NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. That the findings and determinations reflected above are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference herein as the cause and foundation for the action taken by the and through this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. Code Amendment. Section 2.60.040, subdivision (H) is hereby added to the Palm Springs Municipal Code, Duties of Officials, to read as follows:
“2.60.040 (H) For purposes of Section 2.60.040(D), a City official shall not be deemed to have an interest in a matter if that official’s interest is that of a non-compensated officer of a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation, which, as one of its primary purposes, supports the functions of the body or board or to which the body or board has a legal obligation to give particular consideration, and provided further that this interest is noted in the City’s official records.”
SECTION 3. Declaratory of Existing Law.
The City Council hereby finds that this
code amendment is clarifying only, and is intended to be declaratory of existing law.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption.
SECTION 5. Certification. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary thereof, to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law.
SECTION 6. Severability. If any section or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections and/or provisions of this ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section or provision thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more section(s) or provision(s) may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via legislation.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE PALM SPRINGS CITY
COUNCIL THIS ___ DAY OF ___________________, 2022.
LISA MIDDLETON
MAYOR
ATTEST:
MONIQUE LOMELI
Item 3C - 6
Ordinance No.
INTERIM CITY CLERK
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, MONIQUE LOMELI, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. ___ is a full, true, and correct copy, and was introduced by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the __ day of _________ ____, 202 2, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the __ day of ______________, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Springs, California, this ______ day of ______________, 2022.
MONIQUE LOMELI
INTERIM CITY CLERK
Item 3C - 7
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
06/30/2022 3. D.
City Clerk -
SUBJECT
REPORT ON THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS LOCAL ROADS SAFETY PLAN, CITY PROJECT NO. 20-21
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file a report on the Local Roads Safety Plan for the City of Palm Springs.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 30, 2022 NEW BUSINESS
SUBJECT: REPORT O N THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS LOCAL ROADS SAFETY PLAN, CITY PROJECT NO. 20-21
FROM: Justin Clifton, City Manager
BY: Engineering Division
SUMMARY:
A Local Roads Safety Plan (LRSP) provides the framework for organizing stakeholders to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local roads . The process results in a prioritized list of issues, risks, actions, and improvements that can be used to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on the local road network. The plan will be used to obtain grant funding for the identified safety improvements. Th e report is now complete and ready for the City Council to receive and file.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file a report on the Local Roads Safety Plan for the City of Palm Springs.
BACKGROUND:
To date, the City has applied and received $8,054,400 in Highway Safety Improvement Project (HSIP) grant funding and now an LRSP is required on all future HSIP grant applications.
On October 8, 2019, Caltrans announced a call for funding to assist local agencies in developing their own local road safety plans. Each agency was eligible to receive up to $72,000 in State funds for development of the plans.
On October 28, 2019, the City of Palm Springs submitted its application to Caltrans for the full $72,000, with a local contribution of $8,000, for an overall project cost of $80,000 to develop an LRSP.
On June 5, 2020, Caltrans notified the City of Palm Springs that it was awarded $72,000 in State funds, the maximum each agency can receive, for the development of its LRSP, with a local contribution of $8,000, for a total project cost of $80,000.
Item 3D - 1
City Council Staff Report
June 30, 2022 -- Page 2
Local Roads Safety Plan – Receive & File
On July 23, 2020, the Ci ty Council adopted Resolution No.24784 to approve a Program Supplement Agreement between the City and Caltrans, for the development of its LRSP in the amount of $72,000.
On October 22, 2020, the City Council approved a professional services agreement in the amount of $79,345, with Michael Baker International for the development of a n LRSP, City Project 20-21.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
While local roads are less traveled than State highways, they have a much higher rate of fatal and serious injury crashes. Developing an LRSP is an effective strategy to improve local road safety for all road users and support the goals of a State’s overall strategic highway safety plan. Although the development process and resulting plan can vary depending on the local agency’s needs, available resources, and targeted crash types, aspects common to LRSPs include:
• Stakeholder engagement representing the 4E’s – E ngineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency medical services, as appropriate. • Collaboration among municipal, county, Tribal, State and/or Federal entities to leverage expertise and resources.
• Identification of target crash types and crash risk with corresponding recommended proven safety countermeasures.
• Timeline and goals for implementation and evaluation.
The vision of the City’s LRSP is to advance road safety by reducing fatal and serious injuries while improving the lives of all roadway users. It begins with setting achievable goals which include:
1. Implement proven safety solutions systemically to reduce fatal and sever e injury crashes.
2. Reduce automobile right-of-way violations, which is the leading cause of crashes in the City.
3. Reduce speed related violations , which is the second leading cause of crashes within the City.
4. Re-evaluate crash trends and associated countermeasures in the LRSP a minimum of every 5 years and engage with the community, stakeholders, and City management.
The City’s LRSP is based on analyzing crash data collected during the five -year period between March 1, 2016 t hrough February 28, 2021, which was the most recent data available at the start of the analysis. A full copy of the report is included as Attachment A and the following is a summary of the key findings:
1. Crash Type. The top 3 crash types include: Broadside (30%), Rear -End (24%), and Hit Object (20%), which combined comprise 74% of total crashes.
Item 3D - 2
City Council Staff Report
June 30, 2022 -- Page 3
Local Roads Safety Plan – Receive & File
2. Cause of Crash. The top 3 causes of crashes are Auto Right -of-Way Violations (20%) followed closely by Unsafe Speed (19%) and Driving Under the Influence (14%).
3. Crash Severity. Of the 2,208 reported crashes, 36% involved property damage only, while 32% complained of pain and 25% had other visible injuries. Additionally, 4% of the crashes resulted in severe injuries while 2% resulted in fatalities.
4. Analysis of Lighting Conditions. Roadways with dark/no streetlights exist and crashes include Gene Autry Trail, Indian Canyon Drive, and portions of SR-111.
5. Time of Year Analysis. The 4 -month time-p eriod from January to April experienced the greatest percent of crashes (35.2%).
6. Time of Day Analysis. The 3 -hour time-period of noon to 3 PM experienced the greatest number of crashes, despite the fact that the higher traffic volumes tended to occur between 3 PM and 6 PM.
7. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes.
a. 110 pedestrian- involved crashes were reported that included 17 fatal crashes and 21 severe injury crashes.
b. 69 bicycle-involved crashes were reported that resulted in 4 fatalities and an additional 41 injuries.
It is important to note that the City has already installed several mitigations during the period between March 2016 to February 2021 to address these issues . Also, more improvements are already in the process of construction or the design phase that will address many of the key findings from the data analysis. A full list of projects and a map are found on pages 9-11 of the attached report.
Based on the key findings and projects already in the works by the City, a total of ten (10) projects have been identified for future HSIP funding. The LRSP recommends four (4) projects that will improve intersection safety, three (3) projects that emphasize speed management, and three (3) projects that increase safety for bicyclist and pedestrians.
Detailed descriptions of each project start at page 50 of the attached report.
The LRSP provides the City with a toolbox of countermeasures to address systemic crash patterns and reduce crashes at the City’s top crash locations. The combination of countermeasures that were selected for each project and location is to provide the most competitive applications for HSIP grant funding.
In addition to HSIP projects, opportunities for education related to bicycle and pedestrian activity and enforcement related to DUI crashes have also been identified.
Item 3D - 3
City Council Staff Report
June 30, 2022 -- Page 4
Local Roads Safety Plan – Receive & File
This LRSP also provides the City with in-depth analysis of crash data that could be useful in determining safety improvements based on current programs outside of the HSIP grant funding process such as Safe Routes to School (SRTS).
This document is considered a living document to be updated every five years to assess how well the implemented strategies have performed and update the crash data to identify new trends that might occur throughout the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines the requested City Council action is not a “Project” pursuant to Section 15378(b)(1).
Continuing administrative and maintenance activities, such as the purchase for supplies, personnel-related actions, general policy and procedure making are not considered a “Project”.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING:
This item aligns with City Council Priority “ Community Infrastructure (3B) 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan”, identify High-Priority Facilities.
This item also supports Circulation Element Goal 1, and Policies 1.1, 2.2, 3.1, 5.3, 6.5,
6.6 & 6.8 of the Palm Springs General Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Not applicable.
REVIEWED BY:
City Engineer: Joel Montalvo
Deputy City Manager: Flinn Fagg
City Manager: Justin Clifton
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Local Roads Safety Plan Report
Item 3D - 4
Attachment A
Item 3D - 5
JN 182244 JN 182244 JN 182244 JN 182244
City of Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan
FINAL
P
repared for:
City of Palm Springs
P
repared by:
Michael Baker International
M
ay 20, 2022
Item 3D - 6
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
JN 182244 JN 182244
Certification
May 20, 2022
W
e certify the following report has been prepared under the supervision of a registered professional engineer.
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
C
arla Dietrich, P.E. (PA), PTOE
Transportation Planner
Dawn Wilson, P.E., T.E.
Traffic Engineer
Item 3D - 7
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Page i
Contents
1. Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1
2. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2
3. Vision & Goals .................................................................................................................................. 3
3.1. Vision ................................................................................................................................... 3
3.2. Goals .................................................................................................................................... 3
4. Safety Partners ................................................................................................................................. 4
4.1. First Stakeholder Meeting ................................................................................................... 5
4.2. Second Stakeholder Meeting .............................................................................................. 5
5. Process ............................................................................................................................................. 7
6. City Policies and Recent Transportation Projects ............................................................................ 8
6.1. City of Palm Springs General Plan ....................................................................................... 8
6.2. City of Palm Springs Pedestrian Plan .................................................................................. 9
6.3. Previous HSIP Funded Projects & Current Transportation Projects ................................... 9
7. Crash Data Summary ...................................................................................................................... 12
7.1. General Findings ............................................................................................................... 14
7.1.1. Crashes by Year .................................................................................................... 14
7.1.2. Crash Type Summary........................................................................................... 14
7.1.3 Cause of Crash Summary ..................................................................................... 15
7.2. Detailed Crash Analysis ..................................................................................................... 18
7.2.1. Crashes by Type ................................................................................................... 18
7.2.2. Crashes by Cause.................................................................................................. 26
7.3. Crash Severity .................................................................................................................... 34
7.4. Analysis of Lighting Conditions ......................................................................................... 37
7.5. Time of Year Analysis ........................................................................................................ 38
7.6. Time of Day Analysis ......................................................................................................... 38
7.7. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes ......................................................................................... 39
7.7.1. Pedestrian Involved Crashes ................................................................................ 39
7.7.2. Bicycle Involved Crashes ...................................................................................... 40
8. Hot Spot Locations - Intersections ................................................................................................. 41
8.1. City-Identified Hot Spots ................................................................................................... 43
8.2. Stakeholder-Identified Hot Spots ...................................................................................... 43
9. Hot Spot Locations – Corridors ...................................................................................................... 44
9.1. Crash Rate Analysis ........................................................................................................... 44 Item 3D - 8
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Page ii
10. Emphasis Areas & Countermeasures ............................................................................................. 46
10.1. Emphasis Areas ................................................................................................................. 46
10.2. Countermeasures .............................................................................................................. 48
11. Evaluation & Implementation ........................................................................................................ 60
12. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 62 APPPENDIX A – Project Detail Sheets.......................................................................................................... 63
List of Tables
Table 1: List of Stakeholders & Involvement ................................................................................................ 4 Table 2: Previous HSIP Projects ..................................................................................................................... 9 Table 3: List of Current City Transportation Projects .................................................................................. 10 Table 4: Reported Number of Crashes by Year and Injury Type ................................................................. 14 Table 5: Crash Types by Year ....................................................................................................................... 14 Table 6: Cause of Crashes by Year ............................................................................................................... 16 Table 7: Most Frequent Broadside Crash Locations ................................................................................... 18 Table 8: Most Frequent Rear-End Crash Locations ..................................................................................... 21 Table 9: Most Frequent Auto Right of Way Violation Locations ................................................................. 28 Table 10: Most Frequent Crash Causes by Mode ....................................................................................... 33 Table 11: Crash Injury Types by Year .......................................................................................................... 34 Table 12: Motor Vehicle Involved With by Year ......................................................................................... 35 Table 13: Crashes by Month ........................................................................................................................ 38 Table 14: Pedestrian Actions ....................................................................................................................... 39 Table 15: Crash Costs .................................................................................................................................. 41 Table 16: Intersection Hot Spots (Top 35) .................................................................................................. 41 Table 17: City-Identified Intersection Hot Spots ......................................................................................... 43 Table 18: Roadway Segment Crash Rate Analysis ....................................................................................... 45 Table 19: LRSP Emphasis Areas ................................................................................................................... 47 Table 20: Summary of Projects ................................................................................................................... 49 Table 21: LRSP Implementation Plan ....................................................................................................... 61
Item 3D - 9
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Page iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: HSIP & Other Current Transportation Projects ............................................................................ 11 Figure 2: Citywide Intersection Crash Map ............................................................................................. 13 Figure 3: Broadside Crash Location Map ................................................................................................. 20 Figure 4: Rear-End Crash Location Map ...................................................................................................... 22 Figure 5: Fatal and Severe Injury Rear-End Crashes ............................................................................... 23 Figure 6: Fatal and Severe Injury Hit Object Crashes ............................................................................. 25 Figure 7: Auto Right of Way Violation Heat Map .................................................................................... 27 Figure 8: Unsafe Speed Crashes Heat Map ................................................................................................. 30 Figure 9: DUI Crashes .................................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 10: Fatal Crashes by Mode ............................................................................................................... 36
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Crash Type ................................................................................................................................... 15 Exhibit 2: Crash Causes................................................................................................................................ 17 Exhibit 3: Crash Severity (All Crashes) ......................................................................................................... 34 Exhibit 4: Report Lighting Conditions .......................................................................................................... 37 Exhibit 5: Crashes by Time of Day ............................................................................................................ 38 Exhibit 6: Crash Severity of Pedestrian-Involved Crashes .......................................................................... 39 Exhibit 7: Crash Severity of Bicycle-Involved Crashes ................................................................................. 40
Item 3D - 10
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
1. Executive Summary
T
he City of Palm Springs (City) has prepared a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) in accordance with Caltrans LRSP Guidelines to identify, analyze and prioritize roadway safety improvements on the local streets within the City.
This LRSP identifies the top systemic crash patterns and top crash locations throughout the City, based on crash data collected from March 1, 2016 through February 28, 2021. The LRSP also includes a toolbox of countermeasures to address the systemic crash patterns and reduce crashes at the City’s top crash locations. In this LRSP, a total of ten (10) projects have been identified for potential Highway Safety Improvement (HSIP) grant funding. The combination of countermeasures that were selected for each project and location was selected to provide the most competitive HSIP grant applications. HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-Projects is anticipated to begin around April 2022. The application deadline is to be determined; however, a 3- to 6-month preparation time could be expected.
The purpose of this LRSP is to:
• Analyze crash data over a five-year period (March 1, 2016 through February 28, 2021); • Identify the top crash patterns and locations throughout the City; • Recommend safety countermeasures;
• Provide cost estimates of recommended improvements;
• Prioritize projects based on cost-benefit ratios and effectiveness of safety improvements; and • Develop strategies for safety project implementation.
Goals associated with this LRSP include:
• Implement proven safety solutions systemically to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes. • Reduce automobile right of way violations, which is the leading cause of crashes within the City. • Reduce speed related violations, which is the second leading cause of crashes within the City. • Re-evaluate crash trends and associated countermeasures in the LRSP a minimum of every 5 years and engage with the community, stakeholders and City management.
Item 3D - 11
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
2. Introduction
T
he City prepared this LRSP to identify, analyze and prioritize roadway safety improvements on the local streets throughout the City. This LRSP identifies the top systemic crash patterns and top crash locations throughout the City, based on crash data from March 1, 2016 through February 28, 2021. The LRSP also provides the City a toolbox of countermeasures to address the systemic crash patterns and reduce crashes at the City’s top crash locations. The City is committed to improving transportation safety to reduce the risk of death and serious injury that results from incidents on the transportation system. As part of an ongoing effort to improve safety, this LRSP was developed in collaboration with City staff, partner agencies, and organizations.
In 2016, California established the Systematic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) in response to a growing need to address transportation safety at a citywide level. The objective of the SSARP was to identify low-cost, systemic countermeasures that could be incorporated into an overall master plan of improvements that could be funded through local and grant funding, specifically the Highway Safety Improvement (HSIP) grant program.
In 2020, the SSARP was amended and renamed Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), which is now required for HSIP grant funding applications. The City of Palm Springs (City) received a grant from the state of California to prepare a LRSP, which has been complete in compliance with the State and Federal guidelines for eligibility to apply for HSIP funding and provides the necessary data to support current and future applications for the recommended projects identified in this LRSP.
Based on the 2007 City of Palm Springs General Plan Circulation Element, the City strives to improve safety measures on the roadway network per Policy 2.2 : “Make street improvements at problem intersections and bottleneck locations to improve specific traffic operations and safety, with all such improvements to be considered selectively on the basis of specific studies of the affected intersection and streets, and the impacts on the surrounding area and pedestrian activity.” As well as Action 2.3 “Periodically analyze and improve high- accident locations to improve traffic flow and safety.”
Source: City of Palm Springs
Item 3D - 12
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
3. Vision & Goals
3.1. V ision
The vision of this LRSP is to advance road safety throughout the City b
y reducing fatal and serious injuries while improving the lives of all roadway users. The goal is to reduce traffic deaths and severe injuries through a proactive, preventative approach that prioritizes traffic safety.
3.2. G
oals
The vision stated above to “A dvance road safety throughout the City by reducing fatal and serious injuries while improving the lives of all roadway users” begins with setting clear and achievable goals, which include:
Goal #1: Implement proven safety solutions systemically to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes.
Goal #2: Reduce automobile right of way violations, which is the leading cause of crashes within the City.
Goal #3: Reduce speed related violations, which is the second leading cause of crashes within the City.
Goal #4: Re-evaluate crash trends and associated countermeasures in the LRSP a minimum of every 5 years and engage with the community, stakeholders and City management.
LRSP goals should be re-evaluated a minimum of every 5 years as data analysis is updated over time.
VISION STATEMENT:
To advance road safety throughout
t
he City by reducing fatal and
serious injuries while improving the
lives of all roadway users.
Item 3D - 13
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
4. Safety Partners
Safety partners, also referred to as Stakeholders, are those departments, agencies, and organizations whose input and support are foundational to a successful LRSP. Stakeholders involved in this LRSP included decision makers and partners who can help plan, implement, evaluate, and encourage the progress of achieving the safety goals outlined in this LRSP. As shown in Table 1, the following Stakeholders were engaged and participated in the development of the countermeasures and safety projects for this LRSP:
Table 1: List of Stakeholders & Involvement
Stakeholder Involvement / Role
City Police Department
Provided valuable input on the crash trends and helped identify emphasis areas that could reduce the need for enforcement and improve safety.
City Fire Department Participated in the Stakeholder meetings and provided feedback on the crash data.
Engineering Services Assisted in the review of the crash analysis, helped identify countermeasures, and prioritized study locations for HSIP funding.
Agua Caliente Tribe Participated in the Stakeholder meetings and reviewed the crash data.
City Facility and Maintenance
Department Provided feedback on the recommended countermeasures.
Palm Springs Unified School District
Participated in the Stakeholder meetings providing input on the transportation safety issues at locations near schools and related to busing activities.
Sunline Transit Helped identify pedestrian safety concerns near transit stops and along bus routes and provided crash data in areas of concern.
Caltrans Responsible for providing funding for the LRSP effort and HSIP Grant Applications.
Item 3D - 14
f!l!lJ {!1/l!
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
PSUSD
PALM SPRINGS
UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
4.1. First Stakeholder Meeting
On Wednesday, June 23, 2021, the first stakeholder meeting was conducted for the LRSP. The first meeting was b
roken up into two time options to create an environment that was suitable for obtaining feedback from every stakeholder given the amount of meeting content. The purpose of the first meeting was to obtain feedback on the preliminary crash analysis findings as they pertain to locations, types of crashes, and other safety concerns along local roadways.
Representatives from the following City Departments and organizations participated in the Stakeholder meeting:
• City of Palm Springs – Engineering Department
• City of Palm Springs – Police/Traffic Division
• City of Palm Springs – Engineering Services
• City of Palm Springs – Parks and Recreation Department • Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD)
• Caltrans
• Agua Caliente Tribe
• SunLine Transit Agency
• Michael Baker International (consultant)
At the Stakeholder meeting, an overview of the LRSP process and goals was presented. Preliminary findings of the crash analysis were then presented and discussed. Intersection and roadway segment hot spot locations were identified based on the highest number of crashes and potential costs associated with each crash type and location.
Participants were encouraged to provide input on the crash data and hot spot locations presented. Examples of this input include:
• The Palm Springs Fire Department noted that collision activity occurs along the Indian Canyon corridor in the downtown area.
• The Public Works Department noted that there have been a few “close calls” along Indian Canyon north of Alejo Road and south of downtown to Ramon Road.
• SunLine Transit noted that major intersections also happen to be popular layover points or main transfer locations for buses, therefore there is a high frequency of buses that pass though those locations which already experiences high levels of traffic.
• The Police Department commented that there is a lot of bicycle activity the downtown area. Bicyclists are supposed to ride in the street and not the sidewalk. A hit and run fatality of a bicyclist recently occurred along SR-111.
• Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD) commented that left turns on Gene Autry and San Raphael has been an issue and often vehicles end up in the center divider. PSUSD informed the project team that they keep a record of crashes including cars pulling out in front of buses.
4.2. S
econd Stakeholder Meeting
On Tuesday, February 8, 2022, the second Stakeholder meeting was conducted for the LRSP. The purpose of the s
econd Stakeholder meeting was to present the proposed countermeasures for the top 35 locations that have the highest volume of crashes reported and gain feedback from the safety partners. Representatives from the following City Departments and organizations participated in the Stakeholder meeting:
• City of Palm Springs – Engineering Services
• City of Palm Springs – Police/Traffic Division
• City of Palm Springs – Facility and Maintenance
Department
• City of Palm Springs – Fire Department
• SunLine Transit Agency
• Michael Baker International (consultant)
Item 3D - 15
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Stakeholders generally agreed that the proposed countermeasures presented are appropriate and did not have further recommendations.
