Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/4/2017 - STAFF REPORTS - 4.A.
Ij QpAMs. iy Cl u in A t A ~C�41ORPTfO \P�� A CgOFORO" DATE: October 4, 2017 Citv Council Staff Report UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT: INDIAN CANYON DRIVE TWO-WAY CONVERSION, CITY PROJECT NO. 13-13 FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Engineering Services Department SUMMARY: On July 20, 2017, the City Council Subcommittee (Foat/Roberts) for the Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion Project reviewed the conceptual drawing for the conversion of Indian Canyon Drive from one-way traffic circulation to two-way traffic circulation between Alejo Road and Camino Parocela. The Subcommittee recommended the City Council formally approve the conceptual drawing inclusive of the traffic "round -about' option at Camino Parocela, and authorize staff to proceed with preparation of final design (plans, specifications and estimate). The recommended action approves the concept which preserves all existing on -street parking, provides one lane southbound, a center two-way left turn lane, and two lanes northbound. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve the conceptual drawings for the Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion, including curb pop -outs and pedestrian crossing enhancements at all intersections, including the traffic "round -about' option at Camino Parocela, and excluding raised medians; and 2. Authorize Albert A. Webb & Associates to proceed with final design of the Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion, City Project No. 13-13. BACKGROUND: On February 20, 2013, the City Council approved an agreement with Albert Grover & Associates (AGA) to prepare a feasibility study to analyze the conversion of Indian Canyon Drive from one-way traffic circulation to two-way traffic circulation. Subsequently, in September 2013, AGA prepared a feasibility study called the Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion Study, (the "Study"), which evaluated four different rrEM No. u . R. City Council Staff Report October 4, 2017 - Page 2 Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion alternatives for modifying the existing one-way traffic circulation Indian Canyon Drive between Ramon Road and Alejo Road. A copy of the Study is included as Attachment 1. The four alternatives considered in the Study are summarized as follows: Alternative 1: This alternative would convert the existing four one-way northbound traffic lanes to two-way traffic by maintaining two northbound traffic lanes, creating a continuous two-way center turn lane, and creating one southbound traffic lane. Existing parallel parking on both sides of Indian Canyon Drive would be maintained. Alternative 1 is shown in Figure 1. XL�1 1 1- L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1« y y ~rmT T T T T T T T T T 1.. _r T T T T 1� I ICI Figure 1 — Alternative No. 1 Alternative 2: This alternative would convert the existing four one-way northbound traffic lanes to two-way traffic by maintaining three northbound traffic lanes, creating a continuous two-way center turn lane, and creating one southbound traffic lane. Existing parallel parking on the west side of Indian Canyon Drive would be maintained, but existing parallel parking on the east side of Indian Canyon Drive would be eliminated (resulting in the loss of approximately 125 spaces). Alternative 2 is shown in Figure 2. 1 ml 1 1 N L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 y _ Z 1� wo p Figure 2 — Alternative No. 2 City Council Staff Report October 4, 2017 - Page 3 Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion Alternative 3: This alternative would convert the existing four one-way northbound traffic lanes to two-way traffic by maintaining three northbound traffic lanes, creating a continuous two-way center turn lane, and creating one southbound traffic lane. Existing parallel parking on the west side of Indian Canyon Drive would be eliminating, (resulting in the loss of approximately 120 spaces), but existing parallel parking on the east side of Indian Canyon Drive would be maintained. Alternative 3 is shown in Figure 3. NO PARKING I \ _ JL t ` r � r w y ~rmT T T T T T T T T T 1._ r T T T T I I � Figure 3 — Alternative No. 3 Alternative 4: This alternative maintains the one-way northbound traffic circulation, but eliminates one of the four northbound traffic lanes to allow for new diagonal parking spaces along the west side of Indian Canyon Drive, (resulting in a net increase of approximately 24 spaces for a total of 144 spaces), and maintains the existing parallel parking on the east side of Indian Canyon Drive. Alternative 4 is shown in Figure 4. 3 I- INDIAN- CAA -- -ji .' 4f... e *, 1 i! 1 ----------------------------- ------------- -------------- J Lb '-'CANYON ` r Figure 4 — Alternative No. 4 City Council Staff Report October 4, 2017 - Page 4 Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion As part of the Study, AGA completed traffic analyses of each of the four studied alternatives, including intersection and arterial Level of Service ("LOS") analyses for existing and future traffic volumes. As stated in the Study, the analysis results indicate that with existing and future traffic volumes, all of the studied alternatives will operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours. The Study also evaluated traffic speed along the Indian Canyon Drive arterial, and determined that traffic speeds for Alternative 1 will be slightly slower than the other alternatives as Alternative 1 only provides two northbound lanes while the other alternatives provide three northbound lanes. The Study determined that Alternative 2 would result in higher northbound traffic speeds than Alternative 3 and 4 because parking is not provided on the east side of the street for Alternative 2, but is provided for Alternatives 3 and 4. Since parking is not provided on the west side of Indian Canyon Drive in Alternative 3, the southbound movement for Alternative 3 would result in higher traffic speeds than Alternative 2. The Study concluded that the existing one-way traffic circulation allows for higher traffic speeds than any of the four studied alternatives. In addition to lowering traffic speeds, staff recommends the conversion of Indian Canyon Drive from one-way to two-way traffic operations to provide for improved traffic circulation in the Downtown Business District, particularly during Villagefest or the many parades scheduled on Palm Canyon Drive. Creating a southbound lane on Indian Canyon Drive will provide for movement through Downtown, which is otherwise complicated when Palm Canyon Drive is repeatedly closed on Thursday nights, or during parades. On December 7, 2016, the City Council reviewed the four alternative concepts for the Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion Project, and approved Alternative No. 1 as the Preferred Alternative. At that time, the City Council also approved a budget amendment to appropriate $200,000 from General Fund balance and authorized issuance of a Purchase Order to Albert A. Webb & Associates ("Webb") in the amount of $194,850 to complete preliminary and final design. Conceptual Design Webb has completed the conceptual design for the Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion Project; a copy of the conceptual design is included as Attachment 1. The conceptual design is consistent with the scope of the conversion previously approved by Council, in that Indian Canyon Drive will retain all existing on -street parking, and have one southbound, two northbound, and a center two-way left turn lane. The conceptual design includes curb pop -outs at all intersections to improve pedestrian