 Property Damage Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019) .......................................... 26 Figure 2-13 Property Damage Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019) ...................... 27 Figure 2-14 Citywide EPDO Scoring .............................................................................................. 28 Figure 2-15 Signalized Intersections EPDO Scoring ...................................................................... 30 Figure 2-16 Priority Signalized Intersections ................................................................................ 31 Figure 2-17 Unsignalized Intersections EPDO Scoring .................................................................. 33 Figure 2-18 Priority Unsignalized Intersections ............................................................................ 34 Figure 2-19 Roadway Segments EPDO Scoring ............................................................................. 36 Figure 2-20 Priority Roadway Segments ....................................................................................... 37 Figure 3-1 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019) ...................................... 45 Figure 3-2 Connect Cathedral City Feedback Map ....................................................................... 46

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 273
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Cathedral City OTS Crash Rankings (2015-2017) .......................................................... 10 Table 2-2 CA OTS Local Crash Rankings (2017) ............................................................................. 10 Table 2-3 Citywide Collisions by Location Type (2015-2019) ....................................................... 11 Table 2-4 Citywide Collisions by Location Type (2015-2019) ....................................................... 12 Table 2-5 Citywide Crash Severity by Location Type (2015-2019) ............................................... 13 Table 2-6 Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019) ............................................................ 14 Table 2-7 Citywide Crash Type by Severity (2015-2019) .............................................................. 15 Table 2-8 Citywide Crash Type by Location (2015-2019) ............................................................. 15 Table 2-9 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019) ....................................... 16 Table 2-10 Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Severity (2015-2019) ....................... 18 Table 2-11 Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Location (2015-2019) ....................... 18 Table 2-12 Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2015-2019) ............................... 19 Table 2-13 Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2015-2019) ................................................ 20 Table 2-14 Crash Severity and Roadway User Involvement by Location (2015-2019)................. 21 Table 2-15 Citywide Nighttime Collision Severity by Location (2015-2019) ................................ 23 Table 2-16 Property Damage Collisions by Roadway User (2015-2019) ...................................... 25 Table 2-17 Property Damage Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019)............................................ 25 Table 2-18 Property Damage Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019) ....................... 26 Table 2-19 Crash Weights by Severity and Location Type ............................................................ 29 Table 2-20 Top Two Quintile Signalized Intersections by EPDO Score (2015-2019) .................... 29 Table 2-21 Top Quintile Unsignalized Intersections by EPDO Score (2015-2019) ....................... 32 Table 2-22 Top Two Quintile Roadway Segments by EPDO Score (2015-2019)........................... 35 Table 3-1 Signalized Intersection Countermeasures .................................................................... 41 Table 3-2 Non-Signalized Intersection Countermeasures ............................................................ 42 Table 3-3 Roadway Countermeasures .......................................................................................... 43 Table 4-1 Priority Projects ............................................................................................................. 51 Table 4-2 HSIP Cycle 10 Application Categories ........................................................................... 52 Table 5-1 Example Countermeasure Deployment History Database ........................................... 56

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 274
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS
ABC ….…………….…………………………………………………………..…………………… Alcoholic Beverage Control APP ….…..…….…………………………………………………………..…………………… Alcoholic Policing Partnership BCR ….………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………… Benefit Cost Ratio CalSTA ….…………….……………………………………..…………………… California State Transportation Agency Caltrans ….…………………………………………………………………… California Department of Transportation CHP ……..……………………………………………………………………………………………… California Highway Patrol CON ….…………….………………………………………………………………………………..…………………… Construction CRF ….…………….…………………………………………………………..……..…………………… Crash Reduction Factor CVAG ….…………….……………………………..…………………… Coachella Valley Association of Governments DLA ….…………….…………………………………………………………..………………………… District Local Assistance DUI ….…………….…………………………………………………………..…………………… Driving Under the Influence DVMT ….………………………………………………………………………………………… Daily Vehicle Miles Travelled EPDO …….….…………………………………………………………………………… Equivalent Property Damage Only F+SI ….…………….…………………………………………………………..………………….……… Fatal and Severe Injury FHWA ….……….……………………………………………………..…………………… Federal Highway Administration GIS …….……………………………………………………………………………………… Geographic Information System GPS ….…………….…………………………………………………………..……………………… Global Positioning System HAWK ……………….…………………………………………………………..…………………… Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon HSIP ……………………….……………………………………………………… Highway Safety Improvement Program HSM ……………………….……………………………………………………………………………… Highway Safety Manual I ….…………….…………………………………………………………..………………………………….………………… Interstate IISNS ….…………….………………………………………….………………… Internally Illuminated Street Name Sign IR ….…………….…………………………………………………………..………………………………….………………… Infrared K-12 ….…………….……..…………………..………………………………….………………… Kindergarten to 12th Grade

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - viii

LED ….…………………………………………………..………………………………….………………… Light-Emitting Diode LRSM ……………………….………………………………………………………………………… Local Road Safety Manual LRSP ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Local Road Safety Plan LSEV ….…………….………………………..………………………………….………………… Low-Speed Electric Vehicles NHTSA ….…………….……………………………………………… National Highway Traffic Safety Administration OTS …………………………………………………………………………………….…………………… Office of Traffic Safety PCF ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Primary Collision Factor PDO ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Property Damage Only PE ….………………...……………………………..………………………………….………………… Preliminary Engineering ROW …..…………………………………………………………..………………………………….………………… Right-Of-Way RRFB ….…………….………………….…………………………….………………… Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon SA …….……….…………………………………………………………..………………………………….………………… Set-Aside SHSP ….…………….……………………..………………………………….………………… Strategic Highway Safety Plan SSARP ….…………….…………………………………….………………… Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program SWITRS ………………………………….……………………………… Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System TIMS ……………….……………………………………………………………… Transportation Injury Mapping System TNC ….………………………..……………………………………….………………… Transportation Network Company TSM ….…………….……….……………………..………………………………….………………… Traffic Safety Marketing USDOT ….…………….………………………………………………… United States Department of Transportation V2I ….…………….…….………………………..………………………………….………………… Vehicle-to-Infrastructure V2P ….…………….…….………………………..………………………………….……..……………… Vehicle-to-Pedestrian V2V ….…………….…….………………………..…………………………………….…….………………… Vehicle-to-Vehicle

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 276
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - ix

The Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) was prepared within the governance of United States Code Title 23, Section 148 – Highway Safety Improvement Program (h) (4):
“DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS, SURVEYS, AND INFORMATION.- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.” [23 U.S.C. §148(h) (4)] United States Code Title 23, Section 409 – Discovery and Admission of Evidence of Certain Reports and Surveys: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in s uch reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.” [23 U.S.C. §409]

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 277
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 1

1 INTRODUCTION
The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) began promoting certain infrastructure-oriented safety treatments and strategies based on proven effectiveness and benefits in 2008. This initiative became the Proven Safety Countermeasures List which seeks to encourage widespread implementation by State, Tribal, and Local transportation agencies to reduce crashes that result in fatalities and serious injuries. The Proven Safety Counte rmeasures List was last updated in 2017 and included the addition of Local Road Safety Plans (LRSP).

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) established their Local Road Safety Plan program in 2019 to provide funding to local agencies for developing a framework for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvement programs. The LRSP program evolved from the state-funded Systemic Safety Analysi s Report Program (SSARP) established in 2016, in order to contribute to the success of the 2020-2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The California SHSP is a statewide traffic safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries on California’s public roads. The California SHSP includes strategies based on the 5 E’s of traffic safety – Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies – and addresses 16 challenge areas:
• Aggressive Driving
• Aging Drivers (>65)
• Bicyclists
• Commercial Vehicles
• Distracted Driving
• Driver Licensing
• Emergency Response
• Emerging Technologies
• Impaired Driving
• Intersections
• Lane Departures
• Motorcyclists
• Occupant Protection
• Pedestrians
• Work Zones
• Young Drivers (15-20)
Cathedral City was selected as one of 250 local agencies in California (as of April 12, 2021) to receive Caltrans funding to develop a Local Road Safety Plan. Development of the Cathedral City LRSP will enable the City to meet the eligibility requirements for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding, which Caltrans will require for all future HSIP cycles. Cathedral City has been pursuing HSIP grant funding for infrastructure improvements that enhance safety for all roadway users in the City since 2011 (Cycle 4). Cathedral City has been successful in achieving over $4.7 million in HSIP grant awards.

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 278
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 2

1.1 Cathedral City At A Glance
The City of Cathedral City is located in the Coachella Valley , in the central portion of Riverside County, and is bounded by the Cities of Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs, Rancho Mirage, and unincorporated Riverside County lands , as i llustrated in Figure 1-1. The City encompasses 27.7 square miles and is traversed east-west by Interstate 10 (I-10) in the northern part of the City and California State Route 111 (SR -111) / East Palm Canyon Drive in the southern part of the City .

Cathedral City operates and maintains 44 signalized intersections and 480 paved lane miles of public streets. Figure 1-2 illustrates the project study area. Cathedral City has a population of approximately of 55,000 according to 2019 Census estimates and is the second largest City in the Coachella Valley, with one of the most diverse communities.

Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 3

Figure 1-2 Study Area

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 280
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 4

1.2 Local Road Safety Plan Process
The development of the Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan followed Caltrans program guidelines, which are based on the United Stated Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)’s cyclical six (6) step process.

1. Establish Leadership:
• Establish local partnerships with 5E’s of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies • Define LRSP Vision and Goals

2. Analyze Safety Data:
• Crash and Roadway Data Collection
• Crash Data Analysis
• Roadway Network Screening

3. Determine Emphasis Areas:
• Identify priority areas based on crash
data analysis and roadway network
screening

4. Identify Strategies:
• Identify safety countermeasures and
strategies
• Develop countermeasure toolbox

5. Prioritize and Incorporate Strategies:
• Apply countermeasures and strategies to develop safety projects • Evaluate and prioritize safety projects by benefit cost ratio • Implement roadway safety improvement projects and programs

6. Evaluate and Update
• Monitor progress of roadway safety improvement projects and programs • Evaluate success of countermeasure toolbox, projects, and programs • Review LRSP and update to reflect local changing needs and priorities

1. Establish
Leadership

2. Analyze
Safety Data

3. Determine
Emphasis
Area

4. Identify
Strategies

5. Prioritize and
Incorporate
Strategies

6. Evaluate
and Update

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 5

1.3 Vision, Mission, and Goals
The Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan is guided by the core principle that traffic fatalities and severe injuries are preventable . Improvements to roadway safety can be made through a data- driven approach based on alignment with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)’s Local Road Safety Plan Proven Safety Countermeasure, California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Caltrans Local Road Safety Program (LRSP), Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), feedback from safet y partners from the 5E’s of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies), and the City’s existing roadway safety plans, policies, and efforts. The following sub -section identifies the key Vision, Missi on, and Goals set forth in the Cathedral City LRSP.