Item 3D - 16
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
5. Process
An LRSP provides a framework for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements on local roads. The LRSP development process for the City followed a well-defined process laid out by Caltrans in the Local Roadway Safety - A Manual for California Local Road Owners, Version 1.5, April 2020 (Local Roadway Safety Manual), but the content is tailored to the issues and needs on the roadway network within the City of Palm Springs. The process results in a prioritized list of issues, risks, actions, and proven countermeasures that can be used to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on local roads. The development of this LRSP involved the following process:
STEP #1 – IDENTIFY STAKEHOLDERS
Identified Stakeholders to provide input and feedback on the safety plan.
STEP #2 – ANALYZE CRASH DATA
Obtained crash data from Crossroads and evaluated to most common crash types and causes in the City. The top 35 intersections were identified and ranked by crash cost.
STEP #3 – IDENTIFY COUNTERMEASURES
Based on the crash trends and data for each of the top crash locations, appropriate countermeasures were selected to address safety concerns.
STEP #4 – IMPLEMENT SOLUTIONS
Submit for HSIP and other grant program funding. Once funding is secured, construct and monitor crash history with improvements. Regularly monitor Implementation Plan and update LRSP every 5 years.
Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Item 3D - 17
Michael Baker
LOCAL ROAD
SAFETY PLANS
Identify
Stakeholders
Choose
Proven Solutions
U.S. Deportmeol of Tronsporto!lon
FeckHal Highway Administration
Implement
Solutions
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
6. City Policies and Recent Transportation Projects
P
rior to the development of this LRSP, the City addressed transportation safety through a number of previous and existing plans, projects and programs that are discussed in this section.
6.1. C ity of Palm Springs General Plan
The City’s General Plan was adopted in 2007 and presents strategies to address existing and future roadway and t
ransportation safety conditions in the City to promote growth and improve the quality of life in Palm Springs.
Its Circulation Element (Chapter 4) includes policies and recommendations related to transportation safety. The following goals and policies and actions currently promote transportation safety throughout the City:
Circulation Element (CR) Goal 1 – Establish and maintain an efficient, interconnected circulation system that accommodates vehicular travel, walking, bicycling, public transit, and other forms of transportation.
CR Policy 1.1 – Develop a system of roadways that provides travel choices and reduces traffic congestion.
CR Action 1.6 – Require adequate drop-off and pick-up facilities at all new schools for safety of school children and to prevent traffic congestion.
CR Policy 2.2 – Make street improvements at problem intersections and bottleneck locations to improve specific traffic operations and safety, with all such improvements to be considered selectively on the basis of specific studies of the affected intersection and streets, and the impacts on the surrounding area and pedestrian activity.
CR Action 2.3 – Periodically analyze and improve high-accident locations to improve traffic flow and safety.
CR Policy 3.1 – Provide an environment within the Central Business District along Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive that is suited to slower traffic speeds and more frequent pedestrian crossings
CR Policy 5.3 – Require the construction of bus turnouts at bus stops on major and secondary thoroughfares to reduce congestion on the adjacent public street and to provide for greater overall traffic safety. The City should work with SunLine Transit Agency to determine which bus stop locations warrant bus turnouts and to address safety concerns that may arise at bus stops located throughout their service area.
CR Policy 6.5 – Seek optimum linkage of parks, recreation centers, and other recreational open space areas through the utilization of safe bikeways.
CR Policy 6.6 – Maintain widths, surfaces, and general maintenance of streets in a manner that will ensure the safety of the cyclists using them.
CR Policy 6.8 – Encourage proper design and maintenance of facilities and appropriate signing to ensure the safe use of the bikeway and trail systems.
Item 3D - 18
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
6.2. City of Palm Springs Pedestrian Plan
The Palm Springs Pedestrian Plan is a roadmap that lays the foundation for pedestrian improvements within the p
ublic right of way in the City. The Pedestrian Plan provides strategies and recommendations that aim to address four overarching priorities:
Priority 1: Mobility - Provide a circulation system that enables safe pedestrian travel and accommodates to the needs of all roadway users to further improve the comfort and convenience of pedestrian activity.
Reduce injuries and fatalities from pedestrian activities with a coordinated, citywide approach Priority 2: Accessibility - Develop a pedestrian network that enables pedestrian accessibility and circulation to connect to schools, parks, transit and within neighborhoods.
Priority 3: Sustainability - Encouraging participation in pedestrian activity to enable a shift in mode choice towards non-motorized modes to reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions Priority 4: Economy - Active transportation activities help reduce costs associated with driving. A strong pedestrian environment can boost local economies and help small businesses grow by attracting more people and contributing to a vibrant atmosphere
Priority 5: Identity - Palm Springs is known for its mid-century architecture, design elements, arts and cultural scene, and recreational activities
Priority 6: Address Public Needs - Public input is a major activity completed as part of this project and was used to identify needs and determine priorities
6.3. P
revious HSIP Funded Projects & Current Transportation Projects The City successfully applied for and received HSIP grant funding for safety improvements from Cycles 7, 8 and 9 . A list of HSIP funded projects that are under construction or are currently in design are listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Previous HSIP Projects
Project Location Year Project Description Status
17 Intersections
HSIP
Cycle 7
2015
Install curb ramps and left turn lane protected phasing at signalized intersections
Under
Construction
14 Intersections
HSIP
Cycle 8
2016
Modify traffic signal for improved visibility, install
advanced dilemma zone detection, and add protected
left-turn phasing
In Progress
9 Intersections
HSIP
Cycle 9
2017
Provide Advanced Dilemma zone detection,
pedestrian count heads, and protected left-turn
phasing
Design
Completed
In addition to the previous traffic-safety related projects listed in the previous section, the City is currently moving forward with other transportation improvement projects which will likely improve safety, refer to Table
3. Figure 1 shows the locations of the HSIP and other transportation projects.
Item 3D - 19
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Table 3: List of Current City Transportation Projects
Project Location Project ID Description Status
N. Indian Canyon Dr and Rosa
Parks Rd CP 20-19 Un signalized convert to Signalized Under Construction San Rafael and Ave Caballeros CP 20-33 Unsignalized convert to Signalized Under Construction Tahquitz Canyon Way & Civic
Drive CP 15-21 Traffic Signal Installation Completed
Indian Canyon Dr, from Camino
Parocela to Alejo Road CP 17-08 One way to two-way conversion Completed Ramon Rd (Palm Canyon Dr to
Landau Blvd)
CVAG ITS Master
Plan
Phase 1
Wireless Ethernet, ATC Controllers,
CC
TV, Arterial Management System Near-Term Project;
Pr
ogressing as
funding is available Hwy 111 (N Palm Canyon Dr to
Vista Chino)
CVAG ITS Master
Plan
Phase 1 Wireless Ethernet, CMS Sign, CCTV
Vista Chino (Gene Autry Trail to
Eastern city limits)
CVAG ITS Master
Plan
Phase 2
ATC Controllers, Fiber Optic, Arterial
Man
agement System
Long Term Project
Dinah Shore Dr (Gene Autry Trail
to Lawrence Crossley Rd)
CVAG ITS Master
Plan
Phase 2 ATC Controllers, Wireless Ethernet
E Palm Canyon Dr (S. Palm
Canyon Dr to Gene Autry Trail)
CVAG ITS Master
Plan
Phase 2
ATC Controllers, Wireless Ethernet,
Arterial Management System, HUB,
CCTV
S Palm Canyon Dr/ Indian Canyon
Dr (I-10 to E Palm Canyon Dr)
CVAG ITS Master
Plan
Phase 2
ATC Controllers, Wireless Ethernet,
Ar
terial Management System, HUB
Sunrise Way (San Rafael Dr to E
Palm Canyon Dr)
CVAG ITS Master
Plan Phase 2
ATC Controllers, Fiber Optic, Arterial
Management System
Gene Autry Trail (Via Escuela to
Vista Chino)
CVAG ITS Master
Plan Phase 2 ATC Controllers, Fiber Optic, CCTV
Tahquitz Canyon Way (S Palm
Canyon Dr to Farrell Dr)
CVAG ITS Master
Plan Phase 3 Fiber Optic, ATC Controllers
Long Term Project
Farrell Dr (Via Escuela to E Palm
Canyon Dr)
CVAG ITS Master
Plan Phase 3
Fiber Optic, ATC Controllers Wireless
Ethernet
Indian Canyon Drive from Alejo
Road to Camino Parocela -- Conversion from one-way to two- way Completed
North Palm Canyon Drive
(Tachevah/Via Lola to Ramon
Road)
CP 17-07 Pedestrian & Safety Enhancements
Design Completed;
Construction in
2022
Item 3D - 20
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Figure 1: HSIP & Other Current Transportation Projects
Item 3D - 21
PALM SPRINGS
L
DR
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Legend:
0 HSIP 7
e HSIP8
e HSIP9
CVAG ITS Master Plan
O Other
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
7. Crash Data Summary
The initial step in the development of the LRSP was to conduct crash data research and database development.
C
rash data was provided by the City for a time period from March 1, 2016 through February 28, 2021. Data from the City’s local Crossroads database was vetted, with no date gaps or issues with geo-locations. During this 5- year period, a total of 2,208 crashes were reported along local roadways and SR-111 within the City limits.
Figure 2 illustrates an overall view of the concentration of crashes during the five-year time period. As illustrated in the figure, the corridors with the highest concentration of crashes include:
A. Indian Canyon Drive from S. Palm Canyon Drive to San Rafael Drive B. Ramon Road from S. Palm Canyon Drive to the City Limits C. SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail) from S. Palm Canyon Drive to Ramon Road D. Gene Autry Trail from Vista Chino to Via Escuela
E. Palm Canyon Drive from Indian Canyon Drive to SR-111 (Vista Chino) F. Sunrise Way from E. Palm Canyon Drive to San Rafael Drive G. Farrell Drive from Ramon Road to Alejo Road
Item 3D - 22
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Figure 2: Citywide Intersection Crash Map
Item 3D - 23
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Legend
r a', School
Tribal Land
Airport
Parks
PALM SPRINGS
PALM CANYON ,R.,
Crashes (2016-2020)
1 + Crashes per 1,500 sq. ft.
45+ Crashes per 1,500 sq. ft.
NTS
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
7.1. General Findings
7.1.1. C rashes by Year
For the five-year analysis period, the number of fatal crashes, injury crashes, property damage only crashes, total fat
alities, and total injuries are highlighted in Table 4, including the averages over the analysis period. As shown, there was a clear reduction in reported crashes during the year 2020. This decline in reported crashes is likely a direct result of the novel coronavirus state mandated stay-at-home orders and the reduction of overall travel that occurred.
Table 4: Reported Number of Crashes by Year and Injury Type Category
Year
Total Average 2016
(10 months) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
(2 months)
Fatal Crashes 12 9 9 11 6 1 48 10
Injury Crashes 277 309 283 271 186 29 1,355 271
Property Damage
Only Crashes 149 164 177 165 130 20 805 161
Total Crashes 438 482 469 447 322 50 2,208 422
Total Fatalities 12 9 12 12 7 1 53 9
Total Injuries 429 483 415 430 290 40 2,087 417
7.1.2. C rash Type Summary
Table 5 includes a summary of the types of crashes that occurred during the analysis period. The three most common types of crashes were Broadside (30%), Rear-End (24%), and Hit Object (20%), which combined comprise 74% of the total crashes, as shown in Exhibit 1.
Table 5: Crash Types by Year
Crash Type
Year
Total Percent 2016
(10 months) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
(2 months)
Broadside 134 150 127 128 103 12 654 30%
Rear-End 104 119 132 97 62 8 522 24%
Hit Object 73 89 87 100 85 15 449 20%
Sideswipe 39 44 36 49 27 4 199 9%
Head-On 36 26 36 27 20 3 148 7%
Vehicle - Pedestrian 23 25 28 21 11 3 111 5%
Overturned 13 18 8 4 10 3 56 3%
Other 12 4 11 19 4 2 52 2%
(blank) 4 7 4 2 0 0 17 1%
Total 438 482 469 447 322 50 2,208 --
Item 3D - 24
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Exhibit 1: Crash Type
7.1.3 C ause of Crash Summary
T
able 6 includes a summary of the causes of the crashes that occurred during the analysis period for each year an
d Exhibit 2 graphically shows the breakdown for all crashes. The most common cause of crash was Auto Right of Way Violation (20%) followed closely by Unsafe Speed (19%) and Driving Under Influence (DUI) (14%). • Auto Right of Way Violation – Crashes that are caused by motorists failing to allow another vehicle (or pedestrian or bicyclist) to proceed before them in a traffic situation in accordance with the California Vehicle Code, such as assuming right of way while turning left at a green light (as opposed to a green arrow).
• Unsafe speed – Crashes that are caused by motorists driving in excess of the posted speed limit or driving too fast for the roadway conditions. ‘Too fast for roadway conditions’ crashes are often reported as an Unsafe Speed Crash. These crashes can be a result of motorists following too closely to the vehicle in front of them, distracted driving, or vehicles that collide with a stopped vehicle in front of them. • DUI – Crashes that are caused by motorists who operate a vehicle while their blood alcohol concentration levels exceed the allowable limits per the California Vehicle Code or impaired by drugs.
DUIs are not considered in the evaluation of safety improvements but are included in the non- engineering emphasis areas such as Enforcement and Education.
Broadside
3 0%
Head-On
7%
Hit Object
20%Other
3%
Overturned
2%
Rear-End
24%
Sideswipe
9%
Vehicle -
Pedestrian
5%
Item 3D - 25
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Table 6: Cause of Crashes by Year
Crash Cause
Year
Total Percent 2016
(10 months) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
(2 months)
Auto R/W Violation 97 94 80 91 64 7 433 20%
Unsafe Speed 85 105 91 70 48 13 412 19%
Driving Under Influence 59 83 77 57 37 1 314 14%
Unsafe Lane Change 59 46 48 54 35 11 253 11%
Traffic Signals and Signs 37 45 44 38 36 5 205 9%
Improper Turning 28 29 27 34 32 3 153 7%
Not Stated 15 23 21 26 22 2 109 5%
Unknown 9 15 16 7 13 2 62 3%
Pedestrian Violation 10 11 18 13 5 2 59 3%
Other Than Driver 10 10 10 12 7 0 49 2%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 8 4 10 13 4 1 40 2%
Ped R/W Violation 7 12 7 10 2 1 39 2%
Following Too Closely 5 2 12 6 5 0 30 1%
Wrong Side of Road 5 3 4 6 7 2 27 1%
Other Hazardous Movement 4 0 3 4 4 0 15 1%
Other Improper Driving 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0%
Impeding Traffic 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0%
Hazardous Parking 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0%
Improper Passing 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0%
Total 438 482 469 447 322 50 2,208 --
Item 3D - 26
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Exhibit 2: Crash Causes
20%
1 9%
14%
11%
9%
7%
5%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Auto R/W Violation
Unsafe Speed
Driving Under Influence
Unsafe Lane Change
Traffic Signals and Signs
Improper Turning
Not Stated
Unknown
Pedestrian Violation
Other Than Driver
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Ped R/W Violation
Following Too Closely
Wrong Side of Road
Other Hazardous Movement
Other Improper Driving
Impeding Traffic
Hazardous Parking
Improper Passing
Item 3D - 27
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
7.2. Detailed Crash Analysis
7.2.1. C rashes by Type
This section evaluates trends associated with the three most common crash types of crashes that occurred w
ithin the five-year study period. Analysis of which included Broadside, Rear-End, and Hit Object crashes.
Broadside Crashes
A Broadside crash occurs when the front of one vehicle strikes the side of another vehicle. Broadside crashes typically occur at intersections and can be a result of drivers failing to yield or obey stop-controls, where a gap in traffic is misjudged, or a turning vehicle fails to yield the right of way to another vehicle.
When evaluating the cause of common Broadside crashes, it is important to consider the following physical conditions at the intersection and signal operations:
• What is the intersection control? – Signalized, unsignalized or a roundabout • What is the signal phasing? – Permissive or protected left-turn phasing • Are clear lines of sight available or are there sight distance issues? • What is the traffic speed and the posted speed limit? What are vehicle speeds? • Ar
e there other roadway elements that might contribute to or worsen driving behaviors such as failure to yield and/or where gaps in traffic are mis-judged?
Table 7 lists the intersections where Broadside crashes were reported along with potential contributing factors.
Table 7: Most Frequent Broadside Crash Locations
Intersection No. of Broadside
Crashes Potential Contributing Factors
1 Indian Canyon Drive &
Ramon Road 21
Higher levels of pedestrian activity; Inconsistent placement of signal heads (mast arm vs. signal poles)
(Modified operations with one-way conversion)
2 Ramon Road &
Sunrise Way 18 Unprotected left turn phasing
(Improvement planned with HSIP Cycle 7)
3 Sunrise Way &
Racquet Club Road 14 Protected-permitted phasing
(Improvement planned with HSIP Cycle 7)
4 Indian Canyon Drive & Via
Escuela 13
Side street may not yield to major street at two-way stop- controlled intersection; Median exists south of intersection, however no median provided on north side of intersection 5 Indian Canyon Drive & San
Rafael Drive 13 Protected-permitted phasing
(Improvement planned with HSIP Cycle 8)
6 SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail) &
Dinah Shore Drive 12 Unprotected phasing on Dinah Shore Drive (Improvement planned with HSIP Cycle 8)
7 SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail) &
Sunny Dunes Road 12 Side street may not yield to major street at two-way stop- controlled intersection
8 Indian Canyon Drive &
Alejo Road 11
Unprotected left turn movements; Transition point from
one-way to two-way operation
(Modified operations with one-way conversion)
9 Farrell Drive &
Alejo Road 10 Unprotected and protected-permitted phasing (Improvement planned with HSIP Cycle 9)
Item 3D - 28
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
As shown in Figure 3, Broadside crashes resulting in severe injuries and fatalities were somewhat concentrated along main arterials including Ramon Road, E. Palm Canyon Drive, Gene Autry Trail south of Ramon Road, and Indian Canyon Drive north of SR-111 (Vista Chino).
Additional analysis was conducted to examine the fatal and severe injury Broadside crashes relative to the existing traffic control. Of the 38 severe and fatal broadside crashes shown, 16 crashes (42%) occurred at signalized intersections. Conversely, the remaining severe and fatal broadside crashes (58%) occurred at stop- controlled or uncontrolled intersections. This indicates that severity isn’t necessarily governed by intersection traffic control. Severe and fatal crashes that occur at signalized intersections were likely higher speed collisions along the main arterial where a left-turning vehicle does not yield under a permitted condition.
Item 3D - 29
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Figure 3: Broadside Crash Location Map
Item 3D - 30
Michael Baker
INTERNA TI ONAL
c:::
Cl
z
~ z
5 z
~
0 z .....
PALM SPRINGS
la
Legend
,iii: School O Traffic Signal
Tribal Land Broadside Crashes (Severity)
Airport .A. Fatal
Parks 1::,,. Severe Injury
~: a
LLJ~
a ~~ ..J
G ~ w..J W I ...... c:::~ u
_J $0 w :se;
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Rear-End Crashes
A crash is classified as a Rear-End crash when one ve hicle crashes into the vehicle directly in front of it. Rear-End crashes often occur under congested conditions where motorists do not react in time to a slowing of traffic downstream, or in cases where drivers are distracted or tailgating under uncongested conditions.
When evaluating the cause of common Rear-End crashes, it is important to consider the following physical conditions and signal operations:
• What is the intersection control? – signalized, unsignalized, roundabout • What is the signal phasing? – permissive or protected left-turn phasing • Are dedicated right-turn or left turn lanes provided? • Are there multiple driveways along a corridor where vehicles are frequently entering and exiting that result in a disruption in the traffic flow?
• Are vehicles queuing at an intersection such that they spill out of a turn lane into the adjacent through lane?
• What is the traffic speed and posted speed limit? Is speeding a concern? Is speeding observed? Everyone has concerns but is concern identified as valid?
Figure 4 graphically shows the Rear-End crashes that were reported throughout the City and Table 8 lists the top 7 intersections where Rear-End crashes occurred during the analysis period and potential contributing factors. Most of the crashes occurred at intersections along SR-111, which generally experiences higher traffic volumes compared to local roadways. Additionally, locations of concentrated Rear-End crashes include Ramon Road and Gene Autry Trail. The locations where Rear-End crashes resulted in fatalities or severe injuries were dispersed throughout the City and are not generally concentrated at the top 7 locations as shown in Figure 5.
Table 8: Most Frequent Rear-End Crash Locations
Intersection Number of Rear-
End Crashes Potential Contributing Factors
1 SR-111 (Vista Chino) &
SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail) 20 High volume intersection / congested conditions (Improvement planned with HSIP Cycle 8)
2 Ramon Road &
Sunrise Way 17 Congested conditions
(Improvement planned with HSIP Cycle 7)
3 Ramon Road &
El Cielo Road 11 Congested conditions; Lane drops south and west of intersection
4 SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail)
& Ramon Road 10 High volume intersection / congested conditions (Improvement planned with HSIP Cycle 8)
5 Gene Autry Trail &
Via Escuela 9 Lack of left turn pockets on Via Escuela
(Improvement planned with HSIP Cycle 7)
6 Dinah Shore Drive &
Lawrence Crossley Road 8 Issues with sand in roadway
(Improvement planned with HSIP Cycle 7)
7 SR-111 (Vista Chino) &
Farrell Drive 8 High volume intersection / congested conditions Note: Multiple intersections had 6 or fewer rear-end crashes reported.
Item 3D - 31
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Figure 4: Rear-End Crash Location Map
Item 3D - 32
ArASOURCE ArcGIS. C-RD
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Legend
.ail School
Tribal Land
Airport
Parks
PAL SPRINGS
PALM CANYON QR
Rear End Crashes (2016-2020)
1 + Crashes per 1.500 sq. fl
20 + Crashes per 1,500 sq. ft.