crossings. I�k City Council Staff Report October 4, 2017 - Page 5 Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion In its approval of the Preferred Alternative in December 2016, the Council requested that staff consider installation of raised and landscaped medians along Indian Canyon Drive. Webb reviewed the location of commercial driveways along the entire length of the project, and determined there were relatively few areas where a raised and landscaped median could be constructed where it would not conflict with existing access into and out of those driveways. The conceptual design identifies two locations where short medians might be installed: (1) immediately south of Angle View Thrift Mart (between Amado Road and Alejo Road), and (2) adjacent to Town n Country Center (south of Andreas Road). The Council Subcommittee recommends that these two raised medians be eliminated from the conceptual design. The Council also requested that staff extend the two-way conversion to Camino Parocela, which is a five -legged intersection shown here: Webb has analyzed traffic circulation at this intersection in two ways: (1) with a modified traffic signal, and (2) with a traffic "round -about' design. A copy of the proposed design with a modified traffic signal is included as Attachment 2, and the proposed design with a traffic "round -about' is included as Attachment 3. 5 City Council Staff Report October 4, 2017 - Page 6 Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion Webb has concluded that either option will function, however, the traffic "round -about" design is preferred from a traffic safety perspective in that the rate of traffic accidents at these types of intersections with a 'round -about' are significantly reduced from those with traffic signal controls. The US Department of Transportation — Federal Highway Administration published Safety Aspects of Roundabouts, and identifies that a typical four -legged intersection has 16 crossing (i.e. right-angle) vehicle conflict points, which are entirely eliminated with a round -about design. It is these crossing vehicle conflict points that cause the most severe and fatal vehicle accidents due to the high speed and "T-Bone" accidents that often occur as a vehicle fails to stop at a red light, as opposed to side -swipe accidents at lowers speeds within a round -about, as demonstrated in this graphic representation: Typical 4-leg intersection Angle Left turn Roundabout Sideswipe More importantly, the study identifies the following reductions in traffic accidents as a result of converting a signalized intersection to a round -about: All crashes Fatal/injury crashes Fatal/injury crashes in urban area 0 City Council Staff Report October 4, 2017 - Page 7 Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion A copy of the Safety Aspects of Roundabouts is included as Attachment 4. The Council Subcommittee recommends that the traffic round -about option be included in the conceptual design. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Review The proposed conceptual design was provided to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ("Tribe") for review and comment. Staff coordinated with Tribal staff to ensure that the conversion of Indian Canyon Drive would not conflict with the Tribe's planned development of the new Spa Casino expansion and hotel project. At the Tribal Council meeting of September 26, 2017, the Tribal Council reviewed the conceptual plans, and recommends approval with the following comments: 1. The proposed medians should be removed; 2. Curb extensions should be added to all corridor intersections, where feasible, and that they should be extended to include the intersection of Indian Canyon Drive, where there is on -street parking; 3. Recommend the roundabout option for the intersection of Indian Canyon Drive, South Palm Canyon Drive, and Camino Parocela. A copy of the Tribe's comment letter is included as Attachment 5. CVAG Grant Funding Early in 2017, ONE -PS Code Enforcement and Public Works Committee requested Palm Springs Police Department (PSPD) create a map of 2014, 2015 and 2016 traffic collisions involving Bicycles and Pedestrians, shown in Figure 5. With this data, ONE - PS Code Enforcement and Public Works Committee discussed possible mitigation with the Engineering Services Department (Engineering). Engineering analyzed the PSPD data in what appear to be major accident corridors for capital improvement projects that could be implemented to improve safety in the areas of concern. ONE -PS and PSPD also reached out to the Measure J Commission seeking Community Projects funding for identified capital improvement projects. City Council Staff Report October 4, 2017 - Page 8 Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion Traffic Collisions Pedestrians/Bicyclists Involved m.a7m,%�,�asor.-r���.oeae x n , 2014-2016 01"'X map aioTuec no nlre+ceor }�rnctt �e rtuave scar o*pam:iar>•ma Tim maQ aon �d +ea �aomina0 mrac�m+®osax vouU oa ._. _- .-. x .r6Pa Of@�Q'1PlT[f JUDOYs -- FIGURE 5 F3 City Council Staff Report October 4, 2017 - Page 9 Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion As seen in Figure 5, the Downtown Palm Springs area has a concentration of pedestrian and bicycle accidents (see close-up view below), prompting staff to review recommendations for improving traffic safety. nd" . .� Pe de stria nTC's 2014 BcydeTC's_2014 Pe de stria nTC's 2015 - DcydeTC's_2015 BicydeTC's_2016 PedestrianTC's 2016 In the Spring of 2017, CVAG initiated a Call for Projects for $10 million in grant funding related to their Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program. In response to that Call for Projects aimed at bicycle and pedestrian safety, the City submitted seven project applications focused on locations that coincided with the traffic collision data provided by PSPD. One of those applications submitted by the City requested funding for "Pedestrian Safety Enhancements at Signalized Intersections Along Downtown Indian Canyon Drive Corridor," for an estimated cost of $2,730,000. A copy of the City's grant application is included as Attachment 6. On September 25, 2017, the CVAG Executive Committee approved five grant applications submitted by the City, including the "Pedestrian Safety Enhancements at Signalized Intersections Along Downtown Indian Canyon Drive Corridor," awarding the City $2,000,000 in Regional Measure A funds for the project. As referenced in the City's grant application, the scope of the traffic safety project is related to: 9 City Council Staff Report October 4, 2017 - Page 10 Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion The proposed projects are the signalized intersections in the downtown area of the City of Palm Springs along Indian Canyon Drive from Tachevah Drive to Ramon Road. The 9 study intersections are regionally important intersections based on the Palm Springs General Plan as well as the CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) and Active Transportation Plan (ATP). One pedestrian severe injury, 2 pedestrian other visible injury collision, and 4 pedestrian complaint of pain injury collisions were recorded at the intersections between January 2014 and February 2017. Each of the 9 intersections has basic crosswalk markings. There are curb ramps on most of the corners, but some may not be compliant with current ADA standards. Indian Canyon Drive varies in width along the corridor but is consistently 4-lanes wide with a median in some areas which provides a long crossing distance and no pedestrian refuge. Furthermore, the existing traffic signals in the area are out-of-date and are not fitted with the technology available to protect pedestrians crossing even within the signalized intersections. The City is