City of Indian Wells
Complete Streets Safety Assessment
September 2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 93 Road Safety Audits: Case Studies (FHWA-SA-06-
17)
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/rsa cstudies.htm
Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt
Lists FHWA-SA-12-018
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwa
sa12018/
National Center for Safe Routes to School
http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/
Resources for Infrastructure (engineering, safety, planning, design) and non-infrastructure (education, promotion, outreach) in support of Active Transportation in school commutes
Adapted from FHWA Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists
Resources for Experimentation and Interim Approvals
FHWA “Bicycle Facilities and the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices” webpage
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedest
rian/guidance/design_guidance/mutcd_bike.cfm
Status in the 2009 US MUTCD of various bicycle-related signs, markings, signals, and other treatments (e.g., can be implemented, Interim Approval, currently experimental). Start here to determine whether a device requires experimentation.
FHWA Interim Approvals webpage
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-interim_approvals.htm
List of all Interim Approvals granted by FHWA. Interim Approvals enable states and local agencies to request approval to use a new device without experimentation before the device is adopted in a future edition of the MUTCD.
FHWA Official Rulings website
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/orsearch.asp
List of FHWA communications regarding experiments, and
interpretation of documents (Requests To Experiment / RTEs, response letters, progress reports, final reports, changes). California Traffic Control Devices Committee
(CTCDC)
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/newtech/
Committee agendas, minutes, annual reports, experiment status and reports, experimentation guidelines and requests,
implementation of FHWA-issued Interim Approvals.
FHWA (U.S.) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) (2009), Section 1A.10
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
NOTE: All US MUTCD content appears in-line in the
California MUTCD, with California differences shown
in blue, and California tables and figures identified
with (CA).
Section 1A10 Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes and Interim Approvals covers the design, application and placement of traffic control devices other than those adopted in the MUTCD.
Figure 1A.1 Process for Requesting and Conducting
Experimentation for New Traffic Control Devices is a flowchart of the federal (FHWA) process.
Figure 1A.2 Process for Incorporating New Traffic Control Devices into the MUTCD is a flowchart of the process after successful experimentation, a research study, or a request from a jurisdiction or interested party
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) (2012), Section 1A.10
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsup
p/ca_mutcd2012.htm
NOTE: All US MUTCD content appears in-line in the
California MUTCD
Figure 1A.1 (CA) Process for Requesting and Conducting
Experimentation for New Traffic Control Devices in California is a flowchart of the California (CTCDC) process.
Figure 1A.101 (CA) Process for the Use of Traffic Control Devices Approved as Interim Approval (IA) by FHWA is a flowchart of additional steps in California before a device granted Interim Approval by FHWA may be used.
City of Indian Wells
Complete Streets Safety Assessment
September 2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 94 REFERENCES
Appleyard, Bruce. 2009. Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning. An ICMA Green Book Local Planning: Contemporary Principles and Practice. Editors: Hack et al. ICMA California Local Government Commission, Center for Livable Communities. “Economic Benefits of Walkable Communities”.
http://www.lgc.org/freepub/PDF/Land Use/focus/walk to money .pdf.
Dill, Jennifer. “Measuring Connectivity for Bicycling and Walking." Presented at Pro Walk/ Pro Bike, September 9, 2004. Accessed online at
http://web.pdx.edu/~jdill/PWPB Connectivity slides.pdf .
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. “El Cajon’s Road Diet Case Study.” http://www.walkinginfo.org/library/details.cfm?id=3967.
Zegeer, Charles V., et al. Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. Report HRT-04-100. http://www.thrc.gov/safety/pubs/04100/index.htm CROW, Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic, The Netherlands http://www.crow.nl/nl/Publicaties/publicatiedetail?code=REC25 From the CROW English website, http://www.crow.nl/English CROW is The Netherlands technology platform for transport, infrastructure and public space. It is a not-for-profit organization in which the government and businesses work together in pursuit of their common interests through the design, construction and management of roads and other traffic and transport facilities. Active in research and in issuing regulations, CROW focuses on distributing knowledge products to all target groups.
Transport for London, London Cycling Design Standards, UK http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/publications/2766.aspx Thompson, Laura and Julie Bondurant, Trail Planning in California, Solano Press, 2009 Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering, 16th Edition, Chapter 21: Bicycle Facilities; UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies, 2007.
DeRobertis, Michelle and Rhonda Rae, Buses and Bicycles: Design Options For Sharing The Road, ITE Journal, May 2001.
Thomas, Beth and Michelle DeRobertis, Cycle Track Literature Review, Acci dent Analysis and Prevention, Volume 52, pp. 219-227, March 28, 2013.
Hillsman, Edward L. et al, A Summary of Design, Policies and Operational Characteristics for Shared Bicycle/Bus Lanes, Project No. BDK85 977-32, University of South Florida, July 2012 Mekuria, Maaza C., Peter G. Furth, and Hilary Nixon, Low -Stress Bicycling And Network Connectivity, Mineta Transportation Institute, May 2012 Thompson S.R. et al, Bicycle-Specific Traffic Signals: Results from a State-of-the-Practice Review, Transportation Research Board, January 2013, Paper # 13-0536
City of Indian Wells
Complete Streets Safety Assessment
September 2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 95 APPENDIX D: STREET CONNECTIVITY
Importance of Street Connectivity
Providing direct paths for bicyclists and pedestrians via well-connected street networks is important for encouraging bicycling and walking by helping people overcome real and perceived senses of distance.