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Figure 5: Fatal and Severe Injury Rear-End Crashes
Item 3D - 33
DATA SOU
Michael Baker
INTER N A TI ONA L
0:::
0 z
0 >z
z
«(
a z .....
Legend
,~ School
Tribal Land
Airport
Parks
PALM SPR NGS
SAN RAFAEL
DR
PALM CANYON DR .
0 Cl!
9 w .... u
_J
w
Rear End Crashes (Severity)
Fatal
D Severe Injury
0 ~ LJ.J
U>Z W LJ.J _.
a: V)
$~ c:r: 0::: ....J\:)
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Hit Object Crashes
A Hit Object crash generally occurs when a single mot or vehicle hits a fixed object alongside or within the roadway. Objects may include utility poles, traffic signal poles, sign poles, and trees. As shown in Figure 6, hit object crashes resulting in severe injuries or fatalities have primarily occurred on two roadways over the past five years: E. Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive.
E. Palm Canyon Drive is a major thoroughfare that operates with two lanes in each direction with a center turn lane and a 45 mile per hour (MPH) posted speed limit. Curb and gutter exist along the roadway and landscaping is provided. There are a number of potential objects located next to the curb including large palm trees located either in the sidewalk or within the landscaped buffer between the roadway and the sidewalk, and other shrubs and fencing/walls. The image below is an example of the existing corridor conditions.
Indian Canyon Drive is also a major thoroughfare. This roadway operated as a four-lane, one-way roadway with on-street parking within the City’s central business district during the majority of the analysis time period, however the roadway character and operations were changed in early 2020 when the corridor was converted to two-way operations. The number and types of crashes are likely to change over time as drivers adapt to the new operational patterns.
E. Palm Canyon Drive
Item 3D - 34
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Figure 6: Fatal and Severe Injury Hit Object Crashes
Item 3D - 35
Michael Baker
INTERNA TI ONAL
0::
0 z
0 >z
5 2
::!;
0 z ......
Legend
14 1 School
Tribal Land
Airport
Parks
PALM SPRINGS
SAN RAFAEL
DR
W\CQUET_
Hit Object Crashes (Severity)
• Fatal
o Severe Injury
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Key Finding (Crash Type):
• The top 3 crash types include: Broadside (30%), Rear-End (24%), and Hit Object (20%), which combined comprise 74% of total crashes.
• Broadside crashes resulting in severe injuries and fatalities were concentrated along Ramon Road, E. Palm Canyon Drive, Gene Autry Trail south of Ramon Road, and Indian Canyon Drive north of SR-111 (Vista Chino).
• Locations of concentrated rear-end crashes included SR-111, Ramon Road, and Gene Autry Trail. • Hit object crashes resulting in severe injuries or fatalities have primarily occurred along E. Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive.
7.2.2. Crashes by Cause
The following sections analyze the three most common crash causes in further depth, which include Auto Right o
f Way Violations, Unsafe Speed, and Driving Under the Influence (DUI).
Auto Right of Way Violation Crashes
Of the 2,208 reported crashes, the attributed cause o f the crash was Auto Right of Way Violation for 433 of those crashes (20%). Crashes where Auto Right of Way was the attributed crash cause were examined further based on location. Figure 7 graphically shows all reported Auto Right of Way crashes and Table 9 lists the top 11 locations were Auto Right of Way violations were reported. Three (3) of the 11 intersections were located along SR-111, while the other 8 intersections were located along local roadways. The table also identifies potential contributing factors and information regarding planned projects which may improve safety at those locations.
When evaluating the cause of common Auto Right of Way Violation crash locations, it is important to consider the following physical roadway conditions and signal operations:
• What is the intersection control? – Signalized, unsignalized with stop/yield-controlled, roundabout • What is the signal phasing? – Permissive or protected left-turn phasing • Are there concerns with sight distance as motorists turn left or right onto a roadway? • Are there other roadway elements that might contribute to or worsen driving behaviors such as failure to yield when turning left or right and/or where gaps in traffic is mis-judged?
Item 3D - 36
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Figure 7: Auto Right of Way Violation Heat Map
Item 3D - 37
Legend
.a\ School Auto Right of Way Crashes
Tribal Land 1 + Crashes per 1,500 sq. ft.
1 0+ Crashes per 1,500 sq. ft.
PALM SPRINGS
SAJ1! RAFAEL
DR
DA1ASOURCE AlcGIS CROSSR HTS
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Table 9: Most Frequent Auto Right of Way Violation Locations Intersection
Number of
Auto Right of
Way Crashes
Potential Contributing Factors
1 Ramon Road & Sunrise Way 15 Unprotected left turn phasing (Improvement planned with HSIP Cycle 7)
2 SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail) &
Sunny Dunes Road 13 Side street may not yield to major street at two-way stop- controlled intersection
3 Indian Canyon Drive &
Via Escuela 12
Side street may not yield to major street at two-way stop- controlled intersection; Median exists south of intersection, however no median provided on north side of intersection 4 Indian Canyon Drive &
San Rafael Drive 11 Protected-permitted phasing
(Improvement planned with HSIP Cycle 8)
5 Indian Canyon Drive &
Alejo Road 10
Unprotected left turn movements; Transition point from
one-way to two-way operation
(Modified operations with one-way conversion)
6 SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail) &
Dinah Shore Drive 9 Unprotected left turn phasing
(Improvement planned with HSIP Cycle 8)
7 Sunrise Way &
Tahquitz Canyon Way 9 Unprotected left turn phasing
(Improvement planned with HSIP Cycle 7)
8 Sunrise Way &
Racquet Club Road 9 Protected-permitted phasing
(Improvement planned with HSIP Cycle 7)
9 Ramon Road & Farrell Drive 8 Protected-permitted phasing (Improvement planned with HSIP Cycle 8)
10 SR-111 (Vista Chino) &
Via Miraleste 8 Side street may not yield to major street at two-way stop- controlled intersection
11 Ramon Road &
Lawrence Crossley Road 7 Unprotected and Protected-permitted phasing (Recent signal upgrade)
Note: Multiple intersections had 6 or fewer Auto Right of Way crashes reported.
Item 3D - 38
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Unsafe Speed Crashes
A total of 412 crashes were attributed to Unsafe Spee d, which equates to 19% of the total reported crashes. As shown in Figure 8, the top 4 locations where speed contributed to the reported crashes are as follows:
• SR -111 (Vista Chino) and SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail) Intersection • Ramon Road between Palm Canyon Drive and the City Limits • Indian Canyon Drive between SR-111 (Vista Chino) and Alejo Road • Palm Canyon Drive between SR-111 (Vista Chino) and Alejo Road When evaluating the cause of common Unsafe Speed crash locations, it is important to consider the following physical roadway conditions:
• What is the roadway alignment? – Straight, curved, vertical or horizontal alignment? • What is the travel lane width and number of travel lanes? • Are there friction factors such as on-street parking and raised medians? • What is the distance between stop controls? – greater than ¼ mile • Are there other roadway elements that might contribute to or worsen driving behaviors such as failure to yield when turning left or right and/or where gaps in traffic is mis-judged?
Item 3D - 39
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Figure 8: Unsafe Speed Crashes Heat Map
Item 3D - 40
Legend
,_. , School Speed Involved Crashes
Tribal Land 1 + Crashes per 1 ,500 sq. ft.
14+ Crashes per 1,500 sq. ft.
PALM SPRINGS
....
(X
I-
>-Cl,'.
I-
SAN AEL
::,
<C
DR w z ,.,
.a t!l
(2 1
f'I\LM CANYON QR
ITT5
Michael Baker
INTERNA TI ONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
DUI Crashes
Of the 2,208 reported crashes, DUIs were a factor in 314 of those crashes (14%). Additional information related to DUI crashes was obtained from the California Office of Traffic Safety. Based on the year 2017 data, in which Palm Springs is compared to 93 other similar cities in California, the City of Palm Springs was ranked as the #1 location with alcohol involved crashes. While DUI crashes cannot be fully resolved through countermeasures or design changes, educational programs and enforcement can be increased in an effort to reduce DUI crashes.
Figure 9 graphically shows the locations of the DUI crashes throughout the City. Crash concentrations were observed at the locations listed below. A number of restaurants, bars, and hotels exist along E. Palm Canyon Drive and the Agua Caliente Casino is located east of Indian Canyon Drive between Alejo Road and Tahquitz Canyon Way, which all potentially contribute to the occurrence of DUI crashes in the area. • Ramon Road just west of SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail)
• In the area of the S. Palm Canyon Drive intersection with Indian Canyon Drive, E. Camino Parocela, and Ramon Road (five-legged intersection)
• E. Palm Canyon Drive and S. Palm Canyon Drive (curvature of Palm Canyon Drive corridor from east- west to north-south)
• E. Palm Canyon Drive near the SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail) Intersection
Item 3D - 41
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Figure 9: DUI Crashes
Item 3D - 42
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Legend
ai1 School
Tribal Land
Airport
Parks
PALM SPRINGS
SAN RAFAEL
DR
DUI Crashes
1+ Crashes per 1,500 sq. ft.
3+ Crashes per 1,500 sq. fl.
NTS
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Variation of Crash Causes Based on Mode
As discussed previously, the top three crash causes in the City of Palm Springs for all crashes over the past five years have been Auto Right of Way Violations, Speeding, and DUI. Since crash causes often vary by mode, Table 10 summarizes the crash causes for pedestrian collisions, bicycle collisions, and collisions involving all modes. As shown, Pedestrian Violation is the most reported cause of pedestrian-involved collisions. Additionally, Auto Right of Way Violations were the primary cause of Bicycle-Involved crashes.
Table 10: Most Frequent Crash Causes by Mode
Crash Cause
Percent of
Pedestrian-Involved
Crashes
Percent of Bicycle-
Involved Crashes
Percent of All
Crashes
Pedestrian Violation 53% -- --
Ped R/W Violation 28% -- --
Not Stated 8% 23% --
Auto R/W Violation -- 25% 20%
Traffic Signals and Signs -- 14% --
Driving Under Influence -- -- 14%
Unsafe Speed -- -- 19%
Note: R/W – Right of Way
Key Finding:
• The most common cause of crash was Auto Right of Way Violation (20%) followed closely by Unsafe Speed (19%) and Driving Under Influence (DUI) (14%).
• Three of the 11 top intersections where Right of Way crashes occurred were located along SR-111, while the other 8 intersections are located along local roadways. • The top 4 locations where unsafe speed crashes occurred included the intersections of SR-111 Vista Chino and SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail), Ramon Road, Indian Canyon Drive, and Palm Canyon Drive. • DUI crashes were reported throughout the City, however concentrations occurred at various locations along Ramon Road and S. Palm Canyon Drive.
Item 3D - 43
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
7.3. Crash Severity
Table 11 shows the summary of crash severity by year. Of the 2,208 reported crashes, 36% involved property damage only, while 32% complained of pain and 25% had other visible injuries. Additionally, 4% of the crashes resulted in severe injuries while 2% resulted in fatalities. Exhibit 3 represents the crash severity for all crashes over the entire analysis period.
Table 11: Crash Injury Types by Year
Crash Severity Types
Year
Total Percent 2016
(10 months) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
(2 months)
Fatal 12 9 9 11 6 1 48 2%
Severe Injury 14 27 16 15 17 3 92 4%
Other Visible Injury 129 134 107 99 82 12 563 25%
Complaint of Pain 134 148 160 157 87 14 700 32%
Property Damage Only 149 164 177 165 130 20 805 36%
Total 438 482 469 447 322 50 2,208 --
Exhibit 3: Crash Severity (All Crashes)
Ta
ble 12 summarizes the type of object each crash was involved with by year. The table includes information on all crashes, fatal crashes, and severe injury crashes. As shown, the majority of crashes of all severity types involved another motor vehicle (60%). The majority of the severe injury crashes involved either another motor vehicle (45%) or a pedestrian (23%). The majority of fatal crashes involved other objects (40%) or parked motor vehicles (35%).
Complaint of
P
ain
32%
Fatal
2 %
Other Visible
I
njury
26%
Property
D
amage Only
36%
Severe Injury
4 %
Item 3D - 44
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Table 12: Motor Vehicle Involved With by Year
All Crashes
Involved
Year
Total Percent 2016
(10 months) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
(2 months)
Other Motor Vehicle 268 301 284 261 186 21 1321 60%
Fixed Object 79 99 82 92 78 15 445 20%
Parked Motor Vehicle 23 31 41 37 18 4 154 7%
Pedestrian 22 26 28 20 11 3 110 5%
Bicycle 17 8 14 19 9 2 69 3%
Non - Collision 7 6 4 7 11 5 40 2%
Other Object 6 3 9 6 8 0 32 1%
(blank) 15 5 4 4 0 0 28 1%
Motor Vehicle on Other Roadway 1 3 3 1 1 0 9 0%
Total 438 482 469 447 322 50 2,208 --
Fatal Crashes
Involved
Year
Total Percent 2016
(10 months) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
(2 months)
Other Object 4 4 3 5 3 0 19 40%
Parked Motor Vehicle 4 4 3 3 2 1 17 35%
Non - Collision 2 1 3 1 0 0 7 15%
Fixed Object 2 0 0 1 1 0 4 8%
Other Motor Vehicle 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2%
Total 12 9 9 11 6 1 48 ---
Severe Injury Crashes
Involved
Year
Total Percent 2016
(10 months) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
(2 months)
Other Motor Vehicle 7 13 7 6 8 0 41 45%
Pedestrian 4 5 6 2 3 1 21 23%
Fixed Object 3 6 2 3 1 2 17 18%
Bicycle 0 1 1 2 1 0 5 5%
Non - Collision 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 3%
Other Object 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 2%
Parked Motor Vehicle 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2%
(blank) 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1%
Total 14 27 16 15 17 3 92 ---
The fatal crash locations were examined further to determine any potential trends throughout the City. F igure 10 shows the location of the fatalities by travel mode (bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle). Fatalities involving motor vehicles generally occurred throughout the roadway network, however a concentration of fatal crashes were reported along the following corridors: E. Palm Canyon Drive, Ramon Road, and Sunrise Way. Also as shown, a cluster of pedestrian fatalities occurred near the intersections of Ramon Road and Sunrise Way (3 pedestrian fatalities) and Ramon Road and Avenida Caballeros (2 pedestrian fatalities).
Item 3D - 45
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Figure 10: Fatal Crashes by Mode
Item 3D - 46
Michael Baker
INTERNA TI ONAL
z:
<:(
8 z
-
Legend
Tribal Land
Airport
Parks
PA M SPRINGS
SAN RAFAEL
DR
Fatalities
di; Bicycle Fatalities
! Pedestrian Fatalities
Vehicle Fatalities
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Key Finding (Crash Severity):
• Severe injuries were reported in 4% of the crashes while fatalities were reported in 2% of the crashes. • Fatalities involving motor vehicles generally occurred throughout the roadway network, however some concentrations were observed along the following corridors: E. Palm Canyon Drive, Ramon Road, and Sunrise Way.
• Locations with more than one pedestrian fatality during the analysis time period include the intersections of Ramon Road at Sunrise Way and the intersection of Ramon Road at Avenida Caballeros.
7.4. A nalysis of Lighting Conditions
The lighting conditions for each crash in the data set were reviewed. As shown in E xhibit 4, 58% of the reported crashes occurred during daylight conditions while 30% of reported crashes occurred during Dark-Street Lights conditions.
Exhibit 4: Report Lighting Conditions
Th
e reported lighting conditions were examined further to determine if any corridors or locations experienced higher numbers of crashes during dark conditions without street lighting. Locations where “Dark – No Street Lights” were identified as the condition during at least 5 crashes are the following locations:
• Gene Autry Trail between Salvia Road and Via Escuela
• Indian Canyon Drive between Garnet Ave and Vista Chino • SR-111 Between Angel Canyon Trail and Gateway Drive
• SR-111 (E. Palm Canyon Drive) between Broadmoor Drive and Lawrence Crossley Road A further review of lighting and any recommended improvements would need to consider the City’s lighting ordinance.
Key Finding (Lighting Conditions):
Roadways where “Dark – No Street Lights” exist and crashes occurred include: Gene Autry Trail, Indian Canyon Drive, and portions of SR-111.
Dark - Street
L
ights Not
Functioning
0%
(blank)
0% Dusk - Dawn
4%
Dark - No Street
Lights
8%
Dark - Street
Li
ghts
30%
Daylight
58%
Item 3D - 47
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
7.5. Time of Year Analysis
A time of year analysis was conducted since the City experiences seasonal tourism traffic with the most-active t
ime period from January through April. Table 13 shows the breakdown of crashes by month. While the 4-month time period from January through April experienced the greatest percent of crashes (35.2%) as compared to other 4-month time periods, the variation was minimal at no more than 4.5% difference.
Table 13: Crashes by Month
Month Year Total Percent 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
January -- 63 35 37 41 26 202 9.1%
35.2% February -- 39 53 28 39 24 183 8.3%
March 55 40 42 57 25 -- 219 9.9%
April 51 30 40 41 12 -- 174 7.9%
May 41 36 39 42 17 -- 175 7.9%
30.7% June 34 40 43 38 28 -- 183 8.3%
July 38 31 36 38 18 -- 161 7.3%
August 41 24 31 36 27 -- 159 7.2%
September 42 36 39 35 32 -- 184 8.3%
34.1% October 46 55 37 27 33 -- 198 9.0%
November 50 45 43 41 28 -- 207 9.4%
December 40 43 31 27 22 -- 163 7.4%
Key Finding (Time of Year Analysis):
The 4-month time period from January through April experienced the greatest percent of crashes (35.2%).
7.6. T ime of Day Analysis
Exhibit 5 shows the breakdown of crashes by time period throughout the day. As would be expected, the time period of 6 AM to 6 PM experienced the greatest number of crashes (68%). This time period is consistent with when most traffic occurs on local roads. A further breakdown shows that the highest number of crashes occurred during the 3-hour period from Noon to 3 PM. This is a somewhat unexpected finding since the evening peak commuting time periods generally fall between 3 PM and 6 PM.
Exhibit 5: Crashes by Time of Day
Midnigh
t
to 3
AM
3 AM to
6 AM
6 AM to
9 AM
9 AM to
Noon
Noon to
3 PM
3 PM to
6 PM
6 PM to
9 PM
9 PM to
Midnigh
t
Percent 8 % 5% 14% 16% 22% 16% 12% 9%
0%
5 %
10%
15%
20%
25%
Item 3D - 48
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Key Finding (Time Period Analysis):
The 3-hour time period of noon to 3 PM experienced the greatest number of crashes despite the fact that the higher traffic volumes tend to occur between 3 PM and 6 PM.
7.7. B icycle and Pedestrian Crashes
Bicyclists and pedestrians are among the most vulnerable roadway users and are more likely to sustain severe in
juries when involved in a collision with a motor vehicle. Understanding the cause, severity, and location of crashes involving these vulnerable roadways users is imperative to reducing the number of bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities and injuries on the City’s roads.
7.7.1. Pedestrian Involved Crashes
During the analysis time period, 110 pedestrian-involved crashes were reported which included 17 fatal crashes an
d 21 severe injury crashes. In other words, 15% of pedestrian-involved crashes proved to be fatal while 52% of pedestrian-involved crashes resulted in injury. Exhibit 6 shows the injury types for all pedestrian involved crashes during the analysis time period.
Exhibit 6: Crash Severity of Pedestrian-Involved Cras hes
Ta
ble 14 shows the percent of the identified pedestrian actions at crashes involving pedestrians. Reported pedestrian actions generally involved either crossing a roadway while not in a crosswalk (39%) or crossing at an intersection in a crosswalk (34%).
Table 14: Pedestrian Actions
Pedestrian Action Percent
Crossing Not in Crosswalk 39%
Crossing in Crosswalk At Intersection 34%
In Road 21%
Not in road 4%
Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection 2%
Complaint of
P
ain
26%
Fatal
1 5%
Other Visible
I
njury
33%
Property Damage
O
nly
7%
Severe Injury
1 9%
Item 3D - 49
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
7.7.2. Bicycle Involved Crashes
During the analysis time period, 69 bicycle-involved crashes were reported that resulted in 4 fatalities and an ad
ditional 41 injuries. In other words, 6% of bicycle-involved crashes were fatal and 59% resulted in injury.
Exhibit 7 shows the injury types for all bicycle involved crashes during the analysis time period.
Exhibit 7: Crash Severity of Bicycle-Involved Crashes
As
discussed previously, the most common reported cause of bicycle-involved crashes was automobile right of way violation (25%), followed by not stated (23%) and traffic signals and signs (14%).
Key Finding (Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes):
• 110 pedestrian-involved crashes were reported that included 17 fatal crashes and 21 severe injury crashes. • 69 bicycle-involved crashes were reported that resulted in 4 fatalities and an additional 41 injuries.
Complaint of
P
ain
33%
Fatal
6 %
Other Visible
I
njury
52%
Severe Injury
7 %
Item 3D - 50
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
8. Hot Spot Locations - Intersections
Intersection hot spots are identified based on crash frequency and severity of crashes. Hot spots were identified as
the locations with both the greatest frequency and the greatest severity when compared to other crash locations. This was determined by reviewing the number of crashes at each intersection throughout the City and assigning a cost associated with the severity of each crash consistent with the Local Roadway Safety Manual Appendix D (Benefit/Cost Ratio Calculations). Table 15 shows the cost assumptions utilized in the analysis.
Table 15: Crash Costs
Crash Severity Location Type Crash Cost
Fatal / Severe Injury
Signalized Intersection $ 1,590,000
Non-Signalized Intersection $ 2,530,000
Roadway $ 2,190,000
Other Visible Injury All $ 142,300
Complaint of Pain All $ 80,900
Property Damage Only All $ 13,300
Source: Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners, Appendix D (Version 1.5, April 2020)
Table 16 summarizes the top 35 preliminary intersection hot spot locations identified through this analysis. A review of those locations will be conducted to determine if existing HSIP funding at any of those locations would exclude the location from future funding or if planned HSIP project would address existing crash trends during the identification of countermeasures.
Table 16: Intersection Hot Spots (Top 35)
Intersection
Number of Crashes
Crash
Cost
Existing
HSIP
Intersection
Project
Location?