proposing to bring the existing traffic signals up to date with significant improvements to benefit pedestrians, including pedestrian countdown heads, pedestrian detection, accessible pedestrian signals, leading pedestrian phasing, and protected left -turn phasing, as well as high -visibility crosswalks, advanced stop lines, curb bulb -outs with ADA-accessible wheelchair ramps. The grant application provides a construction estimate of traffic safety improvements proposed at each of the 9 intersections (7 of the intersections are located within the Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion Project limits). The improvements relate to traffic signal modifications, pedestrian crosswalk improvements, curb extensions (pop - outs), and associated work. The total cost estimate for the CVAG-funded traffic safety improvements is $2,730,000 — but after excluding the Indian Canyon Drive / Tachevah Drive and Indian Canyon Drive / Tamarisk Road intersections, the estimated cost of the traffic safety improvements for the 7 intersections that are located within the limits of the Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion Project is $2,209,272. The CVAG grant provides 75% funding with Regional Measure A funds, which will provide $1,656,954 in CVAG grant funding that can apply towards the costs for traffic safety improvements related to the Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion Project. In the event the Council elects not to proceed with the Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion Project, the traffic safety improvements funded with the CVAG grant will proceed, maintaining the one-way traffic circulation pattern along Indian Canyon Drive from Ramon Road to Camino Parocela. However, CVAG has required that the City commence construction by December 1, 2018, so a decision on whether to proceed with the Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion Project is important in order to preserve the CVAG grant funds for these important traffic safety improvements. 10 City Council Staff Report October 4, 2017 - Page 11 Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion At the June 15, 2017, and September 21, 2017, Measure J Commission meetings, the Commission took formal action to recommend that the City Council appropriate Measure J funds to provide the required 25% local match for the CVAG grant funded traffic safety projects. Therefore, it is anticipated that the City Council will allocate funding in the 2018/2019 Fiscal Year for the Measure J Community Projects (Hot Spots 2.0) to provide the additional funding required. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Section 21084 of the California Public Resources Code requires Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Guidelines are required to include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. In response to that mandate, the Secretary for Resources identified classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment, and are declared to be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents. In accordance with Section 15301 "Existing Facilities," Class 1 projects consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities; therefore, the Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion Project, City Project No. 13-13, is considered categorically exempt from CEQA, and a Notice of Exemption will be prepared and filed with the Riverside County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated cost of construction of the conceptual design, including curb pop -outs, excluding raised medians, and including the traffic round -about option, is $3.5 Million. The CVAG traffic safety grant will provide up to approximately $1.7 Million towards the construction cost, requiring an additional $1.8 Million to be funded with the City's local funds, such as General Fund reserves, Measure J, Local Measure A, or Gas Tax funds. A copy of the construction estimate is included as Attachment 7. Upon completion of final design, the construction estimate will be updated, and staff will return to Council for final action to approve the final design and authorize bidding. At that time, staff will identify the budget shortfall, and recommendations for funding alternatives. 11 City Council Staff Report October 4, 2017 - Page 12 Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion SUBMITTED: �1 I M cus L. Fuller MPA P.E. P.L.S. Assistant City Manager Attachment: David H. Ready, Es City Manager 1. Conceptual Plan 2. Camino Parocela Traffic Signal Modification Option 3. Camino Parocela Traffic Round -About Option 4. FHWA - Safety Aspects of Roundabouts 5. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Comment Letter 6. CVAG Traffic Safety Grant Application 7. Cost Estimate i2 Attachment 1 I3 Jw Um am �Q w W m CAMINO PAROCELA BARISTO ROAD ANDREAS ROAD RAMON ROAD LA PLAZA ARENAS ROAD SATURNINO ROAD l LL WW moxo Uw t- Qm N �W W TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY INDIAN CANYON DRIVE y a AMADO ROAD a PROPOSED CURB EXTENSION PROPOSED RAISED MEDIAN EXISTING RAISED MEDIAN INDIAN CANYON DRIVE ALEJO ROAD GRANVIA VALMONTE N �- a 30 0 60 120 180 � INDIAN CANYON DRIVE 5 TWO-WAY CONVERSION CORRIDOR EXHIBIT n 0 1«.,F. 1.��. ENCIME[dNC CUX91lTW15 IM.O. PG 16-0]31 - DqE' fi 9 2NK 3]fiX MCCRiY S2M6 SNEEf m DE GN NRL lam 93606 RNERSIl) o : CIi m S 5 5 U S I X i[ S N1. (951) 686-1010 B FAN (951) 7m-1256 OF 1 SlIF115 u F.N. F.d FA Attachment 2 F� f LEGEND �► EXISTING SIGNAL EQUIPMENT �► PROPOSED SIGNAL EQUIPMENT 10 0 20 40 60 — BARRIER 01 02 03 04 NOT USED + SIGNAL PHASING y MH o fd T6P � E d V .izR- CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CP13-13 INDIAN CANYON DR TWO-WAY CONVERSION INDIAN CANYON DR I PALM CANYON DR I CAMINO PAROCELA TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONCEPT EXHIBIT I SCALE: '" 2M' A E s E E r A. "KEA1XC C0166LTAMIS IM.O. 16-0331 DAM 1/6 201] 3]88 McCPAY STREET yNEEF 1 G6IGNFL: ME RNER$IDE CA 93508 PR. (95t)) 988-W]0 CYIEC8E0: OR6 A S S O C I A T E S FM (951) ]88-1258 OF 1 2REEFS PU1 CK RFF: DMG. N0. F.B. Attachment 3 0 k, Z 13 1"_20' 10 0 20 40 60 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - CP13-13 INDIAN CANYON DR TWO-WAY CONVERSION INDIAN CANYON DR I PALM CANYON DR I j CAMINO PAROCELA ROUNDABOUT CONCEPT EXHIBIT Y/lE: 1'-20 A L f T A. [xGixE[iw6 LONS9L11Ni5 Iw.u. 1E03J1 • ' 0n1E 3 21 1'/ »ae Mccfur SI9E£T SHEET 0ESGNFD: NGC ArvER510E CA 92509 F" ((951)) 686-1W2M tl1ECNFD: 095 A s s v c r e s Lnx C95t) ]88—t 259 Of 1 SXF]l5 PLN CN NFF: fMG N0. i.9 i Attachment 4 '_ 9 U,S.Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration J r� Will &L Ow USAepartr*" of ifamporiation Fedefai Highwayikdminietratlon 0 Safe Roads for a Safer Future Investment in roadway safety saves tines Safe Raads fK a Safer future iiMlYf7Yref M [�iAYW sNrh fMr1 ti�rt Prmirlr)I()rl\/ r wrl Si6c RMIt IK i Sder frhre AIaHOalgf M nNwl SIAra laaaaMar U S.Department of Transportation Fldagl Highway AdminiatralWn Roundabouts 2 What isn't a Modern Roundabout? — Traffic Circle,; r r , e .w a Rotarr #g 4 Neighborhood Circle Roundabouts • A compact circular intersection in which traffic flows counter- clockwise around a center island Entering traffic yields Approaches are channelized to deflect traffic into a proper entry path • Designed to slow the r speed of vehicles "P- 4 '� .' ry Siie Roads far a Safer future US.Depattrr&,M of Tiansw tation later* � �' Federal HighwayAdminl5tration Roundabouts 4 MMM TJJf, I �ej -1 Y US.Dvpartrrwnit of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Ouqq8te Sate Itaaak tar a Sakr futon fa nfrral nrarN W" sours MM 5 • Rotaries and Traffic Circles Emerge — Columbus Circle in NYC credited as the first • Circular intersections out of favor • Great Britain tries variants of