VISION Ensure roadway safety for all users of Cathedral City roads including vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists

MISSION
Implement proven safety solutions based on the 5E’s of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies) to systemically reduce roadway crashes and improve safety GOALS
• Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury crashes towards zero • Reduce collision severity through a reduction in the number of crashes that involve alcohol use, bicyclists, and pedestrians
• Reduce collision frequency and severity through a reduction in the number of broadside, rear end, and head-on crashes
• Reduce collision frequency and severity through a reduction in the number of crashes that are primarily caused by unsafe speed, automobile right-of- way violations, improper turning, and alcohol use
• Increase alternative modes of transportation including walking, biking, and low-speed electric vehicles (LSEV)
• Engage with Safety Partners to create a culture within Cathedral City that promotes and implements road safety strategies

1.4 Safety Partners
Local safety partners representing the 5E’s of traffic safety were engaged to collaboratively address roadway safety in Cathedral City. Participants included representatives from:
• Cathedral City Public Works Department
• Cathedral City Traffic Division
• Cathedral City Police Department
• Cathedral City Fire Department
• Connect Cathedral City

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 6

Two safety partners meetings were conducted and the crash data was reviewed for annual citywide trends in location types, severity, crash types, primary collision factors, and roadway user involvement. Priority locations for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments were presented. Feedback was obtained on areas with safety issues that did not have a high rate of reported collisions but were know n by the safety partners to have frequent “near -misses” or observance of high-risk behaviors such as vehicular speeding or pedestrian jaywalking, particularly with alcohol -involvement. Relevant roadway safety initiatives and programs were discussed including the Cathedral City Fire and Police Departments’ participation in roadway safety educational campaigns at local K -12 schools and public events; the Fire Department successfully achieving grant funding for emergency rescue equipment and to improve emergency response times; and the Police Department successfully achieving California Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) grant funding for enforcement of underage and homeless overserving and California Office of Transportation Safety (OTS) grants for reducing pedestrian and bicycle violations. Feedback on desired roadway improvements from the Fire Department included intersection upgrades, medians, lighting, crosswalks, and repairing / upgrading the City’s traff ic signal preemption system to improve response times. Feedback on desired roadway improvements from the Police department included addressing merging for the southbound right turn at the intersection of Date Palm Drive and Vista Chino, cut -through routes for Palm Springs traffic, and pedestrian alcohol-related crashes on Ramon Road.

Outreach was also conducted with the Connect Cathedral City team , which is a joint venture project between the City and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) to develop projects that support walking, biking, and the use
of low-speed electric vehicles (LSEVs) in Cathedral
City. Community feedback from project outreach
surveys and mapping was collected and
documented in the Cathedral City LRSP. This
included feedback related to high visibility pedestrian crosswalks, pedestrian hybrid beacons, the citywide bikeway network, and access point to the CV Link – the CVAG Alternative Transportation Route Path. Figure 1-2 illustrates the feedback received from the safety partners organized by site-specific topics for pedestrians, bicycles, pedestrian -bicycles, enforcement, roadway concerns, signage concerns, and other miscellaneous roadway safety concerns.

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 7

Figure 1-3 Safety Partners Feedback by Topic

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 284
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 8

2 COLLISION ANALYSIS

2.1 Methodology
Crash data was obtained from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, the University of California, Berkeley, Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database, and the Cathedral City Police Department’s local collision records. The most recent five (5) years of crash data were obtained from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019.

Crashes were cross -referenced and geolocated to the local street network in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to create a comprehensive data set. There were 1,126 total collisions during the study period, which includes 507 fatal and injury collisions and 619 Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. The PDO collisions were obtained from the SWITRS database but could not be geolocated due to a lack of coordinates. These crashes were not included in the citywide network and systemic screening analysis but will be included in the analy sis of priority projects to maximize the benefit cost ratio (BCR). Data provided by the Cathedral City Police Department and from the TIMS database only included fatal and injury collisions. The crash data were analyzed to identify citywide crash patterns and trends based on the following characteristics:

• Annual Trends
• California Office of Transportation Safety (OTS) Citywide Traffic Rankings • Location Type
• Severity
• Crash Type
• Primary Collision Factor
• Roadway User Involvement
• Nighttime Crashes
• Property Damage Crashes

2.2 Annual Trends
Figure 2-1 shows the total number of crashes per year in Cathedral City from 2015 to 2019 for fatal collisions, severe injury collisions, and non-severe injury collisions. The trendline shows the total number of crashes in River side County by year. The City’s annual crash trends differ from the County’s crash trends in the years 2016 through 2017 when the total crashes decreased in Cathedral City versus increased in Riverside County and in the years 2018 and 2019 when the total crashes, particularly in non -severe injury and fatal collisions, increased in Cathedral City versus decreased in Riverside County.

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 285
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 9

Figure 2-1 Annual Citywide Crash Incidence (2015-2019)

2.3 California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Traffic Rankings The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) maintains a ranking system to compare traffic safety statistics among similarly sized California cities. Citywide rankings are based on population, daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT), crash records, and crash trends from data collected by SWITRS, Caltrans, the California Department of Justice, and the Department of Finance. A ranking of one (1) in a categor y indicates the worst possible traffic safety performance in relation to other similarly-sized cities. A comparison of California OTS rankings allows cities to identify local trends relative to their peers.

Cathedral City is in “Group C” which consists of cities with populations between 50,001 and 100,000 people. Table 2-1 summarizes how Cathedral City compares to other Group C peer cities from 2015 to 2017. Due to fluctuations in populations, the total number of cities in Group C will vary from year to year.

78 77 66
107 98
12 10
12 11 173 3
2 10 5
9,243
10,748 10,794 10,556 10,359
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Riverside County Crash Count
Cathedral City Crash Count
Year
Non-Severe Injury Severe Injury Fatal Riverside County

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 286
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 10

Table 2-1 Cathedral City OTS Crash Rankings (2015-2017) 2017 OTS CATEGORY
2015

OTS RANKING
(1=POOR)
2016

OTS RANKING
(1=POOR)
2017

OTS RANKING
(1=POOR)
Total Fatal & Injury 98/105 99/104 102/106
Alcohol Involved 64/105 65/104 57/106
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 70/105 90/104 17/106
Had Been Drinking Driver 21-34 52/105 95/104 84/106
Motorcycles 90/105 76/104 82/106
Pedestrians 80/105 90/104 82/106
Pedestrians < 15 33/105 63/104 15/106
Pedestrians 65+ 72/105 96/104 76/106
Bicyclists 99/105 91/104 98/106
Bicyclists < 15 34/105 41/104 36/106
Composite 85/105 96/104 73/106
Speed Related 99/105 99/104 99/106
Nighttime (9:00 PM – 2:59 AM) 96/105 91/104 91/106
Hit and Run 93/105 83/104 68/106
DUI Arrests 16/105 66/104 55/106
Bold = Cathedral City’s Top 3 Lowest Crash Ranking OTS Categories Table 2-2 summarizes how Cathedral City compares to Palm Desert and Indio, other local Group C peer cities in Riverside County , based on the most recent available OTS rankings from 2017 .

Data tables for the OTS rankings are provided in Appendix A.

Table 2-2 CA OTS Local Crash Rankings (2017)
2017 OTS CATEGORY

CATHEDRAL CITY

OTS RANKING
(1=POOR)

PALM DESERT

OTS RANKING
(1=POOR)
INDIO

OTS RANKING
(1=POOR)
Total Fatal & Injury 102/106 88/106 57/106
Alcohol Involved 57/106 86/106 29/106
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 17/106 20/106 55/106
Had Been Drinking Driver 21-34 84/106 89/106 59/106
Motorcycles 82/106 94/106 67/106
Pedestrians 82/106 104/106 68/106
Pedestrians < 15 15/106 89/106 52/106
Pedestrians 65+ 76/106 59/106 13/106
Bicyclists 98/106 82/106 83/106
Bicyclists < 15 36/106 68/106 67/106
Composite 73/106 88/106 50/106
Speed Related 99/106 77/106 74/106
Nighttime (9:00 PM – 2:59 AM) 91/106 105/106 61/106
Hit and Run 68/106 94/106 30/106
DUI Arrests 55/106 78/106 51/106
Bold = Cathedral City’s Top 3 Lowest Crash Ranking OTS Categories

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 287
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 11

Key OTS Crash Ranking findings include:

• Top 3 lowest 2015 OTS rankings for Cathedral City were: driving under the influence (DUI) arrests, collisions where a pedestrian under the age of 15 was involved, and collisions where a bicyclist under the age of 15 was involved.
• Top 3 lowest 2016 OTS rankings for Cathedral City were: collisions where a bicyclist under the age of 15 was involve d, collisions where a pedestrian under the age of 15 was involved, and collisions where alcohol was involved.
• Top 3 lowest 2017 OTS rankings for Cathedral City were: collisions where a pedestrian under the age of 15 was involved, collisions where the drive r had been drinking and was under the age of 21, and collisions where a bicyclist under the age of 15 was involved. • OTS categories for collisions where a pedestrian under the age of 15 was involved and collisions where a bicyclist under the age of 15 was i nvolved were in the top 3 lowest rankings for Cathedral City for the years 2015, 2016, and 2017. • Cathedral City performed better than both the cities of Palm Desert and Indio in 2017 OTS rankings for: total fatal and injury collisions, collisions where a pedestrian over the age of 65 was involved, collisions involving bicyclists, and speed-related collisions. • Cathedral City generally performed better than Indio in 2017 OTS rankings except for:
collisions where the driver had been drinking and under 21, collisions where a pedestrian under the age of 15 was involved, and collisions where a bicyclist under the age of 15 was involved.

2.4 Location Type
Table 2-3 and Figure 2 summarize the proportion of citywide crashes by location type, which includes signalized i ntersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. Most crashes occurred at intersections (80%) which includes signalized intersections (39%) and unsignalized intersections (41%).

Table 2-3 Citywide Collisions by Location Type (2015-2019) LOCATION TYPE # OF COLLISIONS (%)
Signalized Intersection 198 (39%)
Unsignalized Intersection 207 (41%)
Roadway Segment 102 (20%)
Total Collisions 507

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 288
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 12

Figure 2-2 Citywide Collisions by Location Type

2.5 Severity
Table 2-4 and Figure 2-3 summarize the proportion of citywide fatal and injury crashes by severity for fatal, severe injury, and non -severe injury collisions including other visible injury and complaint of pain. The majority of collisions resulted in non -severe injuries (83%), followed by severe injuries (12%), and fatalities (5%).