Fatal Severe OVI COP PDO Total
1 Ramon Road & Sunrise Way 1 3 9 17 19 49 $9,268,700 Yes 2 SR-111 (Vista Chino) & Via Miraleste 2 0 6 7 2 17 $6,506,700 -- 3 N. Indian Canyon Drive & SR-111 (Vista Chino) 1 2 5 7 8 23 $6,154,200 Yes 4 Gene Autry Trail & Salvia Road 1 1 5 3 5 15 $6,080,700 -- 5 S. Indian Canyon Drive & Ramon Road 1 1 11 10 9 32 $5,674,000 -- 6 SR-111 (E. Palm Canyon Drive) & Broadmoor Drive 1 1 2 3 1 8 $5,600,600 -- 7 Ramon Road & Paseo Dorotea 1 2 3 4 5 15 $5,587,000 Yes 8 E. Palm Canyon Drive & Deep Well Road 1 1 1 0 1 4 $5,215,600 -- 9 Calle El Segundo & Arenas Road 1 1 1 0 0 3 $5,202,300 -- 10 S. Palm Canyon Drive & Avenida Palmera 1 1 0 1 0 3 $5,140,900 -- 11 N. Indian Canyon Drive & Alejo Road 0 2 5 12 7 26 $4,955,400 -- Item 3D - 51
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Intersection
Number of Crashes
Crash
Cost
Existing
HSIP
Intersection
Project
Location?
Fatal Severe OVI COP PDO Total
12 Ramon Road & SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail) 0 2 5 11 13 31 $4,954,300 Yes 13 Ramon Road & Farrell Drive 2 0 7 8 7 24 $4,916,400 Yes 14 S. Palm Canyon Drive & Baristo Road 0 3 0 0 2 5 $4,796,600 -- 15 Dinah Shore Drive & Lawrence Crossley Road 1 1 4 8 5 19 $4,462,900 Yes 16 Ramon Road & Vella Road 1 1 3 7 4 16 $4,226,400 Yes 17 Ramon Road & Lawrence Crossley Road 1 1 4 5 5 16 $4,220,200 -- 18 E. Palm Canyon Drive & S. Palm Canyon Drive 0 2 2 6 2 12 $3,976,600 -- 19 Tahquitz Canyon Way & Avenida Caballeros 0 2 3 3 5 13 $3,916,100 -- 20 N. Indian Canyon Drive & Via Escuela 0 1 3 8 9 21 $3,723,800 -- 21 SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail) & Sunny Dunes Road 0 1 3 6 5 15 $3,508,800 -- 22 Ramon Road & El Cielo Road 1 0 9 5 4 19 $3,328,400 Yes 23 San Rafael Drive & Avenida Caballeros 0 1 3 2 0 6 $3,118,700 --* 24 Gene Autry Trail & Via Escuela 1 0 5 8 8 22 $3,055,100 Yes 25 Sunrise Way & Racquet Club Road 0 1 5 8 5 19 $3,015,200 Yes 26 E. Palm Canyon Drive & Farrell Drive 0 1 6 6 3 16 $2,969,100 Yes 27 Tahquitz Canyon Way & Farrell Drive 0 1 4 9 6 20 $2,967,100 Yes 28 SR-111 (N. Palm Canyon Drive) & Via Escuela 0 1 2 1 4 8 $2,948,700 -- 29 N. Indian Canyon Drive & Granvia Valmonte 0 1 1 2 5 9 $2,900,600 -- 30 Farrell Drive & SR-111 (Vista Chino) 0 1 6 4 6 17 $2,847,200 -- 31 Ramon Road & El Placer Road 0 1 5 4 2 12 $2,651,700 -- 32 El Cielo Road & Baristo Road 0 1 6 2 2 11 $2,632,200 -- 33 SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail) & SR-111 (Vista Chino) 0 1 1 10 6 18 $2,621,100 Yes 34 Ramon Road & Avenida Caballeros 1 0 4 5 3 13 $2,603,600 Yes 35 Sunrise Way & Paseo El Mirador 1 0 0 0 0 49 $2,530,000 --
Item 3D - 52
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
8.1. City-Identified Hot Spots
City staff have identified a number of locations where either the City has evaluated improvements and/or c
itizens have raised concerns. Table 17 includes the list of City-identified hot spots, the potential issue identified, and whether or not the location has been identified as a hot spot based on the crash analysis (preliminary LRSP hot spot location).
Table 17: City-Identified Intersection Hot Spots
Location Potential Issue
Preliminary
LRSP Hot Spot
Location?
1 N. Indian Canyon Drive & Via Escuela
Number of crashes may meet crash
signal warrant and poor sight distance
may be an issue
Yes
2 Racquet Club & Via Miraleste Currently Unsignalized -- 3 N. Indian Canyon Dr & Rosa Parks Rd Signalization planned -- 4 N. Indian Canyon Dr & Tramview Signalization not warranted -- 5 E. Palm Canyon Dr & Rim Rd /
Southbridge Dr
Warrant study concluded that a signal is
recommended based on pedestrian
crossing needs
--
6 San Rafael & Avenida Caballeros Signalization planned Yes 7 Indian Canyon & Camino Monte Vista Operational and pedestrian issues and poor sight distance may be an issue --
8 Indian Canyon Road & Ramon Road Southbound Left Turn signal head does not indicate a protected movement Yes
8.2. S takeholder-Identified Hot Spots
Stakeholder meetings were held on June 23, 2020. During those meetings, additional locations of concern b
eyond those identified in the crash data review which were discussed included the following:
• Gene Autry Trail north of Vista Chino (in areas where blowing sand is an issue) • Indian Canyon Drive near the Wash (also sometimes impacted by blowing sand) • Farrell Drive between Alejo Road and Vista Chino
• Gene Autry Trail and Dinah Shore Drive Intersection
Item 3D - 53
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
9. Hot Spot Locations – Corridors
T
he following hot spot corridors have been identified previously during the review of the heat map:
A. Indian Canyon Drive from South Palm Canyon Drive to San Rafael Drive B. Ramon Road from S. Palm Canyon Drive to the City Limits C. SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail) from S. Palm Canyon Drive to Ramon Road D. Gene Autry Trail from Vista Chino to Via Escuela
E. Palm Canyon Drive from Indian Canyon Drive to SR-111 (Vista Chino) F. Sunrise Way from E. Palm Canyon Drive to San Rafael Drive G. Farrell Drive from Ramon Road to Alejo Road
These corridors were further examined by calculating average crash rates and comparing those crash rates to those rates for similar facilities.
9.1. C rash Rate Analysis
The calculation of crash rates is a standard traffic engineering industry method used to determine the relative s
afety of a roadway segment by accounting for the exposure to traffic volumes and length of the segment. The equation to determine a crash rate is as follows:
Crash Rate
(per 1 Million
V
ehicle Miles
Traveled)
=
Number of Crashes x 1,000,000
Average Daily Traffic Volume x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years x Length of Roadway Segment
In order to calculate the crash rates, the number of crashes for each corridor were obtained from the March 1, 2016 to February 28, 2021 data set and the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were obtained from traffic counts provided by City staff. The ADTs were collected in January and February 2021. While the ADTs reflect volume data collected after the crash data time period, the volumes are likely comparable to the data set time period since volumes may be slightly lower due to COVID-19 restrictions and travel reductions, thus the year 2021 count data was not adjusted. The length of the segment in miles was also utilized to calculate the crash rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.
The crash rates calculated for each corridor were compared to data obtained from the Caltrans 2018 Crash Data on California State Highways , specifically the year 2018 data for District 8 roadways that are categorized into roadway cross-section types. The average crash rates utilized in this analysis are as follows:
• 2 and 3 lane roadways = 0.94
• 4+ lane undivided roadways = 1.22
• 4+ lane divided roadways = 1.01
Table 18 summarizes the crash rate calculations. As shown, the calculated crash rates for all but one corridor were greater than the crash rates for similar facilities by at least two times more than the average. It’s not surprising that the crash rates for these corridors are higher than the averages crash rates for similar facilities since these are the corridors within the City where the greatest number of collisions were reported. The average rates for similar facilities which were the basis of the comparison include those throughout District 8 (San Bernardino and Riverside Counties). It is possible that higher rates for similar facilities may exists for the Coachella Valley which could alter the comparison slightly.
Item 3D - 54
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Table 18: Roadway Segment Crash Rate Analysis
Roadway From To
Length of
Segment
(miles)
Average
Daily
Traffic
Volume
No. of
Years
of Data
No. of
Crashes
Cross-
Section
Crash
Rate
(1)
Average
Crash Rate
for Similar
Facilities (2)
Rate /
Average
N Palm Canyon Drive SR-111 (E. Vista
Chino) E. Alejo Road 1.01 29,600 5 57 4+ Und 1.04 1.22 0.86 N. Palm Canyon Drive / S. Palm Canyon Drive E. Alejo Road Indian Canyon Drive 1.15 13,100 5 59 2 / 3 Ln 2.15 0.94 2.28
Indian Canyon Drive San Rafael Road SR-111 (E. Vista
Chino) 1.01 10,600 5 105 4+ Div 5.37 1.01 5.32
Indian Canyon Drive SR-111 (E. Vista
Chino) E. Alejo Road 1.01 12,700 5 111 4+ Div 4.74 1.01 4.69 Indian Canyon Drive E. Alejo Road S. Palm Canyon
Drive 1.14 13,900 5 117 4+ Und 4.05 1.22 3.32
E. Farrell Drive Alejo Road Ramon Road 1.00 11,300 5 86 4+ Und 4.17 1.22 3.42
Sunrise Way San Rafael Road SR-111 (E. Vista
Chino) 1.01 9,100 5 67 4+ Div 3.99 1.01 3.95
Sunrise Way SR-111 (E. Vista
Chino) E. Alejo Road 1.00 15,300 5 47 4+ Div 1.68 1.01 1.67 Sunrise Way E. Alejo Road Ramon Road 1.00 16,000 5 117 4+ Div 4.01 1.01 3.97 Sunrise Way Ramon Road E.Palm Canyon
Drive 1.01 13,800 5 88 4+ Div 3.46 1.01 3.43
Ramon Road S. Palm Canyon
Drive Sunrise Way 1.07 13,000 5 151 4+ Div 5.95 1.01 5.89 Ramon Road Sunrise Way El Cielo Road 1.01 23,200 5 119 4+ Div 2.78 1.01 2.76 Ramon Road El Cielo Road City Limits 1.27 28,200 5 194 4+ Div 2.97 1.01 2.94 Gene Autry Trail Via Escuela SR-111 (Vista Chino) 0.25 26,900 5 107 4+ Div 8.72 1.01 8.63 SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail) Ramon Road Palm Canyon Drive 1.58 18,900 5 144 4+ Div 2.64 1.01 2.62 (1) Crashes per Million Vehicle Miles Traveled
(2) Source: Caltrans 2018 Crash Data on California State Highways; District 11 Rates (2018) in Million Vehicle Miles. Crash rates for similar facilities are based on California District 11 average rates for 2/3 lane (2/3 Ln), 4+ lane undivided (4 + Und), 4+ lane divided (4 + Div) facilities. (3) Crash rates greater than the statewide average are highlighted in blue.
Item 3D - 55
Michael Baker
INTERNAT I ONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
10. Emphasis Areas & Countermeasures
10.1. E mphasis Areas
The City’s LRSP is a tool that is intended to assist City staff in most effectively fo
cusing education, enforcement, engineering, and emergency response resources towards the highest priority systemic and location specific crash trends for safety improvements. The crash data combined with professional engineering judgement was used to identify applicable safety projects that have a definite and measurable safety benefit. Using the crash data described in the previous section of this report, three (3) major emphasis areas were identified for the City. Table 19 presents the three emphasis areas along with performance measures and strategies to improve safety. DUIs are not considered in the evaluation of safety improvements but are included in the non-engineering emphasis areas such as Enforcement and Education.
Caltrans LRSP
process was
followed in order
to compete for
grant funding that
will help address
roadway safety
needs throughout
the City.
Item 3D - 56
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Table 19: LRSP Emphasis Areas
Emphasis Area General Targets Recommended Strategies Projects Improve Intersection
Safety
1.) Reduce annual intersection-related
fatalities from 5 in Year 2020 to 3 or
fewer in Year 2035 (a 40-percent
reduction).
2.) Reduce annual intersection-related
severe injuries from 12 in Year 2020 to
9 or fewer in Year 2035 (a 25-percent
reduction).
1.) Reduce the number of conflict points and/or
provide better guidance for motorists at
intersections.
2.) Implement effective countermeasures for
problem intersections.
3.) Develop a system to track and evaluate
countermeasure effectiveness at high-crash
intersections.
4.) Create intersection safety checklists for
existing conditions and new design.
Project 1: Improve Signal Hardware
(Signalized)
Project 3: Provide Protected Left Turn
Phasing (Signalized)
Project 4: Install Flashing Beacons
(Signalized)
Project 7: Create Directional Median
Openings (Unsignalized)
Speed Management
1.) Reduce annual crashes related to
Unsafe Speed from 48 in Year 2020 to
36 or fewer in Year 2035 (a 25-percent
reduction).
2.) Reduce the 85th percentile speeds on
Arterials and Collectors throughout the
City by 5 MPH or more in Year 2035.
1.) Change the driving culture by conducting and
supporting public education and outreach
activities that elevate the awareness of the
dangers of aggressive driving.
2.) Implement effective countermeasures that
discourage unsafe speeds.
3.) Increase enforcement targeting aggressive
driving.
Project 2: Provide Advanced Dilemma
Zone Detection (Signalized)
Project 5: Install Traffic Signal
(Unsignalized)
Project 6: Install Flashing Beacons
(Unsignalized)
Increase Non-Motorized
Road User Safety
1.) Reduce annual pedestrian-related
severe injuries from 3 in Year 2020 to 2
in Year 2035 (a 33-percent reduction).
2.) Reduce annual bicycle-related severe
injuries from 1 in Year 2020 to 0 in Year
2035 (a 100-percent reduction).
1.) Conduct periodic roadway safety assessments
of locations with growing traffic and
pedestrian/bicycle volumes and locations at
greatest risk for pedestrian/bicycle fatalities
and injuries and share information with other
local partners.
2.) Implement effective countermeasures for
problem areas as determined by roadway
safety assessments.
3.) Conduct public education and outreach to
motorists to raise awareness of pedestrian and
bicyclist safety needs.
Project 8: Add Pedestrian Countdown
Heads (Signalized)
Project 9: Install Lead Pedestrian Interval
(Signalized)
Project 10: Install/Upgrade Pedestrian
Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations
(Unsignalized)
Item 3D - 57
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
10.2. Countermeasures
Based on a thorough review of the crash types and causes at each of the top 35 intersections and top 7 r
oadway segments with the highest concentration of crashes, countermeasures were selected that would reduce the likelihood of future crashes. The Local Roadway Safety Manual was used as a guide for selecting countermeasures and corresponding Crash Reduction Factors (CRF) for this LRSP. CRF’s represent the proportion of crashes that are expected to be eliminated from a location as a result of receiving a specific safety improvement i.e. specific countermeasure.
The Local Roadway Safety Manual provides a list of countermeasures that are sorted into 3 categories:
Signalized Intersections, Non-Signalized Intersections, and Roadways. Pedestrian and bicycle-related countermeasures have been included in each of these categories. In the Local Roadway Safety Manual Caltrans has established key requirements and procedures for projects to allow agencies maximum flexibility in combining countermeasures and locations into a single project, while ensuring all projects can be consistently ranked on a statewide basis.
1.) A maximum of three (3) individual countermeasures can be utilized in the Benefit / Cost (B/C) ratio for a project.
2.) If the project involves multiple locations, the locations must have the same safety improvements and thus exactly the same countermeasures.
3.) If a project selects to install a traffic signal i.e. countermeasure NS03 at a location, additional countermeasures cannot be utilized in the B/C ratio calculation for the project.
In this LRSP, a total of ten (10) projects have been identified for HSIP funding. The 10 different projects along with the countermeasures, locations, project costs, benefit costs, and B/C ratios associated with each project are provided on the following pages. The combination of countermeasures that were selected for each project and location was selected to provide the most competitive applications for HSIP grant funding. While a project can have a maximum of three (3) individual countermeasures, the projects that have been identified through this analysis happen to have one per project. Project summarizes are provided below and Table 20 provides a summary of the recommended projects. Additionally, Appendix A provides detailed information for each project include locations, cost breakdown, the crash data table, and the B/C ratio calculation.
Item 3D - 58
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Table 20: Summary of Projects
Project
Number Description Type of
Locations
No. of
Intersections
Impacted
Total Expected
Benefit
Total Project
Cost
B/C
Ratio
All 100%
Federal
Funding
Eligible?
TOP 35 COLLISION LOCATIONS
1 Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number. Signalized 4 $ 4,289,990.00 $ 348,400.00 12.31 Yes 2 Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches. Signalized 4 $ 11,556,308.00 $ 802,800.00 14.40 Yes 3 Provide protected left-turn phase (left-turn lane already exists). Signalized 6 $ 25,802,182.00 $ 419,900.00 61.45 Yes 4 Install flashing beacons as advance warning. Signalized 4 $ 8,203,685.00 $ 241,200.00 34.01 Yes 5 Install signals.
Unsignalized 2 $ 8,674,367.00 $ 737,000.00 11.77 Yes
5.1 Unsignalized 1 $ 4,466,113.00 $ 359,700.00 12.42 Yes
5.2 Unsignalized 1 $ 4,208,255.00 $ 377,300.00 11.15 Yes 6 Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections. Unsignalized 1 $ 873,692.00 $ 62,200.00 14.05 Yes 7 Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and U-turns. * Unsignalized 1 $ 16,575,718.00 $ 826,000.00 20.07 No
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COLLISION LOCATIONS
8 Install pedestrian countdown signal heads. Signalized 11 $ 21,191,789.00 $ 502,400.00 42.18 Yes 9 Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI). Signalized 11 $ 25,301,217.00 $ 504,600.00 50.14 Yes 10 Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features). Unsignalized 5 $ 21,353,560.00 $ 467,300.00 45.70 Yes * 90% Federal Funding Eligible
Item 3D - 59
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
PROJECT #1: Improve Signal Hardware
Control Type: Signalized
Countermeasure:
S02
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number.
Signalized Intersection Locations:
1.) S. Palm Canyon Drive & Baristo Road
2.) Tahquitz Canyon Way & Avenida
Caballeros
3.) Ramon Road & Placer Road
4.) El Cielo Road & Baristo Road/Kirk Douglas
Way
Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$4,289,990 $ 348,400 12.31
S. Palm Canyon Drive & Baristo Road Ramon Road & Placer Road
Item 3D - 60
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
PROJECT #2: Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone
Control Type: Signalized
Countermeasure:
S04
Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches.
Signalized Intersection Locations:
1.) N. Indian Canyon Drive & Alejo Road
2.) Tahquitz Canyon Way & Avenida
Caballeros
3.) Ramon Road & El Placer Road
4.) El Cielo Road & Baristo Road/Kirk Douglas
Way
Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$ 11,556,308 $ 802,800 14.40
N. Indian Canyon Drive & Alejo Road El Cielo Road & Baristo Road/Kirk Douglas Way
Item 3D - 61
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
PROJECT #3: Provide Protected Left-Turn Phase
Control Type: Signalized
Countermeasure:
S07
Provide protected left-turn phase (left-turn lane already exists).
Signalized Intersection Locations:
1.) Ramon Road & Farrell Drive
2.) Dinah Shore Drive & Lawrence
Crossley Road
3.) E. Palm Canyon Drive & S. Palm
Canyon Drive
4.) Tahquitz Canyon Way & Avenida Caballeros
5.) Ramon Road & El Placer Road
6.) El Cielo Road & Baristo Road/Kirk Douglas Way
Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$ 25,802,182 $ 419,900 61.45
Ramon Road & Farrell Drive Dinah Shore Drive & Lawrence Crossley Road
Item 3D - 62
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
PROJECT #4: Install Flashing Beacons
Control Type: Signalized
Countermeasure:
S10
Install flashing beacons as advance warning.
Signalized Intersection Locations:
1.) E. Palm Canyon Drive & S. Palm
Canyon Drive
2.) Ramon Road & El Cielo Road
3.) Gene Autry Trail & Via Escuela
4.) Farrell Drive & SR-111 (Vista Chino)
Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$ 8,203,685 $ 241,200 34.01
Farrell Drive & SR-111 (Vista Chino) Gene Autry Trail & Via Escuela Note: Since the intersection of Farrell Drive and SR-111 (Vista Chino) includes a state highway facility, additional coordination with Caltrans would be required to implement improvements involving the state roadway.
Item 3D - 63
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
PROJECT #5: Install Signal
Control Type: Unsignalized
Countermeasure:
NS03
Install signals.
Unsignalized Intersection Locations:
1.) N. Indian Canyon Drive & Via Escuela
2.) SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail) & Sunny Dunes Road
Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$ 8,674,367 $737,000 11.77
Potential
Project
Break
Down
PROJECT #5.1: N. Indian Canyon Drive & Via Escuela
Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$ 4,466,113 $ 359,700 12.42
PROJECT #5.2: SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail) & Sunny Dunes Road Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$ 4,208,255 $ 377,300 11.15
N. Indian Canyon Drive & Via Escuela Gene Autry Trail & Sunny Dunes Road Note: Since the intersection of SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail) & Sunny Dunes Road includes a state highway facility, additional coordination with Caltrans would be required to implement improvements involving the state roadway.
Item 3D - 64
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
PROJECT #6: Upgrade Signage
Control Type: Unsignalized
Countermeasure:
NS06
Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulator signs.
Unsignalized Intersection Locations:
1.) N. Indian Canyon Drive & Granvia Valmonte
Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$ 873,692 $ 62,200 14.05
N. Indian Canyon Drive & Granvia Valmonte
Item 3D - 65
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
PROJECT #7: Median Improvements
Control Type: Unsignalized
Countermeasure:
NS15
Create directional median opening at allow (and restrict) left-turns and U-turns.