Street connectivity is also associated with public health benefits. The SMARTRAQ Project analysis in Atlanta, Georgia, found that doubling the current regional average intersection density, from 8.3 to 16.6 intersections per square kilometer was associated with a reduction in average per capita vehicle mileage of about 1.6 percent. Furthermore, the Frank et al. (2006) study of King County, Washington, found that per-household VMT declines with increased street connectivity, all else held constant.
Policies for Street Connectivity
A network of safe, direct, and comfortable routes and facilities: A 2004 PAS report recommends that pedestrian (and bicycle) path connections be every 300 to 500 feet; for motor vehicles, they recommend 500 to 1,000 feet.
3,4 For new development, such standards can be implemented through ordinances, like those of the regional government of Portland Oregon, Metro, which requires street connectivity in its Regional Transportation Plan and in the development codes and design standards of its constituent local governments.
5 Measuring Connectivity
The following discussion of measuring street connectivity is provided as a resource and not officially a part of regular BSA processes. However, individuals are certainly encouraged to make such calculations.
3 Susan Handy, Robert G. Paterson, and Kent Butler, 2004, Planning for Street Connectivity: Getting from Here to There, PAS Report #515 (Chicago: APA Planners Press).
4 For more information on this topic, see American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pedestrian Facilities (Washington, D.C., AASHTO, 2004); AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (Washington, D.C., AASHTO, 1999; updated 2009); Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), Traffic Calming Guidelines and ITE Context -Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities ? (Washington, D.C.: ITE, 2006), http://www.ite.org/bookstore/RP036.pdf (accessed September 3, 2008).
5 The regional government of Portland Oregon, Metro, requires street connectivity in its Regional Transportation Plan and in the development codes and design standards of its constituent local governments as follows: local and arterial streets be spaced no more than 530 feet apart (except where barriers exist), bicycle and pedestrian connections must be made (via pathways or on road right of ways) every 330 feet, Culs-de- sac (or dead-end streets) are discouraged and can be no longer than 200 feet, and have no more than 25 dwelling units.
City of Indian Wells
Complete Streets Safety Assessment
September 2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 96 Jennifer Dill (2004) presents the following measures of street connectivity:
• Intersection density
• Street density
• Average block length
• Link/node ratio
• Connected node ratio = intersections/ (intersections + culs-de-sac) • Alpha index = number of actual circuits/ maximum number of circuits Where a circuit is a finite, closed path starting and ending at a single node • Gamma index = number of links in the network/ maximum possible number of links between nodes
• Effective walking area = number of parcels within a one -quarter mile walking distance of a point/ total number of parcels within a one-quarter mile radius of that point
• Route directness = route distance/ straight-line distance for two selected points Dill suggests that route directness (RD) is perhaps the best connectivity measure to reflect minimizing trip distances, but may be difficult to use in research and policy. However, it may be applied in practice by randomly selecting origin- destination pairs and calculating a sample for the subject area.
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIAN
WELLS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) AND PLEDGING TO TAKE ACTION TO PROVIDE MOTORIZED,
NON-MOTORIZED, AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY THROUGH
EDUCATION, PLANNING, AND ENGINEERING
WHEREAS, the City has seen approximately 466 traffic related collisions from 2018 through 2022 that included 4 pedestrian-related traffic accidents with 2 of them resulting in fatalities and 4 bicyclist-related traffic accidents; and
WHEREAS, the estimated economic losses due to traffic injuries amounted to approximately $48 million from 2018 through 2022; and
WHEREAS, a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) provides a framework for organizing stakeholders to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local and rural roads; and
WHEREAS, the objective of the LRSP is to develop safety measures using the four E’s of safety; Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response to provide recommended actions, projects, and programs to support increasing safety for all road users and pro mote multimodalism; and
WHEREAS, fatalities and injuries on our streets are unacceptable when they are preventable; and
WHEREAS, streets and transportation systems have traditionally been designed primarily for maximum vehicular capacity and mobility, rather than the safe accommodation of all modes and users; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that the lack of appropriate and complete roadway infrastructure is an equity issue that affects primarily disadvantaged and rural areas within its borders; and
WHEREAS, the City of Indian Wells goals include protecting the safety, health and security of its residents, businesses, employees and visitors; and WHEREAS, successful traffic safety programs are a result of both a complete government approach (i.e. interdepartmental, coordinated initiatives) and community support of safety goals and action plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Approves the City of Indian Wells Local Road Safety Plan.
ATTACHMENT #3
City of Indian Wells
Resolution No. 2024-__
SECTION 2. The City of Indian Wells pledges to take action on the essential elements of traffic safety to achieve zero traffic deaths by 2050, including activities related to education, enforcement, engineering, evaluation, encouragement and equity.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California, at a regular meeting held on this 20 day of June 2024.
____________________________
GREG SANDERS
MAYOR
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 2024-___
I, Angelica Avila, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the whole number of the members of the City Council is five (5); that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Indian Wells on the 20 day of June 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________________ ____________________________________
ANGELICA AVILA TODD LEISHMAN FOR
CITY CLERK BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CITY ATTORNEY