Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/4/2013 - STAFF REPORTS - 5.B. A.�Q p ALM$,. iy v m ♦ R 4 V� R C9OIILTfO R Cg41F0RN�P City Council Staff Report DATE: December 4, 2013 NEW BUSINESS SUBJECT: INDIAN CANYON DRIVE TWO-WAY CONVERSION STUDY FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Public Works & Engineering SUMMARY: City Council approved an agreement with Albert Grover & Associates (AGA) to prepare the attached report which analyzes the issues of converting Indian Canyon Drive from "one-way" to "two-way" operation. The findings and recommendations are summarized below. (City Project 13-13) RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive and file report; and 2. Provide direction to staff concerning further action. STAFF ANALYSIS: Earlier this year City Council authorized AGA to prepare an analysis of proposed conversion of Indian Canyon Drive from one-way to two-way operation. The draft report was submitted and staff provided comments - AGA has submitted a final report for Council's consideration. Four alternatives were evaluated. 1) Two lanes northbound, one lane southbound, a two-way left turn lane and parallel parking on both sides as it currently exists. 2) Three lanes northbound, one lane southbound, a two-way left turn lane and parallel parking only on the west side of the street. REM NO. 5��_ City Council Staff Report December 4, 2013-- Page 2 Indian Canyon Drive Two-way Conversion Study 3) Three lanes northbound, one lane southbound, a two-way left turn lane and parallel parking only on the east side of the street. 4) Three lanes northbound with parallel parking on east side and angled parking on west side. Two-way operation cannot be provided with this alternative. Per this report, the existing one-way configuration operates with a better level of service and less travel time than any of the alternatives for current year and future years. Although all alternatives are projected to operate at acceptable levels of services, alternatives 2 and 3 are the most efficient of the two-way options. Alternative 4 will operate with slightly longer travel time but can provide approximately 20% more parking spaces on the west side utilizing angled parking. Part of the consultant's tasks was to evaluate the road section for bicycle use and bike route or bike lane designation. Currently, the City's adopted Non-Motorized plan lists Indian as a Class 3 Bike Route. The consultant found that the 64 foot road width does not accommodate a striped bike lane unless a vehicle lane or parking lane is eliminated. Keeping the parking and thru lanes as indicated in all 4 alternatives will permit bicyclists to "share" the road as is the current situation. However, "sharrow" markings may be utilized for all 4 alternatives. One-way streets are typically safer than two-way due to fewer conflicts between vehicles moving in opposite directions. Two-way operation can be expected to slightly increase the number of accidents. Angled parking and "sharrow" markings are not expected to have any effect on number of accidents. FISCAL IMPACT: The conversion to two-way traffic for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 is estimated to cost between $1 .4 to $1.75 million. The estimated cost for Alternative 4 is $100,000. Recommended by: Approved by: David J. Barakian David H. Ready, City Director of Public Works/City Engineer Attachments: 1. Albert Grover& Associates Study., "Indian Canyon Drive Two-Way Conversion" 02 r �L mr 6 _ter CANYONINDIAN . Two-WAYCONVERSION x. SUBMITTED TO CITY OF PALM . . a f i' p i SUBMITTED By a 4 »�M �1. r— s ALBERT• , • TE w #' 03 a " xt Table of Contents NIEW4_ TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Executive Summary........................................................ I Introduction 3 Existing Conditions 5 Alternative Street Configurations .................................................................... 11 TrafficVolume Projections................................................................ ..... ............... ........................... 15 Two-Way Conversion Project Year 2015...................... .... .......... .... ................................... 15 FutureYear 2035................ .................................................. ........... .................... ................ 15 TrafficAnalysis...................................................................... ...................................... .......................20 AnalysisMethodology............................................................. .... ......... ..... .........................20 Levelof Service Analysis................................................................. ............ ...................... 21 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ .............32 ImprovementsCost Estimates............................. .................................... ................................ .......... 33 UST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE IStudy Intersections.................................................................................. .......... .........4 2 Existing One-Way Roadway Configuration................ ..... ................ .................. ........ 6 3a & 3b Existing Intersection Geometrics....... .... .......... ........................... ........... ..................7 4a &415 Existing Year 2013 Midday and PM Volumes............................................................... 9 5a Two-Way Alternatives for Indian Canyon Drive........................................................... 12 5b Angle Parking Conversion for Indian Canyon Drive .... ................ .... ....................... 13 6a &6b Conversion Year 2015 Midday and PM Volumes. ..... ................................. .... ......... 16 7a &7b Future Year 2035 Midday and PM Volumes ............................................................... 18 ALSER'l 04 )VE le'dian Canyon 2-Way Conversion Study w,` ,' Table of Contents UST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Intersection Level of Service Criteria .......................................................................... 20 2a Intersection Level of Service for Existing Year 2013—Midday Peak..........................23 2b Intersection Level of Service for Existing Year 2013—PM Peak................................24 3 Arterial Level of Service for Existing Year 2013.......................................................... 25 4a Intersection Level of Service for Conversion Year 2015—Midday Peak.....................26 4b Intersection Level of Service for Conversion Year 2015—PM Peak...........................27 5 Arterial Level of Service for Conversion Year 2015 ....................................................28 6a Intersection Level of Service for Future Year 2035—Midday Peak............................29 6b Intersection Level of Service for Future Year 2035—PM Peak................................... 30 7 Arterial Level of Service for Future Year 2035............................................................31 8 Indian Canyon Drive Two-Way Conversion Cost Estimate......................................... 34 9 Indian Canyon Drive Alternative 4 Cost Estimate ....................................................... 35 TECHNICAL APPENDICES (Separate Report) APPENDIX A Intersection Level of Service Analyses—Existing Year 2013 (Midday and PM) B Intersection Level of Service Analyses—Conversion Year 2015 (Midday and PM) C Intersection Level of Service Analyses—Future Year 2035 (Midday and PM) D Arterial Level of Service Analyses—Existing Year 2013 (Midday and PM) E Arterial Level of Service Analyses—Conversion Year 2015 (Midday and PM) F Arterial Level of Service Analyses—Future Year 2035 (Midday and PM) 05 1�ts & 4 , Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Palm Springs has periodically been asked by Downtown business owners and/or operators to study the feasibility of converting Indian Canyon Drive from one-way to two-way operation in order to enhance access and circulation to businesses within the Downtown area. In 1998, Albert Grover& Associates (AGA), a municipal and transportation engineering consulting firm, prepared a traffic study which illustrated the feasibility of providing two-way traffic flow on Indian Canyon Drive between Camino Parocela to the south and Granvia Valmonte to the north. During the past 15 years a portion of Indian Canyon Drive (from Granvia Valmonte to Alejo Road) has actually been converted to provide two-way traffic flow. Additionally, two previously Stop controlled intersections along Indian Canyon Drive (La Plaza and Baristo Road) have been signalized. In light of the forthcoming redevelopment