Unsignalized Intersection Locations:
1.) SR-111 (E. Palm Canyon Drive) & Broadmoore Drive/Palm Hills Road Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$ 16,575,718 $ 826,000 20.07
E Palm Canyon Drive & Broadmoore Drive/Palm Hills Road
Note: Since the intersection of SR-111 (E. Palm Canyon Drive) & Broadmoore Drive/Palm Hills Road includes a state highway facility, additional coordination with Caltrans would be required.
Item 3D - 66
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
PROJECT #8: Install Countdown Ped Heads
Control Type: Signalized (BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN)
Countermeasure:
S17PB
Install pedestrian countdown signal heads.
Signalized Intersection Locations:
1.) Ramon Road & Paseo Dorotea
2.) Ramon Road & Lawrence Crossley Road
3.) Sunrise Way & San Rafael Drive
4.) SR-111 (Vista Chino) & Sunrise Way
5.) Sunrise Way & Ramon Road
6.) Ramon Road & SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail)
7.) Ramon Road & El Placer Road
8.) Indian Canyon Drive N & SR-111 (Vista
Chino)
9.) 20th Avenue & Indian Avenue
10.) SR-111 (Palm Canyon Drive N) &
Tramway Road
11.) Ramon Road & San Luis Rey Drive
Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$ 21,191,789 $ 502,400 42.18
Sunrise Way & San Rafael Drive Ramon Road & San Luis Rey Drive Note: Since multiple intersections include a state highway facility, additional coordination with Caltrans would be required.
Item 3D - 67
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
PROJECT #9: Provide Leading Pedestrian Interval
Control Type: Signalized (BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN)
Countermeasure:
S21PB
Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).
Signalized Intersection Locations:
1.) Ramon Road & Paseo Dorotea
2.) Ramon Road & Lawrence Crossley Road
3.) Sunrise Way & San Rafael Drive
4.) SR-111 (Vista Chino) & Sunrise Way
5.) Sunrise Way & Ramon Road
6.) Ramon Road & SR-111 (Gene Autry Trail)
7.) Ramon Road & El Placer Road
8.) 20th Avenue & Indian Avenue
9.) Palm Canyon Drive N & Escoba Drive
10.) Ramon Road & Avenida Caballeros
11.) Ramon Road & San Luis Rey Drive
Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$ 25,301,217 $ 504,600 50.14
20th Avenue & Indian Avenue Vista Chino & Sunrise Way
Note: Since multiple intersections include a state highway facility, additional coordination with Caltrans would be required to implement improvements involving the state roadway.
Item 3D - 68
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
PROJECT #10: Install Pedestrian Crossing
Control Type: Unsignalized (BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN)
Countermeasure:
NS21PB
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety measures).
Signalized Intersection Locations:
1.) Calle El Segundo & Arenas Road
2.) Palm Canyon Drive N & Vereda Sur
3.) Casitas Way & Mesquite Avenue
4.) Palm Canyon Drive S & Avenida Palmera
5.) Sunrise Way & Capri Circle
Total Expected Benefit (B): Total Project Cost (C): Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C):
$ 21,353,560 $ 467,300 45.70
Calle El Segundo & Arenas Road
Palm Canyon Drive S & Avenida Palmera
Item 3D - 69
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
11. Evaluation & Implementation
This section describes strategies the City may take to evaluate the success of this LRSP and steps needed to update the LRSP in the future. The effectiveness of safety improvements recommended in this LRSP should be evaluated following installation to ensure the measures are addressing safety issues as intended. This document should be considered a living document that is updated every 5 years to assess how well the implemented strategies have performed and update the crash data to identify new trends that might occur throughout the City.
The following strategies should be implemented to en s
ure the City’s success in improving safety
performance in Palm Springs.
• Safety partners such as the Fire Department, Police Department, Recreation Department, and local school districts should meet on a yearly basis to discuss the effectiveness of the safety improvements.
• City should develop a spreadsheet or database to track safety project installations and record 3 or more years of “before” and “after” crash information at those locations. Once countermeasures are constructed, schedule and track assessment dates to ensure they happen.
• City should conduct field observations shortly after projects are constructed to ensure the project is operating as intended.
Table 21 summarizes the educational programs and action items recommended to successfully improve safety throughout the City.
Item 3D - 70
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Table 21: LRSP Implementation Plan
Project
# Program HSIP Funding
Cycle Action Responsible Party Timeline
Currently Eligible
5 HSIP Cycle 11 Apply for HSIP Grant Funding City of Palm Springs Year 2022 – 2023 6 HSIP Cycle 11 Apply for HSIP Grant Funding City of Palm Springs Year 2022 – 2023 7 HSIP Cycle 11 Apply for HSIP Grant Funding City of Palm Springs Year 2022 – 2023 1 HSIP Cycle 12 Apply for HSIP Grant Funding City of Palm Springs Year 2024 – 2025 2 HSIP Cycle 12 Apply for HSIP Grant Funding City of Palm Springs Year 2024 – 2025 3 HSIP Cycle 12 Apply for HSIP Grant Funding City of Palm Springs Year 2024 – 2025 4 HSIP Cycle 12 Apply for HSIP Grant Funding City of Palm Springs Year 2024 – 2025 8 HSIP Cycle 13 Apply for HSIP Grant Funding City of Palm Springs Year 2025 – 2026 9 HSIP Cycle 13 Apply for HSIP Grant Funding City of Palm Springs Year 2025 – 2026 10 HSIP Cycle 13 Apply for HSIP Grant Funding City of Palm Springs Year 2025 – 2026 -- Safe Routes
to School --
Partner with the Palm Springs Unified
School District to further support
bicycling and walking.
Engineering
Department
Annually – Up to 3
years (Year 2025)
-- DUI
Prevention --
• Conduct DUI checkpoints on corridors
with high concentration of DUI crashes
at least twice a year.
• Increase awareness of the dangers of
DUI by educating the public and
students with assistance from City’s
Police Dept. and MADD.
• Advertise and provide free transit
service on major holidays to reduce the
risk of DUI.
Police Department
Annually for the
next 5 years
(Year 2027)
Potential Programs in the Future
-- -- --
Coordinate with CVAG to identify any
future active transportation grant
funding during the Transportation Project
Prioritization Study (TPPS) process.
City of Palm Springs
Dependent upon
CVAG TPPS
schedule.
-- -- --
AARP provides small grants to fund quick-
action projects that can help
communities become more livable for
people of all ages. If the City of Palm
Springs were to become a member of the
AARP Network of Age-Friendly States and
Communities, the City could apply for
transportation and mobility grants to
increase connectivity, walkability,
bikeability, wayfinding, access to
transportation options and roadway
improvements.
City of Palm Springs
Dependent upon
the City becoming
an AARP
community
member.
Item 3D - 71
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
12. Conclusion
The City prepared this LRSP to identify, analyze and prioritize roadway safety improvements on the local s
treets throughout the City. This LRSP identifies the top systemic crash patterns and top crash locations throughout the City, based on crash data collected from March 1, 2016 through February 28, 2021. The LRSP also provides the City a toolbox of countermeasures to address the systemic crash patterns and reduce crashes at the City’s top crash locations. This LRSP provides the City with in-depth analysis of crash data that could be useful in determining safety improvements based on current programs outside of the HSIP grant funding process such as Safe Routes to School (SRTS).
In this LRSP, a total of ten (10) projects have been identified for HSIP funding. The combination of countermeasures that were selected for each project and location was selected to provide the most competitive applications for HSIP grant funding. In addition to HSIP projects, opportunities for education related to bicycle and pedestrian activity and enforcement related to DUI crashes have also been identified. This document is considered a living document to be updated every 5 years to assess how well the implemented strategies have performed and update the crash data to identify new trends that might occur throughout the City.
Item 3D - 72
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Palm Springs Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
APPPENDIX A – Project Detail Sheets
Item 3D - 73
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - SUMMARY OF PROJECTS
P
roject
Nu
mber Description Type of project
locations
N
o. of
Intersections
Impacted
Total Expected
Benefit Total Project Cost B/C Ratio All 100% Federal
Funding Eligible?
TOP 35 COLLISIONS LOCATIONS
1 Im prove signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number. Signalized 4 $ 4,289,990.00 $ 348,400.00 12.31 Yes 2 P
rovide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed
approaches. Signalized 4 $ 11,556,308.00 $ 802,800.00 14.40 Yes 3 P
rovide protected left-turn phase (left-turn lane already exists). Signalized 6 $ 25,802,182.00 $ 419,900.00 61.45 Yes 4 I
nstall flashing beacons as advance warning. Signalized 4 $ 8,203,685.00 $ 241,200.00 34.01 Yes 5 I
nstall signals.
Unsignalized 2 $ 8,674,367.00 $ 737,000.00 11.77 Yes 5 .1 Unsignalized 1 $ 4,466,113.00 $ 359,700.00 12.42 Yes 5 .2 Unsignalized 1 $ 4,208,255.00 $ 377,300.00 11.15 Yes 6 I
nstall Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections. Unsignalized 1 $ 873,692.00 $ 62,200.00 14.05 Yes 7 C
reate directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left- turns and U-turns. * Unsignalized 1 $ 16,575,718.00 $ 826,000.00 20.07 No P
EDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COLLISIONS LOCATIONS
8 In stall pedestrian countdown signal heads. Signalized 11 $ 21,191,789.00 $ 502,400.00 42.18 Yes 9 Mo
dify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI). Signalized 11 $ 25,301,217.00 $ 504,600.00 50.14 Yes 1 0 Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features). Unsignalized 5 $ 21,353,560.00 $ 467,300.00 45.70 Yes *
90% Federal Funding Eligible
Page A-1
Item 3D - 74
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
TOP 35 COLLISIONS LOCATIONS
LIST OF PROJECTS
Page A-2
Item 3D - 75
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
14 19
31 32
#
Table 1-2: Detailed Engineer’s Estimate for
C
onstruction Items
Table 1-3: Project Cost Estimate
Table 1-4: Countermeasure(s) to be Applied
Table 1-5: Crash Data Table
Table 1-6: Benefit Summary
PROJECT # 1 – SIGNALIZED
S02: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, s
ize, and number.
Table 1-7: Cost, FRR, Benefit, and BCR
Table 1-1: List of Project Intersections
I
ntersection
Nu
mber Street 1 Street 2 Total Expected
Benefit Total Project Cost B/C Ratio
14 S Palm Canyon Dr Baristo Rd
$ 4,289,990.00 $ 348,400.00 12.31
19 Tahquitz Canyon Way Avenida Caballeros
31 Ramon Rd El Placer Rd
32 El Cielo Rd Baristo Rd/
Kirk Douglas Way
Page A-3
LAWRENCE
Item 3D - 76
PALM SPRINGS
g
>-
g
<(
Legend
•
L
Schools
Tribal Lands
Airport
Parks
Q Top 35 Intersection Crash Locations
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS LSRP
Palm. ~ uo~~o ~~O~.S~~~M~ile::._s _ _____!li~o~p~3~5~1 n:!!t~e~rs~e~c:!!ti~o~n~C~r~a~s~hJ:L~o~c~a~ti~o~ns Source: ESR I, Rive15ide County, Cn)&Sroeds
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost
+ -1 Mobiliz.ation & Traffic Control LS I $10000.00
..!:.. 2 Remove vehicle head and
mountin g EA 40 $500.00
+ Insta ll 3-12" LED vehicle head
--:- 3 withmom1ting EA 40 $2000 .00
..!:_4 Furnish APS PPB with Special EA 9 $600.00 Voice Messa ge + Install APS PPB with Special EA 8 $1200 .00 --:- 5 Voice Message + Remove Type 1 Standard and EA 16 $2100 .00 --:- 6 FoW1dation + - 7 Install Type 15TS Standard EA 16 $2200.00
..!:.. 8 Install Type 15TS Standar d EA 16 $2000.00 Foundation + -9 Relocate Pedestrian Head EA 16 $500.00
+ - 10 Relocate Pedestrian Push Button EA 8 $250.00
Weighted Average (%)
• % for OS. Cost % for Other Safety-Re lated components, ••%for NS: Cost% for Non Safety-Related components
Total($)
Total
10,000
20,000
80,000
5,400
9,600
33,600
35,200
32,000
8,000
2,000
$235,800
Contingencies , as % of the above 'Total' of the constructi on items: r-•;:;:u-$;;-;;;--7 (e.g. enter IO for 10%) L......:....:JL....:.:::::..J
Total Construction Cost (Con Items&'. Contingencies):
(Rounded up to the nearest hundreds)
¾ %for % for forCM#l (Not Used) (Not Used) os• NS•• (S02) % % % % 100
100 % % % % 0
100 % % % % 0
100 % % % % 0
100 % % % % 0
100 % % % % 0
100 % % % % 0
100 % % % % 0
100 % % % % 0
100 % % % % 0
96% 4%
No. Countermeasure (CM) CM Crash Reduction Expected Life Crash Type Federal Fundin g Name Type• Factor (CRF) (Years) Eligibility
S02: Improve signal hardware:
~
I lenses , back-plates with s 0.15 JO All IO~ retroreflective borders . mounting. size, and number
*CM Type: S,Signalized Inter section; NS1 Non,Signalized Intersection ; R,Roadway.
Informa tion/Data* Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Total Benefit Ill 112 #3 Location type: S (Signalized Intersections)
Number of location( s ): 4
Number of selectedcoun termeasure(s): I ( S02)
Crash Data Information: $4,289,990 $0 $0 $4,289,990
Crash data period (years): 5.01
Number of crashes(F /SI/OVJ/1-CP/PDO)*:
All: 0,7 J6,9,13
Sum $4,289 ,990 $0 $0 $4,289,990
*Number of crashes: five crash num bers are for Fatal (F). Severe Injury (SI). Other Visible Injury (OVI), Injury - Complaint of Pain (l-CP), and Property Damage Only (PDO) , respectively.
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental $10,000 100 'lb $10,000 $0
% PS&:E $40,000 100 'lb $40,000 $0
% Sub total-PE $50,000 100 'lb $50,000 $0
%
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 100 'lb $0 $0
%
%
Appraisals, Acquisitions&: $0 100 'lb $0 $0 Util ities
%
Subtotal - Right of Way (ROW) $0 'lb $0 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
% Construction Engineering (CE) $39,000 100 'lb $39,000 $0 %
%
Construction Items $259,400 100 'lb $259,400 $0 (Read only, from Section I) Sub total -- Const ru ctio n $298,400 100 'lb $298,400 $0 %
PROJECT TOTAL $348,400 100 'lb $348,400 $0
Cras h Data Tab le for Cras h Type: ALL
No. Location Fatal Severe lnjul)" Other Visible Complaint o( Pain PDO Total (from Table Ill.I) (ALL) (ALL) Injury (ALL) (ALL) (ALL) I S Palm Canyon Dr and 0 3 0 0 3 6 Baristo Rd
2 Tahquitz Canyon Way and 0 2 3 3 5 n Avenida Caballeros 3 Ramon Rd and El Placer Rd 0 I 5 4 2 12
4 El Cielo Rd and Baristo Rd/ 0 I 8 2 3 14 Kirk Douglas Way Total 0 7 16 9 13 45
Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requested Max, FRR
11 $348,400
1111
$348,400
1111
100%
Total Expected Benefit &nefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
II $4,289,990
1111
12.31 ii
11 19
#
31 32
PROJECT # 2 – SIGNALIZED
S04: Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches.
Table 1-2: Detailed Engineer’s Estimate for
C
onstruction Items
Table 1-3: Project Cost Estimate
Table 1-4: Countermeasure(s) to be Applied
Table 1-5: Crash Data Table
Table 1-6: Benefit Summary
Table 1-7: Cost, FRR, Benefit, and BCR
Table 1-1: List of Project Intersections
I
ntersection
Nu
mber Street 1 Street 2 Total Expected
Benefit Total Project Cost B/C Ratio
11 N Indian Canyon Dr Alejo Rd
$ 11,556,308.00 $ 802,800.00 14.40
19 Tahquitz Canyon Way Avenida Caballeros
31 Ramon Rd El Placer Rd
32 El Cielo Rd Baristo Rd/
Kirk Douglas Way
Page A-4
LAWRENCE
Item 3D - 77
PALM SPRINGS
g
>-
g
<(
SAN
RAFAEL DR
C a:
0 ...J
w
t1
...J
w
Legend
•
L
Schools
Tribal Lands
Airport
Parks
Q Top 35 Intersection Crash Locations
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS LSRP
Palm. ~ uo~~o ~~O~.S~~~ M~ile::._s _ _____!li~o~p~3~5~1 n:!!t~e~rs~e~c:!!ti~o~n~C~r~a~s~hJ:L~o~c~a~ti~o~ns Source: ESR I, Rive15ide County, Cn)&Sroeds
1 Mobilization &: Traffic Conttol LS 1 $20000.00 20,000 % % % % 100 % Remove existing video detection LS $2000.00 6,000 100 % % % % 0 % "'"'"'"
l Remove existing coa.'< cables and LS 12 $300000 36,000 100 % % % % 0 % power cable 4 Remove existing video detection
system EA $1000.00 3,000 100 % % % % 0 %
Upgrade Traffic Signa l Controller EA $5S0000 22,000 100 % % % % 0 % (forne wsi tim.i Install advanced dilenmia -zone
detection system (per approach) LS 4 $42000.00 168,000 100 % % % % 0 % for N Indian Canyon Dr & Alejo Rd
Install advanced dilemma-zone
detection system (per approach) LS 4 $42000.00 168,000 100 % % % % 0 % for Tahquitz Canyon Way & Avoiida Caballeros
Install new v:ideo detection system
8 (including cameras and cables) for LS $S000.00 10,0CH) 100 % % % % 0 % Ramon Rd & El Placer Rd
Install advanced dilemma-zone
9 detection system (per approach) LS S42000.00 84,000 100 % % % % % for Ramon Rd & El Placer Rd
Install new video detection system
(including cameras and cables) for LS $S000 00 S,000 100 % % % % 0 % El Cicio Rd & Baristo Rd/Kirlc Douglas Way
Install advanced dilcwma.-zooe
11 detection system (per approach) LS 3 $42000.00 126,000 100 % % % % 0 % for El Cielo Rd & B.rnsto RrlJlGrk Douglas Way
Weighted Average (9/4) 97% 3o/.
Total ($) $648,000
Contingencies, as% of the above 'Total' of the construction items: ~ I ( e.g. enter 10 for 10%) $64,800
Total Construction Cost (Con Items & Contingencies):
( Rounded up to the nearest hundreds)
Information/Data 4
Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Total Benefit 11'I 11'2 11'3 Location type: S (Signalize d Intersections)
Number of location(s): 4
Number of selected countermeasure(s): 1 ( S04)
Crash Data Information: $11,556,308 $0 $0 $11,556,308
Crash data period (years): 5.01
Number of crashes(F /Sl/OVl/1-CP/PDO)':
All: 0,6,21,21,17
Sum $11,556,308 $0 $0 $11,556 ,308
•Number of crashes: live crash numbers are for Fatal (F) , Severe Injury (SI), Other Visible Injury (OVI), lnjmy, Complaint of Pain (1-CP), and Property Damage Only (PDO), respectively .
Description Tota l Cost HISP{rota l HSIP Pun ds Local/Other Funds ('lb) Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environme ntaJ $0 100 'lb $0 $0
PS&:E $40,000 100 'lb $40,000 $0
Subtotal- PE $40,000 100 'lb $40,00 0 $0
Right of Way (RO\N) Phase
Right of Way Enginea ing $0 100 'lb $0 $0
Appraisals , Acqu isitions ~
$0 100 'lb $0 $0 Utilities
Subtotal - Right of Way (ROW) $0 'lb $0 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $50,000 100 'lb $50.000 $0 Construction Items $ill,8()() 100 'lb $ill.BOO $0 ~ad only• from Stttion I) Sub tota l - Construct ion $762,8()() 100 'lb $762,800 $0 PROJECT TOTAL $802,800 100 'lb $802,800 $0
Countermeasure (CM) CM Crash Reduction Expected We Crash Type Federal Funding No. Name Type • Factor (CRF) (Years) Eligibility ~
504: Provide Advanced Dilemma
I Zone De:tection for high spew s 0.4 IO All 100%
~pprwches
*CM T ype: S--Signalize d Intersection; NS.-Non.-Signalized intersection; R.-Roadway.
Crash Data Table for Crash Type: .alJ,,
N~ Location Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Complaint of Pain PDO Tot,,] (from Table lll.l) (ALL) (ALL) lnju,y (ALL) (ALL) (ALL) 1 N Indian Cany~m Dr Esr Alejo 0 2 5 12 7 26 Rd
2 TahquitzCany,;:,n Way&:: 0 2 3 3 5 13 A,ffida Caballeros 3 Ramon Rd &! El Placer Rd 0 I 5 4 2 12
4 El Cido Rd & Baristo Rd/ 0 I 8 2 3 14 Ki,k Dougia, W,y Total 0 6 21 21 17 65
Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requested Max.FRR
II $802 ,800 II II $802,800 II II
!(){)'JI,
II
Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
II 11,556,308 II II 14.40
13 15
18 19
#
31 32
PROJECT # 3 – SIGNALIZED
S07: Provide protected left-turn phase (left-turn lane already exists).
Table 1-2: Detailed Engineer’s Estimate for
C
onstruction Items
Table 1-3: Project Cost Estimate
Table 1-4: Countermeasure(s) to be Applied
Table 1-5: Crash Data Table
Table 1-6: Benefit Summary
Table 1-7: Cost, FRR, Benefit, and BCR
Table 1-1: List of Project Intersections
I
ntersection
Nu
mber Street 1 Street 2 Total Expected
Benefit Total Project Cost B/C Ratio
13 Ramon Rd Farrell Dr
$ 25,802,182.00 $ 419,900.00 61.45
15 Dinah Shore Dr
18 E. Palm Canyon Dr S. Palm Canyon Dr
19 Tahquitz Canyon Way Avenida Caballeros
31 Ramon Rd El Placer Rd
32 El Cielo Rd Baristo Rd/Kirk Douglas
Way
Page A-5
Lawrence Crossley Rd
LAWRENCE
Item 3D - 78
PALM SPRINGS
g
>-
g
<(
Legend
•
L
Schools
Tribal Lands
Airport
Parks
Q Top 35 Intersection Crash Locations
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS LSRP
Palm. ~ uo~~o ~~O~.S~~~M~ile::_s _ _____!li~o~p~3~5~1 n:!!t~e~rs~e~c:!!ti~o~n~C~r~a~s~hJ:L~o~c~a~ti~o~ns Source: ESR I, Rive15ide County, Cn)&Sroeds
No. Item Dcsaiption Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total
...;. 1 Mobilization & Traffic Control LS I S'.!700000 27.000 --:- 2
Remove ~hide head and EA 2S $S00.00 12,500 mounting.