Table 2-4 Citywide Collisions by Location Type (2015-2019) SEVERITY # OF COLLISIONS (%)
Fatal 23 (5%)
Severe Injury 62 (12%)
Other Visible Injury 153 (30%)
Complaint of Pain 269 (53%)
Total Collisions 507

39%
41%
20%
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
Roadway Segment

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 289
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 13

Figure 2-3 Citywide Collisions by Crash Severity (2015-2019)

Table 2-5 summarizes the proportion of crash severity by location for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. Intersection collisions re sulted in the most fatal and severe injuries including signalized intersections (6% fatal and 10% severe injury of total collisions) and unsignalized intersections (4% fatal and 13% severe injury of total collisions).

Roadway segment collisions included 3% fatal and 15% severe injury of total collisions.

While the number of fatal and severe injury collisions that occurred at each location type is a smaller percentage in comparison with the number of overall collisions, intersections were also over-represented in the number of total fatal and severe injury collisions. Signalized intersections represented 48% fatal and 32% severe injury of total fatal and severe injury collisions.

Unsignalized intersections represented 39% fatal and 44% severe injury of total fatal and severe injury collisions. Roadway segments represented 13% fatal and 24% severe injury of total fatal and severe injury collisions.

Table 2-5 Citywide Crash Severity by Location Type (2015-2019)

SEVERITY SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION

UNSIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION

ROADWAY
SEGMENT # OF COLLISIONS (%)
Fatal 11 (6%/48%*) 9 (4%/39%*) 3 (3%/13%*) 23 (5%)
Severe Injury 20 (10%/32%*) 27 (13%/44%*) 15 (15%/24%*) 62 (12%) Other Visible Injury 53 (27%) 69 (33%) 31 (30%) 153 (30%) Complaint of Pain 114 (58%) 102 (49%) 53 (52%) 269 (53%) Total Collisions 198 (39%/36%*) 207 (41%/42%*) 102 (20%/21%*) 507 Note: *Percentage of total fatal and severe injury collisions only by location

5%
12%
30%
53%
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 290
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 14

2.6 Crash Type
Table 2-6 and Figure 2-4 summarize the proportion of all crashes by crash type, which include head-on, sideswipe, rear end, broadside, hit object, overturned, vehicle / pedestrian, other, and not stated collisions. The three most common crash types that oc curred are broadside (31%), rear end (24%), and head-on (13%). These account for 68% of total crashes reported.

Table 2-6 Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019) CRASH TYPE # OF COLLISIONS (%)
Head-On 65 (13%)
Sideswipe 48 (9%)
Rear End 120 (24%)
Broadside 158 (31%)
Hit Object 33 (7%)
Overturned 12 (2%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian 49 (10%)
Other / Not Stated 22 (4%)
Total Collisions 507
Figure 2-4 Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019)

Table 2-7 summarizes the proportion of all crash types by severity. The crash types that resulted in the most fatal and severe injuries include broadside (26% fatal and 26% severe injury), rear end (17% fatal and 18% severe injury), head -on (17% fatal and 15% sever e injury), and vehicle/pedestrian collisions (13% fatal and 15% severe injury).

13%
9%
24%
31%
7%
2%
10%
4% Head-On
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle / Pedestrian
Other / Not Stated

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 291
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 15

Table 2-7 Citywide Crash Type by Severity (2015-2019)

CRASH TYPE FATAL SEVERE
INJURY
OTHER

VISIBLE
INJURY

COMPLAINT

OF PAIN
# OF
COLLISIONS (%)
Head-On 4 (17%) 9 (15%) 22 (14%) 30 (11%) 65 (13%)
Sideswipe - 4 (6%) 19 (12%) 25 (9%) 48 (9%)
Rear End 4 (17%) 11 (18%) 30 (20%) 75 (28%) 120 (24%)
Broadside 6 (26%) 16 (26%) 47 (31%) 89 (33%) 158 (31%)
Hit Object 5 (22%) 4 (6%) 8 (5%) 16 (6%) 33 (7%)
Overturned 1 (4%) 7 (11%) 2 (1%) 2 (1%) 12 (2%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian 3 (13%) 9 (15%) 20 (13%) 17 (6%) 49 (10%) Other / Not Stated - 2 (3%) 5 (3%) 15 (6%) 22 (4%)
Total Collisions 23 (5%) 62 (12%) 153 (30%) 269 (53%) 507 Table 2-8 summarizes the proportion of all crash types by location for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. The majority of crashes occurred at intersections, accounting for 80% of total crashes including 39% at signalized intersections and 41% at unsignalized intersections. The most common crash types at signalized intersections were rear end (31%), broadside (30%), and head -on (13%). The most common crash types at unsignalized intersections were broadside (34%), rear end (16%), and sideswipe (12%). The most common crash types at roadway segments were broadside (27%), rear end (25%), and head -on (18%). The most common crash types observed across all three location types were typically consistent with the most common crash ty pes overall: broadside (31%), rear end (24%), and head-on (13%).

Table 2-8 Citywide Crash Type by Location (2015-2019)

CRASH TYPE SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION

NON-SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION

ROADWAY

SEGMENT
# OF
COLLISIONS (%)
Head-On 25 (13%) 22 (11%) 18 (18%) 65 (13%)
Sideswipe 15 (8%) 24 (12%) 9 (9%) 48 (9%)
Rear End 62 (31%) 33 (16%) 25 (25%) 120 (24%)
Broadside 59 (30%) 71 (34%) 28 (27%) 158 (31%)
Hit Object 5 (3%) 13 (6%) 15 (15%) 33 (7%)
Overturned 1 (1%) 9 (4%) 2 (2%) 12 (2%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian 20 (10%) 26 (13%) 3 (3%) 49 (10%)
Other / Not Stated 11 (6%) 9 (4%) 2 (2%) 22 (4%)
Total Collisions 198 (39%) 207 (41%) 102 (20%) 507

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 292
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 16

2.7 Primary Collision Factor
Table 2-9 and Figure 2-5 summarize the Primary Collision Factor (PCF) of crashes by the California vehicle code violation categories. PCF violation categories that represented less than 3% of citywide collisions were graphically combined into a single category on Figure 5. The top primary collision factors were unsafe speed (21%), automobile right -of-way (19%), improper turning (14%), and driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (14%). These account for 68% of total crashes reported.

Table 2-9 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019) PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR VIOLATION CATEGORY # OF COLLISIONS (%) Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs 70 (14%) Unsafe Speed 107 (21%)
Following Too Closely* 8 (2%)
Wrong Side of Road 13 (3%)
Improper Passing* 1 (<1%)
Unsafe Lane Change* 2 (<1%)
Improper Turning 69 (14%)
Automobile ROW 95 (19%)
Pedestrian ROW* 9 (2%)
Pedestrian Violation 26 (5%)
Traffic Signals and Signs 53 (10%)
Lights* 1 (<1%)
Other 14 (3%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing* 4 (1%)
Unknown / Not Stated 35 (7%)
Total Collisions 507
Note: *PCF Category representing less than 3% of total crashes

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 293
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 17

Figure 2-5 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019)

Table 2 -10 summarizes the proportion of primary collision factor by severity. The primary collision factors that resulted in the most fatal and severe injuries in clude driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (26% fatal and 26% severe injury), unsafe speed (17% fatal and 18% severe injury), automobile right -of-way (13% fatal and 13% severe injury), and improper turning (9% fatal and 13% severe i njury). Combined, these primary collision factors account for 68% of total crashes reported.

Table 2-11 summarizes the proportion of primary collision factor violation categories by location for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roa dway segments. The top three primary collision factor violation categories at signalized intersections were unsafe speed (31%), traffic signals and signs (20%), and driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (12%). The top three at unsignalized intersections were automobile right-of-way (28%), improper turning (16%), unsafe speed (13%), driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (13%). The top three at roadway segments were driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (21%), unsafe speed (19%), and automobile right -of-way (18%). The most common primary collision factor violation categories observed across all three location types were consistent with the most common crash types overall: unsafe speed (21%), automobile right-of-way (19%), driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (14%), and improper turning (14%). Combined, these primary collision factors account for 68% of total reported crashes.

14%
21%
2%
14%
19%
5%
10%
3%
7% 5%
DUI
Unsafe Speed
Wrong Side of Road
Improper Turning
Automobile ROW
Pedestrian Violation
Traffic Signals and Signs
Other
Unknown / Not Stated
Categories < 3%

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 294
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 18

Table 2-10 Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Severity (2015-2019)

PRIMARY COLLISION

FACTOR VIOLATION

CATEGORY

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION

UNSIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION

ROADWAY

SEGMENT
# OF
COLLISIONS (%)
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drugs 23 (12%) 26 (13%) 21 (21%) 70 (14%) Unsafe Speed 61 (31%) 27 (13%) 19 (19%) 107 (21%)
Following Too Closely* 1 (<1%) 4 (2%) 3 (3%) 8 (2%)
Wrong Side of Road 1 (<1%) 6 (3%) 6 (6%) 13 (3%)
Improper Passing* - - 1 (1%) 1 (<1%)
Unsafe Lane Change* - - 2 (1%) 2 (<1%)
Improper Turning 21 (11%) 34 (16%) 14 (14%) 69 (14%)
Automobile ROW 19 (10%) 58 (28%) 18 (18%) 95 (19%)
Pedestrian ROW* 4 (2%) 5 (2%) - 9 (2%)
Pedestrian Violation 11 (6%) 12 (6%) 3 (3%) 26 (5%)
Traffic Signals and Signs 40 (20%) 11 (5%) 2 (2%) 53 (10%) Lights* - - 1 (1%) 1 (<1%)
Other 2 (1%) 7 (3%) 5 (5%) 14 (3%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing* 2 (1%) 1 (<1%) 1 (1%) 4 (1%) Unknown / Not Stated 13 (7%) 16 (8%) 6 (6%) 35 (7%)
Total Collisions 198 (39%) 207 (41%) 102 (20%) 507

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 19

2.8 Roadway User Involvement
Table 2-12 and Figure 2-6 summarize the proportion of citywide crashes by roadway user type involved which includes automobiles, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The majority of collisions involved motorized roadway users including automobiles (75%) and motorcycles (7%).

Non-motorized roadway users were involved in 18% of collisions including bicycles (6%) and pedestrians (12%)
Table 2-12 Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2015-2019) ROADWAY USER # OF COLLISIONS (%)
Automobiles 382 (75%)
Motorcycles 36 (7%)
Bicycles 29 (6%)
Pedestrians 60 (12%)
Total Collisions 507
Figure 2-6 Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2015-2019)

Table 2-13 and Figure 2-7 summarize the proportion of roadway user type by severity. Of the total collisions, 75% involved automobiles only and the majority resulted in non -severe injuries including other visible injuries and complaint of pain injuries. Automobile collisions repre sented 48% of total fatal and 61% of total severe injury collisions. Approximately 13% of all automobile collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury. The majority of collisions involving motorcycles resulted in severe injuries and other visible injuries. Motorcycle collisions represented 9% of total fatal and 19% of total severe injury collisions. Approximately 38% of all motorcycle collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury. The majority of collisions involving bicycles resulted in other visible injuries and complaint of pain injuries. Bicycle collisions represented 13% of total fatal and 2% of total severe injury crashes. Approximately 14% of all bicycle collisions resulted in a fatality 75%
7%
6%
12%
Automobiles
Motorcycles
Bicycles
Pedestrians

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 20

or severe injury. The majority of pedestrian collision s resulted in other visible injuries and complaint of pain injuries. Pedestrian collisions represented 30% of total fatal and 18% of total severe injury collisions. Approximately 30% of all pedestrian collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury.