of the Palm Springs Promenade, the City has requested that AGA conduct an updated traffic engineering study to re-assess the feasibility of converting Indian Canyon Drive from one-way operation to two-way operation in the Downtown Palm Springs area. Because of available street widths, only Indian Canyon Drive is being evaluated. Pahn Canyon Drive is too narrow for similar consideration. In developing the two-way alternatives, it was important to consider the immediate as well as the long-term impacts of two-way traffic on Indian Canyon Drive; to minimize the costs associated with the conversion; and to provide improved accessibility to downtown businesses. Professional judgment indicates that, for all two-way conversion alternatives, a two-way left turn lane should be included to enhance access to businesses; that the signals on Indian Canyon Drive need to be linked together and synchronized to reduce delays and queuing; and that the section at the south end of Indian Canyon Drive between Ramon Road and Camino Parocela be retained as a one- way street to avoid the traffic control complexities of a potential five-legged intersection of Palm Canyon Drive/Indian Canyon Drive/Camino Parocela. Additionally, since Palm Canyon Drive provides three lanes for southbound traffic, it was assumed that southbound through traffic, destined beyond downtown, would continue using Palm Canyon Drive, and that primarily traffic with a destination on Indian Canyon Drive or traffic that is circulating in the downtown area would use the additional southbound lane on Indian Canyon Drive. It was also determined that if more than one southbound lane were to be implemented, there would be inadequate capacity for the northbound traffic demand, resulting in a poor/unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) and potential diversion of traffic away from the downtown area. The following four alternatives were evaluated for Indian Canyon Drive between Ramon Road and Alejo Road: Alternative 1: This two-way alternative would consist of two lanes northbound and one lane southbound with a two-way left turn lane. The existing parallel parking on both sides of Indian Canyon Drive will be retained for the most part. The existing 64-foot curb-to-curb street width allows three 12-foot travel lanes and a 12-foot two-way left turn lane with eight feet for parking on both sides of the street as exists today. Alternative 2: This two-way alternative would consist of three lanes northbound and one lane southbound with a two-way left turn lane. Parallel parking would only be allowed on the west side of the street. No parking would be allowed on the east side of the street (eliminating approximately 125 spaces). thus reducing overall downtown parking availability. The existing 64-foot curb-to-curb street width would allow for one 12-foot southbound lane, a 10-foot two- AjLBER 0 C GAaR V Executive Summary way left turn lane, three northbound lanes (I l'+11'+12') and an eight-foot parking lane on the west side of the street. Alternative 3: This two-way alternative is similar to Alternative 2 except that parallel parking is allowed only on the east side of the street. No parking would be allowed on the west side of the street (eliminating approximately 120 spaces). The lane widths would be similar to those in Alternative 2. Alternative 4: Pursuant to the City's request, this alternative considered angle parking along Indian Canyon Drive. Various degrees of angle parking (30, 45 or 60 degree) cannot be accommodated on both sides of Indian Canyon Drive with existing one-way lanes or any two- way conversion alternative within the 64-foot curb-to-curb street width. Furthermore, with two- way conversion, angle parking cannot be provided on only one side of the street because with that option, the street width would only accommodate three travel lanes rather than the required four lanes (one southbound through, a two-way left turn lane and two northbound through). An acceptable LOS can be achieve d ed by providing angle parking (60 degree from curb line) on one side while maintaining three standard 12-foot one- way northbound lanes with g parallel parking on the other side of Indian P P Canyon Drive. The analysis in this report included the angle parking on the west side and maintained parallel parking on the east side in order to provide better parking access to the downtown area. The existing 120 parallel parking spaces on the west side can be increased by approximately 20% with angle parking conversion between Ramon Road and Amado Road, Traffic flow transitions north of Amado Road are not compatible with angle parking,thus those parallel spaces would remain. In order to compare the existing one-way operation on Indian Canyon Drive with the two-way operation alternatives, existing traffic volumes were redistributed on the street network based on existing and projected traffic flow patterns, revised lane geometries, access to local businesses, land-use growth potential in the area and two-way operation capacity availability. There was no diversion of traffic away from the downtown. Intersection and arterial LOS analyses were conducted for the existing one-way condition and the four alternative configurations for the existing traffic volumes, projected two-way conversion year 2015 traffic volumes, and the future 2035 traffic volumes. Intersection and arterial LOS analyses were conducted by AGA engineering staff, aided by the Synchro Program. The analyses indicated that the existing geometric condition and all four alternative configurations operate at acceptable LOS during the midday and p.m. peak periods, for Year 2013, Year 2015 and Year 2035. Further, the analyses indicated that the existing one-way configuration on Indian Canyon Drive operates with slightly less travel time than any of the four alternatives for existing, Year 2015. and Year 2035 traffic volumes. This study concludes that it is feasible to convert Indian Canyon Drive between Ramon Road and Alejo Road into a two-way street (Alternatives 1, 2 or 3). Alternative 4 with three one-way lanes and angle parking on the west side and parallel parking on the east side is also a feasible alternative. Alternative 4 operates at an acceptable LOS and provides approximately 20% more parking spaces on the west side of Indian Canyon Drive. The cost to implement the conversion to two-way traffic on Indian Canyon Drive is estimated to be approximately $1.4 to $1.75 million. The cost estimate for Alternative 4 is in the range of $75 to $100 thousand. AQO,•4ost s AA 07 3,. Introduction INTRODUCTION Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive, between Camino Parocela and Alejo Road, currently function as a one-way couplet in Downtown Palm Springs, with Palm Canyon Drive serving the southbound traffic and Indian Canyon Drive serving the northbound traffic. In light of the forthcoming redevelopment of the Palm Springs Promenade, the City has requested that AGA conduct an updated traffic engineering study to assess the feasibility of converting Indian Canyon Drive from one-way operation to two-way operation in the Downtown Palm Springs area. Because of available street widths, only Indian Canyon Drive is being evaluated. Palm Canyon Drive is too narrow for similar consideration. AGA's previous 1998 study had shown the feasibility (if two-way traffic flow on Indian Canyon Drive, between Camino Parocela on the south and Granvia Valmonte on the north, in Downtown Palm Springs. This report provides updates reflecting conditions that have changed in the past fifteen years. With several notable exceptions, the relatively minor amount of development/redevelopment that has occurred along Indian Canyon Drive since 1998 means that much of the "groundwork" previously conducted by AGA is still valid. Two major changes in the area since the 1998 study are the addition of the Downtown Parking Structure (which is located on the corner of Indian Canyon Drive and Baristo Road and provides approximately 300 parking spaces) and the conversion of one block of Indian Canyon Drive (between Granvia Valmonte and Alejo Road) from one-way to two-way operation. Other changes include the signalization of the following intersections: • Andreas Road at Palm Canyon Drive • La Plaza at Palm Canyon Drive • La Plaza at Indian Canyon Drive • Baristo Road at Indian Canyon Drive As part of evaluating two-way operation on Indian Canyon Drive between Camino Parocela and Alejo Road, a total of 28 intersections were identified for analysis purposes. A total of 23 intersections are located on Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive, while five intersections are located on Calle Encilia. The study intersections are identified in Figure 1. It should be noted that even though the intersections of Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive at Vista Chino, and the intersections of Alejo Road, Amado Road, Tahquitz Canyon, Arenas and Ramon Road at Calle El Segundo were analyzed in the 1998 report, they are not analyzed in this report, as the previous report determined that there is no significant impact on these intersection resulting from the two-way conversion of Indian Canyon Drive. The study procedure involved evaluating the study route and the 28 study intersections for the existing configuration (2013) and for change-over to a two-way configuration for both the conversion year (assumed to be 2015) and for the future year (2035); identifying improvements needed to accommodate the two-way traffic; and preparing cost estimates. The intersection and arterial Level of Service (LOS) analyses were conducted using the procedures contained in the Highway Capacity Manual. 