...::.. 3 Install 3-12" LED vehicle head EA 26 S'.!00000 52,000 with mounting. ...::.. 4 Install 3-12" LED vehicle.head EA 40 S'.!000.00 80.000 with mounting - Re-wire intersection to
-=-s accommodate new Left Tum LS 6 $200000 12,000
- Phasing
...::.. 6 Upgrade Traffic Signal Controller EA 6 $5S00.00 33,000 (for new sil!ll3.l timing) ..;. 7 Remove Type 19 Standard and EA 4 $7000.00 28,000 Foundation ...::.. 8 Install Type 24 Standard and EA I $670000 6.700 Foundation ...::.. 9 Install Type 23 Standard and EA 3 $4900.00 14,700 Foundation ....:!:... 10 Install 35' Mast Arm EA I $90000 900
~11 Install 25' Mast Ann EA J $600.00 1,800
....:!:.., 12 Relocate Pedestrian Hea d EA 4 $S0000 2,000 ~ 13 Relocate Pedestrian Push Button EA 4 S'.!50.00 1.000 _,;. 14 Relocate. retroreflective street. EA namesign 4 S'.!S0.00 1,000 Weighted Average(%)
Total ($) $272,600
• '¼ for OS: Cost.% for Other Safety-Rtlated componen ts:
•• o/, for NS: C.ost % for Non Safety-Related components.
Contingenci.es , a.s%ofthr.abov~·Tota1'oftheconstructionitems: ~ ~ (e.g. enter 10 for 10%) L....::...J~
%
forCM#l (Not Used)
(S07)
% %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
90%
Crash Data Table for Cra.sh Type: ALL
N~ Location F,ta] Sewre.ln jury Other Visible Complaint of Pain (from Table III.I) (All) (All) Injury (ALL) (ALL)
I Ramon Rd&Farrd.l Dr I 0 6 7
2 DinahShon,D,-"'Cro,,ley I I 4 • Rd
3 E. Palm Canyon Dr&:: S. 0 2 4 • Pahn Canvon Dr
4 Tahquitz Canyon Way&::: 0 2 3 3 A venida Caballeros
5 Ramon Rd i&i: El Placer Rd 0 l s 4
6 E Cido Rd&:: Baristo Rd/ 0 l 8 2 Kirk Douglas Way
Total
'
7 30 32
¾ for (Not. Used) os•
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
POO
(AIL)
7 5
4 5
'
3 26
Description Total Cost HISP{fotal
(%) HSIP Funds Local/Other Funds
% for Preliminary Engineer ing (PE) Phase
NS•• Environ.mental $15,000 100 % $15,000 $0
% 100 % PS&E $60,000 100 % $60.000 $0
% 0 % Subtotal - PE $75.000 100 % $75,000 $0
% 0 % Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 100 % $0 $0
% 0 %
Appraisals, Acquisitions ~
$0 100 % $0 $0 Utilities % 0 %
Subtotal - Right of Way (ROW) $0 % $0 $0
% 0 % Construction (CON) Phase
% 0 % Construction Engineering (CE) $45,000 100 % $45,000 $0 % 0 % Construction Items $299.'lOO 100 % $299,900 $0 (Read only• from Section I) % 0 % Subtota l - Construction $34 4.900 100 % $344,900 $0 % 0 % PROJ ECT TOTAL $419,900 100 % $419,900 $0
% 0 %
% 0 %
% 0 %
% 0 %
10%
Countermeasure (CM) CM Crash Reduction Expected We Crash Type Federal Funding No. Name Type• Facto r (CRF) (Years) Eligibility ~
S07: Provide protected left tum
I phase (left tum lane already s 0.3 20 All I~
exists)
*CM Type: S--Signalized lntersectio~ NS,Non,S ignalized Intersecti on; R,Roadway.
Information/Data• Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Total Benefit l!/1 l!/2 #3 Location type: S (Signalized Intersections)
Numbe r of location(s): 6
Num ber of selected countermeasure(s): I ( S07)
Tocru Cras h Data Information: $25,802)82 $0 $0 $25,802) 82 Cras h dat, period (years): 5.01
21 umber of crashes(F /SI/OVI/1-CP/PDO)' :
All: 2,7.30.32.26
19 Sum $25,802,182 $0 $0 $25,802.182
18 "" Number of cras hes: five crash numbers are for Fatal (F). Severe Injury (SI). Other Visible Injury (OVI). lnju.ry., Complaint u of Pain (1-CP), and Property Damage Only (PDO). respectively . 12 14
97 Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requested Max.FRR
11 $419.900 1111 $419.900 11 11
IOO'jb
11 Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
11 25,802,182 11 11 61.45
22 24
#
30 PROJECT # 4 – SIGNALIZED
S10: Install flashing beacons as advance warning.
Table 1-2: Detailed Engineer’s Estimate for
C
onstruction Items
Table 1-3: Project Cost Estimate
Table 1-4: Countermeasure(s) to be Applied Table 1-5: Crash Data Table Table 1-6: Benefit Summary Table 1-7: Cost, FRR, Benefit, and BCR 18 Table 1-1: List of Project Intersections
I
ntersection Number Street 1 Street 2 To tal Expected
Benefit Total Project Cost B/C Ratio
18 E. Palm Canyon Dr S. Palm Canyon Dr
$ 8,203,685.00 $ 241,200.00 34.01
22 Ramon Rd El Cielo Rd
24 Gene Autry Trail Via Escuela
30 Farrell Dr SR-111 (Vista Chino)
Page A-6
LAWRENCE
Item 3D - 79
PALM SPRINGS
g
>-
g
<(
Legend
•
L
Schools
Tribal Lands
Airport
Parks
Q Top 35 Intersection Crash Locations
lffl'
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS LSRP
Palm. ~ uo~~o ~~O~.S~~~M~ile::_s _ ___!li~o~p~3~5~1 n:!!t~e~rs~e~c:!!ti~o~n~C~r~a~s~hJ:L~o~c~a~ti~o~ns Source: ESR I, Rive15ide County, Cn)&Sroeds
%
Uull lQ\.LllllJit)' '% for •-. for No l~~n De~ripoon UuiCCM-1 Touil Rir CM /il l (Not U•ed) (NotUiei l) os· NS "" (S IO) .
-:-I MobiliZflTioo & Traffic ccrun ol LS I I Sl.5000 ,00 15,00Q % -:- 2 Type I A Standar d EA
'
SJ000 .00 8,000 100 %
-;.. 3 i"fypc I A Standard Found.lllOll EA
'
S2000.00 16,000 100 %
.
--:- 4 Install Flashing Bcacoos EA I 8 S15000. 00 120,000 100 % We i.shred Average( ~) 91,.
• '% for OS: Co&"I % ror Otha Satety -Rda tt"d c.ompoa.e.ol5:
•• ' •for NS : Co!II % for Non S:11 fety.Rela1i!d componenu .
TOfal Construcnon Cost (Con lrttllil ~ Conrtngt"nctes)
(Ruundt-t.l ur t,:i lm 1),:-~t hwu.:hffi)
No. Countcrmc asurc (CM) 01
Na.me Type•
~
l SIO: lnsr.all llishing btaroru: u. s sd\•.ar!a' w.111•fllng (SJ.) To.,l (S) Sl 59.000
Crash Reducti on Expected J_ifc
Factor (CRF) (Years)
OJ to
% % % 100 %
% % % 0 'JI,
% 'JI, % 0 %
% 'JI, % 0 'JI,
...
Crash Type Federal Funding
Eligibility
All 100')6
* CM Type: 5-Signalized Intersection; NS-Non-Signalized Intersection; R-Roadway. lnfonnotion/D•rn• Benefit frotn CM Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Total llenefit ;\') lf2 1/3 l.=tlon type; S (Siga:ill.cd lnlctSC<clons)
Number of locarion(s)-~
Number of $elected counrermeasure(s) I SJO)
CtaSb Data Information; $8,203,6 5 so $0 $8,203,685
Crash clau period (years · 5.01
Number of crnshcs(F/SI/OVJ/1-CP/PDO)•:
AU: 2,3,1-1,15,22
Sum $8,203,685 so $0 $8,203,685
• 'umbe:r of crashes: five crash numhe:rs are for fatal (F), Severe Injury (SI), Other Visible Injury (OVI), Injury • Complaint of Pain (I· P), and Property Damage Only (PDO), respectively.
En\'ironme.nto.1
Subtotal · PE
Right o! w,y Engineering
• .!l,ppr-d.lsab., Acqu1s1L1ons ~
Utiliti es
s~btotal - Right of Way (ROW)
Constructi on ltem.S
$5.000 >5,000
SJ5,000 $15,000
$40,000 S40,000
So JOO % so
so JOO % so
$0
Consttuction (CON) Phase
S26,JOO 100 % $26.J()()
$1H.900 100 %
(Rtlld ool~ b-om Stt:doo. 1)
Sl7 l,!IOO
SZOl.200 100 % 5201,200
Crash D3t:1 Table: for era.sh l)•pe;:J:\.ll
No. L0c.1rlon Faral Se\'eff" Injury OthfiVisl.ble: Complatnt of Pain (tmmTable llll) (M l ) (Al l ) lnjl1ry (AJ I ) (Ml)
I :t:. l'.Jltn t.:~ll)'tin llr$t ~
0 l • 8 "'1mCalll'OnDI
'
Ra.moo Rd t,:. E] Otl\1 R,rl l 0 •
j
l Cit"J)t AUtl)' Tmll & \. l;t l 0 5 • [,cud,
•
hm·UPr~SR ·l ll (VJS(ll 0 I 6 ,
Clilno)
Total l l 2, ;!j
Total Project Cos t HSIP Funds Requested
11 $241,200
11 11
$241,200
11 11
Total Expec ted Benefi t B enefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
11 $8,203,685
11 11
34.01 11
so
so
so
so
so
$0
so
so
so
PDO Tat.al (,I I )
l 19
• I.fl
7 '-'
6 17
1.1 76
Max . FRR
100%
11 #
20 PROJECT # 5 – UNSIGNALIZED
NS03: Install signals.
Table 1-2: Detailed Engineer’s Estimate for
C
onstruction Items
Table 1-3: Project Cost Estimate
Table 1-4: Countermeasure(s) to be Applied
Table 1-5: Crash Data Table Table 1-6: Benefit Summary
Table 1-7: Cost, FRR, Benefit, and BCR
Table 1-1: List of Project Intersections
I
ntersection
Nu
mber Street 1 Street 2 Total Expected
Benefit Total Project Cost B/C Ratio
20 N. Indian Canyon Dr Via Escuela $ 8,674,367.00 $ 737,000.00 11.7721 Gene Autry Trail Sunny Dunes Rd 21 Page A-7
LAWRENCE
Item 3D - 80
PALM SPRINGS
g
>-
g
<(
UJ
(/)
a! z =,
(/)
Legend
•
L
Schools
Tribal Lands
Airport
Parks
Q Top 35 Intersection Crash Locations
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS LSRP
Palm. ~ uo~~o ~~O~.S~~~M~ile::,_s _ _____!li~o~p~3~5~1 n:!!t~e~rs~e~c:!!ti~o~n~C~r~a~s~hJ:L~o~c~a~ti~o~ns Source: ESR I, Rive15ide County, Cn)&Sroeds
I Mobilization & T raffic Control LS I $1000000 10,000 % % % 2 3-lr LED Vehicle Head EA 28 $70000 19,600 100 % % %
3-12" lED Pe&stria:u. Head & LS 16 $2000.00 32,000 100 % % % APS PPB w/ Special Voice Mssg 4 Type l STS Standard w/ Found. EA $700000 56,000 100 % % % Type 17 Standard w/ Found ., 20' LS 4 $12000.00 48,000 100 % % % Signal MA w/ Mounting Bolts Type 19 Standard w/ Found ., 35' LS 4 $12500.00 50,000 100 % % % Signal MA w/ Mounting Bohs 7 l2' LwninaireMA w/ Mounting LS 16 $500.00 8,000 100 % % % Bolts & LED Luminaires 8 #fJ Pull Box including PCC Cover EA 22 $65000 14,300 100 % % % 2"C( l 500). 3"C(JOO), 4"C(350) LS 2 $45000.00 90,000 100 % % % bored PVC 6'xB Loop Detectors & 2 #16 10 BDLC LS 2 $40000.00 80,000 100 % % % 11 Signal wiring (~legs) & Signa l LS 2 $ 12400 .00 24,800 100 % % % Interconnect Cable 170 Controller, 3 32 Cabinet w/
12 Found., Type III Service C-abinet LS $54000.00 108,000 100 % % % w/ Found .• Cm.tr:al Contro ller Unit APS, Communication Te:mtinat:i.on
13 Retrorcflective SNS EA $205.00 1,640 100 % % %
14 ADA Ramp Improvement EA $8000.00 48,000 100 % % %
15 Striping & Pavrnient Markings LS $800000 16,000 100 % % % Weighted Average(%) 98"/4
Total(S) $606,340
• % for OS: Cost % for Other Safety -Related components; •• % for NS: Cost % for Non Safety -Related components.
Contingencirs , as% of the abcn-e 'Tout' of the construction ituns: G I S60 634 I (e.g. enter 10 forl0%) •
Total Construction Cost (Con Items & Contingencies ):
I $667.000 I (Rounded up to the nearest hundreds)
Crash Data Table for Crash Type: ALL
No. Location F,t,J ~-ueln ju ry Other Visible Complaint of Pain POO (from Table111.l) (ALL) (ALL) lnjury (ALL) (ALL) (ALL)
I N. Indian Canyon Dr&Via 0 I 3 B 9 E.scueb
2 GeneAutryTrai l &::Sunny 0 I l 6 5 DunesRd
Total 0 2 6 14 14
Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requeste d Max.FRR
11 $737,000 1111 $737,000 1111
IOO')b
Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
11 $8,674,367 1111 11.77 11
--
Descript ion Tota l Cost H ISP/fotal
(%) HSIP Funds Local/Other Funds
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase:
Environ.mental $10,000 100 % $10,000 $0
% 100 % PS&E $20,000 100 % $20,000 $0
% 0 % Subtotal- PE $30,000 100 % $30,000 $0
% % Right of V..' ay (ROW) Phase
% 0 %
Right of \Nay Engineering $0 100 % $0 $0
% 0 %
Appraisals , Acquisit ions E2: $0 100 % $0 $0 Utilities % 0 % Subt otal· Right of Way (ROW) $0 % $0 $0
% 0 % Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $40,000 100 % $40,000 $0
% 0 %
% 0 %
Construct ion Items $667,000 100 % $667,000 $0
(Rud only• from Section I)
% 0 % Subtotal • Construction $707,000 100 % $707,000 $0 % 0 % PROJECT TOTAL $737,000 100 % $737,000 $0
% 0 %
% %
% %
% 0 %
Counte.rme.asure (CM) CM Crash Reduction Expected W e Crash Type Federal Fun ding No. Name Type• Factor (CRF) (Years) Eligibility 2o/,
0 I NS03: Install :signals NS 0.3 20 All lOO)b
*CM Type.: S--Signalized Intersection; NS,Non,Signalized Intersection; R,Roadway.
Informati on/Data* Benefit Erom CM Benefit Erom CM Benefit Erom CM Total Benefit ,!ll '/12 '#3 Tot,] Location type: NS (Non,signalized Intersections ) Num lx:r oflocation(s): 2
21 Numbe r of selected countermeasure(s): l ( NSOJ)
Cras h Dat a Information: $8,674.367 $0 $0 $8,674,367
15 Cras h data period (years): 5.01
umber of crashes (P/SI/OVl/1-CP/PDO)•:
36 All: 0,2.6,14,14
Sum $8,674 ,367 $0 $0 $8,674,367
•Number of cras hes: five crash number:s are for Fatal (F) , Severe Injury (Sl), Other Visible lnjury (OVI), lnjury- Complaint of Paln (1-CP), and Property Damage Only (PDO), respecti vely. 11 #
20 PROJECT # 5.1 – UNSIGNALIZED
NS03: Install signals.
Table 1-2: Detailed Engineer’s Estimate for
C
onstruction Items
Table 1-3: Project Cost Estimate
Table 1-4: Countermeasure(s) to be Applied
Table 1-5: Crash Data Table Table 1-6: Benefit Summary
Table 1-7: Cost, FRR, Benefit, and BCR
Table 1-1: List of Project Intersections
I
ntersection
Nu
mber Street 1 Street 2 Total Expected
Benefit Total Project Cost B/C Ratio
20 N. Indian Canyon Dr Via Escuela $ 4,466,113.00 $ 359,700.00 12.42 Page A-8
LAWRENCE
Item 3D - 81
PALM SPRINGS
g
>-
g
<(
SAN
RAFAEL DR
Legend
•
L
Schools
Tribal Lands
Airport
Parks
Q Top 35 Intersection Crash Locations
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS LSRP
Palm. ~ uo~~o ~~O~.S~~~M~ile::,_s _ _____!li~o~p~3~5~1 n:!!t~e~rs~e~c:!!ti~o~n~C~r~a~s~hJ:L~o~c~a~ti~o~ns Source: ESR I, Rive15ide County, Cn)&Sroeds
No. Item Description Unit Quanttty Unit Cost
...;. 1 Mob ilization &. Traffic Control LS I $5000.00
~ 2 3-12" LED Vehicle Head EA 14 $700.00
-:- 3
3-12" LED Pedestrian Head & LS 8 $7000.00 APS PPB w/ Special Voice Mssg ....:!:.. 4 Type 15TS St.mdard w/ Found EA 4 $700000
....:!:..5 Type 17 Sta:ndardw/ Found .• 20' LS 2 S12000 00 Signal MA w/ Mounting Bolls ...;. 6 Type 19 Sta:ndard w/ FOUOO., 35' LS 2 $1250000 Signal MA w/ Moiw ting Bolts ...!.. 7 12'Lwninaire:r,..rA w/ Mounting LS 8 $500.00 Bolts & Lill Lwninaires ....:!:.. 8 t#6 Pul l Box inclnding PCC Cover EA 11 S650 00 ~ 9 2"C(1500?, 3"C(3001, 4"C(350? LS I $45000.00 bored PVC __:;.. 10 6'x.B Loop Detec tor.; & 2 #16 LS I $40000.00 TypeBDLC ....:!:... 11 Signal wiring (+legs) & Signal LS I S!2400 00 Interrormect Cable 170 Controller, 332 Cabinet w/
-....:!:... 12 Found ., Type m Senrice Cabinet LS 1 $54000 00 ....:.. w/ Found ., Ccutral Contro ller Unit
APS, Comonmication Termination
....:!:... 13 Retroreflecti.~ SNS EA 4 $205.00
....:!:... 14 ADA R.unp Improvement EA 2 $8000.00
....:!:...15 Striping & Pavement :Markings LS I $8000.00 Weighted Average (%)
• ¾ fm OS. Cost o/. for Other Safety-Related components , "* 'In for NS: Cost o/. for Non Safety-Jqlated components Total(S)
Total
5,000
9,800
16,000
28,000
24,000
25,000
4,000
7,150
45,000
40,000
12,400
54,000
820
16,000
8,000
$295,170
Contingencies , as% of the abm~ 'Total' of the construction items: ~ ~ (e.g.enterl0forl0%) L....::..:I~
Tota1 Construction Cost (Con Items E£Contingencies):
(Rounded up to the nearest hundreds)
%
forCM#l (Not Used)
(NS03)
% %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
100 % %
98%
Crash Ditta Table for Crash Type: ALL
No. Location Fatal ~Injury Other Visible Complaint of Pain (fromTablell l.l) (AIL) (AIL) lnjury (AU) (ALL)
I N. Indian Canyon Dr &:Via 0 I 3 8 E.scuda
Total 0 l 3 8
Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requeste d
11 $359,700 1111 $359,700 1111
Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
11 $4,466,113 1111 12.42 11
Description Tota l Cost H ISPfTota l
(%) HSIPFunds Local/Other Funds
¾for ¾for (Not Used) os• NS ..
Prelimin ary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental $5,000 100 % $5,000 $0
% % 100 % PS&£ $10,000 100 % $10,000 $0
% % 0 % Subtot:a1 - PE $15,000 100 % $15,00 0 $0
% % 0 %
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of \Vay Engineer ing $0 100 % $0 $0
% % 0 %
% % 0 %
Appraisals, Acqu isitions &: $0 100 % $0 $0 Utilities
% % 0 %
Subtota l - Rig ht of Way (ROW) $0 % $0 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
% % 0 % Construct ion Engineering (CE) $20,000 100 % $20,000 $0 % % 0 %
% % 0 %
Construction Items $324,700 100 % $324,700 $0 (Read only• from Section I) Subtotal - Construction $344,70 0 100 % $344,700 $0
% % 0 %
PROJECT TOTAL $359,700 100 % $359,700 $0
% % 0 %
% % 0 %
% % 0 %
% % 0 %
% % 0 %
Cou ntermeasure (CM) CM Crash Reduct ion Expected Life Crash Type Federal Funding No . Name Type• Factor (CRF) (Years) Eligibility 2%
~
l NSOJ: Install signals NS 0.3 20 All 100%
*CM Type: S--Signa.li..ze.d Intersec tio~ NS,No wS ignalized Inte rsect ion; R,Road way.