Table 2-13 Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2015-2019)

ROADWAY USER FATAL SEVERE
INJURY
OTHER

VISIBLE
INJURY

COMPLAINT

OF PAIN
# OF
COLLISIONS (%)
Automobiles 11 (48%) 38 (61%) 98 (64%) 235 (87%) 382 (75%) Motorcycles 2 (9%) 12 (19%) 16 (10%) 6 (2%) 36 (7%)
Bicycles 3 (13%) 1 (2%) 15 (10%) 10 (4%) 29 (6%)
Pedestrians 7 (30%) 11 (18%) 24 (16%) 18 (7%) 60 (12%)
Total Collisions 23 (5%) 62 (12%) 153 (30%) 269 (53%) 507 Figure 2-7 Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2015-2019)

Figure 2-8 summarizes the proportion of roadway user types for fatal and severe injury collisions.

Although motorcycles and pedestrians make up a small percentage of total crashes (7% and 12%, respectively), they are over-represented in the number of fatal and severe injury collisions (16% and 21%, respectively), which indicates that they are vulnerable roadway users. Bicycles were 48%
61% 64%
87%
30%
18% 16%
7%
9%
19%
10%
2%13%
2%
10%
4%
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Percentage of Collisions
Crash Severity
Automobiles Pedestrians Motorcycles Bicycles

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 21

involved in 5% of total fatal and severe injury collisions, which was representative of the 6% of total collisions that bicycles were inv olved in. Fatal and severe injury crashes involving pedestrians are higher than the percentages of motorcycle and bicycle crashes. This may be attributed to motorcycles and bicycles being more visible to vehicles than pedestrians are due to their higher profile on local roadways.

Figure 2-8 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2015-2019)

Crashes Involving Pedestrians and Bicycles Under 15
Table 2-14 summarizes the proportion of citywide crashes that involved a pedestrian or a bicyclist under the age of 15 by severity and location. There were 19 total crashes that occurred during the study period including 10 pedestrian collisions and 9 bicycle collisions . There were no fatalities and the 3 severe injury collisions involved pedestrians. The remaining injury collisions included 8 other visible injury (4 pedestrian and 4 bicycle) and 8 complaint of pain (3 pedestrian and 5 bicycle). All the collisions occurred at intersections includin g 7 at signalized intersections and 12 at unsignalized intersections. Figure 2-9 displays where collisions involving pedestrians or bicyclists under the age of 15 occurred in relation to community centers, public schools and parks.

Table 2-14 Crash Severity and Roadway User Involvement by Location (2015-2019)

SEVERITY

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION

UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION # OF
COLLISIONS (%) PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE
Fatal - - - - -
Severe Injury 1 (33%) - 2 (29%) - 3 (16%)
Other Visible Injury 1 (33%) 3 (75%) 3 (43%) 1 (20%) 8 (42%) Complaint of Pain 1 (33%) 1 (25%) 2 (29%) 4 (80%) 8 (42%) Total Collisions 3 (16%) 4 (21%) 7 (37%) 5 (26%) 19

21%
5%
16%
58%
Pedestrians
Bicycles
Motorcycles
Automobiles

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 22

Figure 2-9 Citywide Collisions Involving Pedestrians and Bicyclists Under 15 (2015-2019)

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 299
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 23

2.9 Nighttime Crashes
Crashes were evaluated from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM to identify nighttime crash patterns. There were 259 collisions that occurred during the study period and Figure 2-10 shows a summary of total crashes and severity by time of day. Nighttime crash frequency for all severity types was generally higher from 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM. The most severe crashes (fatal and se vere injury) generally occurred from 6:00 PM to 3:00 AM. The highest number of nighttime crashes occurred from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM. The highest number of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred from 2:00 AM to 3:00 AM. Figure 2-11 illustrates where the nighttime crashes occurred by severity and roadway user type. Table 2-15 summarizes nighttime crashes by roadway user and location.

Figure 2-10 Crash Severity by Time Period (2015-2019)

Table 2-15 Citywide Nighttime Collision Severity by Location (2015-2019)

SEVERITY SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION

UNSIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION

ROADWAY

SEGMENT
# OF
COLLISIONS (%)
Fatal 5 (5%) 8 (8%) 2 (4%) 15 (6%)
Severe Injury 11 (10%) 13 (13%) 12 (21%) 36 (14%)
Other Visible Injury 27 (26%) 36 (37%) 20 (35%) 83 (32%) Complaint of Pain 62 (59%) 40 (41%) 23 (40%) 125 (48%)
Total Collisions 105 (41%) 97 (37%) 57 (22%) 259

0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
Number of Crashes
Time Period
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 300
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 24

Figure 2-11 Citywide Nighttime Crashes (2015-2019)

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 25

2.10 Property Damage Collisions
There were 619 property damage collisions reported in the 5-year study period from the SWITRS database. The crashes were not included in the citywide netw ork and screening analysis due to the inability to geolocate them from a lack of coordinate data. Analysis of the property damage collisions is presented for roadway user involvement, crash type, and primary collision factor.

Roadway User
Table 2 -16 summarizes the proportion of property damage crashes by roadway user involvement. Nearly all of the property damage collisions only involved automobiles (99%). This is consistent with the collision analysis results for fatal and injury crashes which indicated that motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians are more vulnerable roadway users.

Table 2-16 Property Damage Collisions by Roadway User (2015-2019) ROADWAY USER # OF COLLISIONS (%)
Automobiles 612 (99%)
Motorcycles 1 (<1%)
Bicycles 3 (<1%)
Pedestrians 3 (<1%)
Total Collisions 619

Crash Type
Table 2-17 and Figure 2-12 summarizes the proportion of property damage collisions by crash type. The three most common crash types that were rear end (31%), hit object (23%), and sideswipe (16%). Rear end collisions were also in the top three crash types for fatal and injury collisions, which also included broadside and head-on.

Table 2-17 Property Damage Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019) CRASH TYPE # OF COLLISIONS (%)
Head-On 65 (11%)
Sideswipe 98 (16%)
Rear End 189 (31%)
Broadside 86 (14%)
Hit Object 140 (23%)
Overturned 9 (1%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian 3 (<1%)
Other / Not Stated 29 (5%)
Total Collisions 619

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 26

Figure 2-12 Property Damage Collisions by Crash Type (2015-2019)

Primary Collision Factor
Table 2-18 and Figure 2-13 summarizes the proportion of property damage crashes by primary collision factor. The top three were driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (36%), improper turning (23%), and unsafe speed (18%). These were consistent with the top primary collision factors identified in the analysis of fatal and injury collisions.

Table 2-18 Property Damage Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019) PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR VIOLATION CATEGORY # OF COLLISIONS (%) Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs 223 (36%) Unsafe Speed 112 (18%)
Following Too Closely* 2 (<1%)
Wrong Side of Road 8 (1%)
Improper Passing* 1 (<1%)
Unsafe Lane Change* 7 (1%)
Improper Turning 142 (23%)
Automobile ROW 21 (3%)
Pedestrian ROW* 2 (<1%)
Pedestrian Violation 1 (<1%)
Traffic Signals and Signs 30 (5%)
Other 9 (1%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing* 16 (3%)
Unknown / Not Stated 45 (7%)
Total Collisions 619
Note: *PCF Category representing less than 3% of total crashes

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Veh / Ped
Overturned
Other / Not Stated
Head-On
Broadside
Sideswipe
Hit Object
Rear End

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 303
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 27

Figure 2-13 Property Damage Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019)

2.11 Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) Scoring
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scoring per the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) was utilized to analyze crash data and evaluate roadway network performance. Crashes were assigned weighting factors relative to property damage only collisions based on crash costs from the Highway S afety Improvement Program (HSIP) Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road Owners v1.5. The weighting factor generally reflects an order of magnitude difference between the societal costs of fatal and severe injury collisions versus non-severe injury collisions. EPDO score is calculated by multiplying each crash severity total by its associated weight and summing the results, using the following formula:

EPDO Score = (Fatal Weight x Number of Fatal Crashes) + (Severe Injury Weight x Number of Severe Injury Crashes) + (Other Visible Injury Weight x Number of Other Visible Injury Crashes) + (Complaint of Pain Injury Weight x Number of Complaint of Pain Injury Crashes) + Property Damage Only Crashes

EPDO scoring was conducted for signaliz ed intersections, non -signalized intersections, and roadway segments. EPDO scores were organized by quintile and displayed graphically by heat maps. The top quintiles identified priority locations with the highest EPDO scores and corresponds with the highe st crash frequency and severity. Appendix B provides collision summaries for the priority locations. Table 2-19 summarizes the crash cost and EPDO score associated with an individual collision by location type and severity. Figure 2-14 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for signalized intersections, non -signalized intersections, and roadway segments.
36%
23%
18%
7%
5%
3%
8% DUI
Improper Turning
Unsafe Speed
Unknown / Not Stated
Traffic Signals and Signs
Automobile ROW
Categories < 3%

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 304
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 28

Figure 2-14 Citywide EPDO Scoring

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 29

Table 2-19 Crash Weights by Severity and Location Type

LOCATION TYPE

CRASH WEIGHTS BY SEVERITY

FATAL AND

SEVERE INJURY

OTHER VISIBLE
INJURY

COMPLAINT OF

PAIN INJURY

PROPERTY

DAMAGE ONLY
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
Signalized
Intersection 123.7 $1.46m

10.7 $126,500 6.1 $71,900 1 $11,800 Unsignalized
Intersection 195.8 $2.31m
Roadway 169.5 $1.46m
Signalized Intersections
Figure 2-15 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for signalized intersections. The quintiles and corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
• 80 – 100th Percentile: 206.6 to 649.4
• 60 – 80th Percentile: 141.0 to 206.5
• 40 – 60th Percentile: 45.9 to 140.9
• 20 – 40th Percentile: 12.3 to 45.8
• 0 – 20th Percentile: 0.0 to 12.2
The top two quintile signalized intersection locations based on EPDO scores are shown on Table 2-20 and graphically on Figure 2-16. Based on roadway classifications in the Cathedral City General Plan Circulation Element, most of the top quintile signalized intersections locations are along arterial and major highway corridors with fewer intersections on lower-order roadways.