circular intersections — Adopted mandatory "yield at entry" rule • Modern roundabouts widely used in Europe and Australia ,• Modern roundabouts start to be built in the US USDepartr-wnt of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Roundabouts 6 # of Circa 2% 25% ng Lanes 73% 61_ WIJ Three Location Bettina 6% 36% 58% of M rn 1 Source: NCHRP Report 572: Roundabouts in the United States US.Departr iov d tramF —jiiOn Federal Highway Administration Roundabouts Urban Suburban Rural Crilr: Hn,j jc r ,i C.iij 7 U A I I I IbLw -MM Key Features O Yield control r` Circulatory roadway Central island j Splitter island Pedestrian access Landscaping Truck apron Signing and marking 440 Roundabouts I US.Depactment of Transportation Federal Highway Administration CirculalarajmRo, No traffic control in the circulatory roadway. Movement is counter -clockwise. ._..._ .ter � s s� F Roundabouts Central Island FA Central island deflects vehicles from a straight-line path. Roundabouts d- u +rww4mJ■ F 4m m Lm +J L � mini M C -i 40J L. a� ' t 'r A POW AWL _--"iIIM� A4 Ir IL Landscaping is needed as a visual element to drivers Aw Roundabouts C.) W v US.Uepartrnentof Trar'sportatton Federal Highway Administration Roundabouts Sate Roads fa a Safer future :/MntMrol M fN/W!f VArrf tlxf IMtt 14 u0 n W cn a US.Departrwnt of ' anspottation Federal Highway Administration Ir *1rp ROUNDABOL 20 M.P.H. 7 16 HAPPY VALLEY WEST Signing NORTH EAST ONTAGE RD HAPPY VALLE EAST I-V NORTH 0 AIR GUARD BASE Proper signing help drivers navigate the roundabout. M L !PORT OLD BRANDON ROAD Roundabouts 90ENILM fUJiF• I 51 TVK V6 14 ] , '- to tiT MAMTE CLM CSLMO SEE Grci C gyp a yY yT GRANITE CUFB a ANn SEE ORc. cAp-4 Sl DEVALK LT v LW lu. 2 ►'� mr.� �LtJ I_CI t ti ' SD}EkAL}i RdYR1 M S70EY1LKt �M F�4P TYPE 4 ITPE 2A NW0. F7 STA CONCRETE JS- NLOO . M 2G�SL3.T. LT LT P � pLIS � TE C[[ W M W Ow U dgral High of AdminiStrFanspof ti ftdtril Highway AdminiSSfiRWrt J r �� r► r.c -4 WJ TE Njs�"" _ °0•- , + t�rcV�� yj� I END C4NCWTE WDEMQ�E rA r TYP 2A I I STOP E fit#]", aT EMMMME QM 39 AN0 � � SEE Grr� GIMP-E urFEE �Q } It1 I i. jWHO r PI-9 Sale Roads for a Safer future lows TWW It IWivw WHO I~$ Owl 19 11JJ��� PDJIJt .n U �v US.Depa"metV or Transportation Federal Highway Administration Roundabouts Sale Roads fora Safer future 'CodM-f, [llfry it.",- ,. 20 s US.Depertmentof Transportation Federal Highway Administration i Safe Roads fa a Safer Future lerw rmrsf rc re01YM� Wrh aws Nwl 21 Typical 4-leg_ intersection Angle i•J U.5.Department of transportation Federal Highway AdminiStratfon Left turn 11 Roundabout Sideswipe Safe Roads for a Safer future Arrtifierel M lMBYW' u1tlp I s NWT 22 crashes 4 ' ' Fatal/injury crashes Fatal/injury crashes in ig urban area �S4kr MIR USAepwtmentdTransportation t,.rrs.rrM snerwwr Federal Highway Administratlon r r ' r r 23 P" W 1-lane ry U.S.Ocpartrnentoi TeanspWation , Federal Highway Administration 2-lane crashes Fatal/injury crashes in rural area Fatal/injury crashes in urban area Sate R#Mk W # Sder Ware lawdo w M f6WW" soft "mom 24 • Narrowing of visual field • Restricting of the area of visual attention • Decreased motion sensitivity • Decline in selective attention • Decline in divided attention • Decline in perception -reaction time (PRT) • Loss of flexibility ry US.Departmemof Transportation Federal Highway Administration Safe Rotes for a Safer future l wrtwiwr M rWiwi vfrry u..s Mwr 25 High speeds Low speeds Little response time High energy crashes Unforgiving environment High severity crashes Complexity Wide visual scans QW US pepi vraodTranWonaWn Fed" Highway AdmlydWadon Situation changes slowly/More PRT Low energy crashes Forgiving environment Low severity crashes Easier to judge gaps Narrow visual scans Sate Roads for a Safer future �.QWYhR rM i"#WJp Wirt*I/IfE Owl 26 m a U.S.Oep nmeMOrTramportatlon Federal Highway AdminiStratior ate Roads for a Safer future AmlWol a IWBWfy "$of# HAYS FA*T 27 • No signal equipment to install, power, and maintain • May require less right-of-way • Less pavement may be needed Y7 fo US.Uepa tment at Transportation Fede.ai Highway AdminiStratign 9Sder hihn aAe MfM+frMa1soft SR*" 28 • Quieter • Functional • Aesthetically pleasing 00 OW U.S.DepwtrrwW of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Safe Roads for a Safer future -Pwi re ? N fM%w" Wert s~s (Frn 29 • Pedestrians • Bicyclists • Visually -impaired Qow U.S.Oepartrnew of Tramportavon Fpolrai Highway Administration Safe Rik tK a Safer future are/EMMr rya sdrt} stirs MW I 30 j It Multi -Lane labouts I, Roundabouts c_1t 45 US,DeWt/nentof Transportation fldtrei Highway Administration Smaller design urban areas Speed zones Central island painted often Relatively inexpensive Sak Rams fir a Sala Whre n.eterw r ►rwN swrh a.� ere 32 i • Higher approach speeds • Properly designed splitter island is critical U.S.Departrwnt of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Roundabouts Safe Roads for a Safer Future Lwt?s t M rpfwN WWI scare 1Mt 33 't. Right -of -Way Requirements After10 s _ Ar z- pr ° a y.' _ f ow y i �114 • Intersections with high crash rates/high severity rates Intersections with complex geometry, skewed approaches, >4 approaches Rural intersections with high-speed approaches Freeway interchange ramp terminals Closely spaced intersections Replacement of all -way stops Replacement of signalized intersections At intersections with high left turn volumes Replacement of 2-way stops with high side -street delay Intersections with high U-turn movements Transitions from higher -speed to lower -speed areas Where aesthetics are important Where accommodating older drivers is an objective C1 Safe Roads for a Safer future US.Departme"d Transportation iaanrarer m rmi s fer; saws thes Federal Highway administration Roundabouts 35 sinogepunoa a z .�.-"• ""` � � yr "",. � „T r x • r air.. ,. y 'On t: v• 4" x All {oo Val Acho OWL e =. e � R 4 M•. Q, � e y ct %k � . � T �. E as saopiaaoo ui sinogepunoN �_ • Fewer queue backups • Less bridge width possible - f ti rr mil LN tT �� U-S.Deput"wMof hansportatlon Federal Highway Administration A uS.Departmem of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 01 L' 'C 17 C C st L tt rr 4- � •s s, �NN C '1 CA a VS.Vepartmem of Transportation Federal Highway Administration pwv • L $diE 'K." K d $d er f dude twertw�e p+rrAra� Wrh % nr Neer 39 mig i co �v USIDepartrnentof Transportation Federal Highway AdminiStHtion *Ow or Sate Roa/s fa Safer Future t l e 16l N r�rawr urry axs rrvrs 40 • Context • Space feasibility • Physical or geometric complications • Proximity of railroad grade crossings, drawbridges • Traffic congestion • Presence of oversize vehicles • Presence of pedestrians and bicyclists �r US.t)epartment of Transportation Federal Highway Administration We Radds for d Safer future ba rarer M res/gyp u/rrt ++ems ihes 41 Public Attitude Towards Roundabouts (Before and After Construction) 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Very Negative CAW US.Dewctmetn of Transpottation Federal Highway Administration Before after Negative Neutral Positive Very Positive Safe Rak ht a WO Pyre rewrtwW r ftAft" W" rawr etwr IN"oundabouts Source: NCHRP Synthesis 264 42 Jrp Reasons Why Agencies Have Not Built Roundabouts Concerned about liability Not part of AA HTO Guides Not sure they are safe Not sure they work efficiently Not sure drivers will get used to them N US.Department aT Transportation Federal Highway Administration 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Safe Roads for a Safer Future Ii IxWW M?"fw^ Vlfft f.roMf ihYt Source: NCHRP Synthesis 264 r•rr 43 �l J • Proper design • Public involvement • Stakeholder support /tom ,J W U5.Departrr*Mof Transportation Federal Highway Administration $af! Rfa�S Gr a Safes f1dw Mrelf*raf M nrAwr to "M Mri 44 Nclipip REPORT 572 Roundabouts in the United States 1➢PMSFC�iAtgN p[$(AKN LDA+t' srS U.S.Departmemof Transportation - Federal Highway Admini6tlratiOrt r% I I N A A R'N s I* Roundabouts A Prnwn •+rery +dutan mar ratlrncn tla nOrrr6w antl rraeMgr of kKersadrm ve9xM, ..of Royfd . r�wts ' Ilk swM� "`�rbalyirrla.wareur^ems 1Y1+NbaMOd..Rower ` UNDAQOUTCt.. ....