Informa tion/D ata* Benefit bum CM Benefit &om CM Be:ncfit &om CM Total Benefit ,Ill 112 1/.3 PDO Total (ALL)
Location type: NS (Non~signalized Intersections)
Number of location(s) : 1
9 21 Numbe r of selected countermeasure(s): l ( NS03)
Crash Data Information : $4,4 66,113 $0 $0 $4,4 66,113
9 21 Crash data period (year.;): 5.01
umber of crashes ( F/SI/OVI/1-C P/PDO)*:
All : 0,1,3,8,9
Sum $4,466 J l3 $0 $0 $4,466Jl3
•Number of cras hes: five crash numbers are for Fatal (F). Severe Injury (SI), Other Visib le Injury (OVl), lnjury - Complaint of Pain (1-CP), and Property Damage Only (PDO), respectively.
Max. FRR
l()(JtJb 11
#
21 PROJECT # 5.2 – UNSIGNALIZED
NS03: Install signals.
Table 1-2: Detailed Engineer’s Estimate for
C
onstruction Items
Table 1-3: Project Cost Estimate
Table 1-4: Countermeasure(s) to be Applied
Table 1-5: Crash Data Table Table 1-6: Benefit Summary
Table 1-7: Cost, FRR, Benefit, and BCR
Table 1-1: List of Project Intersections
I
ntersection
Nu
mber Street 1 Street 2 Total Expected
Benefit Total Project Cost B/C Ratio
21 Gene Autry Trail Sunny Dunes Rd $ 4,208,255.00 $ 377,300.00 11.15 Page A-9
LAWRENCE
Item 3D - 82
PALM SPRINGS
g
>-
g
<(
Legend
•
L
Schools
Tribal Lands
Airport
Parks
Q Top 35 Intersection Crash Locations
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS LSRP
Palm.~ uO~~o ~~O~.S~~~M~ile::_s _ _____!li~o~p~3~5~1 n:!!t~e~rs~e~c:!!ti~o~n ~C~r~a~s~hJ:L~o~c~a~ti~o~ns Source: ESR I, Rive15ide County, Cn)&Sroeds
No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost
~ I Mobilization & Traffic C'.ontrol LS 1 $5000.00
....;. 2 3-12" LED Vehicle Head EA 14 $70000
--:=-3 3-12" LED Pedestrian Head & LS 8 $200000 APS PPB w/ Special Voice :Mssg ...2:.. 4 Type 15TS Standard w/ Found. EA 4 $700000
...2:..5 Type 17 Standard w/ Fowid., 20' LS 2 Sl2000.00 Signal MA w/ Mounting Bolls -:=-, 6 Type 19 Standard w/ Found., 35' LS 2 Sl2500.00 Signal MA w/ Mounting Bolts ...2:.. 7 12' Luminaire MA w/ Mounting LS 8 $500.00 Bolts & LED Lw:ninaires ...2:.. 8 #6 Pull Box including PCC Cover EA 11 $650.00 ~9
2"C{l500'), 3"C(300'), 4"C(l5 0') LS 1 S45000.00 bored PVC + 6'x6 Loop Detectors & 2 #16 LS 1 S40000.00 ---:- IO TypcBDLC --=-11
Signal wiring (4-legs) & Signa l LS 1 Sl2400.00 lnte:rcounectCable 170 Controller, 332 Cabinet w/
~12 Found, Type m Srnri~ Ca.binet LS 1 S54000.00 w/ Fouod., Central Controller Unit - APS, Connnunication Termination ....:... 13 Retrorcllective SNS EA 4 $205.00
--=- 14 ADA Ramp Improvement EA 4 $800000
-=-is Striping & Pavement Markings LS 1 $8000.00
Weighted Average("/,)
.. ¼ for OS. Cost 1/o for Other Safety-Related components, .. o/, for NS: Cost. o/, for Non Safety-Related components Total (S)
Total
5,000
9,800
16,000
28,000
24,000
25,000
4.000
7,150
45,000
40,000
12,400
54,000
820
32,000
8,000
$311,170
Contingencies , as% of the above 'T oral' of the constructio n items: ~ ~ (e.g.enter l0forl0%) L....:...J~
Total Construction Cost (Con Iterns&:Co ntingenci es):
( Rounded up to the nearest hundreds)
%
forCM#t (Not Used)
(NS03)
% %
l00 % %
l00 % %
l00 % %
l00 % %
l00 % %
l00 % %
l00 % %
l00 % %
100 % %
l00 % %
l00 % %
100 % %
l00 % %
l00 % %
98%
Crash Data Tab le for Crash Type: .d!J..
'o. Location Fat,] Severe Injury Other Visible Complaint of Pain (from Table IJl.l) (ALL) (ALL) ln1w-y(ALL) (ALL)
l Gene Autry Trail Est Sunny 0 l ] 6 Dun~Rd
Tot!!.l 0 l ] 6
Total Project Cost HSIP Fun ds Requested
11 $377,300
1111
$377,300
1111
Total Expocted Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
11 $4, 208,255
1111
11.15 11
%fm (Not Used) os•
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
PDO
(ALL)
5 5
Max.FRR
100%
--
Description Total Cost H lSP/Tota l
('lb) HSIP Funds LocaVOt her Fu nds
%fm Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
NS*"
Environmental $5,000 100 'lb $5,000 $0
% 100 % PS&E $10,000 100 'lb $10,000 $0
% 0 % Subtotal - PE $15,000 100 'lb $15 ,000 $0
% 0 % Right of Way (ROVi) Phase
% 0 % Righ t of\tVay Engineering $0 100 'lb $0 $0
% 0 %
Appraisals , Acquisitions&:: $0 100 'lb $0 $0 Utilities % 0 % Subtota l - Right of Way (ROW) $0 'lb $0 $0
% 0 % Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $20,000 100 'lb $20.000 $0 % 0 %
% 0 %
Construction Items $342,300 100 'lb $342,300 $0
(Read onl}' ~ from Section I)
% 0 % Subtotal - Constructio n $362,300 100 'lb $362 ,300 $0 % 0 % PROJECT TOTAL $377,300 100 'lb $377,300 $0
% 0 %
% 0 %
% 0 %
% 0 %
Countermeasure (CM) CM Crash Reducti on Expected Life Crash Type Federal Funding No. Na me Type' Factor (C RF) (Yea rs) Eligibility 2%
cg] I NSOJ: Install signals NS 0.3 20 All 100%
*CM Type: S--Signalized Intersection; NS.-Non.-Signalized Inte.rsec tion; R.-Roadway .
Information/Data* Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Total Benefit HI #2 #3 Tow Location type: NS (Nowsignalized lrrtersecti ons)
Numbe r oflocation(s): I
15 Num ber of selected countermeasure(s): I ( NSOJ)
Cras h Data Lnformation: $4 ,208,255 $0 $0 $4,208,255
15 Cras h data period (years): 5.01
Number of crashes(F /Sl/OV!/1-CP/P DO)':
All: 0.1.l .6.5
Sum $4,208,255 so $0 $4,208 ,255
*Number of cras hes: five crash numbers are for Fatal (F). Severe Injury (SI), Other Visible: Injury (OVI) , Inju ry,. Complaint of Pain (1-CP), and Propert y Damage Only (PDO) , respectively. 11 #
29 PROJECT # 6 – UNSIGNALIZED
NS06: Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection war
ning/regulatory signs.
Table 1-2: Detailed Engineer’s Estimate for
C
onstruction Items
Table 1-3: Project Cost Estimate
Table 1-4: Countermeasure(s) to be Applied Table 1-5: Crash Data Table Table 1-6: Benefit Summary Table 1-7: Cost, FRR, Benefit, and BCR Table 1-1: List of Project Intersections
I
ntersection
Nu
mber Street 1 Street 2 Total Expected
Benefit Total Project Cost B/C Ratio
29 N. Indian Canyon Dr Granvia Valmonte $ 873,692.00 $ 62,200.00 14.05 Page A-10
LAWRENCE
Item 3D - 83
PALM SPRINGS
g
>-
g
<(
SAN
RAFAEL DR
Legend
•
L
Schools
Tribal Lands
Airport
Parks
Q Top 35 Intersection Crash Locations
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS LSRP
Palm. ~ uo~~o ~~O~.S~~~M~ile::,_s _ _____!li~o~p~3~5~1 n:!!t~e~rs~e~c:!!ti~o~n~C~r~a~s~hJ:L~o~c~a~ti~o~ns Source: ESR I, Rive15ide County, Cn)&Sroeds
No. l1e:i11.l)esc:ri1){IQU U'mt Quan1iry Unl1C~ 1 T<>t.11 _.;:_1 MOOilinnon .& Traffic Comm\ LS 1 SJS00.00 J,lOO
---:- 2
S1,gt:uniJ;. Su1ptn@:. and Pa\'e:Jbelll LS 1 S25.500.00 2.5,50C) Martdnp + ---:- J Type lSSl1Ulil111d EA 1 S6000.00 6,000
- - -
--:- 4 Type l ~ S1and.,rrl FouOO.,noo EA 1 :12000.00
Weiglltcd A.ve:nagc ('-)
•%rot: OS Cost"• for Otln:!r Safc:t}•·Rclalt'd compcmc-nlS'. ... ,... fo; NS: Cos t % for Non Safr:1y-Rela 1.:d COIDpOMllU.
Totnl{S )
Contmgcnck-s. as ~of I.ht abmi: 'Tot~ •oJ tbrconstruction 1tc1ns: ~ (~-S ai.r-rh)fr,rlt)'\)) L....::..J
nial. co.nmucuo n COSt (COn lti:rus ~ Goollngendl!'S)
(RuUJlik'J up t,:,~ M:rn"!i,t bundJM-.)
2,000
537.000
I,,
'""'
,~ for f,orCMl¥1 (NO< 1/"'1) {No• U•e<IJ OS' Ns•• {NS06) % % % 'II, 100
100 'II,
"
% 'II, 0
100 % % 'II, 'II, 0
100 'lo % 'lo % 0
9 1•. ...
No, Countcrmus urc (CM) CM Crash Reduction Expected Life era h Type f-cderal Funding Name Type• factor (C RF) (Years) [email protected]
NSOO lnstail.lupgrudc b.rgaor
cgJ I addicion.al sco1>slgnsru·ocher NS OJS IO All 100% Lil~ !\ wattdtlglreg.uL11l!I)' ,;g,,,
•CM Type: S-S,gnalizecl lntei:sect1on;. S· Non ·Signahzed Intersection; R-Roadway . lnfoanation/D;u;a" Benefit from CM Benefit from C M Benefit from CM Totalll<rn,fi t Ill 112 Ill Location type: NS (Non,signauzeu lnt<rsectlons)
Numbetoflocotion(s) I
Number c)f scJected counttrmeasure(s): I ( NS06)
Crash Doto lnfonnation : $873,692 $0 $0 $873,692
Cmh d•to period (yeors) 5,0J
Number of ctoshcs(F ISl/0\ 1/l•CP/POO)':
All: nnll,1,l,2,6
Sum $873,692 $0 $0 $873.692
'II,
%
%
%
• umber of crashesc five er.sh number s an: for F,L I (F), Sever,: lnju,y (SI), OthcrVi&lblc Injury (OV1), lnjUf)' , Cornpfaint of P,iin (!•C l') . !ind Property Danugc Only (!'DO), n:spect:ivel y.
Descriptio n TotoJCost HISPfrota l HSIP Funds Local/Other Fund s (%) Preliminary Engine.ering (PE) Phase
Environmental suoo 100 'Ji> $!JOO $0
PS&cE SI0,000 100 ')!, 510,000 $0
Subtotal - PE $11)00 100 % $U,100 $0
EUght of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Eng1n<erlng $0 JOO ')b $0 so
Appraisal s, Acquisitions & $0 100 ')1, $0 so Uttlitic,; Subto tal · Right of Way (ROW) $0 ')b $0 $0
C.onstruction (CON) Phase
Cnn, , ructlon Engintt ring (Cf:) $6,700 100 ')1, $6,700 $0 Cons true-don lwns $4·1,400 100 (Rn<! only &om,_.,[)
')1, $-H.-100 $0
Subtotal , Constructio n 511,lOO 100 ')i, $~1.100 50
PROJECT TOTAL Sli2,200 JOO 'lo $62,100 $0
Crash Data Table for Cas h Type:~
Nn. Location fa t.ii S,c,.,:relnjur)' Other \/i~!blc Compl.unt of P;tin PDO Total (from Tabk: HU) {Al.I.) (AU .) lnjwy (AU_) (All .) (ALLI I N. fndl,111 C:myon Or $: 1 1 l • 10 Grami11\'.dirn::mtc:
·roral 1 I l •
10 Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requested Max. FRR
11 $62,200
11 11
$62,200
111 1
100%
11 Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
11 $873,692
11 11
14.05 11
#
6 PROJECT # 7 – UNSIGNALIZED
NS15: Create directional median opening at allow (and restrict) left-turns and U-turns.
Table 1-2: Detailed Engineer’s Estimate for
C
onstruction Items
Table 1-3: Project Cost Estimate
Table 1-4: Countermeasure(s) to be Applied Table 1-5: Crash Data Table Table 1-6: Benefit Summary Table 1-7: Cost, FRR, Benefit, and BCR Table 1-1: List of Project Intersections
I
ntersection
Nu
mber Street 1 Street 2 Total Expected
Benefit Total Project Cost B/C Ratio
6 E. Palm Canyon Drive Broadmoor Dr/Palm Hills
Rd $ 16,575,718.00 $ 826,000.00 20.07
Page A-11
LAWRENCE
Item 3D - 84
PALM SPRINGS
g
>-
g
<(
Legend
•
L
Schools
Tribal Lands
Airport
Parks
Q Top 35 Intersection Crash Locations
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS LSRP
Palm. ~ uo~~o ~ ~ O~.S~~~M~ile::,:_s _ ___!li~o~p~3~5~1 n:!!t~e~rs~e~c:!!ti~o~n~C~r~a~s~h_!L~o~c~a~ti~o~ns Source: ESR I, Rive15ide County, Cn)&Sroeds
I ,. .,. '"'
... for No. I rem OoMCripio11 Unit Quanrie )' Ut1itC ost Total forCMNI {Not Used) (Not ... ) OS" to:$.•• ~I IMobilizBtion & Tmffic Con trol LS I SJ0000.00 10.000 ~1 !1ns.1all l':ltSedt1)edi:1.11 SQFT 4.600 $1.SO.OO 690.000 ~] 15•.s.· SmJ)Uijr:. and p[tvt-meu1
Minlda~s LS I SJ0000 .00 10·.000
I
Wei,g_hL:e<l/we go(••)
• % ftw 0$: Cos:1 ~- for Otlli!f $9f~-R.el :t1ed compo,ienu , •• ,. ((1( NS: c~ , % forNoo s,fely•Rel:Jited COtUpooena Toml(S) sno.ooo
Caruinge-nd ,IH'llt,althe ah1we.•Taral •oltherorutruction items: Ito'=] ~ (t'"~ irn1r 1 lllfot hl·'11) L...:...::J~
T\lliU CO'iisU\ittiOn c~ (C(lft [l<lib ~ COnlitl#:llcits) ( RL1uodcd up 10 lbc oril~l hnndrtds)
No. Countermeasure (CM) CM
~ame Tnie•
NSl5; C£'C3N: dinctiofw mcdwt
Crash Rcducllon
Factor (CRF)
(NS! >)
'"'
,oo '"'
100
"' 99'-,
Expected Life
(Years)
~ I ope:ning9toallMl.•(andr~ah) NS 05 lO
lcft-hlnt:JI aod 1Hurn ; (}:S.I.)
'"'
'Ml
"'
100
'"'
'"'
%
"'
0 '16
'"' .. .. 0 %
1%
Crosll Type Federal Funding
Eligihility
All 90%
•CM Type: S-S,gnalizcd Intersection; NS·Non·Signili,:ed Intersection; R·Roadway. lnfonnation/Data 11
Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Total Benefit #I Ill #J Location type : NS (Non rsignalized Intersections)
Numbe:r of loc>Lion(s): 1
Numbe:r of selected countmn=ure( s): 1 ( NS15)
Crash Data Information: Sl6.575,718 $0 $0 $16,575,718
Crash data penod (years): 5.01
Number of crashes(f /Sl/0\/ [fl, CP/l>OO)•:
All. 1.2,2,5,I
Sum $16,57 ,718 $0 $0 $16,575 ,718
• umber of crashes: five cr:isb numbers are for Fam] (F), Severe lnju.ry (SI), Other Visible Injury (OVI), Injury- Comploint of Pain (l·CP). and Propcrcy D,mage Only (PDO). rcspectivdy.
Description Tot al Cost HISPffo tal HSIP Fund s Local/Orbu Fund s (%) Prellmtnary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental 510,000 !IO % $9,000 SLOOO
PS& E $15,000 !IO % SIJ,500 $1.500
Subtotal · PE $2~.000 !IO % $21,500 $2,500
Ri!111t of \Va)' (ROW) Phase
Right of \Vo)' Engin«nng $0 90 % so $0
Appnu:sals, Acqu1 1Lions eu- $0 90 % so $0 Utilities
-Subto,ai - Righ, of Way ( ROW) $0 ')I $0 $0
O,HStJ'UC [!M (CO),,? Ph•"'
Construction Engineering (CE) Sl0,000 !IO % $18,000 $2,000 Constrn('Lmn llt:m.s $781,000 90
(Rudcml)·-fwm~ti1m[)
'¾ S70l,9\l0 S7S,IOO
ubtota l - Co nstrucdon SSOl.000 90 'ii, $720.900 $80,100 PROJECT TOTAL $821i,OOO !IO % 5743,-100 S82,600
~
Crash Dat;i Table-for Crilsh Typc :,AL!:,
No. l.oclHkm 1'31:il St\-l' l'tl8JU1')' Ofbe-rVls.lblc COO"iplwlt o( PiUn PDO Tola! (it'tl'llnnbl~lll .l) (AU\ (AU l lJ!lury (Al l ) CALL) (AH ) I E. fli.l!m Canyon Drl\'t: ifs:[
I
' ' '
l II Bmadmoor Dr'riilin Hills Rd
Total I 1 1 ; l II
Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requested Max. FRR
11 $826,000
11 11
$743,400
11 11
90%
11 Total Expected Benefit B enefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
11 16,575,718
11 11
20.07 11
PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE
CO
LLISIONS LOCATIONS
LIST OF PROJECTS
Page A-12
Item 3D - 85
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
19 23
16 17
11 14
4 5
46 47
26 Ped & Bike Crash Locations#
PROJECT # 8 – SIGNALIZED
S17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads.
Table 1-2: Detailed Engineer’s Estimate for
C
onstruction Items
Table 1-3: Project Cost Estimate
Table 1-4: Countermeasure(s) to be Applied Table 1-5: Crash Data Table Table 1-6: Benefit Summary
Table 1-7: Cost, FRR, Benefit, and BCR
Table 1-1: List of Project Intersections
I
ntersection
Nu
mber Street 1 Street 2 Total Expected
Benefit Total Project Cost B/C Ratio
4 Ramon Rd Paseo Dorotea
$ 21,191,789.00 $ 502,400.00 42.18
5 Ramon Rd
11 Sunrise Way San Rafael Dr
14 Vista Chino Sunrise Way
16 Sunrise Way Ramon Rd
17 Ramon Rd Gene Autry Trail
19 Ramon Rd El Placer Rd
23 Indian Canyon Dr N Vista Chino
26 20th Ave Indian Ave
46 Palm Canyon Drive N Tramway Rd
47 Ramon Rd San Luis Rey Dr
Page A-13
Lawrence Crossley Rd
LAWRENCE
Item 3D - 86
PALM SPRINGS
g
>-
g
<(
SAN
RAFAEL DR
Legend
•
L
0 Schools
Tribal Lands
Airport
Parks
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS LSRP
Palm. ~ uo~~o ~~O~.S~~~M~ile::._s _ _____!li~o~p~3~5~1 n:!!t~e~rs~e~c:!!ti~o~n~C~r~a~s~hJ:L~o~c~a~ti~o~ns Source: ESR I, Rive15ide County, Cn)&Sroeds
..
No I V mt Ou1m1 LI}" Uuil C~ 1 Tou,l ror C'MH I (Nor Ui!ed) (N~ U8ed) (S l 7PD)
, ~ for
os•
7 I ;~fobiliz.aoou & Traffic Cootro l LS 1 525000 .00 2:i-,000 % % % 100 % 46 ~00.00 1.3,800 LOO % % % % 0 %
- --
46 52500 .00 11 5.000 100 % % % % 0 %
+----+- - - --+----+---
36 :52500.00 90.000 LOO % %
.. - 5 RemOY(" cx1.sung PPB E~..\. 36 1300 .00 10.SOO 100 % % j: 67 Upgracle ~ra.ffic: _s1~UBJ CotltroUer EA --+---+--· - • (fofllt!W 3l'Ol\l ll1)l l1l.@i)
11 S5500.00 60.500 100 %
-
I
W~~tt:d A\'ent.,~ (%}
Tota.I (.$) $311100
• •, rv, Os; Cos, ":.11 lot Oi~t ~a.fe.y-k.°'i!l,:i1(!d -cou:tp()uet11$; •• %for NS.: Co~•% ror Nm1 sarc1y-Rr:ln(l:'.'d compow:nL!i Contingcncics.::as%of the:Jbovc-l ocal" ol the ronscruetion ite:ms: ~~ (t:..g cucrlL l lrirlL'"li~ L...:.::..:JL....:::.:.:.::
Tou.l Ct.m~ ruction CAJ!!il (C" ,i.m Ile.ms ~ C Onli~ ncid ) { R1>umkd Ufl t<'I LM l'lt:lrt~c Hm'!dt'l.-d,)
No. Coun cenneasure (CM) CM
Name Type•
cg] I Sl71'B: lnsull perl,>ltl>n s countdo\\'n ~igtul hc.1~ Cra..,i;h Reductil)n
F>ctor(C RF)
0 .25
,,.,
fa.iiec ted Ufe
(Years)
20 %
Cr.tsh Type
Ped &Bike
•CM Type: S·Signabzed lntersection . NS, on.-S1gna.lized lmersection; R-Roadway. % % 0 %
% % 0 %
-
% % 0 %
+---+-~s•,
Federal Fundin g
F,Jigibility
100%
Infoan:1tion/Data• Bencl!t from CM Benefit from CM S.ncfl.tlmmCM Total Benefit #I f/.2 #3 Location t-yp,: S (Slgnalt:td lutasect!ons)
Number oflocatlon(s) : 11
Number of selected counterrneasure(s): I ( Sl7PB)
Crash Data lnfarrnation: . 21)9 1789 $0 $0 21.191,789
Crash data period (years) : 5.0!