Table 2-20 Top Two Quintile Signalized Intersections by EPDO Score (2015-2019)

RANK LOCATION TOTAL

COLLISIONS EPDO
1 Vista Chino & Landau Blvd 12 649.4
2 Date Palm Dr & Gerald Ford Dr 4 369.2
3 Date Palm Dr & Victoria Dr 10 301.6
4 Ramon Rd & Cathedral Canyon Dr / Avenida Maravilla 10 297 5 Date Palm Dr & Converse Rd 6 268
6 East Palm Canyon Dr & Perez Rd 6 263.4
7 Ramon Rd & Date Palm Dr 14 208
8 East Palm Canyon Dr & Canyon Plaza 13 206.5
9 East Palm Canyon Dr & Cathedral Canyon Dr 9 191.3
10 Ramon Rd & Whispering Palms Trail 8 176
11 Vista Chino & Avenida Quintana 8 176
12 East Ramon Rd & Landau Blvd 6 159.2
13 East Ramon Rd & Cathedral Village East 5 157.7
14 East Ramon Rd & Da Vall Dr 5 153.1
15 Dinah Shore Dr & Cathedral Canyon Dr 5 143.9

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 30

Figure 2-15 Signalized Intersections EPDO Scoring

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 31

Figure 2-16 Priority Signalized Intersections

RANK LOCATION RANK LOCATION
1 Vista Chino & Landau Blvd 9 East Palm Canyon Dr & Cathedral Canyon Dr 2 Date Palm Dr & Gerald Ford Dr 10 Ramon Rd & Whispering Palms Trail 3 Date Palm Dr & Victoria Dr 11 Vista Chino & Avenida Quintana 4 Ramon Rd & Cathedral Canyon Dr /
Avenida Maravilla 12 East Ramon Rd & Landau Blvd
5 Date Palm Dr & Converse Rd 13 East Ramon Rd & Cathedral Village East 6 East Palm Canyon Dr & Perez Rd 14 East Ramon Rd & Da Vall Dr 7 Ramon Rd & Date Palm Dr 15 Dinah Shore Dr & Cathedral Canyon Dr 8 East Palm Canyon Dr & Canyon Plaza

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 308
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 32

Unsignalized Intersections
Figure 2-17 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for unsignalized intersections. The quintiles and corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
• 80 – 100th Percentile: 175.5 to 605.7
• 60 – 80th Percentile: 12.3 to 175.4
• 40 – 60th Percentile: 6.2 to 12.2
• 20 – 40th Percentile: 1.1 to 6.1
• 0 – 20th Percentile: 0.0 to 1.0
The top quintile unsignalized intersection locations based on EPDO scores are shown on Table 2-21 and graphically on Figure 2-18. Based on roadway classifications in the Cathedral City General Plan Circulation Element, the majority priority unsignalized intersections are primarily located on arterial and major corridors with fewer top quintile intersections located on lower - order secondary, collector, and local roadways.

Table 2-21 Top Quintile Unsignalized Intersections by EPDO Score (2015-2019)

RANK LOCATION TOTAL

COLLISIONS EPDO
1 Date Palm Dr & Varner Rd 8 605.7
2 E Palm Canyon Dr & Elks Dr 5 403.3
3 Date Palm Dr & Tachevah Dr 5 398.7
4 Ramon Rd & Avenida La Paloma 6 367.6
5 Candlewood Dr & Ramon Rd 5 361.5
6 33rd Ave & Cathedral Canyon Dr 6 234.5
7 Edom Hill Rd & Varner Rd 3 207
8 Avenida La Paz & Concepcion Rd 2 200.9
9 Avenida Maravilla & Tachevah Dr 2 200.9
10 Landau Blvd & Baristo Rd / Calle Agate 2 200.9
11 Cathedral Canyon Dr & Paseo Real 2 200.9
12 Dinah Shore Dr & Whispering Palms Trl 2 200.9
13 Perez Rd & Plaza Dr 2 200.9
14 Landau Blvd & Tachevah Dr 2 196.3
15 Perez Rd & Summit Dr 2 196.3
16 Asistencia Dr & San Luis Rey Dr 1 190.2
17 Avenida La Paloma & Baristo Rd 1 190.2
18 Avenida La Paz & Durango Rd 1 190.2
19 Avenida La Vista & Minerva Rd 1 190.2
20 Corral Rd & Monte Vista Rd 1 190.2
21 Desert Princess Dr & Landau Blvd 1 190.2
22 Mccallum Wy & Whispering Palms Trl 1 190.2
23 Pamela Ln & Travis Ave 1 190.2
24 Panorama Rd & Vista Chino 1 190.2

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 309
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 33

Figure 2-17 Unsignalized Intersections EPDO Scoring

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 310
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 34

Figure 2-18 Priority Unsignalized Intersections

RANK LOCATION RANK LOCATION
1 Date Palm Dr & Varner Rd 13 Perez Rd & Plaza Dr
2 E Palm Canyon Dr & Elks Dr 14 Landau Blvd & Tachevah Dr 3 Date Palm Dr & Tachevah Dr 15 Perez Rd & Summit Dr
4 Ramon Rd & Avenida La Paloma 16 Asistencia Dr & San Luis Rey Dr 5 Candlewood Dr & Ramon Rd 17 Avenida La Paloma & Baristo Rd 6 33rd Ave & Cathedral Canyon Dr 18 Avenida La Paz & Durango Rd 7 Edom Hill Rd & Varner Rd 19 Avenida La Vista & Minerva Rd 8 Avenida La Paz & Concepcion Rd 20 Corral Rd & Monte Vista Rd 9 Avenida Maravilla & Tachevah Dr 21 Desert Princess Dr & Landau Blvd 10 Landau Blvd & Baristo Rd / Calle Agate 22 Mccallum Wy & Whispering Palms Trl 11 Cathedral Canyon Dr & Paseo Real 23 Pamela Ln & Travis Ave 12 Dinah Shore Dr & Whispering Palms Trl 24 Panorama Rd & Vista Chino

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 311
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 35

Roadway Segments
Figure 2-19 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for roadway segments. The quintiles and corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
• 80 – 100th Percentile: 181.6 to 352.3
• 60 – 80th Percentile: 35.2 to 181.5
• 40 – 60th Percentile: 10.8 to 35.1
• 20 – 40th Percentile: 6.2 to 10.7
• 0 – 20th Percentile: 0.0 to 6.1
The top two quintile roadway segment locations based on EPDO scores are shown on Table 2-22 and graphically on Figure 2-20. Based on roadway classifications in the Cathedral City General Plan Circulation Element, the majority of the priority roadway segments are arterial, major, and secondary corridors with fewer located on lower-order roadways.

Table 2-22 Top Two Quintile Roadway Segments by EPDO Score (2015-2019)

RANK CORRIDOR LOCATION TOTAL

COLLISIONS EPDO
1 Ramon Rd Western City Limits to Landau Blvd 5 352.3
2 Date Palm Dr Gerald Ford Dr to Converse Rd 3 340.1
3 Vista Chino Western City Limits to Desert Princess Dr/ Avenida Quintana 2 329.4
4 Varner Rd Western City Limits to Eastern City Limits 11 234.9 5 Perez Rd E Palm Canyon Dr / Hwy 111 to Cathedral Canyon Dr 6 209 6 Landau Blvd Ramon Rd to 30th Ave 3 186.1
7 Date Palm Dr Vista Chino to Varner Rd 3 186.1
8 San Luis Rey Dr Ramon Rd to Plaza Cir 4 183
9 Date Palm Dr Converse Rd to Victoria Dr 3 181.5
10 Date Palm Dr Perez Rd to Gerald Ford Dr 2 175.4
11 Date Palm Dr 30th Ave to Vista Chino 2 175.4
12 Palm Dr Paul Rd to Northern City Limits 2 170.8
13 Ramon Rd Via Campanile / Outdoor Resorts to Eastern City Limits 1 164.7
14 Date Palm Dr Dinah Shore Dr to Ortega Rd / Dave Kelley Rd 1 164.7 15 Via Estrada Date Palm Dr to N Paseo Laredo 1 164.7
16 E Palm Canyon Dr /
Hwy 111 E Canyon Pl / El Dorado to Canyon Pl 5 39.7

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 312
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 36

Figure 2-19 Roadway Segments EPDO Scoring

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 37

Figure 2-20 Priority Roadway Segments

RANK LOCATION RANK LOCATION
1 Ramon Rd: W City Limits to Landau Blvd 9 Date Palm Dr: Converse Rd to Victoria Dr 2 Date Palm Dr: Gerald Ford Dr to Converse Rd 10 Date Palm Dr: Perez Rd to Gerald Ford Dr 3 Vista Chino: W City Limits to Desert Princess
Dr / Avenida Quintana 11 Date Palm Dr: 30th Ave to Vista Chino 4 Varner Rd: W City Limits to E City Limits 12 Palm Dr: Paul Rd to N City Limits 5 Perez Rd: E Palm Canyon Dr / Hwy 111 to
Cathedral Canyon Dr 13 Ramon Rd: Via Campanile / Outdoor Resorts to E City Limits
6 Landau Blvd: Ramon Rd to 30th Ave 14 Date Palm Dr: Dinah Shore Dr to Ortega Rd / Dave Kelley Rd
7 Date Palm Dr: Vista Chino to Varner Rd 15 Via Estrada: Date Palm Dr to N Paseo Laredo 8 San Luis Rey Dr: Ramon Rd to Plaza Cir 16 E Canyon Pl / El Dorado to Canyon Pl

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 38

2.12 Roadway Characteristics Screening
Roadway characteristic data was obtained from the priority locations determined for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments based on EPDO scoring. Data collected was based on information provided by Cathedral City, an online field assessment of aerial imagery, and field visits. The physical roadway characteristics documented is summarized below and the data tables are provided in Appendix C.

Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
• Intersection Control
• Number of Approaches
• Presence of Marked Crosswalks
• Left Turn and Right-Turn Lane Configurations
• Intersection Geometry Complexity (Offset Approaches, Medians, Etc.) Roadway Segments
• Roadway Surface
• Roadway Geometry Complexity (Horizontal / Vertical Curves, Etc.) • Number of Lanes
• Posted Speed Limit
• Bike Lanes
• Shoulder Width
• Median Type and Width
• Number of Unsignalized and Signalized Traffic Control Devices • Roadway Safety Hardware (Guardrail, Fences, Etc.)