�,.. ,,.�, `QN INFORMATIONAL M a«wyy'��Ynw.Is wrpw... �q �0.>t�arrtli rMfMry �""aY MmbuchcMn 1'u Llr:mlor. No. `NWA-rD-00-0N _ � 1.�� Safe Roads for a Safer future rasv�!mra[ M,aeauvr wary wrs fMrr 45 r Jl' 1�1�JI'� �1��DrffI�l�J�l] • FHWA Office of Safety — http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ • Institute of Transportation Engineers — http://www.ite.org/ • U.S. Access Board — http://www.access-board.org/ • National Cooperative Highway Research Program — http://www.trb.org/ U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administratbn Safe Raads for a Safer future i..lSr�Mt M I"gow wk N( S Mwi 46 Attachment 5 66 AGUA CALICNTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIAM TRIBAL PLANNINC a DCv ELOPMENr September 26, 2017 HAND DELIVERED Mayor Robert Moon and City Council CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 RE: Preliminary Design Plans for the Indian Canyon Drive Two -Way Conversion Project Dear Mayor and City Council, The Tribal Council of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians reviewed the above referenced project at its meeting of September 26, 2017, and recommends approval of the preliminary design plans to the City with the following comments: 1. The proposed medians should be removed; 2. Curb extensions should be added to all corridor intersections, where feasible, and that they should be extended to include the intersecting cross streets where there is on -street parking; and 3. Recommend the roundabout option for the intersection of Indian Canyon Drive, South Palm Canyon Drive, and Camino Parocela. Please contact me should you have any questions at 760-883-1326. Very truly yours, Margaret E. Park, AICP Director of Planning & Natural Resources AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS M P/d m C: Tribal Council Tom Davis, Chief Planning & Development Officer Marcus Fuller, Assistant City Manger, City of Palm Springs 5401 DINAH SHORE DRIVE, PALM SPRINGS. CA 92264 T 760/699/6800 F 760i699/6823 WWW.AGUACALIENTE-NSN.GOV 67 Attachment 6 Cg Table of Contents Executive Summary...............................................................................1 Project Location ..................................................... .....1 Local & Regional Circulation..................................................................2 Current Traffic Volumes(2015)..............................................................3 Intersection Summaries.........................................................................4 CollisionHistory ...................................................................................13 Countermeasure Descriptions.............................................................13 CostEstimate.......................................................................................16 Exhibit A — Project Location Map.........................................................17 Exhibit B — General Plan Circulation Map............................................18 Exhibit C — CVAG TPPS Road Segments Map...................................19 Exhibit D — CVAG ATP Local Bicycle Network....................................20 Exhibit E — CVAG ATP Major Transit Hubs.........................................21 Exhibit F — Collision Report..................................................................22 Exhibit G — Cost Estimate Table..........................................................23 i 0 e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed projects are the signalized intersections in the downtown area of the City of Palm Springs along Indian Canyon Drive from Tachevah Drive to Ramon Road. The 9 study intersections are regionally important intersections based on the Palm Springs General Plan as well as the CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) and Active Transportation Plan (ATP). One pedestrian severe injury, 2 pedestrian other visible injury collision, and 4 pedestrian complaint of pain injury collisions were recorded at the intersections between January 2014 and February 2017. The surrounding area contains high -density residential, commercial, medical -related businesses, hotels, restaurants, and live -entertainment business. The intersections are in the downtown area of the City which attracts many pedestrians, as well as bicyclists and automobiles. There are several restaurants, shops, businesses all along Indian Canyon Drive and several public transit bus stops adjacent to the intersections. A few of the intersections are considered as major transit hubs in the City of Palm Springs. This area therefore attracts a high number of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists alike. Furthermore, the pedestrians are often made up of tourists, who are not familiar with the area, older residents of the City, and those using the corridor as a main thoroughfare within the City through Downtown. Pedestrian improvements would therefore benefit a wide segment of the population. Each of the 9 intersections has basic crosswalk markings. There are curb ramps on most of the corners, but some may not be compliant with current ADA standards. Indian Canyon Drive varies in width along the corridor but is consistently 4-lanes wide with a median in some areas which provides a long crossing distance and no pedestrian refuge. Furthermore, the existing traffic signals in the area are out-of-date and are not fitted with the technology available to protect pedestrians crossing even within the signalized intersections. The City is proposing to bring the existing traffic signals up to date with significant improvements to benefit pedestrians, including pedestrian countdown heads, pedestrian detection, accessible pedestrian signals, leading pedestrian phasing, and protected left -turn phasing, as well as high -visibility crosswalks, advanced stop lines, curb bulb -outs with ADA-accessible wheelchair ramps. These improvements have been proposed to protect the pedestrians in the downtown area and to prevent any further pedestrian collisions in the future. The total cost estimate for the improvements proposed is $2,730,000 71 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project includes signalized intersections in the downtown area of the City of Palm Springs along Indian Canyon Drive. The intersections included are: 1. Indian Canyon Drive (NS) & Tachevah Drive (EW) 2. Indian Canyon Drive (NS) & Tamarisk Road (EW) 3. Indian Canyon Drive (NS) & Alejo Road (EW) 4. Indian Canyon Drive (NS) & Amado Road (EW) 5. Indian Canyon Drive (NS) & Andreas Road (EW) 6. Indian Canyon Drive (NS) & Tahquitz Canyon Way (EW) 7. Indian Canyon Drive (NS) & Arenas Road (EW) 8. Indian Canyon Drive (NS) & Baristo Road (EW) 9. Indian Canyon Drive (NS) & Ramon Road (EW) The project location is shown on Exhibit A. LOCAL & REGIONAL CIRCULATION The City of Palm Springs Circulation Plan is shown on Exhibit B. Within the project area, Indian Canyon Drive, Amado Road, Tahquitz Canyon Way and Ramona Road are all designated as a Major Thoroughfare (4-lane divided), Tachevah Drive, Alejo Road East of Indian Canyon Drive, and Arenas Road are all designated as a Secondary Thoroughfare (4- lane undivided), and Tamarisk Road East of Indian Canyon Drive, Alejo Road West of Indian Canyon Drive, Andreas Road between Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive, and Baristo Road are all classified as a Collector (2-lane