Number of crashes(f /SV0\'1/1, CP/PIXJ)" :
Ped&: Bike: .'.1.7.10.8,.J
Sum 21.191.789 $0 $0 $21J91.789
•Number of crashes: five crash number s rue £or Fatal (F). Severe Injury ( t). Other Visible lnju1y (OV l). lnjwy - Complaint of Pain (1-C P) . and Prope1t y Damage Only (PDO) , respectively .
IJescl'iption Toral Cost HISl'fro t.J I-ISLI' l'u nds LocoVOtber Funds (%} Pltlimurnry Engim,en ng (PE) Phose
Env1rorunmt:tl so 100 % $0 so
PSl,tE $90.000 JOO % S90.000 so
Su btotal ~ PE $90.000 100 qi $!IO.OOO $0
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
R1g1it of \Vuy Engmccn ng 50 100 'lo $0 so
Appmis .d ~, Acq u1.siliurt-"' &r so JOO % $0 so Utilil ie!i.
Subtota l · Right o f Wa)' (ROW) so 'lo $0 so
Constructton (COJ\') Phase
Constructio o Engineering (CE) S50.000 100 % >50.000 S\' Constru ction Items 5'6,.400 100 % $362.-100 St1
(R~Ml)' frcm1 Stcf lt11l l)
No.
Sub tota.l ~ Constmction
PROJ CTTOTAL
Location
(from Table III.I)
I Ramon Rd &: Paseo Dorotea
2 Ramon Rd &: Crossley Rd
Sunrise Way f'!il San Rafael
lli
4 Vista Chino&: Sunrise\ Vay
Sunrise Way&;.: Ramo n Rd
Ramon Rd&'. Gene Autry
Trail
7 Ramon Rd&: El Placer Rd
Indian Canyon Dr N &: Vista
Chino
10 Palm Canyon D11'-e N &:
Tramway Rd
11 :mon Rd&: San Luis Rey
Fatal
(P&B)
Total Project Cost
$502,400
Tot al Expected Benefit
21,191,789
Sal\2.400
$502,100
SeYe1:e Injury
(P&B)
100 % $412,400
JOO % $502,400
Othe1: Visible Complaint of Pain
Injury (P&::B) (P&B)
PDO
(P&B)
H SIP Funds Requested Max. FRR
11 II $502,400 111 1 100%
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
11 11 42.18
so
so
Total
#
40 Ped & Bike Crash Locations#
1916 17
11 14
4 547
26 44
PROJECT # 9 – SIGNALIZED
S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).
Table 1-2: Detailed Engineer’s Estimate for
C
onstruction Items
Table 1-3: Project Cost Estimate
Table 1-4: Countermeasure(s) to be Applied
Table 1-5: Crash Data Table
Table 1-6: Benefit Summary
Table 1-7: Cost, FRR, Benefit, and BCR
Table 1-1: List of Project Intersections
I
ntersection
Nu
mber Street 1 Street 2 Total Expected
Benefit Total Project Cost B/C Ratio
4 Ramon Rd Paseo Dorotea
$ 25,301,217.00 $ 504,600.00 50.14
5 Ramon Rd
11 Sunrise Way San Rafael Dr
14 Vista Chino Sunrise Way
16 Sunrise Way Ramon Rd
17 Ramon Rd Gene Autry Trail
19 Ramon Rd El Placer Rd
26 20th Ave Indian Ave
40 Palm Canyon Dr E Escoba Dr
44 Ramon Rd Avenida Caballeros
47 Ramon Rd San Luis Rey Dr
Page A-14
Lawrence Crossley Rd
LAWRENCE
Item 3D - 87
PALM SPRINGS
g
>-
g
<(
SAN
RAFAEL DR
Legend
•
L
0 Schools
Tribal Lands
Airport
Parks
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS LSRP
Palm.<'-.. :--.. 0 o o.s li _,.., ... .., .. w ~~~~~~~ M~ile::_s_~~o~p~3~5~1n:!!t~e~rs~e~c:!!ti~o~njC~r~a~sb_h_!L~o~c~a~ti~o~ns Source: ESR I, Rive15ide County, Cn)&Sroeds
os• NS ..
l I\fobthntioo & Traffic Control LS l mooo.oo 15.000 % 'lb 'lb 'lb 100 % h~a U ~ 20i0 ATC (:otJJroUcr
with BC"K"~t NTCIP timin~ EA II S~.00 88.000 100 % 'lb 'lb 'lb 0 % 1"-'0Sfi.JU.
] Modify Ml!J]ai WIiing 10 illlplc:mrol EA II S0000.00 66.()0I) 100 % 'lo, '16 '16 0 '16 n Lcad::ins ~slritt11 lntcrv&I 4 RatlOVt e:usting PPB EA 40 1500.00 ?0.000 100 % 'lb 'lb 'lb 'lb 5 lm<alJ APS PPB with Spmal EA ,o SJS00.00 60.000 100 % 'lb 'lb '16 0 '16 Vo.ictMCS,53 e ~all Ceutltll Co:ntJOllct Vuil El\ II $4j()Q ,OO 49.WO 100 .. % APS % '16 '16 7 lns.11\0 stripi112, and J)lll\'tll!Cllt LS $ 1,000.00 1$.000 100 .. % 'lb '16 'lb lllil r.kt"n
Wa:gh !cdAvc111gc (%) 9!!i•9 .,..
Tow(!) 13,!!iOO
• ,. f0f OS: C0:1-1 •• fOC' 0 1he1 Sll.fc:1Y•Rcl1Ued corn~111~ . ••,. ro, S: Cos!•• for Nou Safcry-Rda[c:d COUIJXlllt!:ilM.
C~i?S. 11:!l: %. al the abon!: local" (I( ml!: cousa~ !ceim! (q~ ~Tiln 10 f,... lfA;t}
No. Countenneas ure (CM)
Name
CM
Type•
Crash Reduction
Factor (CRF)
Expected Life Federal Funding
(Yem) Crash Type Eligibility
S21PB: Modify signal pha sing to
implement a Leading Pede.strian S 0.6 10 Ped &: Bike 100% Interval (LPI)
*CM Type: S-Signalize d Intersectio n; NS-Non-Signaliz ed Intersection; R-Roadway. tnfonnati on/Dau •
Location type: S ( Jgnall::ed lnter=doos)
Number of locadon(s): 11
Nwnber of scltt:ttd count•l'.llleasUtt(s): I ( S2lPB)
Crash Data Infonnatl n:
Crash cL!ta pttfocl (years): H>l
Nwnbero( crash,s(f /SI/OV!/1-CPIPDO)':
PedkBike: 5.710,7.2
Sum
Bendle from CM Bcocfit from CM llmclit from CM #I 1/.2 f/J Total Benefit
25.30),217 $0 $25.301.217
$25,301,217 0 $0 $25.J Ol.217
"Numberol crashes: lh-e crasb numbers are for fatal (F), Severe lnjill)• (SI). Other Visible Injury (OVI), Injury - Complaint of Pain (1-CP), and Pnipe1ty Damage Only (l'OO). respectively.
Environm ental 100 % $10,000 $0
PS&:E $80,000 100 % $80,000 $0
Subt otal - PE $90,000 100 % $90,000 $0
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 100 % $0 $0
Appraisals, Acquisition s &: $0 100 % $0 $0 Utiliti es
Subt otal - Right of Way (ROW) $0 % $0 $0
Cons truction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $54,000 100 % $54,000 $0
Construction Items $360,600 100
(Read only - from Section I)
% $360,600 $0
Subt otal - Constru ction $414.600 100 % $414,600 $0
Cras h Data Table for Cras h Type : Pedes trians an d Bi~clists Involved (e:&:B} No. Location Fatal SeYe1:e Injury Other Visi ble Complaint of Pain PDO (from Table III.I) (P&B) (P&ll) Injut1' (P&:B) (P&ll) (P&ll ) Totru 1 Ramon Rd&: Paseo Dorotea 1 I 0 l I 4
'
Ramon Rd&: Crossley Rd I 0 I 0 I 3
3 Su nri se \1/ay &: San Ralad 0 I I 0 0 2 D,
4 Yista Chino&: Surnise Way I 0 I 0 0 2
s Sunrise Way&: Ramo n Rd 0 1 0 3 0 4
6 Ramon Rd&: Gene Auny 0 1 3 2 0 6 Trail
7 Ramon Rd&: El Placer Rd 0 1 1 0 0 2
8 20th Ave&: Indian A,·e 0 I 0 0 0 I
9 Palm Canyon Dr E & Escoba 0 I 2 0 0 3 D,
10 Ramon Rd&:A venida 1 0 1 Caballeros
0 0
'
II Ramon Rd&: San Luis Rey l 0 0 l 0 2 D,
Tot al s 7 10 7 2 31
Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requ ested Max.FRR
$504,600 1111 $504,600 11 11 100%
Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
25,301,217
1111
50.14 # Ped & Bike Crash Locations#
2 13
29 12
15 PROJECT # 10 – UNSIGNALIZED
NS21PB: Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (which enhanced safety
features).
Table 1-2: Detailed Engineer’s Estimate for
C
onstruction Items
Table 1-3: Project Cost Estimate
Table 1-4: Countermeasure(s) to be Applied Table 1-5: Crash Data Table Table 1-6: Benefit Summary Table 1-7: Cost, FRR, Benefit, and BCR Table 1-1: List of Project Intersections
I
ntersection
Nu
mber Street 1 Street 2 Total Expected
Benefit Total Project Cost B/C Ratio
2 Calle El Segundo Arenas Rd
$ 21,353,560.00 $ 467,300.00 45.70
12 Palm Canyon Dr N Vereda Sur
13 Casitas Way Mesquite Ave
15 Palm Canyon Dr S Avenida Palmera
29 Sunrise Way Capri Circle
Page A-15
LAWRENCE
Item 3D - 88
PALM SPRINGS
g
>-
g
<(
Legend
•
L
0 Schools
Tribal Lands
Airport
Parks
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS LSRP
Palm. ~ uo~~o ~~O~.S~~~M~ile::._s _ _____!li~o~p~3~5~1 n:!!t~e~rs~e~c:!!ti~o~n~C~r~a~s~hJ:L~o~c~a~ti~o~ns Source: ESR I, Rive15ide County, Cn)&Sroeds
% %for %for No. Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total forCM#l (Not Used) (Not Used) os• NSO + - 1 Mob ilization & Traffic Control LS I $25000.00
+ -2 Insta ll white continenta l crosswalk SF 21 ,000 S3.00 + - 3 Insta ll flashin g beacons EA 10 $15000.00
+ ----:- 4 Type lA Standard EA ID $600.00
+ -5 Type lA Standard Foundation EA 10 $2000.00
+ Signing , Striping , and Pavement LS 5 $10000.00 -6 Markin gs Weighted Average{%)
• % for OS_ Cost % for Other Safety -Related components , ••%for NS : Cost o/o for Non Safety -Related component s.
Total($)
25,000
63 ,000
150,000
6,000
20,000
50,000
$ Jl4 ,000
Contingencies , as % of the aOOve Total' of the construction items: ~ ~ (e.g. enter IO for 10%) L....:....:::]~
Total Construction Cost (Con Items&: Contingencies):
(Rounded up to the nearest hundreds)
(NS21 PB)
%
100 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
92%
No. Countermeasure (CM) CM Crash Reduction Expected Life Name Type* Factor (CRF) (Years)
NS21PB: lnstalL/upgrade
~
1 pedestrian crossing at NS 0.35 20 uncontrolled loca tions (wi th enhanced safety features)
% % % 100 o/o
% % % 0 %
% % % 0 %
% % % 0 %
% % % 0 o/o
% % % 0 %
8%
Crash Type Federal Funding
Eligibiliry
Ped &:Bike IOCJ'l',
"'CM Type: S,Signalized lntersec tion: NS-Non-Signalized Intersection ; R-Roadway.
Information/Da ta* Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Total Benefit Ill 1/2 1/3 Location type: NS (Non,s ignalized Intersections)
Number oflocation(s): 5
Number of selected coun termeasure( s ): I ( NS21PB)
Crash Data lnformation: $21,353,560 $0 $0 $21,353,560
Crash da ta period (years): 5.01
Number of crashes( F/SI/OVl/1-CP/PDO)':
Ped&: Bike: 3,3,0,1,0
Sum $21,353,56 0 $0 $0 $21,353, 560
•Number of crashes: five crash numbers are for Fatal (F), Severe Injury (SI) , Other Visible Injury (OVI) , Injury - Complaint of Pain (1-CP), and Property Damage Only (PDO), respectivel y.
Description Total Cost HISP(fo tal HSIP Fuuds Local/Other Funds (%) Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental $20,000 100 % $20,000 $0
PS&:E $50,000 100 % $50,000 $0
Subtot al - PE $70,000 IO0 % $70,000 $0
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 100 % $0 $0
Appraisals , Acquisitions Est $0 100 % $0 $0 Utilities
Subtotal - Right of Way (ROW) $0 % $0 $0
Construction (CO N) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $51,900 100 % $51,900 $0
Construction Items $345,400 100
(Read only, from Section I) % $345,400 $0
Subtotal - Construction $397,300 IO0 % $397,300 $0
PROJECT TOT AL $467,300 100 % $467,300 $0
Cras h Data Table for Crash T ype: Pedestria n ~ and Bit }'.ci,ist§ Involved (P&:B) No. Location Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Complaint of Pain PDO Total (from Table Ill.I) ( P&B) (P&B) Injury (P&:B) (P&B) (P&B) I Cal le El Segundo & Arenas 1 0 0 0 0 I Rd
2 Palm Canyon Dr N & 0 I 0 I 0 2 VeredaSur
3 Casitas Way&'. Mesquite
A,e I 0 0 0 0 I
4 Palm Canyon Dr S &: 1 I 0 0 0 2 Avenida Palmera
5 Sunrise Way&: Capri Circle 0 I 0 0 0 l
Total 3 3 0 l 0 7
Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requested Max.FRR
11 $467,300
11 11
$467,300
11 II
100%
Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
I I
21,353,560
11 11
45.70 11
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
06/30/2022 3. E.
City Clerk -
SUBJECT
REPORT OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file a report on the Pedestrian Plan for the City of Palm Springs.
Attachments
Item 3E
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 30, 2022 NEW BUSINESS
SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
FROM: Justin Clifton, City Manager
BY: Engineering Division
SUMMARY:
A Pedestrian Master Plan (Pedestrian Plan) is a roadmap that lays the foundation for pedestrian improvements within the public right-of way for the City. The master plan was funded by a grant from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and will serve as a basis for applying for funding for pedestrian safety improvements. The Pedestrian Plan is now complete and ready for the City Council to receive and file.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file a report on the Pedestrian Plan for the City of Palm Springs
BACKGROUND:
In August 2017, the City applied to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Active Transportation Call for Proposals, Community Action Plan, which would provide grant funding to assess pedestrian and school routes citywide. The City applied for funds to create a Pedestrian Master Plan and a Safe Routes to Schools Master Plan.
Safe Routes to Schools is a federal program to make it safer for students to walk and bike to schools and encourage more walking and biking where safety is not a barrier , and provides recommendations to achieve these improvements.
In October 2017 , the City was awarded up to $200,000 in grant funding, with the City providing up to $50,000 as a local match. As a part of the grant, SCAG would assign a project manager from their agency to work with the City to define the scope, select a consultant, and administer the contract.
In January 2019, SCAG reached out to the City to inform them of project delays , staff changes, and proposed a timeline for procuring a consultant for the City.
Item 3E - 1
City Council Staff Report
June 30, 2022 -- Page 2
Pedestrian Plan – Receive & File
On September 20, 2019, SCAG notified 4,147 firms of the release of their Request For Proposal (RFP) through their solicitation management system. A total of 54 firms downloaded the RFP and SCAG received five proposals in response to their RFP.
In March 2020, KOA Corporation (KOA) was selected as the consultant to develop a plan for the City of Palm Springs to improve pedestrian safety and improve conditions for walking while also promoting an active lifestyle.
In May 2020, the City kicked-off the project with KOA. Between May 2020 and December 2021, the following activities took place:
• June to October 2020: The project team held a series of public meetings to assess the pedestrian needs for the City. Since this was done during the pandemic, virtual meetings were scheduled in each City Council District and a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) was selected. The CAC was established to provide guidance to the project team, assist with the promotion of virtual events, and help move the project forward. The CAC was comprised of resident leaders, representatives from local organizations, schools, and other partner agencies. • November 2020: T he CAC he ld their fi rst of five meetings . The project team worked with the Palm Springs Police Department to collect additional collision data. Because most students were learning remotely at the time, data on students walking and biking to school was not available. Therefore, the focus shifted from the specific plans for each school that would be typical in a Safe Routes to Schools Master Plan, to a more general approach of looking at improvements to pedestrian facilities near schools, with input from the community and school representatives. • January 2021: Final data was collected to assess hot spots concerning pedestrian accidents or fatalities. Also, traffic calming request s related to pedestrian safety were reviewed by the project team. The second meeting with the CAC was held. • March 2021: V irtual meetings were held for each City Council District . During these meetings, KOA discussed how residents in each district c ould submit their suggestions, recommendations, and concerns via email or an on-line link provided at the time. Mobility audits were conducted so residents could bring neighborhood concerns to the forefront. Meetings were also held with various community stakeholders that were not part of the CAC. This included the Police Department, Facilities and Maintenance Staff, PSUSD, Palm Springs PTA Council, ONE -PS, Chamber of Commerce, Main Street Merchants, Sun Line Transit Agency , the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and various other stakeholders. • July 2021: A draft report was provided to Staff. Based on the community input and collision data, and other projects in progress, locations were identified to assess for project recommendations.
• August 2021: O ut of a total of 137 locations reviewed in the draft report , the consultant recommended 37 locations for some type of safety treatment. A third meeting with the CAC was held.
Item 3E - 2
City Council Staff Report
June 30, 2022 -- Page 3
Pedestrian Plan – Receive & File
• December 2021: Two meetings were held with the CAC, presenting the 18-month period of data collection, community and stakeholder input, and final recommendations. After input, a final report was provided on January 5, 2022.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Pedestrian Plan provides locations of recommended projects that will help the City achieve its pedestrian goals of improving mobility, sustainability, community health, accessibility, and addressing the public needs.
A full copy of the Pedestrian Plan can be found in the following link:
https://publicportal.palmspringsca.gov
The first three chapters of the report describes how the Pedestrian Plan was developed, documents the broad community outreach and engagement efforts that took place, and provides the community context of existing conditions, which will help Staff apply for grant applications to fund the recommended improvements.
Project Recommendations:
The recommendations are discussed in Chapter 4 of the report, and the 37 recommended projects are grouped by City Council Districts (2018 map). Projects range from closing gaps in sidewalks, modifications to traffic signal operations, installing enhanced crosswalk treatments, installing curb extensions (bulb -outs) at corners /crossings, adding new crosswalks, restriping high visibility crosswalks, adding stop signs at specific intersections, and narrowing of roadways by adding bike and parking lanes. Tables and maps of the proposed improvements for each district can be found on P ages 41-55 of the report.
Priority Infrastructure Projects:
A detailed evaluation of the 37 projects was done using the following themes:
1. Mobility – Project enables safe pedestrian travel.
2. Linkages – Project provides needed connections to activities such as schools, parks, transit, neighborhoods.
3. Sustainability – Project encourages a shift in mode choice towards non-motorized modes.
4. Economy – Project provides access to commerce.
5. City Identity – Project strengthens Palm Springs as a one-of-a-kind destination with a unique lifestyle.
6. Community Action Request Forms (CARF) – If a formal request was made, the project addresses comments/concerns brought up by the community, as submitted on the CARF application.
7. Other Input Sources – the project addresses comments/concerns received from the on- line mapping tool, virtual walk audits, and observations from the project team.
Item 3E - 3
City Council Staff Report
June 30, 2022 -- Page 4
Pedestrian Plan – Receive & File
Based on that evaluation, the 15 highest scoring projects were selected as “Priority Infrastructure Projects”. Identifying t hese projects as priorities ensures that the highest scoring project in each District will be addressed first. A detailed list of Pr iority Infrastructure Projects is found on Pages 57-58 of the report.
Project Corridors:
Five of the pedestrian projects highlight how improvements can be combined and applied to corridors. The corridors are as follows:
1. San Rafael Drive – between N. Palm Canyon Drive and N. Sunrise Way
2. Racquet Club Drive – between N. Indian Canyon Drive and N. Sunrise Way
3. Tachevah Drive – just west of Via Miraleste to Avenida Caballeros
4. Ramon Road – at S. Farrell Drive and at S. Sunrise Way
5. S. Palm Canyon Drive (area south of the E. Palm Canyon curve) – between Belardo Road and Avenida Granada
Detailed project sheets for each of these corridors are included in Appendix D of the report (Pages 161 – 177).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines , the requested City Council action is not a “Project” pursuant to Section 15378(b)(1).
Continuing administrative and maintenance activities, such as the purchase for supplies, personnel-related actions, general policy and procedure making are not considered a “Project”.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING:
This item aligns with City Council Priority “ Community Infrastructure (3B) 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan”, expand walking/biking infrastructure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to receiv e and fil e this Pedestrian Plan r eport. It is the Engineering Division’s goal to use this report to support grant applications. Staff has programmed $1,500,000 yearly in the 5-Year Capital Improvement Program using funds from Measure A, Measure J, and the Capital fund.
Item 3E - 4
City Council Staff Report
June 30, 2022 -- Page 5
Pedestrian Plan – Receive & File
REVIEWED BY:
City Engineer: Joel Montalvo
Deputy City Manager: Flinn Fagg
City Manager: Justin Clifton
ATTACHMENTS:
The Pedestrian Plan can be found at the following link:
https://publicportal.palmspringsca.gov
Item 3E - 5