The roadway character istics and crash data analysis were compared to identify commonality which, for the purpose of the Cathedral City LRSP, was defined a potential connection or contributing factor for crashes and does not prove causality. Identific ation of commonality indicates a potential for higher risk crashes among locations with similar characteristics. This analysis will enable Cathedral City to proactively identify locations that may have higher risk for crashes resulting in fatal or severe injuries but are not reflected in the crash data analyzed. Future development of roadway safety projects and programs that include a combination of priority locations and other high-risk areas not identified from EPDO scoring alone will result in a wholistic approach to addressing roadway safety while maintaining high benefit cost ratios needed for competitive HSIP grant applications.

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 315
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 39

Based on trends that were consistently present across the priority locations, potential risk factors for intersections and roadway segments were identified and are summarized below.

Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
• Signalized intersections on arterial and major roads with high vehicle volumes • Signalized intersections on arterial-arterial, arterial-major, and arterial-secondary roads with high posted speed limits
• Adjacent driveways at signalized intersections
• Lack of medians on signalized intersection approaches • Offset or skewed intersection approaches
• Side street stop-controlled intersections
• Limited high visibility crosswalk striping
• Limited intersection lighting
Roadway Segments
• Arterial and major roadways with posted speeds of 45 mph or greater • Multilane (four or more lanes) roadways without raised medians • Limited roadway lighting
• Frequent driveway access
• Curved roadway alignment
• Narrow/lack of shoulders
• Lack of dedicated bike lanes

The potential risk factors identified for intersections and roadways will be used in combination with the citywide crash data analysis to inform the development of the countermeasure toolbox and future priority roadway safety projects and programs.

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 316
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 40

3 COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
Based on the results of the citywide collision analysis and roadway network screening, a countermeasure toolbox was developed based on guida nce provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)’s 20 Proven Safety Countermeasures, the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), and the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road owners. Countermeasures were se lected based on the 5E’s of traffic safety which include the following overarching strategies:

1. Engineering: Implementation of infrastructure-oriented safety treatments

2. Enforcement: Enforcement of actions that reduce high-risk behaviors

3. Education: Education of all roadway users on safe behaviors

4. Emergency Response: Improvement of emergency response times and actions

5. Emerging Technologies: Application of emerging technologies to roadways, vehicles, and/or roadway users

This section establishes the foundation for determining countermeasures that address the crashes that occur on the local roadway network and is focused on developing a toolbox of engineering countermeasures and improvements that are eligible for HSIP fundi ng. The Cathedral City LRSP is a living document and will be updated based on Caltrans standards for HSIP funding eligibility. Future LRSP updates will include increased development of the countermeasure toolbox for non-engineering countermeasures and strategies.

3.1 Engineering
Engineering countermeasures for infrastructure improvements were selected from the 2020 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road Owners (v1.5) and are summarized based on countermeasure number, countermea sure type, countermeasure name, crash types addressed, crash reduction factor (CRF), HSIP funding eligibility percentage, and opportunity for systemic approach . The LRSM includes infrastructure improvements that are eligible for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding for signalized intersections (S), non-signalized intersections (NS), and roadway s (R). Table 3 -1 provides a summary of the countermeasures for signalized intersections, Table 3-2 provides a summary of countermeasures for unsignalized intersections, and Table 3 -3 provides a summary of countermeasures for roadways.

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 317
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 41

Table 3-1 Signalized Intersection Countermeasures
CM # TYPE CM NAME CRASH
TYPE
CRASH

REDUCTION
FACTOR
HSIP

FUNDING

ELIGIBILITY

SYSTEMIC

APPROACH

OPPORTUNITY
S01 Lighting Add intersection lighting (S.I.) Night 40% 100% Medium S02 Signal
Mod
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back-plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
All 15% 100% Very High
S03 Signal
Mod
Improve signal timing
(coordination, phases, red,
yellow, or operation)
All 15% 50% Very High
S04 Signal
Mod
Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone
Detection for high speed
approaches
All 40% 100% High
S05 Signal
Mod
Install emergency vehicle pre-
emption systems
Emergency
Vehicle 70% 100% High
S07 Signal
Mod
Provide protected left turn
phase (left turn lane already
exists)
All 30% 100% High
S10 Operation/
Warning
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning (S.I.) All 30% 100% Medium
S11 Operation/
Warning
Improve pavement friction (High
Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 100% Medium
S12 Geometric
Mod
Install raised median on
approaches (S.I.) All 25% 90% Medium
S13PB Geometric
Mod
Install pedestrian median fencing
on approaches
Ped and
Bike 35% 90% Low
S16 Geometric
Mod
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from signal) All Varies 100% Low
S17PB Ped and
Bike
Install pedestrian countdown
signal heads
Ped and
Bike 25% 100% Very High
S18PB Ped and
Bike Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) Ped and
Bike 25% 100% High
S21PB Ped and
Bike
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
Ped and
Bike 60% 100% Very High
Note: Countermeasures were selected based on applicability to citywide crash patterns and future HSIP applications. A complete list of countermeasures can be found in the Caltrans LRSM

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 318
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 42

Table 3-2 Non-Signalized Intersection Countermeasures
CM # TYPE CM NAME CRASH
TYPE
CRASH

REDUCTION
FACTOR
HSIP

FUNDING

ELIGIBILITY

SYSTEMIC

APPROACH

OPPORTUNITY
NS01 Lighting Add intersection lighting
(NS.I.) Night 40% 100% Medium
NS03 Control Install signals All 30% 100% Low
NS04 Control Convert intersection to
roundabout (from all way stop) All Varies 100% Low
NS05 Control
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from stop or
yield control on minor road)
All Varies 100% Low
NS06 Operation/
Warning
Install/upgrade larger or
additional stop signs or other
intersection warning/
regulatory signs
All 15% 100% Very High
NS07 Operation/
Warning
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings (NS.I.) All 25% 100% Very High
NS08 Operation/
Warning
Install Flashing Beacons at
Stop-Controlled Intersections All 15% 100% High
NS09 Operation/
Warning
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning (NS.I.) All 30% 100% High
NS12 Operation/
Warning
Improve pavement friction
(High Friction Surface
Treatments)
All 55% 100% Medium
NS14 Geometric
Mod
Install raised median on
approaches (NS.I.) All 25% 90% Medium
NS17 Geometric
Mod Install right-turn lane (NS.I.) All 20% 90% Low
NS18 Geometric
Mod
Install left-turn lane (where no
left-turn lane exists) All 35% 90% Low
NS19PB Ped and
Bike
Install raised medians / refuge
islands (NS.I.)
Ped and
Bike 45% 90% Medium
NS20PB Ped and
Bike
Install pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations (new
signs and markings only)
Ped and
Bike 25% 100% High
NS21PB Ped and
Bike
Install/upgrade pedestrian
crossing at uncontrolled
locations (with enhanced
safety features)
Ped and
Bike 35% 100% Medium
NS22PB Ped and
Bike
Install Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Ped and
Bike 35% 100% Medium
NS23PB Ped and
Bike
Install Pedestrian Signal
(including Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon (HAWK))
Ped and
Bike 35% 100% Low
Note: Countermeasures were selected based on applicability to citywide crash patterns and future HSIP applications. A complete list of countermeasures can be found in the Caltrans LRSM

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 319
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 43

Table 3-3 Roadway Countermeasures
CM # TYPE CM NAME CRASH
TYPE
CRASH

REDUCTION
FACTOR
HSIP

FUNDING

ELIGIBILITY

SYSTEMIC

APPROACH

OPPORTUNITY
R01 Lighting Add segment lighting Night 35% 100% Medium R03
Remove/
Shield
Obstacles
Install Median Barrier All 25% 100% Medium
R04
Remove/
Shield
Obstacles
Install Guardrail All 25% 100% High
R08 Geometric
Mod Install raised median All 25% 90% Medium
R10PB Geometric
Mod
Install pedestrian median
fencing on approaches
Ped and
Bike 35% 90% Low
R11 Geometric
Mod
Install acceleration/ deceleration
lanes All 25% 90% Low
R14 Geometric
Mod
Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes
from 4 to 3 and add a two way
left-turn
and bike lanes)
All 30% 90% Medium
R15 Geometric
Mod Widen shoulder All 30% 90% Medium
R17 Geometric
Mod
Improve horizontal alignment
(flatten curves) All 50% 90% Low
R21 Geometric
Mod
Improve pavement friction (High
Friction Surface Treatments All 55% 100% High
R22 Operation/
Warning
Install/Upgrade signs with new
fluorescent sheeting (regulatory
or warning)
All 15% 100% Very High
R25 Operation/
Warning
Install curve advance warning
signs (flashing beacon) All 30% 100% High
R26 Operation/
Warning
Install dynamic/variable speed
warning signs All 30% 100% High
R28 Operation/
Warning Install edge-lines and centerlines All 25% 100% Very High R30 Operation/
Warning
Install centerline rumble strips/
stripes All 20% 100% High
R31 Operation/
Warning
Install edgeline rumble strips/
stripes All 15% 100% High
R32PB Ped and
Bike Install bike lanes Ped and
Bike 35% 90% High
R33PB Ped and
Bike Install Separated Bike Lanes Ped and
Bike 45% 90% High
R34PB Ped and
Bike
Install sidewalk/pathway (to
avoid walking along roadway)
Ped and
Bike 80% 90% Medium

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 320
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 44

CM # TYPE CM NAME CRASH
TYPE
CRASH

REDUCTION
FACTOR
HSIP

FUNDING

ELIGIBILITY

SYSTEMIC

APPROACH

OPPORTUNITY
R35PB Ped and
Bike
Install/upgrade pedestrian
crossing (with enhanced safety
features
Ped and
Bike 35% 90% Medium
R36PB Ped and
Bike Install raised pedestrian crossing Ped and
Bike 35% 90% Medium
R37PB Ped and
Bike
Install Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Ped and
Bike 35% 100% Medium
Note: Countermeasures were selected based on applicability to citywide crash patterns and future HSIP applications. A complete list of countermeasures can be found in the Caltrans LRSM Detailed information for each engineering countermeasure is provided in Appendix D including:

• Caltrans HSIP countermeasure reference
• Example image of the countermeasure
• Description of the countermeasure
• Description of where to use the countermeasure
• Description of why the countermeasure works
• Caltrans HSIP funding eligibility
• Crash types addressed
• Crash reduction factor
• Expected design life
• Planning-level approximate cost

3.2 Enforcement
Enforcement strategies will be further developed during future LRSP updates and will focus on actions that reduce high-risk behaviors and reflect the feedback received from the Cathedral City Police Department’s Traffic Division. Strategies that should be considered include:

California Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Grants
California Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) grants are administered through the Alcohol Policing Partnership (APP) Program and funded by the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The program is designed to put bad operators out of business, keep alcohol away from minors, and bring penalties such as fines, suspensions, or revocations against businesses that violate the law. ABC grants award funding to local law enforcement agencies to increase public safety by combating underage drinking and educating licensees about alcoholic beverage laws. ABC agents have expertise in alcoholic beverage laws and work with local police officers to help reduce alcohol -related community problems. The Cathedral City Police Department has been successful in obtaining ABC grant

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 321
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 45

funding to reduce the number of alcoholic beverage sales to minors, obviously intoxicated persons, illegal solicitations of alcohol, and other criminal activities such as the sale and possession of illegal drugs.