undivided). The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) Road Segments Map is shown on Exhibit C. The project intersections are located on Segments "INCN1" (Indian Canyon Drive from Ramon Road to Tahquitz Canyon Way), "INCN 2" (Indian Canyon Drive from Tahquitz Canyon Way to Alejo Road), and "INCN3" (Indian Canyon Drive from Alejo Road to Tachevah Drive). The CVAG Active Transportation Plan (ATP) Local Bicycle Network Map is shown on Exhibit D. The project intersections are located on bikeways "PS26E" (Indian Canyon Drive from Tachevah Drive to Camino Parocela), "PS157" (Indian Canyon Drive from San Rafael Drive to Alejo Road), "PS163" (Indian Canyon Drive from Alejo Road to Camino Parocela), "PS218" (Tachevah Drive from N Palm Canyon Drive to N Indian Canyon Dr), "PS231" (Tamarisk from N Palm Canyon Drive to Farrell Drive), "PS65" (Alejo Road from N Palm Canyon Rd to Indian Canyon Drive), "PS70" (Amado Road from N Belardo Road to Calle El Segundo), "PS226" (Tahquitz Canyon Way from Museum Drive to Indian Canyon Drive), "PS78" (Arenas Road from S Palm Canyon Drive to S Indian Canyon Drive), and "PS187" (Ramon Road from S Palm Canyon Drive to S Indian Canyon Drive. 7� The CVAG ATP Pedestrian Improvements to Major Transit Hubs: Palm Springs is shown on Exhibit E. Intersections "AT' (Indian Canyon Drive & Ramon Road), "AF (Indian Canyon Drive & Baristo Road), "A9" (Indian Canyon Drive & Arenas Road), and "A10" (Indian Canyon Drive & Tahquitz Canyon Way) are all included in the project intersections. CURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES (2015) Based on the CVAG "2015 Traffic Census Report," Indian Canyon Drive south of Alejo Road has approximately 13,885 average daily trips (ADT), and at North of Ramon Road has approximately 16,467 average daily trips (ADT). 3 .7 INTERSECTION #1: INDIAN CANYON DRIVE AND TACHEVAH DRIVE EXISTING CONDITIONS Signalized Intersection • Basic crosswalk markings across all four legs • Left turn lanes on north, south and east legs • No curb extensions or bulb -outs on all four legs COLLISION HISTORY • No pedestrian or bicycle collisions recorded between January 2014 and February 2017 PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURES Pedestrian countdown signal heads for all legs (8) Pedestrian detection within intersection for all legs (4) Accessible pedestrian signal (APS) for all legs (8) High -visibility crosswalk (Continental pattern) for all legs (4) Curb extensions (bulb -outs) for north, south, and east legs (3) Leading pedestrian phase for all legs (4) Permissive to protected left -turn phasing conversion for northbound and southbound left -turn phases 4 INTERSECTION #2: INDIAN CANYON DRIVE AND TAMARISK ROAD EXISTING CONDITIONS Signalized Intersection Basic crosswalk markings across south, east, and west legs No pedestrian crossing on north leg Protected/permissive left -turns for northbound and southbound phases No curb extensions on all four legs Left turn lanes on north and south legs Bus stop south of the intersection COLLISION HISTORY • No pedestrian or bicycle collisions recorded between January 2014 and February 2017 PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURES Pedestrian countdown signal heads for south, east, and west legs (6) Pedestrian detection within intersection for south, east, and west legs (3) Accessible pedestrian signal (APS) for south, east, and west legs (6) High -visibility crosswalk (Continental pattern) for south, east, and west legs (3) Curb extensions (bulb -outs) for west leg (2) Leading pedestrian phase for south, east, and west legs (3) Permissive to protected left -turn phasing conversion for northbound and southbound left -turn phases 5 INTERSECTION #3: INDIAN CANYON DRIVE AND ALEJO ROAD EXISTING CONDITIONS Signalized Intersection Basic crosswalk markings across east and west legs Decorative crosswalks across north and south legs Colored bike lane markings Left turn lanes on all four legs Transition from two-way to only northbound one-way on Indian Canyon Drive Bus stop south of the intersection COLLISION HISTORY 4 1 pedestrian other visible injury collision recorded between January 2014 and February 2017 PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURES Pedestrian countdown signal heads for all legs (8) Pedestrian detection within intersection for all legs (4) Accessible pedestrian signal (APS) for all legs (8) High -visibility crosswalk (Continental pattern) for east and west legs (2) Curb extensions (bulb -outs) for north, east, and west legs (4) Leading pedestrian phase for all legs (4) Permissive to protected left -turn phasing conversion 6 �6 INTERSECTION #4: INDIAN CANYON DRIVE AND AMADO ROAD 1; K46]1I►[CIdt7►191111i1*1Z&6 Signalized Intersection Basic crosswalk markings across all four legs No curb extensions on all four legs Left turn lane on west leg One-way northbound only on Indian Canyon Drive Bus stop north of the intersection Cdd��6�[�7►�:16�1�Ii7 • No pedestrian or bicycle collisions recorded between January 2014 and February 2017 PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURES Pedestrian countdown signal heads for all legs (8) Pedestrian detection within intersection for all legs (4) Accessible pedestrian signal (APS) for all legs (8) High -visibility crosswalk (Continental pattern) for all legs (4) Curb extensions (bulb -outs) for all legs (8) Leading pedestrian phase for all legs (4) Permissive to protected left -turn phasing conversion for northbound and eastbound left - turn phases 7 INTERSECTION #5: INDIAN CANYON DRIVE AND ANDREAS ROAD EXISTING CONDITIONS Signalized Intersection Basic crosswalk markings across south, east, and west legs No pedestrian crossing on north leg Curb extension on west leg (south curb only) Split phasing for eastbound and westbound phases One-way northbound only on Indian Canyon Drive Bus stop south of the intersection COLLISION HISTORY R 2 pedestrian complaint of pain injury collisions recorded between January 2014 and February 2017 PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURES Pedestrian countdown signal heads for south, east, and west legs (6) Pedestrian detection within intersection for south, east, and west legs (3) Accessible pedestrian signal (APS) for south, east, and west legs (6) High -visibility crosswalk (Continental pattern) for south, east, and west legs (3) Curb extensions (bulb -outs) for all legs (5) Leading pedestrian phase for south, east, and west legs (3) Permissive to protected left -turn phasing conversion for northbound left -turn phase 8 INTERSECTION #6: INDIAN CANYON DRIVE AND TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY EXISTING CONDITIONS Signalized Intersection Basic crosswalk markings across all four legs Curb extension on east leg (north curb only) Protected/permissive left -turns for eastbound phase One-way northbound only on Indian Canyon Drive COLLISION HISTORY • 1 pedestrian severe injury, 1 pedestrian other visible injury, and 1 pedestrian complaint of pain injury collisions recorded between January 2014 and February 2017 PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURES Pedestrian countdown signal heads for all legs (8) Pedestrian detection within intersection for all legs (4) Accessible pedestrian signal (APS) for all legs (8) High -visibility crosswalk (Continental pattern) for all legs (4) Curb extensions (bulb -outs) for all legs (3) Leading pedestrian phase for all legs (4) Permissive to protected left -turn phasing conversion for northbound and eastbound left - turn phases - 9 INTERSECTION #7: INDIAN CANYON DRIVE AND ARENAS ROAD EXISTING CONDITIONS Signalized Intersection Basic crosswalk markings across north, south, and west legs Decorative crosswalk across east leg Curb extension on south leg (east curb only) and