Cathedral City City Council
August 14, 2024

REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN CVAG AND THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY

FOR THE
CVAG VARNER ROAD I-10 BYPASS FEASIBILITY STUDY

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 17th day of May 2024, by and between Cathedral City, a municipal corporation, (“City”) and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments , a California joint powers authority , ("CVAG"), and is made with reference to the following background facts and circumstances:

RECITALS

The "Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study", a valley -wide study prepared under the auspices of CVAG, has identified various transportation and highway projects and corridors throughout the Coachella Valley to be of regional importance. This project is included in the 2016 Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) document; and,

Approval of a highway financing measure by the voters of Riverside County in November of 1988, as well as the approval of an extension of Measure A by the voters in November of 2002, has created a source of funds with which to construct such projects; and,

CVAG by agreement with its member agencies and with the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC"), has been designated as the agency through which such funds are to be conveyed and disbursed for the purpose of completing said regional transportation projects; and,

CVAG Executive Committee, on July 31, 2006, approved the implementation of the amended Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee “TUMF” Fee Ordinance to increase the collected TUMF Fee, effective January 1, 2007; and,

CVAG has planned for the regional synchronization of traffic signals, the modernization and standardization of hardware and software, and preparation for future intelligent transportation system infrastructure (ITS) in the Coachella Valley; and,

In February 2018, the Executive Committee approved the Master Plan for CV Sync; and,
In February 2021, the Executive Committee awarded the construction of Phase I of the CV Sync project; and,

In December 2022, the Executive Committee awarded the construction of Phase II of the CV Sync project; and,
Contract No. CVAG-24-010
Project: CVAG Varner Road I-10 Bypass Feasibility Study

In December 2023, CVAG’s Executive Committee authorized the Executive Director to execute an engineering services contract with Dokken Engineering for a total not -to- exceed amount of $5,148,209, including contingency, for work along Varner Road to include CV Sync Phase III design and engineering and a feasibility study of an Interstate 10 bypass; and to n egotiate and execute reimbursement agreements with the local jurisdictions for costs related to the I-10 bypass (study).

Whereas, CVAG will expend Measure A or TUMF funds to front the cost of the Varner Road I-10 Bypass Feasibility Study project with said expended funds to be reimbursed in part to CVAG by Cathedral City.

NOW, THEREFORE , in consideration of the mutual covenants and subject to the conditions contained herein, the parties do agree as follows:

1. The Project is generally described as and consists of the following: Varner Road I-10 Bypass Feasibility Study. These services will hereinafter be referred to as the "Project".

2. The scope of work of the Project is more particularly described in Exhibit "A", entitled "Scope of Services " attached hereto and made a part hereof. The cost estimate for the Project is more particularly described in Exhibit "B" - "Estimate of Cost", attached hereto and made a part hereof.

3. The total estimated cost of the Project shall not exceed $ 5,148,209.00. CVAG shall coordinate the environmental studies, civil engineering and bypass analysis of the Project . CVAG shall be responsible to pay CVAG’s Consultant for the Project. City shall reimburse CVAG its proportional share, 15.4% of a portion of the Local Share of the Project equal to $86,463.47, as detailed in Exhibit “B”.

4. CVAG may decline or delay regional funds to the Project should CVAG determine that such action is necessary to maintain a minimum balance of TUMF or Measure A funds.

5. CVAG shall be responsible for initial payment of all covered Project costs as they are incurred. Following payment of such costs, CVAG shall submit invoices to City requesting reimbursement of the City’s Local Share of the Project. Each invoice shall be accompanied by detailed contractor invoices, or other demands for payment addressed to CVAG, and documents evidencing CVAG’s payment of the invoices or demands for payment. CVAG shall also submit a Project Completion Report, in a form acceptable to City, with each statement. CVAG shall submit invoices not more often than monthly and not less often than quarterly.

6.1 Upon receipt of an invoice from CVAG , City may request additional Contract No. CVAG-24-010
Project: CVAG Varner Road I-10 Bypass Feasibility Study

documentation or explanation of the Project costs. Undisputed reimbursement amounts shall be paid by City to CVAG within thirty (30) days.

6.2 If a post -payment audit or review indicates that City has provided reimbursement to CVAG in an amount in excess of the City’s Local Share of eligible costs, CVAG shall reimburse City for the excess payments within thirty (30) days of notification by CVAG.

6. Prior to any final payment to CVAG by City, a final report shall be submitted to City by CVAG containing a record of all payments made for said Project and the source of funds of all such payments, together with a record of all change orders, cost over-runs, and other expenses incurred. Final payment will thereafter be paid by City in accordance with CVAG rules, regulations and policies concerning project cost determination and expense eligibility.

7. The parties agree that should unforeseen circumstances arise which result in new work not covered in Exhibit “A,” an increase of any costs over those shown in Exhibit “B,” or other changes in the Scope of Work are proposed, CVAG will in good faith consider an amendment to this Agreement to provide for further appropriate reimbursement if the proposed amendment is in accordance with the policies, procedures, and cost determination/expense eligibility criteria adopted by CVAG. Non-substantive changes may be m ade to this agreement subject to CVAG’s General Counsel’s approval.

8. CVAG shall maintain an accounting of all funds received from City pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. CVAG agrees to keep all Project contracts and records for a period of not less than three years from the date a notice of completion is filed by CVAG on such Project; or, if the Project is not one as to which a notice of completion would normally be recorded, for three years from the date of completion. CVAG shall permit City, at any reasonable time, upon reasonable notice, to inspect any records maintained in connection with the Project. City shall have no duty to make any such inspection and shall not incur any liability or obligation by reason of making or not making any such inspection.

9. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall, at CVAG’s option, constitute an event of default and City shall provide CVAG with immediate notice thereof.

11.1 Any warranty, representation, statement, report or certificate made or delivered to CVAG by City or any of City’s officers, employees or agents now or hereafter which is incorrect, false, untrue or misleading in any material respect;
Contract No. CVAG-24-010
Project: CVAG Varner Road I-10 Bypass Feasibility Study

11.2 City shall fail to pay, perform or comply with, or otherwise shall breach, any obligation, warranty, term or condition in this Agreement or any amendment to this Agreement, or any agreement delivered in connection with the Project; or,

11.3 There sh all occur any of the following: dissolution, termination of existence or insolvency of City ; the commencement of any proceeding under any bankruptcy or insolvency law by or against City ; entry of a court order which enjoins, restrains or in any way prevents City from paying sums owed to creditors.

10. No waiver of any Event of Default or breach by one party hereunder shall be implied from any omission by the other party to take action on account of such default, and no express waiver shall affect any default other than the default specified in the waiver and the waiver shall be operative only for the time and to the extent t herein stated. Waivers of any covenant, term, or condition contained herein shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same covenant, term or condition. The consent or approval by one party to or of any act by the other party shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consent or approval to or of any subsequent or similar act.

11. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of CVAG and City and no third person shall have any right of action under this Agreement.

12. This Agreement is for funding purposes only and nothing herein shall be construed so as to constitute CVAG as an owner or a partner or joint venture with City as to the Project. CVAG shall assume the defense of, indemnify and hold harmless the City and their respective officers, directors, agents, employees, servants, attorneys, and volunteers, and each and every one of them, from and against all actions, damages, claims, losses and expenses of every type and description to which they may be subjecte d or put by reason of or resulting from the actions or inactions of CVAG related to the Project or taken in the performance of this Agreement or any agreement entered into by City with reference to the Project.

13. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this Agreement that is not disposed of by voluntary negotiations between the parties shall first be decided by the CVAG Executive Director or designee, who may consider any written or verbal evidence submitted by City. This decision shall be issued in writing. However, no action in accordance with this Section shall in any way limit any party’s rights and remedies through actions in a court of law with appropriate jurisdiction. Neither the pendency of dispute nor its consideration by CVAG will excuse City from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

Contract No. CVAG-24-010
Project: CVAG Varner Road I-10 Bypass Feasibility Study

14. Any agency receiving federal funds must have an approved Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program. All recipients of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds must carry out the provisions of Part 26, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which established the Federal Department of Transportation’s policy supporting the fullest possible participation of firms owned and controlled by minorities and women in the Department of Transportation programs. Except to the extent that such or other contrary federal regulations may apply, City covenants that, by and for itself and all persons claiming under or through it, there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the performance of this Agreement.

15. City and CVAG warrant that all aspects of the Project undertaken by them shall be undertaken in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal rules, regulations and laws. City will execute and deliver to CVAG such further documents and do other acts and things as CVAG may reasonably request in order to comply fully with all applicable requirements and to effect fully the purposes of this Agreement.

16. This Agreement may not be assigned without the express written consent of CVAG first being obtained.

17. City and their successors in interest and assigns shall be bound by all the provisions contained in this Agreement.

18. No officer or employee of CVAG shall be personally liable to City or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by CVAG or for any amount with may become due to City or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.

19. No officer or employee of CVAG shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement; nor shall any such officer or employee participate in any decision relating to this Agreement which effects his or her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which she or he is, directly or indirectly, interested, in violation of any state, federal or local law.

20. CVAG warrants that the funds received by City pursuant to this Agreement shall only be used in a manner consistent with CVAG’s reimbursement policy and all applicable regulations and laws. Any provision required to be included in this type of agreement by federal or state law shall be deemed to be incorporated into this Agreement.

21. All notices or other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in Contract No. CVAG-24-010
Project: CVAG Varner Road I-10 Bypass Feasibility Study

w
riting and shall be either personally delivered (which shall include delivery by means of professional overnight courier service which confirms receipt in writing, such as Federal Express or UPS); sent by telecopier or facsimile machine capable of confirming transmission and receipt; or sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid to the following parties at the following addresses or numbers:

If to
Cathedral City:

If to
CVAG:

John A. Corella
Director of Public Works
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
Telephone: (760) 770-0340
Tom Kirk
Executive Director
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
74-199 El Paseo, Suite 100
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Telephone: (760) 346-1127
N
otices sent in accordance with this paragraph shall be deemed delivered upon the next business day following the: (i) date of delivery as indicated on the written confirmation of delivery (if sent by overnight courier service); (ii) the date of actual receipt (if personally delivered by other means); (iii) date of transmission (if sent by telecopier or facsimile machine); or (iv) the date of delivery as indicated on the return receipt if sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. Notice of change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner detailed in this paragraph.

22. T
his Agreement and the exhibits herein contain the entire agreement between the parties, and is intended by the parties to completely state the agreement in full.

Any agreement or representation respecting the matter dealt with herein or the duties of any party in relation thereto, not expressly set forth in this Agreement , is null and void.

23. I
f any term, provision, condition, or covenant of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any party or circumstance, shall to any extent be held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the instrument, or the application of such term, provision, condition or covenant to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom or which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

24. I
n the event either party hereto brings an action or proceeding for a declaration of Contract No. CVAG-24-010
Project: CVAG Varner Road I-10 Bypass Feasibility Study

the rights of the parties, for injunctive relief, for an alleged breach or default, or any other action arising out of this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby, the prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in such action or proceeding, in addition to any other damages or relief awarded, regardless of whether such action proceeds to final judgment.

25. Time is of the essence in this Agreement, and each and every provision hereof in which time is an element.

26. This Agreement and all documents provided for herein shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any litigation arising from this Agreement shall be adjudicated in the courts of Riverside County, Desert Judicial District, State of California.

27. City and CVAG warrant that the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and any and all related documents are duly authorized and do not require the further consent or approval of any body, board or commission or other authority.

28. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts and when a counterpart shall have been signed by each party hereto, each shall be deemed an original, but all of which constitute one and the same instrument.

Contract No. CVAG-24-010
Project: CVAG Varner Road I-10 Bypass Feasibility Study

IN W
ITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the above referenced date:

AT
TEST: CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY
By:
_______________________________ By: ___________________________ Tracy R. Hermosillo, City Clerk Charles P. McClendon, City Manager AT
TEST: COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION

OF GOVERNMENTS
By:
_______________________________ By: ____________________________ Allen McMillen, Contracts Analyst II Tom Kirk, Executive Director Contract No. CVAG-24-010
Project: CVAG Varner Road I-10 Bypass Feasibility Study

EXHIBIT "A"

SCOPE OF SERVICES

REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN CVAG AND THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY

FOR THE
CVAG VARNER ROAD I-10 BYPASS FEASIBILITY STUDY

Varner Road is a de-facto bypass for Interstate 10 through much of the Coachella Valley.