California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are administered through the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and funded by the Federal Highway Safety Program . The program seeks to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes by addressing the behavioral factors that im pact roadway safety. OTS grants for priority program areas related to enforcement includ e: Alcohol Impaired Driving, Di stracted Driving, Drug - Impaired Driving, Police Traffic Services, and Roadway Safety and Traffic Records.

Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM)
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the Un ited States Department of Transportation (USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety campaigns and marketing tools through both traditional and online media. Enforcement-related campaigns include: Distracted Driving, Drunk Driving, Law Enforcement Appreciation, Seat Belts, and Speed Prevention.

Targeted Enforcement Strategies
The primary collision factor (PCF) for citywide crashes that occurred during the study period is illustrated in Figure 3-1. The most common collision factors were unsafe speed (21%), automobile right-of-way violations ( 19%), driving under the influence ( 14%), and improper turning ( 14%).

Targeted hotspot enforcement for these PCF’s is recommended.

Figure 3-1 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2015-2019)

1 1
2 4
8 9
13 14
26 35
53 69
70 95
107
0 20 40 60 80 100
Improper Passing
Lights
Unsafe Lane Change
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Following Too Closely
Pedestrian ROW
Wrong Side of Road
Other
Pedestrian Violation
Unknown / Not Stated
Traffic Signals and Signs
Improper Turning
DUI
Automobile ROW
Unsafe Speed
Primary Collision Factor

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 322
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 46

3.3 Education
Education strategies will focus on actions that provide education to all roadway users on safe behaviors and reflect feedback received by the community. Feedback from the community was received through Connect Cathedral City – a joint initiative between Cathedral City and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) to develop projects that support walking, biking, and the use of low -speed electric vehicles (LSEVs) in the City. Figure 3-2 illustrates the Connect Cathedral City website utilized by the community to provide feedback on pedestrian, bicycle, and LSEV facilities throughout the City.

Figure 3-2 Connect Cathedral City Feedback Map

Education strategies that should be considered include:

California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are administered through the Cal ifornia State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and funded by the Federal Highway Safety Program. The program seeks to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes by addressing the behavioral factors that impact roadway safety. OTS g rants for priority program areas related to e ducation include: Motorcycle Safety, Occupant Protection, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, and Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing.

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 323
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 47

Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM)
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety campaigns and marketing tools through both traditional and online media. Education -related campaigns include: Bicycle Safety, Child Safety, Motorcycle Safety, Older Drivers, Pedestrian Safety, Seat Belts, School Bus Safety, Teen Safety, and Vehicle Safety.

3.4 Emergency Response
Emergency response strategies will focus on actions that improve emergency response times and reflect feedback received by the Cathedral City Fire Department. Historically, the Cathedral City Fire Department has conducted both in -person and online public education campaigns and has been successful in obtaining grant funding for new emergency response equipment and resources to improve response times. Additional emergency response s trategies that should be considered include:

Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road Owners (v1.5 ) Countermeasure S5: Install Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems This countermeasure is eligible for 100% funding through the Caltrans HSIP and is used for installing and/or upgrading existing emergency vehicle preemption systems at signalized intersections to address crashes involving emergency vehicles. This countermeasure can be utilized for both traditional infrared (IR) transmitter systems that rely on line -of-sight between traffic signals and emergency response vehicles and for global positioning system (GPS) systems which can transmit emergency vehicle speed, direction, and turn signal status to traffic signals to provide more efficient clearance of intersections along the route, improve response times, and eliminate traffic operations issues on coordinated corridors due to use of illegal emitters.

California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are administered through the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and funded by the Federal Highway Safety Program. The program seeks to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes by addressing the behavioral factors that impact roadway safety. OTS grants for pri ority program areas related to emergency response include: Emergency Medical Services, Occupant Protection, and Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing.

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 324
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 48

campaigns and marketing tools through both traditional and online media. Emergency response- related campaigns include: First Responder Safety, Vehicle Safety, Child Safety, and Seat Belts.

3.5 Emerging Technologies
Strategies that utilize emerging technologies will include actions that are in alignment with the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)’s Emerging Technology Challenge Area which focuses on the use of technology to prevent, identify, and respond to collisions. Emerging technology strategies will include exploring technology advancem ents that are new or underutilized to potentially reduce frequency or severity of collisions. Emerging technologies can be applied to roadways, vehicles, and / or users. Examples include autonomous and connected vehicles, future vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication that will connect all roadway users with the intent to eliminate human error and collisions, the use of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) for cars, bikes, or scooters, advancements to safety devices in vehicles, mobile applications, improvements to emergency response from drones and roadway videos, and any other technologies that help the 5E’s of traffic safety. The CA SHSP identifies six (6) general categories for emerging technologies in transportation safety:

Alerting Drivers at Risk
Alerting drivers at risk includes technology that can alert drivers to the risk of being involved in a collision, can reduce the risk by monitoring speed or blinds spots, and alert drivers to the situation with a visual or audible alert so that drivers can act accordingly.

Assisting Drivers at Risk
Assisting drivers at risk includes technology that can assist a driver when a collision is imminent.

An example is lane keeping assist, which helps drivers stay in the designated lane by alerting them through a visual, audible, or tactile warning when they begin to depart from the lane.

Protecting Vehicle Occupants
Protecting vehicle occupants includes technology upgrades by vehicle manufacturers to improve safety features in seatbelts, airbags, and vehicle structure features. These are an important factor in injury severity and fatality during collisions.

Communicating with Drivers and the Environment
Communication between drivers and their environment i ncludes technology that supports alerting drivers to risk and then assisting them. This can fall in several categories including Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) such a blind spot detection, Vehicle -to-Infrastructure (V2I) such as a roadway conditions warning alerting drivers to a collision ahead, and Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) such as a forward collision warning alerting a driver to a pedestrian in the crosswalk ahead.

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 325
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 49

Vehicle Performing as Designated
It is important that once vehicles enter the roadway they perfor m as designed for their full lifespan. This can be done through vehicle upkeep, maintenance and vehicle record keeping. A supporting technology for vehicle upkeep is many cars have an oil change indicator light, which alerts drivers to a potential need to do an oil change after so many miles.

Mobile Technology and Applications
Examples of mobile technology and applications include driving app lications which restrict texting and mobile application use and may reduce distracted driving and Transportation Network Companies (TNC) applications for rideshare companies such as Uber and Lyft which may reduce the number of impaired drivers on the road.

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 326
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 50

4 PRIORITY PROJECTS
Potential safety projects were evaluated based on Cathedral City roadway needs, the crash data analysis, roadway network screening, and countermeasure toolbox . T wo (2) priority projects were identified for development of a preliminary project scope, cost estimate, and benefit cost ratio (BCR) analysis utilizing the most recent Cycle 10 HSIP Analyzer. In order to supplement local funds while proactively implementing roadway safety, the priority projects were developed based on eligibility for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding. Additionally, recommendations are presented for HSIP funding set-asides.

4.1 Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades
Existing safety lighting and street name signs at traffic signals throughout Cathedral City will be upgraded to light-emitting diode (LED) and traffic signal backplates will be upgraded to include retro-reflective tape. Intersection lighting improves visibility of the intersection and helps reduce potential conflicts between all roadway users , including pedestrians and bicyclists who have a smaller intersection footprint . Retro-reflective tape improves the visibility of the illuminated signal faces, which makes them more visible in both daytime and nighttime conditions.

4.2 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
Existing pedestrian crosswalks at Cathedral Canyon Dr & Ortega Dr and 30th Ave & Avenida La Paz will be upgraded to include new pedestrian hybrid beacons (HAWK), curb extensions, curb ramps, high visibility crosswalk striping, advanced warning pavement markings and signs, and upgrades to existing roadway signing and striping.

4.3 Pedestrian Crosswalk Upgrades
Existing pedestrian crosswalks at unsignalized intersections throughout Cathedral City will be upgraded to include LED lighting, curb extensions, curb ramps, flashing stop sign beacons, high visibility striping, and upgrades to existing roadway signing and striping.

Table 4-1 provides a summary of the priority projects by HSIP LRSM (v1.5) countermeasures and BCR ranking. Appendix E provides more detailed priority project summaries which include:

• LRSM Countermeasure Description
• Project Description
• Map and Table of Project Locations
• Crash Analysis Summary by Severity, Collision Type, and Primary Collision Factor • Cost Estimate for Construction Items
• Cost Estimate for Preliminary Engineering (PE), Right -of-Way (ROW), and Construction (CON) project phases

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 327
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 51

• Total Expected Benefit
• Total Project Cost
• Benefit Cost Ratio

Table 4-1 Priority Projects
# PROJECT LOCATION LRSM CM BCR
1 CITYWIDE LED LIGHTING UPGRADES

1. Date Palm Dr & 30th Ave

2. Date Palm Dr & Converse Rd

3. Date Palm Dr & Dinah Shore Dr

4. Date Palm Dr & Fire Station #2

5. Date Palm Dr & Gerald Ford Dr

6. Date Palm Dr & Market Pl

7. Date Palm Dr & Mccallum Wy

8. Date Palm Dr & Ortega Rd/Dave Kelly Rd

9. Date Palm Dr & Via Oliveria/Cathedral Village S

10. Date Palm Dr & Victoria Dr

11. Date Palm Dr & Vista Chino

12. Dinah Shore Dr & Cathedral Canyon Dr

13. Dinah Shore Dr & Plumley Rd

14. E Palm Canyon Dr & Canyon Plaza

15. E Palm Canyon Dr & Cathedral Canyon Dr

16. E Palm Canyon Dr & Date Palm Dr

17. E Palm Canyon Dr & E Canyon Plaza /El Dorado

18. E Palm Canyon Dr & Officer Jermaine Gibson Ave

19. E Palm Canyon Dr & Perez Rd

20. E Palm Canyon Dr & W Bankside Dr

21. E Palm Canyon Dr & W Buddy Rodgers Ave

22. E Ramon Rd & Cathedral Canyon Dr/Avenida Maravilla

23. E Ramon Rd & Cathedral Village E

24. E Ramon Rd & Date Palm Dr

25. E Ramon Rd & Desert Vista Rd/Avenida Del Yermo

26. E Ramon Rd & Landau Blvd

27. E Ramon Rd & Via Campanile/Outdoor Resorts

28. E Ramon Rd & Whispering Palms Trail

29. Palm Dr & Paul Rd

30. Perez Rd & Cathedral Canyon Dr

31. Vista Chino & Avenida Quintana

32. Vista Chino & Avenida Maravilla

33. Vista Chino & Landau Blvd

34. E Ramon Rd & Da Vall Dr

35. Cathedral Canyon Dr & Officer David Vasquez Rd

36. Date Palm Dr & Baristo Rd

37. Date Palm Dr & Perez Rd

38. E Palm Canyon Dr & Allen Ave

39. E Palm Canyon Dr & Auto Park Dr

40. E Palm Canyon Dr & Sungate Wy

41. E Palm Canyon Dr & Van Fleet St/Monty Hall Dr

42. Gerald Ford Dd & Plumley Rd/Avenida Del Sol

43. Landau Blvd & 30th Ave

44. E Palm Canyon Dr & E Bankside Dr
S2 – Improve signal
hardware: lenses, back-
plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size,
and number