east leg Left turn lane on west leg One-way northbound only on Indian Canyon Drive COLLISION HISTORY • 1 pedestrian complaint of pain injury collision recorded between January 2014 and February 2017 PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURES Pedestrian countdown signal heads for all legs (8) Pedestrian detection within intersection for all legs (4) Accessible pedestrian signal (APS) for all legs (8) High -visibility crosswalk (Continental pattern) for north, south, and west legs (3) Curb extensions (bulb -outs) for north, south, and west legs (3) Leading pedestrian phase for all legs (4) Permissive to protected left -turn phasing conversion for northbound and eastbound left - turn phases 10 INTERSECTION #8: INDIAN CANYON DRIVE AND BARISTO ROAD EXISTING CONDITIONS 3-legged intersection (no east leg) Signalized Intersection Basic crosswalk markings across south and west legs No pedestrian crossing on north leg No curb extensions on all four legs One-way northbound only on Indian Canyon Drive COLLISION HISTORY • No pedestrian or bicycle collisions recorded between January 2014 and February 2017 PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURES Pedestrian countdown signal heads for south and west legs (4) Pedestrian detection within intersection for south and west legs (2) Accessible pedestrian signal (APS) for south and west legs (4) High -visibility crosswalk (Continental pattern) for south and west legs (2) Curb extensions (bulb -outs) for south and west legs (4) Leading pedestrian phase for south and west legs (2) Permissive to protected left -turn phasing conversion for northbound left -turn phase 0 INTERSECTION #9: INDIAN CANYON DRIVE AND RAMON ROAD EXISTING CONDITIONS • Signalized Intersection • Basic crosswalk markings across all four legs • Protected/permissive left -turns for eastbound phase No curb extensions on all four legs One-way northbound only on Indian Canyon Drive Left turn lane on west leg Bus stop north of the intersection COLLISION HISTORY • No pedestrian or bicycle collisions recorded between January 2014 and February 2017 PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURES Pedestrian countdown signal heads for all legs (8) Pedestrian detection within intersection for all legs (4) Accessible pedestrian signal (APS) for all legs (8) High -visibility crosswalk (Continental pattern) for all legs (4) Curb extensions (bulb -outs) for north, south, and west legs (4) Leading pedestrian phase for all legs (4) Permissive to protected left -turn phasing conversion for northbound and eastbound left - turn phases 12 72 COLLISION HISTORY Collision data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and from the City of Palm Springs Police Department was gathered and reviewed for the project area. Any collisions involving pedestrians or bicycles at or immediately adjacent to the study intersections are summarized on Exhibit F. The table provides the SWITRS case ID, primary road, secondary road, date of collision, time of collision, lighting conditions at time of collision, severity of collision, primary collision factor (PCF) violation (what vehicle code was violated), if party was at -fault, type of vehicle party was driving or if they were a pedestrian, age of party, direction party was moving immediately before collision, and movement party was attempting immediately before collision. COUNTERMEASURE DESCRIPTIONS PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN HEADS Pedestrian countdown heads are signal heads that provide a countdown timer indicating the number of seconds remaining in the pedestrian change interval, as opposed to a traditional walk/don't walk signal head. An example is shown below: PEDESTRIAN DETECTION WITHIN INTERSECTION Pedestrian detection within intersection includes sensors that detect when pedestrians are present in a crossing and automatically increase crossing time when necessary. Examples are 13 tj "3 shown below: ACCESSIBLE PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL (APS) Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) are pedestrian signals that provide audible or tactile cues to aid visually or cognitively impaired pedestrians in safely crossing the street. Examples are shown below: 14 L HIGH -VISIBILITY CROSSWALK (CONTINENTAL PATTERN) High -Visibility Crosswalks significantly increase visibility of a crosswalk to oncoming traffic due to the use of longitudinal stripes as opposed to only transverse markings. Examples of a continental pattern high-visibilit- crosswalk are shown below: I �mlil! CURB EXTENSIONS/BULB-OUTS Curb extensions or bulb -outs extend the sidewalk into the parking lane to narrow the roadway and provide additional pedestrian space. Curb extensions enhance pedestrian safety by increasing pedestrian visibility, shortening crossing distances, slowing turning vehicles, and visually narrowing the roadway. Examples of curb extensions are shown below: -�oaaiw„s,u��t 15 u5 LEADING PEDESTRIAN PHASE A leading pedestrian phase is a signal timing adjustment that allows pedestrians a short head start in crossing the intersection to minimize conflicts with turning vehicles. Examples of a leading pedestrian phase as well as a ring -and -barrier diagram showing the typical operation are shown below: qMW rii ° 01 (; 4 4_ • r.n (4 06 `� Pod T s Pedestrian beylne early (walk only) b) Leading Pedestrian Interval (on Phase 2 & 6) PROTECTED LEFT -TURN PHASING CONVERSION Protected left -turn phasing provides an exclusive phase for left -turning vehicles to enter the intersection separate from any conflicted vehicle or pedestrian movements. Examples of Drotected left -turn phasing are shown below: LEFT TURN SIGNAL p t - COST ESTIMATE The cost estimates for each intersection are included in Exhibit G. The total construction cost estimate for all 9 intersection locations is $2,730,000. Exhibit A - Project Location Map P7 Exhibit B Yrs Estu.le YiPeCNno I 3 I P ; a—r a I an low.:Pn �,ryor� Pa rk I e , a e. f I E ^ I 1 r I I I �• Freenev - • — Secondary Thoroughfare (4-]am undivided) J Cry ewnary 4 510 g. Etpre55wdy Collector(2-Lane divided) ........ — Major Thoroughfare (8 - lane divided) - ---- Collector(2 - lane urdwded) , * Critical lnlersectlon' — Major Thoroughfare (4. lane divided) Local 'Intersection improvements required to mmntsin acceptable LOS. — Secondary Thoroughfare (4 - lane divided) Circulation Plan `GENEItU PLAN tlrmhtinn EW,ant Flguro41 Exhibit C VC1A Z a o Z Zg Uo U i> a Zz N W Z Z? J 0 i R Zz ERT HOT S GSa NRo vARNV�oRl CATHEDRAL PALM CITY SPRINGS Q J W LAN3 RAFAFI OR ff 1 �\ GAT3 Z /' Vol M Z RO 0 U� J Z a N TAHQUIT2 GNYON W It r f Z Z U —}. RAM3A RAM4/ a RAM1 I I RAM2 M3 Z MESOUITEAV ' U 1PLCN8 J PLCN7 K PALM CANYON OR e � 2 4 LA VERNF U � 2 tiF � I J ✓yo I VC5 v1srA CHINO DV, VC3�� Vo4CO '¢ 2AB o a D 6. DVALL4—• YN J o a� � RAMSA c RAMS p t _W tAM4 �F Y RAM7 O z GAT1A to Z o �MCSq U1RAVC R Z IL w GAT2C U= GAT2B GAT2D F a U v p p Q CROSLY2 a Z K pLON9 m CROSLY3A 2 ¢I U UIx 0 DPLMOA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE yb P� O, L,9 ti � 9a O 9 5zF a RAM15 U ' N. RANCHO MIRAGE GFD5 n LEGEND ..++ 0 0.5 1 Pm/en5egmenr BHdge/ndudedln Okwfset n M'no'RmdWOy tIJ 'fir A -I Miles Q Bddge Sp egmem PmjM Segment . w . . Wnt Y :� !n Ll &aurae: Caunly of Rlwrekle, CVAG Q J tV a Y N PALM w DESERT Z �9 POR5B-- CVAG TPPS Road Segments Figure 2 VHINO 16 1 ° 1 17 m ALEJO RD 6 �6 z wU IA+rtgD0RO j W 1 a � Q i 1:. .� TAHOl.0 0 Q� 16 p16 0 12 ARENAS R 16 ° BARfSTO RD 17 w j I RARIST ¢ 6�, RD � Exhibit D ,\\ Q2 t� OEL MIPADCR �'� 0 SUR o 7_ -� TFfN kOR S svR 1E� 0 C: o y RESCENTOR ¢ 3 '�$ xI W � m ® -I m- Q l'e 3 .) -OJAUADOR1M � t G1 1 p W -a. RAMON RD m 1�rx Qom`- n NAS RC 0 AIS ORD z 1r[�,'�-- r�.�'y: _ ,/ice • ,z 62 ^� 6 qk 3l/LO r AROCC°LA � ..r ..w M A 6 17. "��- I SUNNYOUNES RC ___-----r'-.