The Bypass Feasibility Study will evaluate improvements that could enhance the effectiveness of Varner Road’s use in this capacity, including consideration of alternative strategies, and CV Sync.

Intelligent Transportation System elements will be added to the Varner Road corridor, including Avenue 42. These improvements will allow Varner Road to incorporated into CV Sync as “Phase III”. Consistent with CV Sync phases I and II, CVAG will provide 100% of the costs associated with the CV Sync elements of this project.

Contract No. CVAG-24-010
Project: CVAG Varner Road I-10 Bypass Feasibility Study

EXHIBIT "B"

REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN CVAG AND THE CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY

FOR THE
CVAG VARNER ROAD I-10 BYPASS FEASIBILITY STUDY

Dokken Engineering Total Contract $5,148,209.00

CVAG Share Local Share
CV Sync Phase III $2,902,404.50 $2,902,404.50 (100%) $0 Varner I-10 Bypass $2,245,804.50 $1,684,353.38 (75%) $561,451.13 (25%) $5,148,209.00

Dokken Engineering Varner I-10 Bypass $2,245,804.50
CVAG $1,684,353.38 (75%)
Local Share $ 561,451.13 (25%)

Local Shares calculated by Varner Road overall miles, overall signals, overall drainage issue miles within study area.

Avg
Miles % Signals % Drainage Issue Miles % Overall %
Riverside County 11.0 67.7 14 87.5 8.5 73.1 76.1 Cathedral City 3.1 19.3 0 0 3.1 26.9 15.4 City of Indio 2.1 13.0 2 12.5 0 0 8.5

16.2 100 16 100 11.6 100 100

Local Share: $561,451.13

Riverside County 76.1% = $427,264.31

Cathedral City 15.4% = $86,463.47

City of Indio 8.5% = $47,723.35

The project was kicked -off with the Consultant on February 1 3, 2024. Project costs will be retroactive to that date,

ITEM 12D
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
Joint Meeting of the Executive
& Transportation Committees
December 4, 2023

STAFF REPORT
Subject:

Contact:

CV Sync Phase III and additional Environmental and Engineering Services along Varner Road
Eric V. Cowle, Transportation Program Manager ([email protected]) Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to:

1. Execute an engineering services contract with Dokken Engineering for a total not- to-exceed amount of $5,148,209, including contingency, for work along Varner Road to include CV Sync Phase III design and engineering and a feasibility study of an Interstate 10 bypass;

2. Negotiate and execute reimbursement agreements with the local jurisdictions for costs related to the I-10 bypass
Background: CVAG is currently working with its member jurisdictions on a regional signal synchronization program known as CV Sync. Phase I of CV Sync addressed the top three prioritized corridors from the project’s Master Plan, which were Highway 111, Ramon Road and Washington Street. Phase I construction was completed at the end of June 2023.

In April 2018, the CVAG Executive Committee expanded CV Sync for Phase II, which focused on the next 18 top-ranked corridors:

Monterey Avenue
Cook Street
Palm Drive
Bob Hope Drive*
Fred Waring Drive*
Dinah Shore Drive*
Gene Autry Trail
Date Palm Drive
Indio Boulevard
Jefferson Street
Palm Canyon Drive
Vista Chino*
Country Club Drive*
Monroe Street
Avenue 48
Sunrise Way
Indian Canyon Drive
Jackson Street
While these corridors cross every jurisdiction in the Coachella Valley, some streets are noted with an asterisk because this regional project does not include work in the City of Rancho Mirage.

At the time that final plans progressed on Phase I and preliminary design began on Phase II, staff from CVAG’s member jurisdictions were reviewing the project as part of the Technical Transportation Advisory Sub-Committee (TTAS). The TTAS members made the case that four additional corridors should be added to Phase II. Development of intelligent transportation system (ITS) technology on these four additional corridors – Portola Avenue, Avenue 50, Avenue 44 and Varner Road/Avenue 42 – would largely complete the regional network that the individual jurisdictions currently manage. At its February 22, 2021 meeting, the Executive Committee authorized environmental studies and engineering design for Portola Avenue, Avenue 50 and

Avenue 44. Avenue 50 was authorized for construction in Phase II of CV Sync by the Executive Committee at its April 24, 2023 meeting, bringing the total corridors under construction to 19 corridors
Staff is now recommending that CVAG launch Phase III of CV Sync by working on Varner Road’s engineering and design. In addition to CV Sync related improvements, staff is recommending a feasibility study be completed to effectively design Varner Road as a bypass to Interstate 10.

Varner Road is primarily a two-lane roadway with its own history of flooding and logistical problems. And it proved to be a critical route after Tropical Storm Hilary struck the Coachella Valley with an unprecedented destructive force in August 2023. Several member jurisdictions declared a state of emergency, dozens of roads were closed across the region, and Interstate 10 was shut down in both directions at several locations. Thousands of cars and trucks were detoured from the highway and onto a bypass route that extended from Washington Street to Palm Drive in Desert Hot Springs by utilizing Varner Road. The importance of having routes like this was also highlighted by Shailen Bhatt, the Federal Highway (FHWA) Administrator, during the keynote address at the Intelligent Transportation Society of California’s Annual Conference on October 17, 2023 in Anaheim. The presentation highlighted the need for safe and efficient bypasses to the Interstate Highway System, particularly when incidents and natural disasters occur.

CVAG staff advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP) on September 19, 2023 for Professional Engineering and Intelligent Transportation Systems Engineering for Varner Road improvements.

RFP proposals were due by October 31, 2023. Four engineering firms submitted proposals: Albert A. Webb Associates, Dokken Engineering, Kimley Horn Associates Inc. and Michael Baker International.

A Selection Committee was assembled to review the proposals. The Committee included CVAG, Riverside County, Caltrans District 8 and the cities of Cathedral City and Palm Desert. The Committee scored the proposals and selected the top two consultant teams to be interviewed.

The Committee interviewed Dokken Engineering and Michael Baker International on Wednesday, November 15, with Dokken Engineering being the consensus choice for contract negotiations.

Discussion over the scope and cost proposal were completed on Friday, November 17.

Staff is now recommending the Executive Director be authorized to execute a contract with Dokken. Staff is also recommending the Executive Director be authorized to negotiate and execute reimbursement agreements with local jurisdictions, including the County of Riverside and the Cities of Indio and Cathedral City, for work related to the I-10 bypass and feasibility study.

The recommended action would also authorize the Executive Director and/or Legal Counsel to make clarifying revisions before execution.

CV SYNC Phase III Improvements will extend along a 22-mile stretch of Varner Road and will be fully designed with final Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimate (PSE) Package(s) as well as construction and implementation support provided. Final PSE is scheduled to be completed in March 2025.

The Varner Road improvements, which extend from Palm Drive to Avenue 42, will be evaluated from a traffic safety and capacity perspective with development of design alternatives to present solutions to the existing drainage issues. The proposed improvements needed to allow Varner Road to serve as the de-facto bypass to I-10 during emergency/incident management events will be carefully evaluated with potential projects, impacts, and costs to be summarized in a Varner Road Improvements Feasibility Study. A partnership with Caltrans in developing an Integrated

Corridor Management Plan will be a key component of the overall strategy to bypass Interstate

10. In addition, the Dokken team will work closely with on-going design work by CVAG and its Flooding and Blowsand project as well as design work underway in Cathedral City along Varner Road. The feasibility study is scheduled to be completed in May 2025.

Fiscal Analysis: Dokken Engineering’s proposed cost to prepare final PSE and support through construction for CV Sync Phase II, combined with a Feasibility Study for enhancing the safety and efficiency of Varner Road as a de facto bypass to I-10, is $4,680,190. This was significantly lower than the bid from the second-ranked firm.

A substantial amount of this cost is related to the civil engineering required for a I-10 bypass concept. The feasibility study will require significant hydrology and preliminary engineering. CVAG staff is in discussions with local jurisdictions, including the County of Riverside and the Cities of Indio and Cathedral City, to address the local cost share.

Staff is recommending a 10% contingency of $468,019, bringing the total contract cost would be $5,148,209. Regional transportation funding is available for this project.

Attachments:

1. Dokken Engineering Proposal: https://cvag.org/pdf/cvsync/Dokken.pdf

2. Engineering Services Contract

3. Location Map

Contract No. CVAG-23-043
Project: CV Sync Phase III – Varner/Avenue 42

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
between

COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (CVAG)
and

DOKKEN ENGINEERING
THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of December 4, 2023 between the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") and Dokken Engineering ("Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on December 4, 2023 and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than May 31, 2025, unless sooner terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.

2. SERVICES
Consultant shall perform PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, AND ITS SYSTEMS ENGINEERING SERVICES consistent with the provisions of the Request for Proposals for the proposed CV SYNC PHASE III AND VARNER ROAD IMPROVEMENT (VARNRR/AVENUE 42) PROJECT, released on September 19, 2023, (the "RFP,") and any modification thereto adopted in writing by the parties and identified herein as an exhibit to this Agreement, upon issuance by CVAG of written authority to proceed (a "Notice to Proceed") as to either (a) a portion of the work if separate and independent tasks are contemplated or (b) all work if it constitutes a single project.

Except as amended by the exhibits hereto, Consultant is bound by the contents of the RFP and Consultant's response thereto. In the event of conflict, the requirements of this Agreement, including any exhibits, then the Request for Proposals, shall take precedence over those contained in Consultant's response.

The following exhibit(s) are attached and incorporated herein by reference:

Exhibit A: Scope of Work
Exhibit B: Price Formula (Consultants Proposal)

3. PRICE FORMULA
CVAG agrees to pay Consultant at the rates set forth in Exhibit B, the Price Formula, and by reference incorporated herein. In no event shall the total amount paid for services rendered by Consultant under this Agreement exceed the sum of $5,148,209 without a written amendment.

4. PERFORMANCE
Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks required hereunder. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement.

Consultant shall submit informal progress reports to CVAG's Project Manager by telephone, e-mail or in person, on a weekly basis, in a form acceptable to CVAG, describing the state of work performed. The purpose of the reports is to allow CVAG to determine if the contract objectives and activities are being completed in accordance with the agreed upon schedule, and to afford occasions for airing difficulties or special problems encountered.

The Consultant’s Project Manager shall meet with the CVAG Project Manager as needed.

5. PAYMENT
(a) If independent and separate Work Orders are contemplated, CVAG shall pay Consultant upon satisfactory completion of each Work Order; and, unless Consultant provides a performance bond, progress payments will not be made on individual or a collection of Work Orders. If all the work constitutes a single project, Consultant shall submit invoices for work completed on a periodic basis, no more frequently than monthly.
(b) Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth in a duly issued Work Order. (c) Consultant shall submit invoices for services performed in accordance with the payment rates and terms set forth in Exhibit B. The invoice shall be in a form approved by CVAG. (d) A formal report of tasks performed and tasks in process, in a form acceptable to CVAG, shall be attached to each invoice.
(e) All invoices shall be consistent with current progress reports as well as the budget and work schedule set out in the RFP and, if modified or supplemented thereby, the exhibits to this Agreement. (f) Upon approval by CVAG's Project Manager, payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If CVAG disputes any of Consultant's invoiced fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice. 1 6. INSPECTION OF WORK
Consultant shall permit CVAG the opportunity to review and inspect the project activities at all reasonable times during the performance period of this Agreement including review and inspection on a daily basis.

7. SCOPE OF WORK CHANGES
The scope of work shall be subject to change by additions, deletions or revisions by CVAG.

Consultant shall be advised of any such changes by written notice. Consultant shall promptly perform and strictly comply with each such notice. If Consultant believes that performance of any change would justify modification of the Agreement price or time for performance, Consultant shall comply with the provisions for dispute resolution set out hereinbelow.

8. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE (a) CVAG may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon Consultant seven (7) days prior written notice. Upon tender of said notice, Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless further work is authorized by CVAG. If CVAG suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement, such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. (b) In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, CVAG shall pay Consultant only for work that has been accepted by CVAG. Work in process will not be paid unless CVAG agrees in writing to accept the partial work, in which case, prorated fees may be authorized. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, Consultant will submit a final invoice to CVAG. Payment of the final invoice shall be subject to approval by the CVAG Project Manager as set out above.

9. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT
(a) Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, CVAG shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to Consultant. Provided, however, if such failure by Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. (b) As an alternative to notice of immediate termination, the CVAG Executive Director or his/her delegate may cause to be served upon Consultant a written notice of the default. Consultant shall then have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, CVAG shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.

10. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
(a) Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to work performed, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information that relates to the performance of services under this 2 Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of CVAG or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give CVAG the right to examine and audit said books and records; shall permit CVAG to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. (b) Unless the RFP or exhibits hereto expressly provide otherwise, upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of CVAG and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by CVAG without the permission of Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to CVAG, at Consultant's office and upon reasonable written request by CVAG, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, and printing computer files.

11. INDEMNIFICATION FOR PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless CVAG, its members and any and all of their officials, employees and agents from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to Consultant's alleged act(s) or failure(s) to act.

12. INSURANCE
(a) Throughout the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall procure and maintain the following: (1) Commercial General Liability insurance in an amount not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence, $4,000,000 general aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage; (2) Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00 per claim and in the aggregate; (3) Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per accident combined single limit, at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability, Code 1 (any auto); (4) Workers’ compensation in compliance with applicable statutory requirements and Employer’s Liability Coverage in an amount not less than $1,000,0000 per accident or disease, Consultant shall submit to Agency, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of Agency, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers.
(b) Consultant shall include CVAG, its member agencies and any other interested and related party designated by CVAG, as additional insureds on the commercial general liability policy and the automobile liability policy for liabilities caused by Consultant in its performance of services under this Agreement and shall provide CVAG with a certificate and endorsement verifying such coverage. In the event said insurance coverage expires at any time or times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant agrees to provide at least five (5) days notice prior to said expiration date and, prior to said expiration date, a new certificate of insurance and endorsements evidencing insurance coverage as required herein for no less than the remainder of the term of the Agreement, or for a total period of not less than one (1) year. New certificates of insurance are subject to the approval of CVAG. In the event 3 Consultant fails to keep in effect at all times insurance coverage as required herein, CVAG may, in addition to any other remedies it may have, terminate this Agreement. (c) Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects CVAG, its member agencies, and any other interested and related party designated by CVAG as additional insureds. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by said additional insureds shall be in excess of Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it and, to the extent obtainable, such coverage shall be payable notwithstanding any act of negligence of CVAG, its members, or any other additional insured, that might otherwise result in forfeiture of coverage. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breach of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to said additional insureds. Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by any party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to CVAG.
(d) Said insurance policy or policies shall be issued by a responsible insurance company with a minimum A. M. Best Rating of “A-“ Financial Category “X”, and authorized and admitted to do business in, and regulated by, the State of California. (e) Evidence of all insurance coverage shall be provided to CVAG prior to issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Consultant acknowledges and agrees that such insurance is in addition to Consultant's obligation to fully indemnify and hold CVAG, its members and any other additional insureds free and harmless from and against any and all claims arising out of an injury or damage to property or persons caused by the acts or omissions of Consultant.

13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
(a) Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to CVAG a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither CVAG, its members, nor any of their officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of CVAG or its members. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against CVAG or its members, or bind CVAG or its members in any manner except as expressly authorized by CVAG.
(b) No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, CVAG shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder. CVAG shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.

14. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Consultant shall keep itself informed of State, Federal and local laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. CVAG, its 4 members, and their officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity for any liability occasioned by failure of Consultant to comply with this Section.

Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin, or any other unlawful basis.

15. UNDUE INFLUENCE
Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was or will be used against or in concert with any officer or employee of CVAG in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer or employee of CVAG will receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from Consultant, or from any officer, employee or agent of Consultant, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling CVAG to any and all remedies at law or in equity.

16. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES
No member, officer, or employee of CVAG, nor its designees or agents, and no public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the subject of this Agreement during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the services performed under this Agreement.

17. RELEASE OF INFORMATION/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
(a) All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without CVAG's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or sub-consultants, shall not without written authorization from the CVAG Task Manager or unless requested by the CVAG Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property of CVAG. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives CVAG notice of such court order or subpoena.
(b) Consultant shall promptly notify CVAG should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or sub- consultants be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions, or other discovery request, court order, or subpoena from any person or party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property of CVAG or its members. CVAG retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with CVAG and to provide the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, CVAG's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by CVAG to control, direct, or rewrite said response. (c) Consultant covenants that neither it nor any officer or principal of Consultant's firm has any interest in, or shall acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which will conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having such interest shall be employed by Consultant as an officer, employee, agent, or subcontractor.
5 18. NOTICES
Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by notice:

To CVAG: Executive Director
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
74-199 El Paseo, Suite 100
Palm Desert, CA 92260
To Consultant: Michael Greer, Project Manager
Dokken Engineering
1450 Frazee Road, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92108

19. ASSIGNMENT/PERSONNEL
Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of CVAG.

Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, there shall be no change in Consultant's Project Manager or members of the project team without prior written approval by CVAG.

20. MANAGEMENT
CVAG's Executive Director shall represent CVAG in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement, review and approval of all services submitted by Consultant.

During the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall provide sufficient executive and administrative personnel as shall be necessary and required to perform its duties and obligations under the terms hereof.

21. SUBCONTRACTS
Unless expressly permitted in the RFP or the exhibits hereto, Consultant shall obtain the prior written approval of CVAG before subcontracting any services related to this Agreement. CVAG reserves the right to contract directly with any necessary subcontractors in the unlikely event it becomes necessary.

22. LICENSES
At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement.

23. GOVERNING LAW
6 CVAG and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the Riverside County Superior Court, Desert Branch.

Any dispute arising under this Agreement shall first be decided by the CVAG Executive Director or designee. Consultant shall give CVAG written notice within seven (7) days after any event which Consultant believes may give rise to a claim for an increase in compensation or a change in the performance schedule.

Within fourteen (14) days thereafter, Consultant shall supply CVAG with a statement supporting the claim.

CVAG shall not be liable for and Consultant hereby waives any claim or potential claim which Consultant knew or should have known about and which was not reported in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. Consultant agrees to continue performance of the services during the time any claim is pending.

No claim shall be allowed if asserted after final payment.

24. FINAL PAYMENT CERTIFICATION AND RELEASE
CVAG shall not be obligated to make final payment to Consultant until Consultant has fully performed under this Agreement and has provided CVAG written assurances that Consultant has paid in full all outstanding obligations incurred as a result of Consultant’s performance hereunder. All obligations owing by CVAG to Consultant shall be deemed satisfied upon Consultant’s acceptance of the final payment.

Thereafter, no property of CVAG shall be subject to any unsatisfied lien or claim arising out of this Agreement.

25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.

26. FORCE MAJEURE
Neither party hereto shall be liable to the other for its failure to perform under this Agreement when such failure is caused by strikes, accidents, acts of God, fire, war, flood, governmental restrictions, or any other cause beyond the control of the party charged with performance; provided that the party so unable to perform shall promptly advise the other party of the extent of its inability to perform. Any suspension of performance by reason of this paragraph shall be limited to the period during which such cause of failure exists.

27. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder. 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.

COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERMENTS
By:

Tom Kirk, Executive Director
__
Dokken Engineering
By: ______________________________
John Klemunes, President
8 EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF WORK
9 5. WORK PLAN

Request for Proposal for
Professional Engineering, Traffic Engineering, and ITS Systems Engineering Services for

CV SYNC PHASE III AND VARNER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS

5. WORK PLAN

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Our Dokken Engineering Team has thoroughly evaluated CVAG’s RFP for Professional Engineering, Traffic Engineering, and ITS Systems Engineering Services for CV SYNC Phase III and Varner Road Improvements Feasibility Study. We attended the pre-proposal meeting and have thoroughly read through the Addendum, dated October 17, 2023, to understand the project needs and goals. We understand that the CV SYNC Phase III Improvements, with 22-mile limits as described in the next section, shall be fully designed with final PS&E Package(s) as well as construction and implementation support provided. We also understand that the Varner Road Improvements, along the 18-mile corridor from Palm Drive to Avenue 42, are to be evaluated from a traffic safety and capacity perspective with development of design alternatives to present solutions to the existing drainage issues. The proposed improvements needed to allow Varner Road to serve as the de-facto bypass to I-10 during emergency/incident management events will be carefully evaluated with potential projects, impacts, and costs to be summarized in a Varner Road Improvements Feasibility Study.

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING – CV SYNC PHASE III IMPROVEMENTS AND ICM EVALUATION Dokken Engineering has teamed with ADVANTEC, who has been working with CVAG and their stakeholders since 2016 to provide planning, design, signal timing/synchronization, construction support, and post-construction support as part of the CV SYNC Phase I and Phase II Projects. In addition, ADVANTEC provided preliminary analysis on the Phase III – Varner Road/Avenue 42 Corridor during the planning phase of the program. They are currently working with CVAG preparing the System Operations, System Maintenance, and System Management Manuals to support the CV Sync Program.

CV Sync Phase III Project – The CV Sync Phase III proposed improvements are along Varner Road from Palm Drive to Avenue 42, and Avenue 42 from Varner Road to Golf Center Parkway. The total corridor length is approximately 22 miles with a total of 23 traffic signals. Segments of the corridor are owned and maintained by the City of Cathedral City, County of Riverside, Caltrans, and the City of Indio. It is anticipated that the CV SYNC Phase III Project will follow the same planning, design, implementation, and operations as the Phase I and Phase II Projects that were delivered by ADVANTEC, with the exception that this Phase III Project will be managed by Dokken Engineering.

The ITS field technologies including QFree advanced traffic controllers (ATC), Bosch Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) System, Daktronics Changeable Message Signs (CMS), Iteris Video Detection System (VDS), C-V2X Yunex Roadway Side Units (RSUs), Acyclica Wi Fi/Bluetooth Arterial Management System (AMS) will be incorporated as part of the CV SYNC Phase III Project. In addition, a fiber optic/wireless secured communication system will be designed and will be integrated to the Phase I and Phase II communication network via proposed and existing
communication hubs that will be connected to the Regional Traffic Management Center (RTMC), Cities Traffic Operations Center, (TOCs), County of Riverside TOC, and Caltrans District 8 TMC using the CV Sync workstation. Consistent with the approach to Phase I and Phase II of CV SYNC Projects, the planning and design phases will assume the use of wireless communications through tribal nation lands to avoid ground disturbance. These field elements will be connected to QFree Kinetic Mobility, Genetec Video Management System, and Eximus Asset
Management Software. We will include other facilities to be part of the CV SYNC Phase to support management of Special Events at the Acrisure Hockey Arena; connectivity to City of Rancho Mirage Public Works Yard; and connectivity to the California Highway Patrol facility. In order to provide a reliable wireless communication network, our team recommends providing backhaul communication radios at the roof of the Agua Caliente Casino in the City of Rancho Mirage and Fantasy Springs Casino in the City of Indio and connect it to the proposed wireless communication system along Varner Road and Avenue 42 to the CV SYNC RTMC. Our proposed approach will also allow the Agua Caliente and Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Tribal Nations to be major stakeholders of the CV SYNC Program. We will

Request for Proposal for
Professional Engineering, Traffic Engineering, and ITS Systems Engineering Services for

CV SYNC PHASE III AND VARNER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
provide all the necessary planning, design, and project implementation support as described in our Work Plan. Our team anticipates the proposed communication system for CV SYNC Phase III improvements as shown in the table below.

CV SYNC PHASE III PROPOSED CORRIDOR COMMUNICATIONS SUMMARY TABLE Additional Corridor Limits Proposed Communication ImprovementsCorridors Varner Road
Varner Road
Avenue 42
From Palm Drive to Ramon Road
From Ramon Road to Avenue 42
From Varner Road to Golf Center Drive
From Avenue 42 to I-10 Freeway
Wireless Communications
Fiber Optic Communications
Fiber Optic Communications
Golf Center Drive Potentially Not-a-Part of the Phase III Project

INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT (ICM) FIGURE
Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) – CVAG wants to evaluate a potential ICM System in the Coachella Valley that will provide connectivity to Caltrans District 8 that will allow real-time coordination and management of major non-recurring events (e.g., accidents, weather events, etc.) along the I-10 freeway and provide travel time messages and detour routes to motorists to properly exit the I-10 freeway and take the Varner Road/ Avenue 42 Corridor or other CV Sync
Corridors; and allow motorist to get back safely to the I-10 freeway after the incident area. The ICM component will be evaluated along Varner Road from Palm Drive to Avenue 42, and Avenue 42 from Varner Road to Golf Center Parkway.