17.08 6.E.c
Packet Pg. 328
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 52

# PROJECT LOCATION LRSM CM BCR
2 HAWK SIGNALS

1. 30th & Avenida La Paz

2. Cathedral Canyon Dr & Ortega Rd
NS23PB – Install Pedestrian
Signal (including Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon (HAWK))

20.06 3

PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK UPGRADES

1. Mccallum Wy & Whispering Palms Trl

2. Avenida La Vista & Minerva Rd

3. Asistencia Dr & San Luis Rey Dr

4. Avenida La Paloma & Baristo Rd

5. Vaquero Rd & Victoria Dr

6. Judy Ln & Victoria Dr

7. Avenida Maravilla & Tachevah Dr

8. Avenida La Paz & Tachevah Dr

9. Avenida La Vista & Tortuga Rd

10. Landau Blvd & Mccallum Wy

11. Terrace Rd & Cathedral Canyon Dr
NS1 – Add intersection
lighting (NS.I.)

NS21PB – Install / upgrade
pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations (with
enhanced safety features)

18.93 4.4 Funding Set-Asides
The Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) includes two application categories – Benefit Cost Ratio s (BCR) and Funding Set -Asides (SA). Set-aside applications differ from the benefit cost ratio applications in that narrative responses related to crash histo ry, collision analysis, and benefit cost ratio calculations are not required. A portion of each HSIP funding cycle is dedicated set-aside applications. In the most recent call for projects, Cycle 10, up to 25% ($55 million) of the $227.6 million in total funding was available for four (4) set-aside categories, with a total of $43 million (18.9%) being selected by Caltrans for award . The HSIP Cycle 10 set-aside categories and funding limits per agency are summarized in Table 4-2 below. Agencies can submit one (1) application for each set-aside category.

Table 4-2 HSIP Cycle 10 Application Categories
# DESCRIPTION FUNDING LIMIT PER AGENCY
1 Guardrail Upgrades $1 million
2 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements $250,000
3 Installing Edgelines $250,000
4 Tribes $250,000

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 329
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 53

In HSIP Cycle 10, set-aside project selection was based on prioritizing based on the order below:

• Agencies who did not have any projects awarded in HSIP Cycles 8 & 9 • Agencies who did not have projects awarded under the same set-aside in HSIP Cycles 8 & 9 • Agencies who have completed a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) • Agencies who have had more Fatal & Severe Injury (F+SI) crashes with the boundaries of their jurisdiction in the last three years with data available from California Highway Patrol (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The applicant does not need to provide this number as the Caltrans District Local Assistance (DLA) will obtain the data from SWITRS if needed.

Guardrail Upgrades
Eligible project work under the guardrail upgrades set -aside funding category includes work related to the upgrade of existing guardrails and end treatments. New guardrail installations and bridge rail upgrades are not eligible.

Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
Eligible project work under the pedestrian crossing enhancements set -aside funding category includes work consistent with the following LRSM safety countermeasures:

• S17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
• NS22PB/R37PB: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB). • NS21PB: Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
• R35PB: Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)

Work related to pedestrian crossings/signs, advanced yield lines/signs, and other signs/striping are eligible. Other work related to pedestrian crossing enhancements may be a llowed provided the cost is less than 20% of the total project cost. Agencies will be responsible to any non-safety related project costs such as decorative items.

During priority project development, several non -signalized intersections with pedestrian crosswalks throughout the City, including locations in proximity to local public K-12 schools, were identified as good candidates for pedestrian crossing upgrades but did not have sufficient crash frequency and severity to yield a competitive BCR project. It is recommended that the City pursue pedestrian crossings enhancements set-aside applications during future HSIP calls for projects to

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 330
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 54

upgrade these existing pedestrian crosswalks as the crash history and BCR calculation will not be required, and HSIP set-aside funding is not typically exhausted.

Installing Edgelines
Eligible project work under the installing edgelines set -aside funding category includes the installation of edgelines along roadways and other work, such as signs and other pavement striping or marking, provided the additional cost is less than 20% of the total project cost.

Tribes
In HSIP Cycle 10, $2 million was available to federally recognized tribes in California with a maximum of $250,000 awarded per tribe. No tribes set-aside applications were submitted or awarded during HSIP Cycle 10.

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 331
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 55

5 IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
Processes for implementing the Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan and evaluating the application of the countermeasure toolbox and priority project dep loyments were developed based on the USDOT FHWA’s Implementing A Local Road Safety Plan (July 2020) and the Caltrans LRSM v1.5 (April 2020).

5.1 Implementation
Implementation of the Cathedral City LRSP demonstrates the City’s commitment to proactively addressing roadway safety needs for all users . The FHWA outlines six steps for successful LRSP implementation which includes:

• Maintain Buy-In and Support: LRSP implementation is strengthened by the support of key City officials and safety partners from the 5E’ s of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies). • Identify Funding Mechanisms: Funding for LRSP projects will be identified through local capital improvement projects and public/private development p rojects, regional MPO grant opportunities, State grant opportunities, and Federal grant opportunities. • Identify and Prioritize Projects: Projects will be prioritized based on a combination of benefit-cost ratio analyses, crash histories, and roadway risk factors. Priority projects will be implemented based on City needs, local resources, and available grant funding opportunities through the HSIP and other roadway safety infrastructure/non - infrastructure programs. Where appropriate, private development will be leveraged to strategically implement safety countermeasures and/or components of priority projects. • Determine Project Delivery Methods: Project delivery will be determined following security of project funding and prior to design. Where appropriate, pr ojects will be bundled to decrease the City’s financial and management burdens. • Evaluate Effectiveness: LRSP countermeasure and project implementation effectiveness will be evaluated based on reductions in severity (fatalities and severe injuries) and in overall crash frequency. See section 5.2 for further details. • Continue Communication and Coordination: Active communications and coordination between key City officials, safety partners from the 5E’s of traffic safety, and the public will ensure that there is synergy in overall LRSP implementation.

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 332
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 56

5.2 Evaluation
Following the application of the Cathedral City countermeasure toolbox and deployment of priority projects, the City will evaluate the LRSP strategies based on Section 7 of the Caltrans LRSM of Evaluation of Improvements. An initial evaluation will be conducted shortly after project construction through a field review that ensures the project is operating as intended. A database will be developed to track countermeasure installations, SWITRS/TIMS crash history, and field assessments on an annual basis. Feedback from the public, LRSP safety partners, and Cathedral City maintenance crews will also be included in annual evaluation. A before-and-after assessment of crashes for frequency and severity should be evaluated after 3 to 5 years of data is collected – matching the initial crash data period analyzed for the ‘before’ condition during the priority project BCR scoring process – to reduce the effects of the random nature of roadway crashes.

Table 5-1 provides an example countermeasure deployment history database per the Caltrans LRSM. The database will provide Cathedral City with the necessary information to make informed decisions on whether countermeasures from the toolbox contribute to an increase in safety, whether they should be installed at other locations through the City, and which factors may have contributed to the countermeasure’s success.

Table 5-1 Example Countermeasure Deployment History Database

PROJECT LOCATION CM

INSTALLED
DATE

INSTALLED

CRASHES
BEFORE
(DURATION

AND SEVERITY)

CRASHES
AFTER
(DURATION AND

SEVERITY)

COMMENTS

5.3 Future LRSP Updates
The Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan is a living document and must be updated at least every five (5) years to remain compliant with Caltrans HSIP grant funding eligibility requirements.

However, it is recommended that the City update the LRSP every two (2) years in alignment with typical Caltrans HSIP cycles / calls-for-projects. This will ensure the most competitive benefit cost ratios (BCRs) are achieved for any HSIP grant applications that the City may pursue. More frequent updates will also allow the City to ensure the LRSP continually reflects the most recent crash data, crash trends, countermeasures, and BCR calculations. Between LRSP updates, Cathedral City staff will continue to monitor roadway crashes, identify locations with high crash frequency and severity, match locations with the countermeasure toolbox, and implement priority projects in coordination with the City’s current CIP and development opportunities.

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 333
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 57

Future updates to the LRSP will include expansion of the Cathedral City Countermeasure Toolbox to the other traffic safety E’s for Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies. To maximize City resources, the toolbox in this LRSP was primarily developed for HSIP-eligible engineering infrastructure improvements that could be applied to priority locations identified through the collision analysis EPDO scoring and roadway characteristics screening.

Future updates to the LRSP will also include revisiting the Cathedral City LRSP Vision, Mission, and Goals statements based on feedback from the 5E’s safety partners and the annual / before- after evaluations of safety countermeasures, priority projects, and ongoing safety projects and programs within Cathedral City.

Guidelines for developing and implementing Local Road Sa fety Plans are continually being updated by the FHWA and Caltrans . Future updates to the LRSP should include reviewing the following resources to ensure the latest best-practices are followed:
• FHWA Local Road Safety Plan Do-It-Yourself Website
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures List
• FHWA Local and Rural Road Safety Program
• FHWA Local and Rural Road Safety Briefing Sheets
• FHWA Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for Local and Rural Roads • FHWA Implementing A Local Road Safety Plan
• National Association of County Engineers (NACE) – A Template for Local Road Safety Plans • California Strategic Highway Safety Plan
• Caltrans LRSP and HSIP Programs
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM)

6.E.c
Packet Pg. 334
Attachment: Cathedral City Local Roadway Safety Program (3294 : HSIP Cycle 11 Grant Application Preparation)

Cathedral City Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/4/2022

Staff Report

City Council

Item No. 6.F

Meeting Date: August 10, 2022
From: Charles McClendon, City Manager
Title: Update on Emergency Actions Related to COVID-19

City Council

RECOMMENDATION:

Update on Status of Emergency Proclamation. Possible action to continue or rescind Resolution 2020-06.

Update on Emergency Actions taken by City, County, State of Federal Agencies.

Possible consideration of additional measures to be taken. Council may add items not listed on the agenda pursuant to Government Code section 54954.2 by majority vote.

6.F
Packet Pg. 335

Cathedral City City CouncilAugust 10, 2022

Cathedral City City Council
August 10, 2022