08 RT G-TT ° °S A A K;4 Introduction VISTA CHINO 111 d d 0 0 Z N V ✓� a m a � � m 1 13 TACHEVAH RD. _o z Q W y > a o 3 2 14 TAMARISK RD. GRANVIA VALMONTE 3 15 4 16 24 ALEJO RD. 'a 5 17 25 AMADO RD. 3 i p ANDREAS z W 6 18 a RD. ANDREAS RD. W J 19 26 TAHOUITZ CANYON W 8 20 9 21 7 ARENAS RD, BARISTO 10 RD. 22 BARISTO RD. W 5 m s � RAMON RD. 11 3 28 12 CAMINO PAROCELA LEGEND r J SUNNY DUNES RD. STUDY ROUTE ©X INTERSECTION NUMBER NOT To SCALE ---- FUTURE ALIGNMENT STUDY INTERSECTIONS FIGURE 1 ALBAvg r E 0 9 ASE ___ . Existing Conditions EXISTING CONDITIONS Indian Canyon Drive between Camino Parocela on the south and Alejo Road on the north is a one-way roadway serving the northbound traffic, while Palm Canyon Drive serves the southbound traffic, in Downtown Palm Springs. Indian Canyon Drive north of Alejo Road and Palm Canyon Drive north of Granvia Valmonte are two-way roadways with two lanes in each direction for the northbound and southbound traffic. Indian Canyon Drive has four travel lanes with parking on both sides of the street. The curb-to-curb street width on Indian Canyon Drive between Camino Parocela and Alejo Road is 64 feet, and 60 feet between Alejo Road and Granvia Valmonte. The lanes are 12-feet wide. The existing one-way configuration for Indian Canyon Drive and Palm Canyon Drive is shown in Figure 2. The City of Palm Springs Bikeways map shows Indian Canyon Drive as a Class III Bike Route (trails provide for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic and do not have on-street striping, but are signed) between Racquet Club Road and Ramon Road. Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive, along with nine cross-streets, provide local access and circulation in the downtown area. A majority of the intersections, along with several mid- block pedestrian crossings in the study area, are signalized. The existing lane geometries for all study intersections are provided in Figures 3a and 3b. Year 2013 existing p.m. peak turning movement counts and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts were provided by the City. A review of the 24-hour traffic volumes indicates that the ADT on Indian Canyon Drive between Ramon Road and Tahquitz Canyon Way is approximately 13,700 vehicles per day. This is a 20% decrease from the 17,800 ADT counts collected in 1996 for the previous study. Additionally. the traffic counts indicate that the peak hour is during the midday, generally between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., but no count data was available for this period. Indian Canyon Drive carries an average of 10% more vehicles during the midday than during the "traditional"4:00-6:00 p.m. peak period. To calculate 2013 midday peak hour turning movement volumes, a 10% increase was applied to the 2013 p.m. peak turning movement counts. The existing traffic volumes for all study intersections are provided in Figures 4a and 4b. Note that the only significant change between the 1996 and 2013 turning movement volumes at the study intersections were at the intersections of Palm Canyon/Granvia Valmonte, Palm Canyon/Alejo, Indian Canyon/Granvia Valmonte, and Indian Canyon/Alejo. This change was due to the two- way conversion of Indian Canyon Drive and Palm Canyon Drive between Granvia Valmonte and Alejo Road. Level of Service (LOS) analyses at the study intersections were conducted for both the midday and the p.m. peak periods. Intersection and arterial LOS were analyzed using Synchro Software. An analysis of existing LOS at the study intersections during both the midday and p.m. peak periods indicates a LOS of B or better. LOS analyses worksheets are provided in Appendix A. The existing arterial LOS for Indian Canyon Drive between Camino Parocela and Tachevah Drive is LOS C. Arterial LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix D. ALBERT O G ROVER &�s � . I 1 I Existing Conditions �I 1 MATCH LINE I .- it I i_ GRANVIA ;'i VALMONTE TAHOUITZ _11 CANYON .r!!.!m WAY II • I 1 " 11 ' II 1 �j j I III 11 I I w II W III �_ �_ W it 41 W i 1}I 11 C, 111 , C, 11 1 I it 111 � II � j 11 111 II I II I II ALEJO 114 I____ ROAD anawwc�01 4 :'' I I I I I I I 111 ARENAS II I11 ROAD I 1 • I i _ __ _ I I ♦�11 I I I I I I I 111 I I III I I I I I I I 111 I I II I `I 1 I I I I II 111AE II III I 1 II I GaEEu III m Z 14- Z II I m O z Y j m_ 11 I11 ZC) I f Q II V 1 1 11 III �I l SARISTO 1 ROAD 11 YI 1f _______ I I _______ ,) "'All,.sx.= 11I I11 .r�r u 1 ' I I Q m Q Z d I Z III II III I — III II III I 1 III II III I I 1�1 II Z III AMADO 1 I ROAD z O Z iii z i i Q 11 ill U II C) 111 II III li I11 11 I11 11 III z L Q NOT TO SCALE �- II III II III II III II III 11 iii lii iii ANDREAS 111 ROAD RAMON ROAD 2_A1 w STTRE"ET III 111� I I I 111 III �'� III III 111 111 III _,_® I11 Illl Iil nv5mory auu I I I 111 Ali 111 III Il,P 111 I11 \\\\\ III III III MATCH LINE CAMINO PAROCELA EXISTING ONE-WAY p ROADWAY CONFIGURATION FIGURE 2 H i.BERT C—ROVE IATE5 _ ' ' Existing Conditions 1.Tachevah&Palm Canyon Y 2.Tamarisk BPalm Canyon 3. Granvia ValanwnteB Palm Canyon 4.Alela&Palm Canyon t t - ►I t 'F 5.Amado&Palm Canyon 6.Andreas&Palm Canyon 1. Tahqum,Canyon&Palm Canyon B. 11 Plaza&Palm Canyon - 11t r «-11� Ir 14* X- z � 9.Arenas&Palm Canyon 10. Bansto&Palm Canyon 11. Raman 8 Palm Canyon 12. Camino Parocgla&Indian Canyon 411 �4 T'I Z I zI T. I �ltt f 13.Tachevah&Indian Canyon 14. Tamarsk&Indian Canyon 15.Granvia Valamonte&Indian Canyon 16.Alejo&Indian Canyon L 4J11L4 r 41L4 + iiL4 q+ 41-1L z �tt(► + +)tt-+ +� ® Signalized Existing Intersection Geometrics, J- Stop controlled FIGURE 3a ALsERT 12 ROVER & XU � KS - e Existing Conditions 17.Amada&Indian Canyon 18. Andreas&Indian Canyon 19.Taliquitz Canyon&Indian Canyon 20. La Plaza&Indian Canyon L t � L F ftt-+ ftfiF 4ttt 2t 7venas&Indian Canyon 22. Earisto&Indian Canyon 23. Ramon&Indian Canyon 24. AJelo&CaIIe Encilia L •r +T, 25.Amado&Calla Encilia 26. Tahquitz Canyon&Calla Encilia 27.Arena&Calla Encilia 29. Ramon&CaIIe Encilia �r «- 4 r +4L + 4j r -srl� '1 t i� h t r' b h + M signalized =Existingntersection Geometries. -A" Stop controlled FIGURE 3b HT.RERT 13 ROVER & ^" -ROVER IAT _ 1 ;" = Existing Conditions 1.Tachavah&Palm Canyon 2.Tamarisk&Palm Canyon 3.Grarsia VaWmoMe&Palm Canyon 4.Alejo&Palm Canyon Z 106196 53AS Z 35132 1, 97189 22J20 4 S 84177 + + L+ 58152 m 4 .r 52J48 +j + 4 71165 26/24...r 918 J 70164 918� e' 414-1� _ 11T109-11111. 26124- a 18116-:I_ e e 302 5.Amadu&Palm Canyon 6.Andress&Palm Canyon 7.Tahpuit Canyon&Palm Canyon S.La Plan&Palm Canyon 57152 - - $ 1411128 4 m + r 1771161 + 4 r 12J11 m m r 1441131 + r "76 5N48 2681243 49/44 1401128 9.Arenas&Palm Canyon 10. aimsto&Palm Canyon 11, Ramon&Palm Canyon 12.Camino Parocela&Indian Canyon t 26124 m f� 57152 79172 -_ C '~ 172J156 m L ,r 74166 +jo r 84n6 + m 4 -c- 2611237 +j + 4 1141103 18116 75M 1 62156 1551140---► 414 - e 6&60 75M 48144 Z 26124 m 13.Tadwah&Indian Canyon 14.Tamarisk&Indian Canyon 16 Ganda Valamome&Indian Canyon 16.Alejo&Indian Canyon Z 105195 Z 26I24 Z 24R2 Z 1851168 99J90 - - 22120 _ v f�12/11 a 153l140 r 26124 r 13112 4-1 + 4 r 18n6 +j L4 204 13112 J 19117 40136 04176 - e ,'. 27124 S 12A1 e _ 1551141 _ A 13112 26124 Z m 12111 m M1 Midday/PM Existing Year 2013 Midday and PM Volumes FIGURE 4a ^^ 14 ALBERT GROVER & Existing Conditions 17.Amado&Indian Canyon 18.Andreas 8 Indian Canyon 19,Tahqua Canyon&Indian Canyon 20.La Plana&Indian Canyon 88180 99l89 Z1761160 102132 159)1a4 ? 