At this time, we are anticipating that the segment along Golf Center Drive from Avenue 42 to the I-10 interchange is not included; but it is recommended for the planning, design, and integration of an Integrated Corridor
Management (ICM) with Caltrans District 8. The Golf
Center Drive Corridor was not a Phase I or Phase II Corridor, but it was ranked No. 25 as a Priority Corridor in the
Coachella Valley (based on the approved ITS Master Plan Priority Corridors Chapter). Other connectivity points from Varner Road/Avenue 42 to the I-10 freeway (e.g., Monterey Avenue, Cook Street, Jefferson Street, etc.) are not part of the CV Sync

Request for Proposal for
Professional Engineering, Traffic Engineering, and ITS Systems Engineering Services for

CV SYNC PHASE III AND VARNER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Phase III Project but will be
included as part of the ICM
evaluation phase. These
interchanges were part of CV Sync
Phase I and Phase II Projects and
the CV Sync technologies and fiber
optic/cellular/wireless
communications will be in placed
prior to construction of the Phase
III improvements. The ICM Phase
will require coordination with
Caltrans and the corresponding jurisdictions. Current TPPS projects will be evaluated for potential incorporation into any concept level roadway improvements tied to the ICM Phase. We anticipate that the ICM related roadway and traffic signal improvements will be presented at concept design level. Our team will provide an ICM Concept-of-Operations (ConOps), Incident Scenarios, Exhibits, and ICM Architecture as part of our ICM deliverables. The figure below shows the limits of the CV Sync Phase III Project improvements and proposed ICM study segments to bring connectivity to the I-10 Freeway.

CV SYNC PHASE III and PROPOSED ICM STUDY SEGMENTS FIGURE

Request for Proposal for
Professional Engineering, Traffic Engineering, and ITS Systems Engineering Services for

CV SYNC PHASE III AND VARNER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING – VARNER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FEASIBILITY STUDY Our team has identified three key project challenges including drainage system modification design considerations, planned roadway widening (Palm Drive to Bob Hope Drive) design considerations, and stakeholder communication and coordination considerations while analyzing the Varner Road, from Palm Drive to Avenue 42, Improvements Feasibility Study Project. These challenges, along with an overview our team’s unique solutions, have been outlined below and further elaborated on pages that follow to highlight the benefit our Dokken Engineering Team brings to you.

CVAG/PROJECT CHALLENGE DOKKEN TEAM SOLUTIONS BENEFIT(S) TO CVAG Drainage System Modification Design Considerations
The flooding along I-10 and Varner We believe the first steps to analyzing this Our team has provided engineering solutions in the Coachella Valley for
years. We worked with CVAG, Palm
Road was recently evidenced
during Storm Hilary. There are
several cross-culverts and low-
water crossing upgrades needed
to alleviate this issue. Specifically,
cross-culverts within Caltrans’
ROW and low-water crossings
along Varner Road, with FEMA’s
floodplain north of I-10, will need
to be evaluated to determine
preliminary design options.
issue are to develop a comprehensive and
agreed upon Hydrology Map of the
Whitewater Watershed in this vicinity of the Springs, and Riverside County to Coachella Valley. The hydrology and contour construct a modified interchange at mapping will need to account for all existing Indian Canyon Drive. Our lead above and below ground drainage patterns
as well as aeolian windblown blow sand
migration patterns. We will coordinate with
CVWD on the floodplain and locations of
flooding as related to drainage system flow
rates and sediment transport in the system.
drainage engineer was one of the
hydrologic and hydraulic modelers
for the Whitewater River Levee
project and is very familiar with the
floodplain and challenges specific
to this immediate project area.

Planned Roadway Widening (Palm to Bob Hope) Design Considerations A portion of the recent traffic
backup along Varner Road
experienced during Storm Hilary
was related to insufficient
roadway capacity along certain
roadway segments and at
Dokken has extensive experience preparing
feasibility studies for large and small
projects. Corridor upgrade projects, such as
Our team has prepared several
feasibility study and project report
type documents for our clients.
this one, require a big picture perspective to With in-house environmental, ensure proposed improvement at any one
location, roadway segment, or intersection
do not create potential additional issues at
structural, and right-of-way
engineers that have been delivering
projects together for years CVAG
can be assured that our team will
signalized intersections. The
segments along Varner Road, from another. Our team at Dokken is skilled at Palm Drive to Bob Hope Drive, are working with our clients and sub consultants be efficient, thorough, and accurate currently listed in the SCAG FTIP to to find solutions that work best for all. with our assessment of design options and alternatives. We are
also currently coordinating with
ADVANTEC to provide construction
have capacity-increasing
improvements. Alternative
analysis on the optimal roadway
alignment and widening options
will be completed for this project.

Evaluation of intersection alternatives that
meet the goals of adjacent property owners
while minimizing property impacts,
increasing capacity, and improving safety for support for a Bridge Widening all users is something we take great pride in. Project over UPRR in Palm Springs.

Stakeholder Communication and Coordination
This project has invested interest
from Cities and other nearby
stakeholders including businesses, City staff, residents, business owners, and residents, schools, and tribal
nations. The proposed corridor
improvements will directly impact that proposed improvements minimize accessibility and emergency property and utility impacts by maintaining response for all, so garnering their existing infrastructure. We know that clear We have extensive expertise providing
project updates to executive committees,
Our proactive approach to
communication with stakeholders
using available technology and
exhibits that are easy to read and
comprehend will enable our team
to resolve questions or concerns in
a timely manner and minimize any
miscommunication regarding
other community stakeholders. Our team is
familiar with this corridor and will ensure
input will be critical to successful
delivery of the project.
communication keeps everyone informed
of the project status and schedule.
project goals, improvements, and
potential impacts or utility conflicts.

This section elaborates a bit more on each of the afore-mentioned design challenges that are anticipated on this project. We have also included Project Overview Exhibits within Appendix 6.5 to help distinguish between the limits of each and identify areas of drainage analysis concern and potential widening along the corridor.

Request for Proposal for
Professional Engineering, Traffic Engineering, and ITS Systems Engineering Services for

CV SYNC PHASE III AND VARNER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS

DRAINAGE SYSTEM MODIFICATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Existing terrain along the corridor is generally sloping from north to south, with varying grades between the slopes and high elevation points at Palm Drive and Date Palm Drive. There are several existing low water crossings along the corridor that our team will evaluate options for upgrades such as reinforced concrete pipes or box culverts as needed for this project. When minor modifications are proposed we have in-house structural designers that can provide structural designs and calculations that document proposed modifications. As part of this project’s hydraulics and hydrology analysis, a review of the current hydromodification requirements as related to these proposed improvements will be conducted to ensure water quality treatment features, that minimize utility conflicts, are proposed where needed.

Thus, proper analysis of existing hydrology and flow patterns paired with an in-depth understanding of the drainage patterns, existing drainage facilities, and water quality treatment options will allow our team as well as CVAG and the CVWD to meet the project’s goals while adhering to current drainage and water quality treatment standards.

PLANNED ROADWAY WIDENING (PALM TO BOB HOPE) DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS For the Varner Road widening feasibility study, we would also look to project partners such as CVWD to develop complementary facilities such as a raised roadway section that acts as a levee to prevent flooding of I-10. The northside toe of the roadway prism could be excavated into a longitudinal basin which would provide fill for the roadway prism but also capture and infiltrate flood flows. As the entire north side of I-10 is FEMA designated floodplain, it will be critical to account for the floodplain hydrology and hydraulics to understand drainage paths and design facilities that are able to prevent the roadway from flooding in the future. This may include joint use facilities such as flood control basins that can capture flood flows and then infiltrate off-peak, off-site diversions, and other larger-scale facilities that are capable of collecting and conveying flood waters away from Varner Road. This section along Varner Road as highlighted below, between Palm Drive and Bob Hope Drive is currently listed for widening from a two-lane to a four-lane roadway in SCAG’s FTIP, thus not subject to VMT Traffic Analysis as other roadway widening segments would be. Additional improvements along the corridor will be evaluated to understand the traffic mobility needs of each intersection and specific turning movements and pocket lengths.

STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION
Proper coordination to understand the needs and preferences of the community will ensure stakeholders are heard and their input incorporated into project improvements. With in-house Right of Way Agents our team can coordinate with homeowners on CVAG’s behalf to expedite processes and alleviate the CVAG of this burden if needed once proposed improvements and easement needs are confirmed. There are a few areas along the project, specifically along steep slopes, that may benefit from the addition of retaining walls to help minimize impacts to adjacent properties. The type of retaining walls to be designed and constructed will depend on many factors including the height of the wall, available width and right of way to build the wall, geotechnical design parameters, and the aesthetic appeal of the wall considering local input.

Request for Proposal for
Professional Engineering, Traffic Engineering, and ITS Systems Engineering Services for

CV SYNC PHASE III AND VARNER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
SCOPE OF WORK – CV SYNC PHASE III IMPROVEMENTS
TASK 1 – PROJECT INITIATION, MANAGEMENT, AND COORDINATION Subtask 1.1 Meetings and Coordination
•
•
•
•
•
Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) Caltrans and Stakeholders Coordination Kickoff Meeting (1)
Project Meetings (14)
ICM Meetings (12), and
TSMO Meetings (12)
Subtask 1.2 Project Administration
Task 1 Deliverables: Project Management; Project Coordination with CVAG, Cities, Caltrans, and County; ICM Planning/Coordination with Caltrans and Stakeholders; Project Meetings; ICM Meetings; TSMO Meetings; Meeting Notices, Agendas, Minutes, and Presentation Materials; Technical Memos; Staff Reports and Attachments; Monthly Progress Report; Project Schedule; Stakeholder List; Team Coordination and Budget Monitoring TASK 2 – DATA COLLECTION AND FIELD REVIEW
Subtask 2.1 Data Collection and Field Review
Task 2 Deliverables: Data Collection Inventory Matrix; Field Review and Notes; Photo Logs TASK 3 – CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING AND ANALYSIS
Task 3 Deliverables: ICM Concept-of-Operations Report; Incident Scenarios; Exhibits; ICM Architecture TASK 4 – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Task 4 Deliverables: Preliminary Engineering and Cost Estimates (70 Sheets) TASK 5 – ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE Task 5 Deliverables: Project Management; Project Coordination; Preparation of Documents/Details/Exhibits; Project Coordination Meetings
TASK 6 – FINAL DESIGN
Subtask 6.1 Fiber Optic/Wireless Communications, RTMC, RTOC, and ITS Field Elements Plans and Details Subtask 6.2 Technical Specifications, Special Provisions, and Hardware and Software Procurement List Subtask 6.3 Construction Quantities and Engineer’s Estimates Task 6 Deliverables: Fiber Optic/Wireless Communications, Secured Communication Network, RTMC, TOCs, and ITS Field Elements Plans and Details (189 Sheets); GIS Mapping of Final Approved Plans; Technical Specifications; Special Provisions; and Hardware and Software Procurement List; Construction Quantities and Engineer’s Estimates TASK 7 – GRANT FUNDING APPLICATION SUPPORT
Task 7 Deliverables: ITS, Smart Mobility and Smart Cities Grant Funding Application Support TASK 8 – UTILITY COORDINATION
Task 8 Deliverables: Varner Road/Avenue 42 Corridor and Twenty-three (23) Signalized Intersections Utility Notification and Coordination; SCE and IID Electrical Service Points Coordination for Proposed CMS TASK 9 – RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT ACQUISITION
Task 9 Deliverables: N/A
TASK 10 – CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT, COORDINATION, AND MEETING ATTENDANCE Task 10 Deliverables: Construction Support, Coordination, and Meetings Attendance

Request for Proposal for
Professional Engineering, Traffic Engineering, and ITS Systems Engineering Services for