�� SJ.NN�DUNES RC I-.jam.-vrr_—»s�_-�.. Proposed Bicycle FacllNles Earning Bicycle Facilities propaeealea.. O- End. Ferr, %— oeonlIA, Polk ©&Er!MEV pIn eJnpurpeae paM ll 4p' ' t�ve Y ��.IJrrpi�voe. vnn 5 sieewek veM t�,�• ,.V a? fJ� I&M1e one g baderea e,ke lmr 4 DEEPWEtL RD ----Balwnev gn. 1x crl.rw Dunne, me. on. ` r —�un.ntlgiaen. MEV Yne fJ celmre nun.rra Dike OWNEV b no &broula PALH CANYON �iR �—, ,g --�ebrea Eir.!NEV Yn. 1g 41. P.M oeo —W.w,ee a„e.ree me.. le.e gxrknr,ned, I Q AWN PAthy5 A4 —i euerrea mk.ml:vun. _ g anprm pI —max. rem. Bike Parking .eoeea:rurrewz _ _�x. (D.nri • L Ealrerp $I— S Pam —Dooiooe(cnern 90.e Amendineen Bepred 'E�a � �- �I n Prm • Pura; .ran. 1a y1 -] ei Proposed Transit Bike Parking A Me keck.r T uS � 0 • wxr am ` ' �. I o N 0 1 2iiiiiiij EnnDAIPo1N GaDA 6 �r Mies 1 See City of Palm Springs - South 1 CAP. une. C.untv.f Pi.deld., iWAG 1 ESCOPDR d �i CVAG ATP City of Palm Springs Local Network Figure 4-27b Exhibit E Coachella Valley Association of Governments ;, Active Transportation Plan ■ ffi 2 so'r..vs P Al t PL. Al , YII.IlTM41V Cawlw� Ilrtlwuw_Cwv+_rc . *- SW r IIx,wORt C,rya•rw. w4/u fa+vd tin" -e A2 Ag P P V•v Ain.x lkpyr � � lM �T�.I x'll.i a A4 P A8 A31 r $! l s P ` � Ewx SY+t`o�a 4wwi t 62 q � Ylrx 4sW Yr4a (1pe P P 0 C W FOO 1,40, Legend a +♦ ;ntersectio„ Project i Ttansil Hub A5 » , A7 �..�.y.t..�. �t9 P P ;% rAIS c�x..,.,.. P 1. Exhibit 6-A. Pedestrian Improvements to Major Transit Hubs: Palm Springs d ,, npn,�yt�+etMap {a�d3caxnbrdvs.CC:-Bl'-5+`. A City of Palm Springs LOCATION 5: Indian Canyon Signalized Downtown Intersections Case ID Primary Rd Secondary Rd 6989292 NORTH INDIAN CANYON DR ALEJO RD 6680921 NORTH INDIAN CANYON OR ANDREAS RD 8298450 INDIAN CANYON OR ANDREAS RD 7190963 NORTH INDIAN CANYON DR TAHQUITZ CANYON WY 7121103 INDIAN CANYON DR TAHQUITZ CANYON WY 8290361 EASTTAHQUITZ CANYON WY INDIAN CANYON DR 6737939 S INDIAN CANYON DR E ARENAS RD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COLLISION REPORT SUMMARY (SWITRS( Date Time Lighting Severity PCF Violation Party larty2 Fit Vehicle Age Dir. Movement Fit Vehicle Age Dir. Movement 20140707i 1604 Daylight Visible Circular Green (Go, yield to otherswithan intersection)Y PC/SW 32 W IMakmg Left Turn N Pedestrian 541W Proceeding Straight 20141016 12231 Not Stated Pain Pedestrian yield to vehicles outside ofcrosswalk N PC/SW 40N Making Left Turn Y Pedestrian 56E Other 201701201 2140 Dark -Street Lights Pain Regulatory Sign N Pedestrian 59 E Not Stated N Not Stated unk - Not Stated 201601311 150 Dark -Street Lights_ Severe Pedestrian yield to_vehicles of crosswalk_ Y 31 W iEntermg_Traffic N_ PC/SW Proceeding Straight 20151103 1912 Dark -Street Lights Pain _outside Unknown N _Pedestrian PC/SW _ EStopped NPedestrian _ _24,N 31 5 20161224 1350 Daylight Visible _ _ Yield to pedestrians within crosswalk Y PC/SW _58 86 W Making Left Turn _ N Pedestrian 65,14 _Stopped Not Slated 20141122 2339 Dark -Street Lights Pam Yield to pedestrians within crosswalk Y PC/SW unk N Proceeding Straight N Pedestrian 22�E Other Exhibit E Exhibit G - Estimated Costs 1: Indian Canyon 2: Indian Canyon 3: Indian Canyon 4: Indian Canyon 5: Indian Canyon 6: Indian Canyon Drive and Drive and Tamarisk Drive and Alejo Drive and Amado Drive and Andreas Drive and Tahquitz Tachevah Drive Road Road Road Road Canyon Way # Item Unit Unit Cost Qty Cost City Cost Qty Cost City Cost Qty Cost City Cost I1 Pedestrian EA $ 1,000.00 8 $ 8,000.00 6 $ 6,000.00 8 $ 8,000.00 8 $ 8,000.00 6 $ 6,000.00 8 $ 8,000.00 Countdown Heads I2 Pedestrian Detection EA $ 10,000.00 4 $ 40,000.00 3 $ 30,000.00 4 $ 40,000.00 4 $ 40,000.00 3 $ 30,000.00 4 $ 40,000.00 Within Intersection Accessible 3 Pedestrian Signal EA $ 800.00 8 $ 6,400.00 6 $ 4,800.00 8 $ 6,400.00 8 $ 6,400.00 6 $ 4,800.00 8 $ 6,400.00 (APS) High -visibility 4 crosswalk EA $ 1,000.00 4 $ 4,000.00 3 $ 3,000.00 2 $ 2,000.00 4 $ 4,000.00 3 $ 3,000.00 4 $ 4,000.00 (Continental S Curb extensions EA $ 20,000.00 3 $ 60,000.00 2 $ 40,000.00 4 $ 80,000.00 8 $ 160,000.00 5 $ 100,000.00 3 $ 60,000.00 (curb ramps) 6 Advance stop lines EA $ 200.00 4 $ 800.00 3 $ 600.00 4 $ 800.00 3 $ 600.00 3 $ 600.00 3 $ 600.00 7 Leading Pedestrian EA $ 15,000.00 1 $ 15,000.00 1 $ 15,000.00 1 $ 15,000.00 1 $ 15,000.00 1 $ 15,000.00 1 $ 1S,000.00 Phase Permissive to 8 protected left -turn EA $ 25,000.00 2 $ 50,000.00 2 $ 50,000.00 3 $ 75,000.00 2 $ 50,000.00 1 $ 25,000.00 2 $ 50,000.00 phasing conversion Construction Cost Subtotal $ 184,200.00 $ 149,400.00 $ 227,200.00 $ 284,000.00 $ 184,400.00 $ 184,000.00 Contingency (20%) $ 36,840.00 $ 29,880.00 $ 45,440.00 $ 56,800.00 $ 36,880.00 $ 36,800.00 Total Construction Costs $ 221,040.00 $ 179,280.00 $ 272,640.00 $ 340,800.00 $ 221,280.00 $ 220,800.00 Design, Environmental & Admin (15%) $ 33,156.00 $ 26,892.00 $ 40,896.00 $ 51,120.00 $ 33,192.00 $ 33,120.00 CM/Inspection/Const Eng (15%) $ 33,156.00 $ 26,892.00 $ 40,896.00 $ 51,120.00 $ 33,192.00 $ 33,120.00 Total Cost $ 287,352.00 $ 233,064.00 $ 354,437.00 $ 443,040.00 $ 787,664.00 $ 287,040.00 7 v3 Exhibit G - Estimated Costs 7: Indian Canyon 8: Indian Canyon 9: Indian Canyon Drive and Arenas Drive and Baristo Drive and Ramon ALL INTERSECTIONS Road Road Road # Item Unit Unit Cost Qty Cost City Cost City Cost City Cost 1 Pedestrian EA $ 1,000.00 8 $ 8,000.00 4 $ 4,000.00 8 $ 8,000.00 64 $ 64,000.00 Countdown Heads 2 Pedestrian Detection EA $ 10,000.00 4 $ 40,000.00 2 $ 20,000.00 4 $ 40,000,00 32 $ 320,000.00 Within Intersection Accessible 3 Pedestrian Signal EA $ 800.00 8 $ 6,400.00 4 $ 3,200.00 8 $ 6,400.00 64 $ 51,200.00 (APS) High -visibility 4 crosswalk EA $ 1,000.00 3 $ 3,000.00 2 $ 2,000.00 4 $ 4,000.00 29 $ 29,000.00 (Continental 5 Curb extensions EA $ 20,000.00 3 $ 60,000.00 4 $ 80,000.00 4 $ 80,000.00 36 $ 720,000.00 (curb ramps) 6 Advance stop lines EA $ 200.00 3 $ 600.00 2 $ 400.00 3 $ 600.00 28 $ 5,600.00 7 Leading Pedestrian EA $ 15,000,00 1 $ 15,000.00 1 $ 15,000.00 1 $ 15,000.00 9 $ 135,000.00 Phase Permissive to 8 protected left -turn EA $ 25,000.00 2 $ 50,000.00 1 $ 25,000.00 2 $ 50,000.00 17 $ 425,000.00 phasing conversion Construction Cost Subtotal $ 183,000.00 $ 149,600.00 $ 204,000.00 $ 1,749,800.00 Contingency (20%) $ 36,600.00 $ 29,920.00 $ 40,800.00 $ 349,960.00 Total Construction Costs $ 219,600.00 $ 179,520.00 $ 244,800.00 $ 2,099,760.00 Design, Environmental & Admin (15%) $ 32,940.00 $ 26,928.00 $ 36,720.00 $ 314,964.00 CM/Inspection/Contt Eng (15%) $ 32,940.00 $ 26,928.00 $ 36,720.00 $ 314,964.00 Total Cost $ 285,480.00 $ 233,376.00 $ 318,240.00 $ 2,729,688.00 A Attachment 7 (q Preliminary Cost Esimate - Indian Canyon 2-Way Conversion (Curb Bulbouts I sawcut 3100 LF $1.00 $ 3,100 10.500 95.000 62,500 189.000 106,600 466.700 93.340 560.040 Raised Medians Slurry Seal Sianina & Strioina Traffic Sianal Modifications Option 1: Camino Parocela Signal Option 2: ITraffic Round -About I I I I I I I I I I excavation 350 sidewalk 9500 curb and nutter 2500 ADA Ramp 42 Pavement Replacement 26 sawcut 400 excavation 75 curb and autter 400 fill 75 landscaoino 1800 Pavement Replacement 2 CY $30.00 $ SF $10.00 LF $25.00 EA $4.500.00 EA $4.100.00 $ Subtotal: S 20% S Total: S LF $1.00 CY $30.00 LF $25.00 CY $75.00 SF $5.00 EA $6.000.00 Subtotal: 20% Total: $ 400 $ 2,250 $ 10,000 $ 5,625 $ 9.000 $ 12.000 S 39.275 $ 7.8551 S 47.130 865 ITON $300.00 $ 259.500 1 LS $55.000 $ 55,000 8 EA $200.000 $ 1.600,000 Subtotal: $ 1.914.500 20% S 382.900 Total: S 2.297.400 1 EA $200.000 S 200.000 1 1 EA $600.000 S 600.000 Total Cost with Ootion 1: S 3.104.570 Total Cost with Option 2: $ 3.504.570 Deduction for Raised Medians: $ (47.1301 Total Cost (Recommended Options): S 3.457.440 Construction Manaaement/Inspection: S 259.308 Total Project Cost: 5 3.716.7481 1 96