40136 S 11170 r 101/92 J 101,00 J `a a 19&180-1� C5 _ 21.Arenes&Indian Canyon 22.Bamdo&Indian Canyon 23. Ramon&Indian Canyon 24.Alejo&Calle Encilla Z 53148 326/297 �• 57152 302/275 1841167 120/109 101193 J h f f 2651241 ,' 84776 S h 66160�� 8 m m 3 _ 312284 4331393 m 10&36 2&Amado&Calls Enciia 26.Tahqub Canyon&Calls Enulia 27.Arena&Calle Encilia 28, Ramon&Celle Encilia Z 66/60 t 40136 t 4213e t 1451132 � 50145 a _ 3631330 ' _ e m m 19117 e a 6061651 ? ,r 44/40 + f r 101192 « 4 r 55150 +j 4 4 ,r 13/12 31128 J 31128 S h 37/34 S h 44140 h 1541140 26W" C QR — " —y 0 28125�� j 4371398�� a 124l113 m 62156 m 37134 f 4/4 Z Existing Year 2013 Midday/PM Midday and PM Volumes FIGURE 0 ALBERT s GRATES` =" _wc _ Alternative Street Configurations ALTERNATIVE STREET CONFIGURATIONS In conjunction with City staff, AGA developed various alternatives to be evaluated that would provide two-way traffic on Indian Canyon Drive between Camino Parocela and Alejo Road. In developing the two-way alternatives, the following important factors were taken into consideration: • Immediate as well as the long-term impacts of two-way traffic on Indian Canyon Drive. • Minimizing the costs associated with the conversion. • Providing improved accessibility to downtown businesses. Based on field review observations and findings, it was determined that the alternatives being evaluated would be based on the following assumptions/conditions: 1. Currently Palm Canyon Drive provides three lanes for southbound traffic. It is assumed that southbound through traffic would continue using Palm Canyon Drive. Therefore. only one southbound lane was considered for Indian Canyon Drive, thereby maximizing the remaining available street width for northbound tragic and/or parking. Typically, only the traffic with a destination on Indian Canyon Drive or traffic that is circulating in the downtown area would use the new southbound portion of Indian Canyon Drive. 2. Due to the many driveways on Indian Canyon Drive. and for safety and circulation reasons, a continuous two-way left turn lane that provides enhanced access to the businesses is included in all two-way conversion alternatives. Standard left-tum pockets are provided at each intersection. 3. The intersection of Indian Canyon Drive/Palm Canyon Drive/Camino Parocela would require additional right-of-way and/or major reconfiguration to operate efficiently if a two-way operation is implemented on Indian Canyon Drive south of Ramon Road. Therefore, in order to avoid re-configuring the intersection of Indian Canyon Drive/Camino Parocela, the existing one- way configuration on Indian Canyon Drive between Camino Parocela and Ramon Road is retained for all alternatives. 4. Traffic signal coordination must be maintained on Indian Canyon Drive to reduce delays and stops. Due to the close proximity of the downtown intersections on both Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Canyon Drive, the signals should be coordinated to provide minimum queues and delays to side street traffic as well as north-south traffic. 5. Indian Canyon Drive currently does not have striped bike lanes, meaning bicyclists share the road. The 64-foot road width does not accommodate striped bike lanes; therefore this study assumed that bicyclists will continue to share the road and any Bike Route would have to be a Class 3. The following four alternative street configurations were evaluated for Indian Canyon Drive between Ramon Road and Alejo Road. The alternatives are shown on Figures 5a and 5b. �Tgp�SCIATES Alternative Street Configurations IN r s r J r — — — — — — — — — — — r � T T T T T T T T T T 1 ----------N r T T r F41 ALTERNATIVE 1 r s r s r - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — r NO PARKING ALTERNATIVE 2 ^H NO PARKING N � r J, r J r — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1. ALTERNATIVE 3 NOT TO SCALE TWO-WAY ALTERNATIVES FOR FIGURE 5a INDIAN CANYON DRIVE ^ i7 L13ERT _.____ GROVER AsSOLIATEs _. y � ,7 LAI 1714 1M- r ap ILI P� •%b �'_' '.., � � =" \,,,^ �;. ' ' � ,�. •vr. �� 1 „ems'- I _ iI L, —�� Ir„ : INp(AN CANY '� mom-•'c. - ` �, _ rp,. ,,t'?t� �..1J''T' �•1 _ CA Qy��Q� �` y_Q _ 1 O ... --— q- .• •� —_ Yam^ ` r . t, ):^+ i_ RAMON ROAD AD ? Id.— 'WBIAWCA DRIV I . .lti; �e•; r;r-rrlv�,--i rr I I .' f! -- - _ � -- =S b .. . .� ' � � I=� � li ,- �•� � y � —, ii.;• Sl..�ir �� �'�_•_-,1 V� .�,�t,,'r � ,�..: r �r���"n r -` �t��f:... SATURNINO ROAD I N '` �c y� I ARENAS ROAD ,. L INDIAN- RAC i4 ` j •• ti 1, pq�IAN NYbN DFiI _ , skv , EQ _ - lop -_ r CANYON,WAY \._ C el ANmREEAS INDIAN CANYON DRIVE d-= IND ' CANYO DRIVE lk Z ,r�' r—T— I, �Cf` r ` ��yS•O���A9�l.��•1�a ai - •', • __ l— ', _. � _ Q FjAA'A/4D0 ROADa LAC- ANGLE PARKING CONVERSION FOR INDIAN CANYON DRIVE oa ALTERNATIVE 4 FIGURE 5b Ass9ciaxEs is Alternative Street Configurations Alternative 1: This two-way alternative would consist of two lanes northbound and one lane southbound with a two-way left turn lane. The existing parking on both sides of Indian Canyon Drive will be retained for the most part. The existing 64-foot curb-to-curb street width allows three 12-foot travel lanes and a 12-foot two-way left turn lane with eight feet for parking on both sides of the street. Alternative 2: This two-way alternative would consist of three lanes northbound and one lane southbound with a two-way left turn lane. Parking is allowed only on the west side of the street. No parking is allowed on the east side of the street (eliminating approximately 125 parking spaces). The existing 64-foot curb-to-curb street width allows for one 12-foot southbound lane, a 10-foot two-way left turn lane, three northbound lanes (I I'+1 I'+12') and an eight-foot parking lane on the west side of the street. Alternative 3: This two-way alternative is similar to Alternative 2 except that parking is allowed only on the east side of the street. No parking is allowed on the west side of the street (eliminating approximately 120 parking spaces). The lane widths will be similar to Alternative 2. Alternative 4. Pursuant to the City's request, this alternative considered angle parking along Indian Canyon Drive. Various degrees of angle parking (30, 45 or 60 degree) cannot be accommodated on both sides of Indian Canyon Drive with existing one-way lanes or any two- way conversion alternative within the 64-foot curb-to-curb street width. Furthermore, with two- way conversion, angle parking cannot be provided on only one side of the street because with that option, the remaining street width would only accommodate three travel lanes rather than the required four lanes (one southbound through, a two-way left turn lane and two northbound through). With the existing one-way operation, providing angle parking on both sides would reduce Indian Canyon Drive to two travel lanes and increase delay due to parking maneuvers, resulting in unacceptable LOS. The reason that two lanes are inadequate with angle parking is because both lanes are impacted by parking maneuvers, while in Alternative I two lanes are adequate due to parking maneuvers only occurring on one side of the two lanes. An acceptable LOS can be achieved by providing angle parking (60 degree from curb line) on one side while maintaining three standard 12-foot one-way northbound lanes with parallel parking on the other side of Indian Canyon Drive. The 60 degree angle parking was selected for this alternative because it provides more parking spaces than the existing, whereas 30 or 45 degree angle parking reduces the existing parking spaces (by approximately 5 to 15%). The analysis in this report included the angle parking on the west side and maintained parallel parking on the east side in order to provide better parking access to the downtown area. The existing 120 parallel parking spaces on the west side can be increased by approximately 20% with angle parking conversion between Ramon Road and Amado Road. Traffic flow transitions north of Amado Road are not compatible with angle parking, thus those parallel spaces would remain. Safety concerns include accidents/near-accidents due to wrong-way turns into the one-way sections of both Indian Canyon Drive and Palm Canyon Drive. While a two-way street could potentially reduce the number of these occurrences, they would not be eliminated completely, as they also occur on normal two-way streets due to driver mistakes. It should be noted that one- way streets are typically safer than two-way streets, as they provide fewer conflicts between vehicles moving in opposite directions. It can be expected that there would be more accidents in total with two-way operations on Indian Canyon Drive than currently with one-way operations. There is no significant difference in number of accidents with angle parking versus parallel 1paarrkiiing, Traffic Volume Projections TRAFFIC VOLUME PROJECTIONS Two-Way Conversion Project Year 2015 In order to compare the existing one-way operation on Indian Canyon Drive with a two-way operation, the existing traffic volumes