CV SYNC PHASE III AND VARNER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
TASK 11 – PROJECT IMPLEMNTATION SUPPORT
Subtask 11.1 Conduct Traffic Signal Counts, Field Observations, Measurements, and Data Gathering • Corridor “Before” Study (Varner Road/Avenue 42 Corridor) Subtask 11.1 Deliverables: 7-day ADT counts (13 locations); ITM counts during AM, Midday, PM, and Saturday Midday (23 locations); Report summarizing data collection and field review efforts; Excel Files of updated timing parameters; “Before” Study Memorandum; Tru-traffic files with trip logs; In-vehicle video recording of each travel run Subtask 11.2 Prepare, Implement and Adjust Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination Based on Field Observations and Observations from the Regional Traffic Management Center Signal Timing Optimization and Implementation •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Proposed Network Modeling
Concept of Operations
Develop Optimized Traffic Signal Timing
Signal Timing Implementation
Optimize Signal Timing (Fine-Tuning)
Corridor “After” Study (Varner Road/Avenue 42 Corridor) Before/After Synchronized Video
Subtask 11.2 Deliverables: Concept of Operations Report including Scenarios; Proposed Synchro and Tru-traffic with optimized timing parameters; Draft and Final Network Modeling Technical Memorandum documenting the signal timing optimization; Implementation-ready timing sheets for each agency; Final optimized Synchro and Tru-traffic files; After Study Report; Tru-traffic files with “Before” and “After” trip logs; Synchronized videos showing Before and After runs for AM, Midday, PM, and Saturday peak periods
Subtask 11.3 Traffic Control and Detour Plans
•
•
Project Coordination and Meeting Attendance
Field Investigation
Subtask 11.3 Deliverables: Traffic Control, Details, and Detour Plans (170 Sheets); Project Coordination, Meeting Attendance, Meeting Notes, and Action Items; Field Investigation, Notes, Video, and Photos of Existing Conditions During Construction
Subtask 11.4 System Operations and Maintenance Support Services Subtask 11.4 Deliverables: System Operations and Maintenance Support Services Subtask 11.5 Record Drawings
Subtask 11.5 Deliverables: Record Drawings (189 Sheets) Subtask 11.6 Updates to the CV Sync Operations and Maintenance Manuals Subtask 11.6 Deliverables: Updates to the CV Sync Operations, Management, and Maintenance Manuals Subtask 11.7 Updates to CVAG ITS Master Plan
Subtask 11.7 Deliverables: Update to CVAG ITS Master Plan Subtask 11.8 Project Closeout Support Services
•
•
•
Environmental Documents
Closeout Documents
Executive Level Support Documents
Subtask 11.8 Deliverables: Project Closeout Support Services *A DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK, WITH DESCRIPTIONS OF EACH TASK AND SUBTASK, CAN BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST

Request for Proposal for
Professional Engineering, Traffic Engineering, and ITS Systems Engineering Services for

CV SYNC PHASE III AND VARNER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
SCOPE OF WORK – VARNER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FEASIBILITY STUDY TASK 1 – PROJECT INITIATION, MANAGEMENT, AND COORDINATION Subtask 1.1 Meetings and Coordination
•
•
•
•
•
Coordination with CVAG, Cities, Caltrans, and Stakeholders Kickoff Meeting (1)
Bi-Weekly Project Meetings (24)
Transportation Committee Meetings (4), and
Executive Committee Meetings (4)
Subtask 1.2 Project Administration
Task 1 Deliverables: Project Management; Project Coordination with CVAG, Cities, Caltrans, and Stakeholders; Project Meetings; TC Meetings; EC Meetings; Meeting Notices, Agendas, Minutes, and Presentation Materials; Technical Memos; Staff Reports and Attachments; Monthly Progress Report; Project Schedule; Stakeholder List; Team Coordination and Budget Monitoring
TASK 2 – DATA COLLECTION AND FIELD REVIEW
Subtask 2.1 Data Collection and Field Review
Subtask 2.2 Utility Base Mapping from As-Builts and Site Visits Subtask 2.3 Aerial Topographic Mapping and Imagery
Task 2 Deliverables: Data Collection Inventory Matrix; Field Review and Notes; Photo Logs TASK 3 – CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING AND ANALYSIS
Subtask 3.1 Traffic Data Collection and Modeling
Subtask 3.2 Roadway and Intersection Safety and Capacity Analysis Subtask 3.3 Future Volume Forecasting, Operations Analysis, and Traffic Report Subtask 3.4 Draft Varner Road Improvements Feasibility Study •
•
•
•
Executive Summary
Introduction
Project Background, including Community Interaction
Purpose and Need, including Regional and System
Planning
•
•
•
•
Schedule to Deliver Project
Approvals and Recommendation
Project Personnel
Potential Right of Way Impacts, including Access
Control
•
•
•
•
•
•
Existing Facilities, including Utilities
Environmental Compliance Considerations
Traffic, Maintenance, and Operations Impacts
Drainage and Stormwater Treatment
Alternatives Considered
Other Considerations, including Permits, Agreements,
Complete Streets
Alternatives Rejected
•
•
•
•
•
Basis of Design Worksheet Identifying Non-Standard
Design Features
Storm Water Requirements/Construction General
Permit Risk Level Assessment
Preliminary Cost Estimate (using square footage cost
factors for quantities)
11x17, Scaled Exhibits of Each of the Three (3)
Alternatives
Grant Funding Opportunities
•
• Funding, Programming, and Estimate
Subtask 3.5 Final Varner Road Improvements Feasibility Study Task 3 Deliverables: Traffic Count Data; Traffic Modeling; Roadway Segment Safety and Capacity Analysis; Intersection Turning Movement and Traffic Control Safety and Capacity Analysis; Draft/Final Varner Road Improvements Feasibility Study; Draft/Final Drainage Report (Optional) TASK 4 – PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Our team’s understanding is that Preliminary Engineering task for the Varner Road Improvements Feasibility Study portion of this project has been removed from the scope of work per Addendum No. 1, dated October 17, 2023. Please see Task 12 for optional Surveying/Right-of-Way Assessments and Geotechnical Investigations tasks related to Preliminary Engineering.

Request for Proposal for
Professional Engineering, Traffic Engineering, and ITS Systems Engineering Services for

CV SYNC PHASE III AND VARNER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
TASK 5 – ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE Our team’s understanding is that Environmental Studies and Environmental Clearance task for the Varner Road Improvements Feasibility Study portion of this project has been removed from the scope of work per Addendum No. 1, dated October 17, 2023. Please see Task 12 for optional Preliminary Environmental Assessment as well as Biological, Cultural, and Hazardous Waste Assessment Memorandum Tasks related to Environmental Studies and Clearance.

TASK 6 – FINAL DESIGN
Our team’s understanding is that this Final Design task for the Varner Road Improvements Feasibility Study portion of this project has been removed from the scope of work per Addendum No. 1, dated October 17, 2023.

Task 6 Deliverables: N/A
TASK 7 – GRANT FUNDING APPLICATION SUPPORT
Task 7 Deliverables: ATP, Complete Streets, and Vision Zero Grant Funding Application Support TASK 8 – UTILITY COORDINATION
Our team’s understanding is that this Utility Coordination task for the Varner Road Improvements Feasibility Study portion of this project has been removed from the scope of work per Addendum No. 1, dated October 17, 2023.

Task 8 Deliverables: N/A
TASK 9 – RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT ACQUISITION
Our team’s understanding is that this Right-of-Way and Easement Acquisition task for the Varner Road Improvements Feasibility Study portion of this project has been removed from the scope per Addendum No. 1, dated October 17, 2023.

Task 9 Deliverables: N/A
TASK 10 – CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT, COORDINATION, AND MEETING ATTENDANCE This task will no longer be required without the preparation of final construction documents for this portion of the project.

Task 10 Deliverables: N/A
TASK 11 – PROJECT IMPLEMNTATION SUPPORT
This task will only be required for the CV SYNC Phase III portion of the project.

Task 11 Deliverables: N/A
TASK 12 – OPTIONAL FEASIBILITY STUDY DESIGN SUPPORT TASKS Subtask 12.1 Draft/Final Drainage Report
Subtask 12.2 Field Surveying/Mapping and Right-of-Way Needs Assessment Subtask 12.3 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations
Subtask 12.4 Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Subtask 12.5 Cultural Survey/Assessment Memorandum
Subtask 12.6 Biological Survey/Assessment Memorandum
Subtask 12.7 Hazardous Waste Survey/Assessment Memorandum Task 12 Optional Deliverables: Draft/Final Drainage Report; Field Surveying/Mapping Needs Assessment Matrix; Right-of-Way Mapping/Acquisition Needs Assessment Matrix; Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations Report; Preliminary Environmental Assessment; Cultural Survey/Assessment Memorandum; Biological Survey/Assessment Memorandum; Hazardous Waste Survey/Assessment Memorandum *A DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK, WITH DESCRIPTIONS OF EACH TASK AND SUBTASK, CAN BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST

Request for Proposal for
Professional Engineering, Traffic Engineering, and ITS Systems Engineering Services for

CV SYNC PHASE III AND VARNER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS

EXHIBIT “B”

PRICE FORMULA
10 COSTꢀPROPOSALꢀ‐ꢀHOURSꢀBREAKDOWNꢀBYꢀTASK
CV‐SYNCꢀPHASEꢀ3ꢀPORTIONꢀOFꢀPROJECT
Octoberꢀ31,ꢀ2023
DOKKENꢀENGINEERING ADVANTEC
TASKꢀDESCRIPTION GRANDꢀ OTHER

TOTAL DIRECT

HOURS COSTS
GRAND
TOTAL
COSTS
OTHER
DIRECT
COST
OTHERꢀ
DIRECTꢀ TOTALꢀCOST
COST
TOTAL
HOURS
TOTAL
COST
TOTALꢀ
HOURS
BILLINGꢀRATES* $320 $265
120
$235 $225 $185
100
$265 $225 $185
100
$165 $145 $125 $165 $165 $135 $105 $350
214
$290 $310 $250 $195 $175 $155 $140 $120
TASKꢀ1ꢀ–ꢀPROJECTꢀMANAGEMENT 8
4 4
20 20
20 20
40 40
408 $87,160
$67,880
$19,280
$8,340
$8,340
$3,920
$3,920
$15,600
$15,600
29110
96 56
40 8
74 74
48 48
154
114
40 586 $10,700 $172,690
$123,790
$48,900
$71,120
$71,120
$89,910
$89,910
$139,750
$139,750
18780
994 $10,700
750 $8,400
244 $2,300
454 $4,200
454 $4,200
352 $1,000
352 $1,000
906 $2,000
906 $2,000
278 $1,000
278 $1,000
3677 $12,500
3,351 $11,500
$259,850
$191,670
$68,180
$79,460
$79,460
$93,830
$93,830
$155,350
$155,350
$47,890
$47,890
$719,060
$644,960
$43,470
$30,630
$44,150
$44,150
$23,890
$23,890

1.1ꢀMeetingsꢀandꢀCoordination 80
40 4
80 20
8 80
20 8
324
84 134
80 6
426
160
406
406
336
336
832
832
80 $8,400
$2,300
$4,200
$4,200
$1,000
$1,000
$2,000
$2,000
1000

1.2ꢀProjectꢀAdministrationꢀ
TASKꢀ2ꢀ–ꢀDATAꢀCOLLECTION 2
2 2
2 8
8 8
8 8
8 48 64
64 54
54 62
62 164
164
32 82
82 82
82 32
32 2.1ꢀDataꢀCollectionꢀandꢀFieldꢀReview
TASKꢀ3ꢀ–ꢀCONCEPTUALꢀENGINEERINGꢀANDꢀANALYSIS
‐ꢀICMꢀConceptꢀOfꢀOperationsꢀReportꢀ(ConOps)ꢀ‐
TASKꢀ4ꢀ–ꢀPRELIMINARYꢀENGINEERING
‐ꢀPreliminaryꢀNetwork,ꢀLayoutꢀPlans,ꢀandꢀEstimatesꢀ‐
4 8 8 48 6 8
4 4 8
8 16 42
42 14
14 12
12 148
108
32 8
16 16
28 28
24 24
160
1604 4 16 32
2 2
8 4
4 4
4 8 16
16 32
32 74 400
400
20 164
164
12 164
164
12 8 8 74
TASKꢀ5ꢀ–ꢀENVIRONMENTALꢀSTUDIESꢀANDꢀENVIRONMENTALꢀCLEARANCE ‐ꢀProjectꢀDescription,ꢀExhibits,ꢀandꢀPESꢀForm(s)ꢀ‐
TASKꢀ6ꢀ‐ꢀFINALꢀDESIGN
2 4 32
32 64
64 64
64 32
32 198
198
398
372
16 2 4 $29,110
$76,650
$70,720
$3,600
$2,330
$4,240
$4,240
$5,390
$5,390
20 12 12 80 $1,000 $18,780
$642,410
$574,240
$39,870
$28,300
$39,910
$39,910
$18,500
$18,500
4 4
24 16
4 8
8 8
8 44
32 8
70 64
4 16
16 32
32 128
128
64 64
321
263
42 16
24 24
8 616
510
82 1360
1296
676
676
158
126
3279 $12,500
2,979 $11,5006.1ꢀPlansꢀforꢀFO/WirelessꢀComms,ꢀRTMC,ꢀRTOC,ꢀ&ꢀITSꢀElementsꢀwithꢀDetails