were redistributed based on existing and projected traffic flow patterns, revised lane geometries, access to local businesses, land-use growth potential in the area and two-way operation capacity availability. There was no diversion of traffic away from the downtown area, and in order to analyze worse case conditions the southbound volume that was allocated to Indian Canyon Drive did not get deducted from the southbound Palm Canyon Drive volumes. For analysis purposes the conversion year for two-way operation on Indian Canyon Drive was assumed to be Year 2015. A 1% growth factor was applied to existing Year 2013 traffic volumes to determine Year 2015 traffic volumes. Year 2015 two-way conversion traffic volumes are provided in Figure 6a and 6b. Due to the proposed redevelopment of the Palm Springs Promenade, the City requested that Andreas Road be analyzed as a two-way roadway between Indian Canyon Drive and Palm Canyon Drive with access to the PromenadeBelardo Road on the west side. Traffic volumes were provided by the City from the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study prepared by Endo Engineering, September 2008. Future Year 2035 Future Year 2035 traffic volumes are based on review and comparison of traffic data collected for the 1998 report and existing Year 2013 traffic data provided by the City. Considering the proposed redevelopment of the Palm Springs Promenade and the City's efforts in revitalizing the Palm Springs Downtown Area, a 15% growth was applied to existing traffic volumes to determine future Year 2035 traffic volumes. The Year 2035 future traffic volumes at the study intersections are provided in Figures 7a and 7b. A BERT 20 GAVE. ORe c Traffic Volume Projections 1.Tachewh&Palm Canyon 2.Tamarisk&Palm Canyon 3.Gnanyia Vasmonte&Palm Canyon 4.Alejo&Palm Canyon R Z 107197 53149 Z 35l32 Z 98/89 ^y 4 r 80173 r + 4 r 58,53 m 4 r53148 ,j 27124J sra J �') 71164 -r 918 414—p, 1201110 27124 18116—71- v 36132 5.Amadu&Palm Canyon 6.Andreas&Palm Canyon 7.Tahquitz Canyon&Palm Canyon S. Ia Plana&Palm Canyon zs m c e e F 58152 a 1001105 f -*—142J129 17BM62 + + 4 r 12/11 r 1451132 r &5V 54149 1041104yi 270/246—► 48/44 Z 63164 142/129--)_ 9.Arenas&Palm Canyon 10. 9arislo&Palm Canyon 11.Raman&Palm Canyon 12. Camino ParoceW&Indian Canyon r, a 2724 58153 o a o .�BOR3 f-- 1741158 a 918 4 r 7W r 84177 +J M239 +J L+ 1157106 18116 J 76)69 —► 62157 1661142—0- °J 414 c 66M 75169 Z 49144 Z 27124--1, m 13. Tacheyah&Intlian Canyon 14.Tamarisk&Indian Canyon 15.Gramia va...&Indian Canyon 16. Alejo&Indian Canyon `10&96 Z 27124 Z 24122 Z 186/169 1009t a 27/20 C 12111 < � ^_ � � 1551141 r 27124 r t3n2 + 4 1- 18176 +J + 4 r 2220 27124 J 13112 J 19118 W82 J 85777 2724 ��', ry�" 12111 a 156A42 13112 27124 Z m Z 12111 1801164 Z / Conversion Year 2015 Midday PM Midday and PM Volumes FIGURE 6a HA r 1 PERT ROVER e a w' Traffic Volume Projections 17.Amado&Indian Canyon 18.Andreas&Indian Canyon 19. Tahquitz Canyon&Indian Canyon 20.La Clara&Indian Canyon 88180 ` 120/135 ` 1781162 102+s3 f— 10/11 f— 16al46 +J + 44/40 +J + L4 r W50 +J L r 56/50 � + 40136.5 162/146 S 1741158--r 111/1011' sv14s� _ 22128 y 20182-� a e 22120-1_ f f 56150 _ 2N5 m Z 33130� 21.Arenas&Intlian Canyon 22. Banao&Indian Canyon 23. Raman&Indian Canyon 24.AIejo&Calle Encilia 91 53/49 t 329✓300 ' 9 _> 58153 ;, � � m � 305/278 �4— 1867169 + C 22120 + + +J 4 r 1211110 103/94— } 2671243 J 84/77 J h f 67/61—IP 54 54 m 315/287 —► d 4371397 'y ° _ 28/25Z _ 3380� "' 109199 25. Amado&Calla Encilia 25.Tahquitz Canyon&Cane Encilia 27.Arena&Cane Encilia 20. Ramon&Cane Encilia g t 67161 L 40/37 42138 t 1461133 o � 3671334 — 1W17 61vs56 ,.J , r 44/40 � r 107193 , " L4 r 500 i, C- 13112 31128 31/28 r+ 38/34 �' 44140 - 155/144--p. 2711247 m `V ^ 1 Q 2825�� 4411402—� f 125;114 m 6236 Z m 38/34 f 414 Conversion Year 2015 Midday/PM Midday and PM Volumes FIGURE 6b H i aERT 22 GA°`Gs . Indian Canvon 2-Way Conversion Traffic Volume Projections 1.Tachevah&Palm Canyon 2. Tamarisk&Palm Canyon 3. Grsnvia valamome&Palm Can on Y 4.Alejo&Palm Canyon Z imill 60155 Z 40137 1111102 25/23 + 4 -r 90783 + + 4 65/60 W 4 X-60155 +J + 4 81/74 30127 J 41,556 1 80,73.S 41,556---J. _ 41,399y — e _ 1361725 a _ a 3o28Z. 20118Z f 40/37 5.Amado&Palm Canyon 6.Andress&Palm Canyon 7. Tahquiu Canyon&Palm Canyon 8. La Place&Palm Canyon is o ` " 65l60 1131120 e _ -4-- 1601747 ` + 4 r 2011185 +J + 4 r 14/12 fj H r 164,151 4 9 5M 60/55 117f119 30a1280—► 55150� 71172--4, 159114Y-, 9.Arenas&Palm Canyon 10. Barislo&Palm Canyon 11.Ramon&Palm Canyon 12. Camino Pamcela&Indian Canyon h 3027 6co 90103 m F 1961180 ? 41.556 yz +J 4 r a 4 1-95187 +) 4 r 2361272 � 4 r 129/119 20118 S 85/78 —► 70165 1761162—► 41.399 75169 -1 85778 55151 Z 3028 13. TaeAevah&Indian Canyon %.Tamarisk&Indian Canyon 15.Gramla yalamorna Indian Canyon 16.Mein&Indian Canyon $ Z 1191110 Z 30127 L 27125 L 210/193 112/103 a 'a 8, 2923 C m 14112 1741160 r 3028 y r 15114 +J 4 r 20/19 +J + 4 r 25123 3012T J 15/14 2220 101/93 95188 —► 3028 14112 m m a 17&162 c a 15/14 m 30/28 14112 2min Z m / Future Year 2035 Midday PM Midday and PM Volumes FIGURE 7a HT.BERT 23 GA°oRe ' Traffic Volume Projections 17.Amado&Intlian Canyon 18.Andreas&Indian Canyon 19.Ta6Quh Canyon&Indian Canyon 20.La Pima&Indian Canyon 99N7 L 1351154 Z 2OW184 c 175/106 41,597 m m �— 1817166 + 50/46 +J + 4 r 62158 +J + 4 r 62/58 +J + 45141 J +1 f 1821166 J 196180,J 1251115-r 1811166y 25732--.p. aa 225207--.► 2523- 62/58� _ 31/29 38134 Z 21.Arenas&Intlian Canyon 22. Badsk&Indian Canyon 23. Ramon&Indian Canyon 24.Alejo&Celle Encilia 60/55 t 37113341 N e a 65160 „�, �— 3441316 2091192 + 4 25123 + +J 4 r 136/125 ? 1161107� 1 t 301277 J 95/87 J � f f 75169-1111� m 359326 -� V' >r 492/452 —111� 31129� 36134 R , 1221112 25.Amado&Celle Encilia 26.Taliquih Canyon&Celle Encilia 27.Arena&Calle Eneilia 28.Ramon&Celle Encilia t 76169 t 45/42 t 48/44 m r t 164l151 56152 4131300 C o�i' R''' 21120 ,�, 3 6081633 +Jf 4 r 50746 +JN 4 r lum6 +Jry 4 r 6Z58 4 r 15114 35132 J 35132 —:r h 42/39 ,f h 50146 --r 22 L1411130 1�� N 305281 �� n 31129�� f 4971457� 70164 42139 f 41.399 / Future Year 2035 Midday PM Midday and PM Volumes FIGURE 7b GAOVER & Z 4 SO CIA Sate, Traffic Analysis TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Intersection and arterial Level of Service (LOS) analyses were conducted for the existing one- way configuration and the four alternative configurations for the existing traffic conditions; for the two-way conversion Year 2015 traffic conditions; and for the future Year 2035 traffic conditions. Intersection and arterial Level of Service (LOS) analyses were conducted using the Synchro Program. Analysis Methodology The Highway Capacity Manual defines the intersection Level of Service (LOS) in terms of average vehicle delay. The LOS values range from LOS A, with an average vehicle delay of less than ten seconds, indicating excellent conditions to a LOS F, with an average delay of more than 80 seconds, typically indicating oversaturated conditions. The LOS criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections based on the HCM methodology is provided in Table 1. Table 1: Intersection Level of Service Criteria Average Total Delay Per Vehicle Level of Service (seconds)and (LOS) Type of Intersection Control Signalized Unsignalizedl STOP Controlled ,,A-,_(minimal delay) < 10 < 10 - ----- (short delays > 10 and <20 > 10 and < 15 C (average delay) > 20 and <35 > 15 and < 25 .-__.-.. —- - ................... D (long delay) > 35 and < 55 >25 and < 35 E (very long delays > 55 and < 80 > 35 and < 50. .. F extreme delay/jammed) > 80 > 50 ..