6.2ꢀTechnicalꢀSpecificationsꢀandꢀHardwareꢀandꢀSoftwareꢀProcurementꢀListꢀ

6.3ꢀConstructionꢀQuantitiesꢀandꢀEngineer’sꢀEstimatesꢀ
TASKꢀ7ꢀ–ꢀGRANTꢀFUNDINGꢀAPPLICATIONꢀSUPPORT
‐ꢀITS,ꢀSmartꢀMobilityꢀandꢀSmartꢀCitiesꢀGrantꢀFundingꢀApplicationꢀSupportꢀ‐ TASKꢀ8ꢀ–ꢀUTILITYꢀCOORDINATION
156
144
206
206
104
104
$500
$500
$500
$500
$500
$500
172
154
224
224
134
134
$500
$500
$500
$500
$500
$500
4 4 2 10 24 64
126
126
64 32
2 2
4 8 4 18 16
16 40
404 8 4 18
2 4 8
8 16
16 30 32
32‐ꢀUtilityꢀNotificationꢀandꢀCoordinationꢀwithꢀSCEꢀandꢀIIDꢀServiceꢀPointsꢀ‐ TASKꢀ9ꢀ–ꢀRIGHT‐OF‐WAYꢀANDꢀEASEMENTꢀACQUISITIONꢀ(N/A)
TASKꢀ10ꢀ–ꢀCONSTRUCTIONꢀSUPPORT
2 4 30 8 64
4 4
6 16
16 36
4 4
4 2
4 4
2 16
16 40
8 8
8 8
32 32
36 32
32 16
16 32
32 172
172
288
8 $30,800
$30,800
$53,950
$1,960
240
240
204
4 40
40 500
500
240
340
340
826
1120 $12,000
1,120 $12,000
3953 $47,400
152 $32,000
$264,600
$264,600
$751,000
$58,620
$159,450
$253,300
$41,750
$62,320
$76,380
$81,180
$18,000
1292 $12,000
1,292 $12,000
4241 $47,400
160 $32,000
820 $3,400
1,791 $6,000
176 $1,500
462 $1,000
348 $1,000
384 $1,000
100 $1,500
$295,400
$295,400
$804,950
$60,580
$163,370
$294,940
$41,750
$66,310
$76,380
$81,180
$20,440
‐ꢀBiddingꢀandꢀConstructionꢀSupportꢀServicesꢀ‐
TASKꢀ11ꢀ–ꢀPROJECTꢀIMPLEMENTATIONꢀANDꢀSUPPORT

11.1ꢀSignalꢀCountꢀCoordination,ꢀObservations,ꢀMeasurements,ꢀandꢀData

11.2ꢀPrepare,ꢀImplement,ꢀandꢀAdjustꢀTrafficꢀSignalꢀTimingꢀ

11.3ꢀTrafficꢀControlꢀandꢀDetourꢀPlans
10 28
4 64
64 64
64 226 322 614
124
490
856 665
24 8 8 16 $3,920 16
40 54
4 298 804
1,555
176
444
348
384
90 $3,400
$6,000
$1,500
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,500
4 16 32
4 8
2 16 32
4 236 $41,640 110 400
122
32 540
200
465
200

11.4ꢀSystemꢀOperationsꢀandꢀMaintenanceꢀSupportꢀServices

11.5ꢀRecordꢀDrawings 4 2 2 18 $3,990
$2,440
8 32
64 12

11.6ꢀUpdatesꢀtoꢀtheꢀCVꢀSyncꢀOperationsꢀandꢀMaintenanceꢀManuals

11.7ꢀUpdatesꢀtoꢀCVAGꢀITSꢀMasterꢀPlan
48 32
6 120
120
148
100
24 68
4811.8ꢀProjectꢀCloseoutꢀSupportꢀServices 2 4 4 10
TOTALꢀHOURS
TOTALꢀCOST
*Billing Rates will be adjusted in January of each Calendar year by 5%, rounded to the nearest multiple of $5. 26 220 40 40 236 116 60 208 224 48 136 96 64 72 64 1,650 896 791 234 322 1,584 3,486 1,290 1,304 995 10,902 12,552 $8,320 $58,300 $9,400 $9,000 $43,660 $30,740 $13,500 $38,480 $36,960 $6,960 $17,000 $15,840 $10,560 $9,720 $6,720 $315,160 $313,600 $229,390 $72,540 $80,500 $308,880 $610,050 $199,950 $182,560 $119,400 $91,800 $2,208,670 $91,800 $2,523,830

COSTꢀPROPOSALꢀ‐ꢀHOURSꢀBREAKDOWNꢀBYꢀTASK
CV‐SYNCꢀPHASEꢀ3ꢀWITHꢀVARNERꢀROADꢀFEASIBILITYꢀSTUDYꢀANDꢀPS&E Octoberꢀ31,ꢀ2023
DOKKENꢀENGINEERING
TASKꢀDESCRIPTION OTHER
DIRECT
COST
TOTAL
HOURS
TOTAL
COST
BILLINGꢀRATES* $320 $265
144
$235 $225 $185
144
$265 $225 $185 $165 $145 $125 $145 $165 $245 $165 $135 $105 $210 $170 $110 TASKꢀ1ꢀ–ꢀPROJECTꢀMANAGEMENT 12
8 24
24 72
48 24
6 24
24 48
48 48
48 24
24 24
24 564 $119,160
$90,880
$28,280
$93,610
$16,490
$24,360
$52,760
$450,020
$2,330

1.1ꢀMeetingsꢀandꢀCoordination 96
48 16
4 96
48 28
8 440
124
260
102
133
25 1.2ꢀProjectꢀAdministrationꢀ 4
TASKꢀ2ꢀ–ꢀDATAꢀCOLLECTION 2 6
2 4
6 2
4 8
8 32
8 48
16 32
48 16
32 16 4
4 8
8 8
8 8
8 16
16 $49,500

2.1ꢀDataꢀCollectionꢀandꢀFieldꢀReview 2

2.2ꢀUtilityꢀBaseꢀMappingꢀfromꢀAs‐BuiltsꢀandꢀSiteꢀVisits

2.3ꢀAerialꢀTopographicꢀMappingꢀandꢀImagery
TASKꢀ3ꢀ–ꢀCONCEPTUALꢀENGINEERINGꢀANDꢀANALYSIS

3.1ꢀTrafficꢀDataꢀCollectionꢀandꢀModeling

3.2ꢀRoadwayꢀandꢀIntersectionꢀSafetyꢀandꢀCapacityꢀAnalysis 1 1
5 8 4 16
4 16
8 8
8 $1,500
4 $48,000
110
4 24 48 208
4 118
2 48 192 384 772 384 192 24 12 24 24 48 12 42 62 2733
10 2 8 8 16
4 34 $8,480

3.3ꢀFutureꢀVolumeꢀForecasting,ꢀOperationsꢀAnalysis,ꢀandꢀTrafficꢀReport

3.4ꢀDraftꢀFeasibilityꢀStudyꢀwithꢀPlans,ꢀEstimates,ꢀandꢀOtherꢀAppendices

3.5ꢀFinalꢀFeasibilityꢀStudyꢀwithꢀPlans,ꢀEstimates,ꢀandꢀOtherꢀAppendices TASKꢀ4ꢀ–ꢀPRELIMINARYꢀENGINEERINGꢀ(N/A)
2 4 10 $2,330
2 1
64 32
16 8
32 16
128
64 64
32 32
16 128
64 256
128
516
256
256
128
128
64 16
8 8
4 16
8 16
8 32
16 10
2 40
2 60
2 1,820
859
$295,960
$140,920
TASKꢀ5ꢀ–ꢀENVIRONMENTALꢀSTUDIESꢀANDꢀENVIRONMENTALꢀCLEARANCEꢀ(N/A) TASKꢀ6ꢀ‐ꢀFINALꢀDESIGNꢀ(N/A)
TASKꢀ7ꢀ–ꢀGRANTꢀFUNDINGꢀAPPLICATIONꢀSUPPORT
‐ꢀATP,ꢀCompleteꢀStreets,ꢀandꢀOtherꢀGrantꢀFundingꢀApplicationꢀSupportꢀ‐ TASKꢀ8ꢀ–ꢀUTILITYꢀCOORDINATIONꢀ(N/A)
2 2
8 8
8 8
32 32
16 16
64 64
128
128
32 32
290
290
$45,920
$45,920
TASKꢀ9ꢀ–ꢀRIGHT‐OF‐WAYꢀEASEMENTꢀANDꢀACQUISITIONꢀSUPPORTꢀ(N/A) TASKꢀ10ꢀ–ꢀCONSTRUCTIONꢀSUPPORTꢀ(N/A)
TASKꢀ11ꢀ–ꢀPROJECTꢀIMPLEMENTATIONꢀANDꢀSUPPORTꢀ(N/A)
TASKꢀ12ꢀ–ꢀOPTIONALꢀFEASIBILITYꢀSTUDYꢀDESIGNꢀSUPPORTꢀTASKS

12.1ꢀDraft/FinalꢀDrainageꢀReport
3 2
24 8
14 8
38 32
2 32
16 8
8 8
80 64
8 144
128
16 36
32 4
32 16 32 64 128 2
2 4
4 657
298
50 $76,000
$54,000
$181,440
$51,640
$8,94012.2ꢀFieldꢀSurveying/MappingꢀandꢀRight‐of‐WayꢀNeedsꢀAssessment

12.3ꢀGeotechnicalꢀInvestigations
4 2
1 2 4 4 8 8 27 $59,650
$19,340
$9,670

12.4ꢀPreliminaryꢀEnvironmentalꢀAssessment 4 16
8 8
4 2
2 16
8 32
16 8
64 32
16 16
140
7012.5ꢀCulturalꢀSurvey/AssessmentꢀMemorandum 2

12.6ꢀBiologicalꢀSurvey/AssessmentꢀMemorandum 2 4 4 36 $5,100

12.7ꢀHazardousꢀWasteꢀSurvey/AssessmentꢀMemorandum 2 4 4 8 36 $22,000 $49,500
$27,100
TOTALꢀHOURSꢀWITHOUTꢀOPTIONALꢀTASKS
TOTALꢀCOSTꢀWITHOUTꢀOPTIONALꢀTASKS
21 278 54 134 412 164 56 224 496 868 560 264 52 20 32 32 64 12 42 62 3,847 $6,720 $73,670 $12,690 $30,150 $76,220 $43,460 $12,600 $41,440 $81,840 $125,860 $70,000 $38,280 $8,580 $4,900 $5,280 $4,320 $6,720 $2,520 $7,140 $6,820 $708,710 $890,150
TOTALꢀHOURSꢀWITHꢀOPTIONALꢀTASKS 24 302 68 172 444 164 64 304 496 1,012 560 300 84 36 64 96 192 14 46 62 4,504 TOTALꢀCOSTꢀWITHꢀOPTIONALꢀTASKS $7,680 $80,030 $15,980 $38,700 $82,140 $43,460 $14,400 $56,240 $81,840 $146,740 $70,000 $43,500 $13,860 $8,820 $10,560 $12,960 $20,160 $2,940 $7,820 $6,820 $125,500 *Billing Rates will be adjusted in January of each Calendar year by 5%, rounded to the nearest multiple of $5.

COSTꢀPROPOSALꢀ‐ꢀHOURSꢀBREAKDOWNꢀBYꢀTASK
CV‐SYNCꢀPHASEꢀ3ꢀWITHꢀVARNERꢀROADꢀFEASIBILITYꢀSTUDYꢀANDꢀPS&E Octoberꢀ31,ꢀ2023
ADVANTEC FEHRꢀ&ꢀPEERS
TASKꢀDESCRIPTION GRANDꢀ
TOTAL
HOURS
OTHER
DIRECT
COSTS
GRAND
TOTAL
COSTS
OTHERꢀ
DIRECTꢀ
COST
OTHERꢀ
DIRECTꢀ
COST
TOTALꢀ
HOURS
TOTALꢀ
COST
TOTALꢀ
HOURS
TOTALꢀ
COST
BILLINGꢀRATES* $350 $290 $195 $175 $140 $120 $335 $265 $210 $175 $160 $185 $150 TASKꢀ1ꢀ–ꢀPROJECTꢀMANAGEMENT 24
24 10
10 24
24 10
10 16
8 84 $19,730
$18,530
$1,200
648 $138,890
$109,410
$29,480
$93,610
$16,490
$24,360
$52,760
$806,350
$18,360
$80,470
$41,180
$495,860
$170,480

1.1ꢀMeetingsꢀandꢀCoordination 76
8 516
132
260
102
133
25 1.2ꢀProjectꢀAdministrationꢀ 8
TASKꢀ2ꢀ–ꢀDATAꢀCOLLECTION $49,500

2.1ꢀDataꢀCollectionꢀandꢀFieldꢀReview

2.2ꢀUtilityꢀBaseꢀMappingꢀfromꢀAs‐BuiltsꢀandꢀSiteꢀVisits

2.3ꢀAerialꢀTopographicꢀMappingꢀandꢀImagery
TASKꢀ3ꢀ–ꢀCONCEPTUALꢀENGINEERINGꢀANDꢀANALYSIS

3.1ꢀTrafficꢀDataꢀCollectionꢀandꢀModeling

3.2ꢀRoadwayꢀandꢀIntersectionꢀSafetyꢀandꢀCapacityꢀAnalysis $1,500
$48,000
$12,500
$12,500
52 116 24 228 556 460 1436 $229,460 38
2 28 146
6 60
60 290
10 36 598 $12,500 $126,870 4,767
2818 $12,500
390
$16,030
$71,990
$38,850
16 20
18 10
90 50
250
30 16
20 424
200
3,080
1,035

3.3ꢀFutureꢀVolumeꢀForecasting,ꢀOperationsꢀAnalysis,ꢀandꢀTrafficꢀReport

3.4ꢀDraftꢀFeasibilityꢀStudyꢀwithꢀPlans,ꢀEstimates,ꢀandꢀOtherꢀAppendices

3.5ꢀFinalꢀFeasibilityꢀStudyꢀwithꢀPlans,ꢀEstimates,ꢀandꢀOtherꢀAppendices TASKꢀ4ꢀ–ꢀPRELIMINARYꢀENGINEERINGꢀ(N/A)
190
40 12
100
16 20
4 200
28 500
56 400
60 1,260
176
$199,900
$29,560
TASKꢀ5ꢀ–ꢀENVIRONMENTALꢀSTUDIESꢀANDꢀENVIRONMENTALꢀCLEARANCEꢀ(N/A) TASKꢀ6ꢀ‐ꢀFINALꢀDESIGNꢀ(N/A)
TASKꢀ7ꢀ–ꢀGRANTꢀFUNDINGꢀAPPLICATIONꢀSUPPORT
‐ꢀATP,ꢀCompleteꢀStreets,ꢀandꢀOtherꢀGrantꢀFundingꢀApplicationꢀSupportꢀ‐ TASKꢀ8ꢀ–ꢀUTILITYꢀCOORDINATIONꢀ(N/A)
290
290
$45,920
$45,920
TASKꢀ9ꢀ–ꢀRIGHT‐OF‐WAYꢀEASEMENTꢀANDꢀACQUISITIONꢀSUPPORTꢀ(N/A) TASKꢀ10ꢀ–ꢀCONSTRUCTIONꢀSUPPORTꢀ(N/A)
TASKꢀ11ꢀ–ꢀPROJECTꢀIMPLEMENTATIONꢀANDꢀSUPPORTꢀ(N/A)
TASKꢀ12ꢀ–ꢀOPTIONALꢀFEASIBILITYꢀSTUDYꢀDESIGNꢀSUPPORTꢀTASKS

12.1ꢀDraft/FinalꢀDrainageꢀReport
657
298
50 $76,000
$54,000
$181,440
$51,640
$8,94012.2ꢀFieldꢀSurveying/MappingꢀandꢀRight‐of‐WayꢀNeedsꢀAssessment

12.3ꢀGeotechnicalꢀInvestigations 27 $59,650
$19,340
$9,670

12.4ꢀPreliminaryꢀEnvironmentalꢀAssessment 140
7012.5ꢀCulturalꢀSurvey/AssessmentꢀMemorandum

12.6ꢀBiologicalꢀSurvey/AssessmentꢀMemorandum 36 $5,100

12.7ꢀHazardousꢀWasteꢀSurvey/AssessmentꢀMemorandum 36 $22,000 $27,100 TOTALꢀHOURSꢀWITHOUTꢀOPTIONALꢀTASKS 52 116 24 228 556 460 1,436 1,436
62 38 170 60 300 36 16 682
682
5,965
TOTALꢀCOSTꢀWITHOUTꢀOPTIONALꢀTASKS $18,200 $33,640 $4,680 $39,900 $77,840 $55,200 $229,460 $20,770 $10,070 $35,700 $10,500 $48,000 $6,660 $2,400 $12,500 $146,600 $12,500 $146,600
$62,000 $1,084,770
$138,000 $1,266,210
TOTALꢀHOURSꢀWITHꢀOPTIONALꢀTASKS 52 116 24 228 556 460 62 38 170 60 300 36 16 6,622 TOTALꢀCOSTꢀWITHꢀOPTIONALꢀTASKS $18,200 $33,640 $4,680 $39,900 $77,840 $55,200 $229,460 $20,770 $10,070 $35,700 $10,500 $48,000 $6,660 $2,400 *Billing Rates will be adjusted in January of each Calendar year by 5%, rounded to the nearest multip

Phase III Location Map
33 Staff Report
City Council
Item No. 5.K
Meeting Date: August 14, 2024
From: John A. Corella, Director of Public Works
Title: HSIP Cycle 12 Grant Application Preparation
RECOMMENDATION:

To authorize the City Engineer to execute a task order in the not to exceed amount of $20,000, with the city on-call traffic engineering consultant STC Traffic Inc. (STC) to provide engineering assistance and complete grant applications for the HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for- Projects Funding Program; and, once completed authorize the City Engineer to submit the HSIP Cycle 12 grant application packages to Caltrans.

BACKGROUND:

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core federal-aid program with the purpose of achieving a 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 federal surface transportation 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 call 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. California’s Local HSIP prioritizes infrastructure projects with nationally recognized crash reduction factors (CRF). Local HSIP projects are ranked on the basis of crash severity, crash potential, crash rate, or other data-supported means.

On June 25, 2021, the City completed a 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 a requirement for submitting for grant funding through the HSIP and is the basis to the upcoming HSIP Cycle 12 Grant.

The city has been very successful in securing HSIP grants. The following is a list of successful HSIP Grant Cycle awards:
•HSIP Cycle 8: 20 Intersection Upgrades (completed)
oGrant award amount: $1,674,000.00
•HSIP Cycle 9A: 12 Intersection Upgrades (in bid process for construction) oGrant award amount: $1,302,500
•HSIP Cycle 9B: Date Palm Drive – Varner Road Safety Improvements (in bid process for construction)
oGrant award amount: $1,089,700
•HSIP Cycle 10: Pedestrian Crossing at Ramon Road and Candlewood Drive (under construction)
oGrant award amount: $776,600
•HSIP Cycle 11A: Citywide Pedestrian Crosswalk Upgrades (18 intersections) oGrant award amount: $1,306,890.00
•HSIP Cycle 11B: Pedestrian Signals/Hybrid Beacons (High Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon (HAWK)) (2 intersections)
oGrant award amount: $959,670.00
•HSIP Cycle 11C: Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Improvements (49 Intersections - in design)
oGrant award amount: $1,008,000.00
•HSIP Cycle 11D: Pedestrian School Crossing Upgrades at 30 th Avenue and San Eljay Avenue.
oGrant award amount: $249,840.00
Note: These grants represent the state/federal funding of each application. The latest call for grants under the HSIP Cycle 12 Program has variable grant participation amounts based on a maximum reimbursement ratio of either 100%, 90% and 50% depending on the project’s safety countermeasure utilized. Under this new requirement, the 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 12 Call-For-Projects, city staff and STC Traffic, Inc. (STC) identified two projects to submit for funding:

1. Install Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations (10% participation)

2. Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements (0% participation)
STC conducted a feasibility analysis based on latest crash data to validate the above HSIP Cycle 12 grant projects’ competitiveness. The scope of the project and results of the feasibility analysis are discussed below.

Install Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations
The results of the feasibility analysis performed by STC identified the intersections at Dinah Shore Drive and Corregidor Drive, and San Eljay Way and Doral Way as the only locations with high collision incidence resulting in a highly competitive Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR).

In order to capitalize on the HSIP Cycle 12 grant, additional intersections may be added to the application, while still maintaining a competitive BCR range. STC and city staff will determine the additional intersection based on the scope of the improvements and impacts to the BCR calculations.

The project includes providing pedestrian upgrades such as Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps, flashing stop signs, high visibility crosswalk striping, and advanced warning pavement markings and signs at the following intersections:
•Dinah Shore Drive and Corregidor Drive.
•San Eljay Way and Doral Way
•Additional pedestrian crossings to be determined
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
The project includes pedestrian crossing safety enhancements at existing unsignalized intersections near a local school or parks. 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 12 Call-for-Projects was announced on May 6, 2024. The application deadline is September 9, 2024. 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 two (2) applications (with attachments) for each project. Thus, staff solicited a task order proposal from the city’s on-call traffic engineering consultant, STC Traffic Inc., to assist staff and prepare the HSIP Cycle 12 applications for a not-to-exceed cost of $20,000.

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 existing 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.

Recently, STC successfully assisted the city in the grant application processes and securing funds on HSIP Cycle 11 and Senate Bill (SB) 821, Article 3, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities.

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 the 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 assist the city on the submittal of the formal project applications.

Staff requests that the City Council authorize the City Engineer to execute a task order in the not to exceed amount of $20,000, with city on-call traffic engineering consultant STC Traffic Inc. (STC) to provide engineering assistance and complete grant applications for the HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-Projects Funding Program; and, once completed authorize the City Engineer to submit the HSIP Cycle 12 grant application packages to Caltrans.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The $20,000 cost to prepare the application will be paid out of the Engineering Professional and Technical Services fund 100-100-150-156-8600-8601.

Historically, there was no local match required to receive HSIP grant funding. However, per the April 2022 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), the Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations Improvements projects will require a 10% local match. As the total 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 Crossing Enhancements projects, which will be classified as set-aside (SA) projects, do not require a local match.

Upon success of an award of a grant and/or grants under this program, the required local match is proposed to be programmed into the upcoming FY 2025-26 and 2026-27 Capital Improvement Project Program. At this preliminary stage, the estimated amount of $100,000 will be needed from available Measure A funds for the 10% local share required by HSIP Cycle 12.

DESCRIPTION GENERAL
LEDGER

ACCOUNT
CODES

PROJECT
CODE
AMOUNT ONE TIME or

ONGOING
2024-2025 HSIP Cycle 12
Applications
100-100-150-
156-8600-8601 N/A $20,000 ONE TIME
2024-2025 Total $20,000
FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN:

GOAL B: COMMUNITY INVESTMENT
Objective: Cathedral City roads, gateways, public spaces, and other city infrastructure are well planned, designed, constructed, and maintained.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. STC - Cathedral City HSIP12 Application Proposal/Scope of Work

2. HSIP 12 Feasibility Analysis

3. Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan
STC Traffic, Inc.

STC Traffic, Inc.
5973 Avenida Encinas, Suite 218
Carlsbad, CA 92008
hƩps://www.stctraffic.com
July 30, 2024
City of Cathedral City
Engineering Department
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
AƩn: Armando J. Garcia Baldizzone P .E.

Subject: Proposal for HSIP Cycle 12 Grant ApplicaƟons
Dear Mr. Baldizzone,
STC Traffic, Inc. (STC) is pleased to submit this scope and fee proposal to the City of Cathedral City (City) to prepare grant applicaƟons for the Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 12 “Call for Projects”. STC conducted a feasibility analysis based on the latest collision data from the Transporta Ɵon Injury Mapping System (TIMS), Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), and data provided by the Cathedral City Police Department, Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) Version 1.7 safety countermeasures, and HSIP Analyzer for Bene fit Cost Ra Ɵo (BCR) applica Ɵons to validate HSIP Cycle 12 grant compeƟƟveness for improving pedestrian safety citywide. STC idenƟfied potenƟal grant applicaƟons and provided them to the city. The following describe s the scope of services to prepare each grant that was idenƟfied.

BCR ApplicaƟons
STC will prepare HSIP BCR applica Ɵons for the projects selected based on feasibility analysis results. The scope of BCR applicaƟons include:
 Project DescripƟon and InformaƟon
 Safety Countermeasures
 Responses to NarraƟve QuesƟons
 Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) CerƟficaƟon
 Engineer’s Checklist
 Vicinity/LocaƟon Maps
 Project Maps of ExisƟng CondiƟons and Proposed Improvements  Pictures of ExisƟng CondiƟons
 Benefit Cost RaƟo (BCR) HSIP Analyzer CalculaƟons
 Crash Data Analysis
 Project Schedule
 Detailed Cost EsƟmate
 Collision Diagrams
 Collision Summary Reports
 AddiƟonal NarraƟon, DocumentaƟon, and LeƩers of Support  Smartsheet Electronic SubmiƩal CoordinaƟon

STC Traffic, Inc.

City of Cathedral City – HSIP Cycle 12 ApplicaƟons 2

Task 1 – HSIP BCR ApplicaƟon – Install Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled LocaƟons STC will prepare HSIP BCR applicaƟon for improvements to three uncontrolled pedestrian crossing project locaƟons iden Ɵfied in the analysis phase. The following loca Ɵons must be included to u Ɵlize collision incidence: Dinah Shore Dr/ Corregidor Dr and San Eljay/ Doral Way. One addi Ɵonal loca Ɵon of the remaining 20 locaƟons could be included withing the project improvement budget (approximately $160k).

Task 2 – HSIP Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Set-Aside ApplicaƟon STC will prepare HSIP SA applica Ɵon for pedestrian crossing enhancements. The SA applica Ɵon includes the BCR applica Ɵon e fforts except collision analysis. The set aside funding is $350k and approximately three addiƟonal crossing locaƟons could be included. The City would direct which three of the remaining 19 intersecƟons would be included.

Summary
Three locaƟons will be included in the BCR applicaƟon and a minimum of three locaƟons will be included in the set aside applicaƟon. The number of locaƟons included in the set-aside applicaƟon will be governed by the cost esƟmate for improvements and $350k budget. It’s anƟcipated that 6 of the 22 locaƟons will be improved.

Cost Proposal
The fee esƟmate for the two applicaƟons above is $20,000 and the applicaƟons will be draŌed and submiƩed to the City for review approximately two weeks prior to the September 9, 2024, applicaƟon due date.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a proposal for these services. Should you have any quesƟons feel free to contact me at the address below.

Sincerely,

_
J a s o n S t a c k , T E , P T O E
President/Principal-in-Charge

Legal Name: STC Traffic, Inc.

Address: 5973 Avenida Encinas, Suite 218
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.stctraffic.com
RFP Contact: Jason Stack, TE, PTOE
(714) 315-4640
jason.stack@stctraffic.com
Proposal Accepted By:

PROJECT
NO. COUNTERMEASURE(S) LOCATION(S) PROJECT DESCRIPTION HSIP GRANT CONSIDERATIONSCITY

MATCH BENEFIT FUNDING AT BCR
= 20
1 SI18PB - Install pedestrian countdown signal headsDinah Shore Dr & Date Palm Dr Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads 1 Fatal Injury (2023) 10% $3,925,000 $196,250 2 Dinah Shore Dr & Date Palm Dr Implement Lead Pedestrian Interval Phasing at multiple locations. 1 Fatal Injury (2023) 10% $4,710,000 $235,500

2.1 E Palm Canyon Dr & Cathedral Canyon Dr Implement Lead Pedestrian Interval Phasing at multiple locations. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes Only10% $386,000 $19,300 Dinah Shore Dr & Corregidor DrPedestrian Ramp Upgrades, Signing and Striping Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes Only10% $3,027,500 $151,375 San Eljay & Doral Way* Pedestrian Ramp Upgrades, Signing and Striping Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes Only10% $252,500 $12,625 Note: * = Crosswalk near K-12 Public School
CATHEDRAL CITY HSIP 12 FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
SI22PB - Modify signal phasing to implement a
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
3 NS22PB - Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled
locations (signs and markings only)

LOCAL ROAD

SAFETY PLAN
June 2021 Final Report
Cathedral City

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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.

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

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 3

Figure 1-2 Study Area

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

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

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.

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 7

Figure 1-3 Safety Partners Feedback by Topic

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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%

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 18

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

PRIMARY COLLISION

FACTOR VIOLATION

CATEGORY

FATAL SEVERE
INJURY
OTHER

VISIBLE
INJURY

COMPLAINT

OF PAIN
# OF
COLLISIONS (%)
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drugs 6 (26%) 16 (26%) 21 (14%) 27 (10%) 70 (14%) Unsafe Speed 4 (17%) 11 (18%) 24 (15%) 68 (25%) 107 (21%) Following Too Closely* - 1 (2%) - 7 (3%) 8 (2%)
Wrong Side of Road 2 (9%) 4 (6%) 2 (1%) 5 (2%) 13 (3%)
Improper Passing* - - - 1 (<1%) 1 (<1%)
Unsafe Lane Change* - - - 2 (<1%) 2 (<1%)
Improper Turning 2 (9%) 8 (13%) 28 (18%) 31 (12%) 69 (14%) Automobile ROW 3 (13%) 8 (13%) 31 (20%) 53 (20%) 95 (19%) Pedestrian ROW* 3 (5%) 4 (3%) 2 (1%) 9 (2%)
Pedestrian Violation 5 (22%) 3 (5%) 11 (7%) 7 (3%) 26 (5%) Traffic Signals and Signs - 2 (3%) 15 (10%) 36 (13%) 53 (10%) Lights* - - - 1 (<1%) 1 (<1%)
Other - 1 (2%) 1 (1%) 12 (4%) 14 (3%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing* - - 1 (1%) 3 (1%) 4 (1%)
Unknown / Not Stated 1 (4%) 5 (8%) 15 (10%) 14 (5%) 35 (7%) Total Collisions 23 (5%) 62 (12%) 153 (30%) 269 (53%) 507

Table 2-11 Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Location (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

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

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

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

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 22

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

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

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 24

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

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

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

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%

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 28

Figure 2-14 Citywide EPDO Scoring

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

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 30

Figure 2-15 Signalized Intersections EPDO Scoring

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

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

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 33

Figure 2-17 Unsignalized Intersections EPDO Scoring

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

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

Cathedral City Local Road Safety Plan - 36

Figure 2-19 Roadway Segments EPDO Scoring

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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 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

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

Staff Report
City Council
Item No. 5.L
Meeting Date: August 14, 2024
From: John A. Corella - Director of Public Works
Title: Notice of Completion for Panorama Neighborhood Pavement Reconstruction Projects
RECOMMENDATION:

To accept and approve the Panorama Neighborhood Pavement Reconstruction projects:

Horizon Road (C08676), Los Gatos Road (C08677), Panorama Road (C08678), East-West Alley (C08679), and North-South Alley (C08680), as final; and authorize the City Manager to file a notice of completion with the Riverside County Recorder’s Office; and authorize the release of retention funds to Hardy & Harper, Inc. upon expiration of the notice of completion.

BACKGROUND:

On April 10, 2024, City Council approved a construction contract with Hardy & Harper, Inc. in the amount of $636,000.00 with a 15% contingency of $95,400.00 for unforeseen construction costs, thereby making the total construction budget $731,400.00.

The project consisted of reconstructing three residential streets and two public alleys within the Panorama Neighborhood, an area greatly affected by the flooding caused by Tropical Storm Hilary on August 20, 2023. An estimated 152,800 square feet of road surface were restored by removing and reapplying one to three inches of asphalt concrete. Additionally, a section of curb and gutter was reconstructed on Horizon Road, five curb ramps were updated to the current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards on Panorama Road, and new signing and striping was installed on all streets.

The project also included a degree of coordination with Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). A total of twenty-six CVWD facilities, including water valves, sewer manholes, and sewer clean-outs, were adjusted to grade in accordance with CVWD’s design criteria and standards.

DISCUSSION:

Construction started on June 17, 2024, and was completed on July 05, 2024.

CVWD staff reviewed and inspected the CVWD portion of the project and accepted the work performed on their facilities by Hardy & Harper, Inc.

City staff reviewed and inspected the improvements and found the project was built in accordance with all contract requirements, and therefore recommends the City Council accept the project as complete.

City Council acceptance is required to approve the project’s final contract amount and release retention funds. Retention funds are monies earned by the contractor that are withheld from progress payments pending satisfactory completion and final acceptance of the project.

Additionally, City Council acceptance of the project requires that a notice of completion (NOC) be filed with the Riverside County Recorder’s office. The NOC is a written notice issued by the owner of a project, or their agent, to notify concerned parties that all work on the project has been completed. This notice also sets the period, which is thirty-five (35) days from the date the NOC is filed, within which concerned parties may exercise their lien rights against one another. Once the thirty-five-day period has expired, and provided no claims or liens are received, the City can release retention funds.

City staff recommends that the City Council accept and approve the following Panorama Neighborhood Pavement reconstruction projects: Horizon Road (C08676), Los Gatos Road (C08677), Panorama Road (C08678), East-West Alley (C08679), and North-South Alley (C08680), as final; and authorize the City Manager to file a notice of completion with the Riverside County Recorder’s Office; and authorize the release of retention funds to Hardy & Harper, Inc. upon expiration of the notice of completion.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact of the construction contract with Hardy & Harper, Inc. is as follows:

Authorized Construction Funding
Project Funding Source Amount
Horizon Road SB-1 - Fund 248 $197,204.00
Los Gatos Road SB-1 - Fund 248 $126,158.00
Panorama Road AD 88-3 - Fund 347 $195,749.00
East-West Alley SB-1 - Fund 248 $47,249.00
North-South Alley SB-1 - Fund 248 $31,300.00
Utility Adjustments CVWD Refund $38,340.00
Project Estimated Amount = $636,000.00
15% Contingency = $ 95,400.00
Total Authorized Construction Funding = $731,400.00
Final Construction Cost
The final construction expenditures with Hardy & Harper, Inc. were in the amount of $663,249.33, which include a change order in the amount of $27,249.33. CVWD will be refunding the City of Cathedral City their portion of the project, in accordance with a reimbursement agreement related to this project and signed on March 21, 2024. The final amount to be reimbursed by CVWD will be $36,920.00.

The total final contract cost is summarized below:

Base Contract Amount $636,000.00
Change Orders $27,249.33
Final Construction Cost $663,249.33
The final invoice (5% retention) in the amount of $33,162.46 will be released to Hardy & Harper, Inc. thirty-five (35) days from the date that the NOC is filed should there be no claims or discrepancies in the work completed.

FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN:

GOAL B: COMMUNITY INVESTMENT
Objective: Cathedral City roads, gateways, public spaces, and other city infrastructure are well planned, designed, constructed, and maintained.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Notice of Completion – Hardy & Harper, Inc.

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
City of Cathedral City
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

Name Tracey Hermosillo, City Clerk
Street
Address
68700 Ave. Lalo Guerrero
City &
State
Cathedral City
CA 92234

S R U PAGE SIZE DA MISC LONG RFD COPY
M A L 465 426 PCOR NCOR SMF NCHG
EXAM
T: CTY UNI
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE ONLY

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Notice is hereby given that:

1. The undersigned is owner or corporate officer of the owner of the interest or estate stated below in the property hereinafter described:

2. The full name of the owner is City of Cathe dral City

3. The full address of the owner is 68 -700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero, Cathedral City, CA 92234

4. The nature of the interest or estate of the owner is in fee. (If other t
han fee, strike “in Fee” and insert, for example, “purchaser under contract of purchase,” or “lessee”)

5. The full names and full addresses of all persons, if any, who hold title with the undersigned as joint tenants or as tenants in common are:

NAMES ADDRESSES

6. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was completed on 07/05/2024 . The work done was:

Panorama Neighborhood Pavement Reconstruction Projects CIP No. 8676, 8677, 8678, 8679, 8680

7. The name of the contractor, if any, for such work of improvement was Hardy & Harper, Inc. 04/18/2024
(If no contractor for work of improvement as a whole, insert “none”) (Date of Contract)

8. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the city of Cathedral City , County of Riverside , State of California, and is described as follows: Construction of asphalt pavement, ADA compliant ramps, curb & gutter, signage, and striping on Panorama Neighborhood streets and alleys, as well as water utility adjustments.
(If no street address has been officially assigned, insert “none”)

9. The street address of said property is none
Dated: 08/14/2024
Signature of owner of corporate officer of owner
named in paragraph 2 or his agent

VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, say: I am the City Manager for the City of Cathedral City the declarant of the foregoing (“President of,” “Manager of,” “A partner of,” “Owner of,” etc.) notice of completion; I have read said notice of completion and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on , 20 24 , at Cathedral City , California. (Date of signature) (City where signed)
(Personal signature of the individual who is swearing that the contents of the notice of completion are true)
http://www/riversideacr.com/acr/forms/Notice%20of%Completion 06/22/2011 Charles P. McClendon
City Manager, City of Cathedral City

EXEMPT RECORDING FEES PURSUANT TO
CODE SECTION 6130 AND 2733
Charles P. McClendon, City Manager, City of Cathedral City