-..._ Additionally, the Highway Capacity Manual provides procedures to evaluate the LOS of an existing or proposed facility for the purpose of planning, design or operation of arterials. The methodology does not address arterial capacity, which is generally determined by the capacity of the arterial's signalized intersections. The operation of vehicles on arterial streets is influenced by three main factors: the arterial environment, the interaction between vehicles, and the effect of traffic signals. The Highway Capacity Manual defines the arterial LOS in terms of average through vehicle travel speeds. The average travel speed includes the delays such as those caused at intersections as well as those due to parking maneuvers, lane changes, vehicles entering or exiting the roadway through various driveways, level of pedestrian activity, the proportion of buses and trucks, and turning movements. The Synchro program utilized is compatible with the Highway Capacity Manual. The Synchro program assumes the analyzed one-lane southbound on Indian E � 25 ' Traffic Analysis Canyon Drive as an arterial for determining arterial LOS. Operationally the southbound lane functions as a"downtown" type street for downtown circulation. Level of Service Analysis Analysis results indicate that with the Existing Year 2013, Year 2015 (Conversion Year), and Future Year 2035 the current one-way configuration, as well as all of the studied alternatives, operate at an acceptable LOS during the peak hours. All of the study intersections operate at LOS C or better during the midday and the p.m. peak hours. Additionally, the Arterial Level of Service for Indian Canyon Drive between Camino Parocela and Tachevah Drive is LOS C or better for the various alternatives. • Existing Year 2013 midday and p.m. peak hour intersection LOS analyses results for the various alter natives are summarized in Tables 2a and 2b. The results of existingYear 2013 arterial LOS analyses for the existing condition and the four alternative scenarios are summarized in Table 3. • Year 2015 intersection LOS are summarized in Tables 4a and 4b for the midday and p.m. peak hours and the intersection LOS wo rksheets are. provided in Appendix B. The results PP of arterial LOS analyses for the Year 2015 traffic volumes are summarized in Table 5. Year 2015 Arterial LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix E. • Year 2035 intersection LOS are summarized in Tables 6a and 6b for the midday and p.m. peak hours. Intersection LOS worksheets for Year 2035 are provided in Appendix C. The results of arterial LOS analyses for the Year 2035 traffic volumes are summarized in Table 7. Year 2035 Arterial LOS worksheets are provided in Appendix F. The arterial LOS analyses indicated that the existing geometrics and all four alternatives operate at LOS C during the midday and p.m. peak periods, for Year 2013, Year 2015 and Year 2035. Even though all alternatives operate at LOS C, the calculated arterial speeds are slightly different for each alternative. The speeds for Alternative 1 are slightly slower than the other alternatives because it only provides two northbound lanes while the other alternatives provide three northbound lanes. Alternative 2 has higher northbound speeds than Alternative 3 and 4 because parking is not provided on the east side of the street for Alternative 2 but it 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 has better speeds than Alternative 2. Further, the analyses indicate that the Existing configurations on Indian Canyon Drive operate at a slightly higher speed (and, therefore, slightly better LOS), for existing, Year 2015 and Year 2035 traffic volumes, than any of the four alternatives. Both this study and the 1998 study results show that it is viable to reduce the number of northbound lanes on Indian Canyon Drive and provide a single southbound lane, enhancing access to downtown businesses. The previous study concluded that the southbound lane would operate basically as a downtown local street and not as a through arterial street. In this study, primarily because of the reduction in traffic volumes mostly due to the recession, the Synchro Arterial Analysis shows that the southbound lane operates as an arterial street and functions the VER & = L• w r Traffic Analysis same as the northbound lanes. If traffic volumes increase greater than what is projected in this study, the findings of the previous study may be more reflected of traffic flow operational LOS. This means that the three northbound lanes can function with acceptable LOS, but the new southbound lane may function at a lesser LOS, however it will enhance circulation and still provide acceptable operation as a "downtown" type street, not as an arterial intended to carry through traffic. All four alternatives permit bicyclists to continue to share the road. "Sharrow" markings (shared lane marking) can also be utilized for all four alternatives. 27 Traffic Analysis Table 2a: Intersection Level of Service for Existing Year 2013-Midday Peak No. Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2&3 Alternative 4 Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay-1 LOS Delay LOS 1 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 9.2 A 9.9 A 9.0 A 9.2 A 2 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 5.1 A 42 A 4.4 A 4.9 A 3 N.Palm Canyon Drive C.Granvia Valmonte 8.6 A 7.0 A 7.9 A 8.3 A 4 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 11.2 B 11.9 B 12 1 B 12.5 B 5 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 6.2 A 7.5 A 7.6 A 7-5 A 6 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 1.0 A 1.0 A 0.9 A 1.0 A 7 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 182 B 18.9 B 14.0 B 14.9 B 8 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.5 A 7.7 A 4.0 A 4.6 A 9 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 8.1 A 9.1 A 7.6 A 7.7 A 10 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 7.2 A 9.4 A 7.2 A 7.0 A I I S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 16.6 B 16.2 B 16.1 B 16.2 B 12 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Camino Parocela 10.1 B 11.0 B 102 B 9.9 A 13 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 6.1 A 7.5 A 6.5 A 6.1 A 14 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 13.0 B 12.8 B 12.4 B 12.5 B 15 Indian Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmonte 2.9 A 2.9 A 2.9 A 2.9 A 16 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 11.7 B 14.9 B 12.6 B 13.9 B 17 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 8.5 A 9.4 A 7.5 A 9.6 A IS Indian Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 4.9 A 7.2 A 6.5 A 4.8 A 19 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 7.4 A 13.3 B 11.9 B 6.9 A 20 Indian Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.2 A 7.0 A 3.9 A 4.3 A 21 Indian Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 6.7 A 8.8 A 6.6 A 6.8 A 22 Indian Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 8.7 A 8.9 A 7.8 A 9.2 A 23 Indian Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 12.3 B 17.3 B 14.5 B 11.7 B 24 N.Calle Encilia @ W.Alejo Road 5.4 A 5.2 A 5.3 A 5.4 A 25 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Amado Road 10.6 B 10.6 B 10.6 A 10.6 B 26 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 11.6 B 11.0 B 12.9 B 11.6 B 27 S.Calle Encilia @ Arenas Road 10.3 B 10.3 B 10.3 B 10.3 B 28 S.Calle Encilia @ Ramon Road 18.6 B 23.8 C 1 22.3 C 19.8 B ERT 8 f�AOVER & ASSOCLATES _ Indian Caiqon 2-Way Conversion Study Traffic Analysis Table 2b: Intersection Level of Service for Existing Year 2013-PM Peak No. Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2&3 Alternative 4 Dela LOS Dela LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 8.9 A M A 8,8 A 8.9 A 2 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 4.7 A 4.1 A 43 A 4.7 A 3 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmonte 7.5 A 6.8 A 7.4 A 7.5 A 4 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 11.1 B 11.7 B 11.4 B 11.5 B 5 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 7.1 A 7.8 A 8.3 A 8.3 A 6 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 1.1 A 1.1 A 1.0 A 1.0 A 7 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 13.9 B 14.3 B 13.0 B 13.7 B 8 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.5 A 3,1 A 3.6 A 4.4 A 9 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 7.8 A 7.2 A 7.2 A 7.5 A 10 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 7.1 A 9.2 A 7.2 A 7.0 A 11 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 15.8 B 16.8 B 15.4 B 15.5 B 12 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Camino Parocela 9.5 A 9.6 A 9.7 A 9.6 A 13 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 6.0 A 7.3 A 6.4 A 6.0 A 14 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 12.4 B 12.3 B 12A B 12.6 B 15 Indian Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmonte 2.4 A 2.4 A 2.4 A 2A A 16 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 11 A B 13.6 B 12.1 B 12.7 B 17 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.5 A 9.1 A 18 Indian Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 5.6 A 6.6 A 5.8 A 5.3 A 19 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 6.9 A 11.6 B 11.2 B 7 A 20 Indian Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.1 A 3.9 A 3.9 A 4.3 A 21 Indian Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 6.6 A 7.0 A 6.2 A 6.8 A 22 Indian Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 8A A 83 A 7.4 A 8.7 A 23 Indian Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road IM B 19. B 12.7 B 10.9 B 24 N.Calle Encilia @ W.Alejo Road 4.5 A 4.5 A 4.5 A 4.5 A 25 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Amado Road 9.9 A 9.9 A 9.9 A 9.9 A 26 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 11.6 B 1 L9 B 12.8 B 11.4 B 27 S.Calle Encilia @ Arenas Road 9.6 A 9.6 A 9.6 A 9.6 A 28 S.Calle Encilia @ Ramon Road 20.8 B 21.4 C 23.5 C 20.7 C A1,g 29 ROVER & G '�' axe Table 3. Arterial Level of Service for Existing Year 2013 �H i10 SV Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternatives 3 Alternatives 4 Arterial (One-Way) 1 (Two-Way) 2 (Two-Way) 3 (Two-Way) 4 (One-Way) 5 (Segment) Dir Length Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial (mi). Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH Midday Peak Hour Indian Canyon Drive (Camino Parocela to NB 1.7 22.2 C 17.3 C 22.7 C 17.9 C 19.2 C w-" Tachevah Drive) Indian Canyon Drive (Tachevah Drive to SB 1.6 15.4 C 16.9 C 19.7 C Ramon Road) yF PM Peak Hour Indian Canyon Drive (Camino Parocela to NB 1.7 22.7 C 17.7 C 23.0 C 18.2 C 19.6 C Tachevah Drive) Indian Canyon Drive (Tachevah Drive to SB 1.6 16.8 C 18.1 C 21.2 C Ramon Road) Notes: 1. Existing Configuration-one-way with four NB lanes and parking on both sides. 2. Alternative 1 -Two-way with one southbound lane,two NB lanes and parking on both sides. 3. Alternative 2-Two-way with one southbound lane,three NB lanes and parking only on the west side(No parking on the east side). 4. Alternative 3-Two-way with one southbound lane,three NB lanes and parking only on the east side(No parking on the west side). n 5. Alternative 4-One-way with three NB lanes,angle parking on the west side,and parallel parking on the east side. a W O Traffic Analysis Table 4a: Intersection Level of Service for Conversion Year 2015-Midday Peak No. Existing. Alternative 1 Alternative 2&3 Alternative 4 Delay LOS Dela LOS Delay LOS Deis LOS 1 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 9.3 A 9.9 i A 9.1 A 9.3 A 2 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 5.0 A 4.3 A 4.4 A 4.8 A 3 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmonte 8.7 A 7.2 A 8.0 A 8.4 A 4 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 11.5 B 122 B 12.6 B 12.4 B 5 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 6.4 A 7.1 A TS A 7.2 A 6 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 7.1 A 7.0 A 8.2 A 7.4 A 7 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 17.7 B 18.7 B 13.3 B 14S B 8 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.6 I A 7.7 A 4.1 A 4.6 A 9 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 8.2 A 9.2 A 76 A 7.7 A 10 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 7.1 A 9.4 A 7.2 A 7.0 A l I S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 16.7 B 16.3 B 16.2 B 16.2 j B 12 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Camino Parocela 10.2 B 11.1 B 10.2 B 10.0 A 13 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 6.1 A 7.6 A 6.6 A 6.1 A 14 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 13.1 B 13.2 B 12.3 B 12.3 B 15 Indian Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmonte 2.9 A 2.9 A 2.9 A 2.9 A 16 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 12A B 15.3 B 14.3 B 13.8 B 17 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 8.1 A 10.0 A 7.6 A 8.4 A 18 Indian Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 10.6 B 14.1 B 11.4 B 8.9 A 19 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 7.4 A 12.9 B 12.0 B 6.9 A 20 Indian Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.3 A 7.0 A 4.0 A 4.2 A 21 Indian Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 6.7 A 8.8 A 6.5 A 6.9 A 22 Indian Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 8.7 A 8.9 A 7.9 A 9.2 A 23 Indian Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 12.3 B 17.6 B 14.8 B 11.8 B 24 N.Calle Encilia @ W.Alejo Road 5.5 A 5.3 A 5.4 A 5.6 A 25 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Amado Road 10.6 B 10.6 B 10.6 B 10.6 B 26 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 11.6 B 11.0 B 12.9 B 11.6 B [27 S.Call,Encilia @ Arenas Road 10.3 B 10.3 B 10.3 B 10.3 B 28 S.Calle Encilia @ Ramon Road 18.6 B 23.7 C 22.2 C 19.8 B it 31 r;1OVER & -. GA Sa lA Traffic Analysis Table 4b: Intersection Level of Service for Conversion Year 2015-PM Peak No. Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2&3 Alternative 4 Dela LOS DelayLOS Dela LOS DelayLOS 1 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 9.0 A 11.0 A 8.8 A 8.9 A 2 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 4.7 A 4.5 A 4.4 A 4.7 A 3 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmonte 7.5 A 6.9 A 7.4 A 7.5 A 4 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 11.1 B 11.4 B 11.8 B 11.4 B 5 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 6.7 A 7.2 A 7.7 A 7.0 A 6 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 8.2 A 7.3 A 9.1 A 7.1 A 7 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 13A B 13.7 B 12.8 B 13.3 B 8 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.6 A 3.1 A 3.7 A 4.5 A 9 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 7.8 A 7.2 A 7.3 A 7.5 A 10 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 7.1 A 9.2 A 7.2 A 7.1 A 11 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 15.8 B 16.9 B 15A B 15.5 B 12 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Camino Parocela 9.5 A 9.6 A 9.7 A 9.6 A 13 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 6.0 A 7.6 A 6.4 A 6.0 A 14 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 12.2 B 12.6 B 12.3 B 12.3 B 15 Indian Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmonte 2.4 A 2.4 A 2.4 A 24 A 16 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 11.8 B 14.2 B 14.6 B 12.8 B 17 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 8.9 A 9.0 A 7.5 A 8.6 A 18 Indian Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 7 A 15.2 B 9.9 A 8 A 19 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 6.9 A 11.5 B 11.2 B 7 A 20 Indian Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.1 A 3.8 A 4.2 A 4.2 A 21 Indian Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 6.6 A 7.1 A 6.5 A 6.8 A 22 Indian Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 8.4 A 8.3 A 7.6 A 8.7 A 23 Indian Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 10.6 B 19.5 B 12'9 B 11 B 124 N.Calle Encilia @ W.Alejo Road 4.6 A 4.5 A 4.5 A 4.6 A 25 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Amado Road 9.9 A 9.9 A 9.9 A 9.9 A 26 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 11.6 B 11.9 B L23.6 2.8 B 11.5 B 27 S.Calle Encilia @ Arenas Road 9.7 A 9.7 A .7 A 9.7 A 28 S.Calle Encilia @ Ramon Road 20.7 B 21.4 C C 20.6 C 32 GROVER & 40wom Table 5. Arterial Level of Service for Conversion Year 2015 eoen t+ly Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternatives 3 Alternatives 4 Arterial (One-Way) I (Two-Way) 2 (Two-Way) 3 (Two-Way) ° (One-Way) 5 (Segment) Dir Length Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial (mi) Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS MPH MPH MPH MPH MPH Midday Peak Hour Indian Canyon Drive (Camino Parocela to NB 1.7 22.0 C 16.9 C 21.9 C 17.8 C 19.0 C - Tachevah Drive) Indian Canyon Drive (Tachevah Drive to LSB 1.6 15.2 C 16.5 C 19.2 C Ramon Road) PM Peak Hour Indian Canyon Drive (Camino Parocela to NB 1.7 22.4 C 17.1 C 21.9 C 18.0 C 19.4 C Tachevah Drive) Indian Canyon Drive (Tachevah Drive to SB 1.6 16.4 C 17.6 C 20.6 C Ramon Road) Notes: 1. Existing Configuration-one-way with four NB lanes and parking on both sides. 2. Alternative I -Two-way with one southbound lane,two NB lanes and parking on both sides. 3. Alternative 2-Two-way with one southbound lane,three NB lanes and parking only on the west side(No parking on the east side). 0 4. Alternative 3 -Two-way with one southbound lane,three NB lanes and parking only on the east side(No parking on the west side). 5. Alternative 4-One-way with three NB lanes,angle parking on the west side,and parallel parking on the east side. a C:J W n Study s,»; Traffic Analysis Table 6a: Intersection Level of Service for Future Year 2035-Midday Peak No. Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2&3 Alternative 4 Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 9.9 A 10.2 B 9.5 A 9.9 A 2 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 5.1 A 43 A 4.5 A 4.9 A 3 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmonte 9.9 A 8.4 A 93 A 9.6 A 4 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 12.9 B 14.2 B 14.2 B 14.1 B 5 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 6.6 A 7.1 A 8.2 A 7.4 A 6 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 7.0 A 7.1 A 8.2 A 7.3 A 7 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 20.5 C 21.6 C 15.0 B 16.8 B 8 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.7 A 92 A 4.1 A 4.8 A 9 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 9.1 A 10.9 B 8.4 A 8.4 A 10 S.Palm Canyon Drive m Baristo Road 7.2 A 9.4 A 73 A 6.9 A 11 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 18.1 B 17.5 B 17.4 B 17.3 B 12 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Camino Parocela 10.6 B 11.6 B 10.7 B 10.4 B 13 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 6.1 A 7.8 A 6.8 A 6.1 A 14 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 13.1 B 13.5 B 13.0 B 12.3 B 15 Indian Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmonte 4.4 A 4.3 A 4.3 A 4.4 A 16 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 13.4 B 16.7 B 15.9 B 16.0 B 17 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 8.4 A 11.0 B 7.7 A 8.7 A 18 Indian Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 10.6 B 16 B 13.1 B 9.4 A 19 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 7.5 A 14.1 B 12.1 B 7.7 A 20 Indian Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.3 A 7.7 A 4.5 A 4.4 A 21 Indian Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 6.8 A 9.7 A 7.0 A 7.1 A 22 Indian Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 9.5 A 9.4 A 8.3 A 10.1 B 23 Indian Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 12.4 B 19.4 B 16.5 B 13 B 24 N.Calle Encilia @ W.Alejo Road 8.3 A 7.6 A 7.7 A 8.3 A 25 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Amado Road 11.9 B 11.9 B 11.9 B 11.9 B 26 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 11.7 B 11.1 B 13.1 B 11.8 B 27 S.Calle Encilia @ Arenas Road 11.6 B 11.6 B 1116 B 11.6 B 28 S.Calle Encilia @ Ramon Road 19.1 B 22.5 C 22.2 C 18.9 B ALBERT 34 GR�� ��... Traffic Analysis Table 6b: Intersection Level of Service for Future Year 2035-PM Peak No. Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2&3 Alternative 4 DelayLOS Dela LOS DelayLOS DelayLOS 1 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 9.4 A 10.0 A 9.2 A 9.4 A 2 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 4.8 A 4.5 A 4.4 A 4.8 A 3 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmonte 8.8 A 7.5 A 8.4 A 8.8 A 4 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 12.5 B 12.8 B 13.0 B 12.8 B 5 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 6.7 A 7.2 A 82 A 7.4 A 6 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 7.9 A 7.3 A 9.6 A 75 A 7 N.Palm Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 15.6 B 15.5 B 14.4 B 15.3 B 8 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.9 A 3.1 A 4.3 A 4.7 A 9 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 8.6 A 7.9 A 7.9 A 8.1 A 10 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 7.1 A 9.4 A 7.2 A 7.1 A 11 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road 17.0 B 17.4 B 16.5 B 16.5 B 12 S.Palm Canyon Drive @ Camino Parocela 10.0 A 10.1 A 10.4 A 10.1 A 13 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tachevah Drive 6.1 A 7.7 A 6.6 A 6.1 A 14 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tamarisk Road 12.2 B 13.0 B 12.5 B 12.3 B 15 Indian Canyon Drive @ Granvia Valmonte 3.2 A 3.2 A 3.2 A 3.2 A 16 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Alejo Road 13.0 B 15.4 B 15.6 B 14.2 B 17 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Amado Road 8.8 A 10.2 B 7.6 A 8.6 A I Indian Canyon Drive @ Andreas Road 7.5 A 17.1 B 11.4 B 8.9 A 19 Indian Canyon Drive @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 6.9 1 A 12.6 B 12.0 B 7 A 20 Indian Canyon Drive @ La Plaza 4.1 A 3.9 A 4.7 A 4.3 A 21 Indian Canyon Drive @ Arenas Road 6.7 A 7.7 A 69 A 6.9 A 22 Indian Canyon Drive @ Baristo Road 9.1 A 8.6 A 8.0 A 9.5 A 23 Indian Canyon Drive @ Ramon Road l I B 19.6 B 14.7 B 11.4 B 24 N.Calle Encilia @ W.Alejo Road 6.1 A 5.8 A 5.8 A 6.1 A 25 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Amado Road 11 B I l B 11.0 B 11.0 B 26 N.Calle Encilia @ E.Tahquitz Canyon Way 11.8 B 11.9 B 13.0 B 11.7 B 27 S.Calle Encilia @ Arenas Road 10.7 B 10.7 B 10.7 B 10.7 B 28 S.Calle Encilia @ Ramon Road 20.7 B 21.5 C 23.6 C 19S C Ae^J,B ERT 35 GRQVER & _. ....____....uEe..._. �y l Table 7. Arterial Level of Service for Future Year 2035 x Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternatives 3 Alternatives 4 Arterial (One-Way) t (Two-Way) 2 (Two-Way) 3 (Two-Way) ° (One-Way) 5 (Segment) Dir Length Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial (mi) Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS Speed LOS _ MPH MPH MPH MPH I MPH Midday Peak Hour Indian Canyon Drive (Camino Parocela to NB 1.7 21.8 C 16.3 C 21.4 C 17.5 C 18.5 C Tachevah Drive) Indian Canyon Drive (Tachevah Drive to SB 1.6 14.8 C 15.4 C 18.2 C Ramon Road) PM Peak Hour Indian Canyon Drive (Camino Parocela to NB 1.7 22.0 C 16.6 C 21.5 C 17.7 C 19.1 C Tachevah Drive) Indian Canyon Drive (Tachevah Drive to SB 1.6 15.5 C 16.4 C 18.9 C Ramon Road) Notes: 1, Existing Configuration-one-way with four NB lanes and parking on both sides. 2. Alternative I -Two-way with one southbound lane,two NB lanes and parking on both sides. 3. Alternative 2-Two-way with one southbound lane,three NB lanes and parking only on the west side(No parking on the east side). 4. Alternative 3-Two-way with one southbound lane,three NB lanes and parking only on the east side(No parking on the west side). 5. Alternative 4-One-way with three NB lanes,angle parking on the west side,and parallel parking on the east side. N W Q7 Conclusions CONCLUSIONS This study concludes that it is feasible to convert Indian Canyon Drive between Ramon Road and Ale'o Road into a two-way street y (Alternative 1, 2 or 3). All three alternative scenarios that include two-way traffic will provide an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) C. Alternative 4 with three one-way northbound lanes (and no southbound lanes), angle parking on the west side, and parallel parking on the east side is also a feasible alternative. Alterative 4 operates at an acceptable LOS C and provides approximately 20% more parking spaces on the west side of Indian Canyon Drive. While it is clear that Alternative 4 with angle parking can provide more on-street parking, it is difficult to ascertain specific business advantages for any of the three viable two-way conversion alternatives other than enhanced traffic circulation in the downtown business area with no degradation in level of service. A ER o oR & t _I - 7 EMOMMUITHYMWAI Improvement Cost Estimates Improvement Cost Estimates The cost to implement the conversion to two-way traffic on Indian Canyon Drive is estimated to be approximately $1.4 to $1.75 million. The cost details are summarized in Table S. This cost includes the following improvements on Indian Canyon Drive: • Re-striping of Indian Canyon Drive between Alejo Road and south of Ramon Road. • Signal modifications at the intersections of Indian Canyon Drive at Ramon Road, Baristo Road, Arenas Road, La Plaza, Tahquitz Canyon Way, Andreas Road, Amado Road and Alejo Road. • At signalized intersections where Marbelite poles are currently used for the eastbound and westbound traffic, replace with new poles to meet current standards. • Installation and implementation of traffic signal interconnect and synchronization. The signal modifications will typically not require left turn phasing. Northbound and southbound left turn pockets will be provided P p ed at all intersections. New signal p q poles would be required to enable the installation of traffic signal indications on mast arms. Because of the existing monument in the median on Tahquitz Canyon Way at Indian Canyon Drive, the eastbound left turn would be converted from PPLT (Protected/ Permissive Left Turn Phasing) to permissive phasing, and the existing westbound through lane would be converted to a shared through/left lane with permissive phasing to allow for a westbound left turn movement. A cost to implement Alternative 4 (three one-way northbound lanes with angle parking on west side and par allel parking on the east side) is in the range of $75 to $100 thousand. The cost details for 1 A ternative 4 are summarized in Table 9. Palm Springs\109-015V ponVndian Canyon 3-Way Conversion Study Ravised.davv 8 H i BERT ROVER & GY-A �F A Improvement Cost Estimates Table 8: Indian Canyon Drive Two-Way Conversion Cost Estimate w sel iption Constraclion Cost Design Total($) ($) Cost(s) nal Modification Costsoad @ Ramon Road 50,000 to 80,000 8,500 58,500 to 88,50 oad @ Baristo Road 50,000 to 80,000 8,500 58,500 to 88,50 oad @ Arenas Road 50,000 to 80,000 8,500 58,500 to 88,50 Indian Canyon Road @ La Plaza 60,000 to 90,000 8,500 68,500 to 98,50 Indian Canyon Road @ Tahquitz Canyon Way 60,000 to 90,000 8,500 68,500 to 98,50 Indian Canyon Road @ Andreas Road 50,000 to 80,000 8,500 58,500 to 88,50 Indian Canyon Road @ Amado Road 50,000 to 80,000 8,500 58,500 to 88,50 Indian Canyon Road @ Alejo Road 100,000 to 130,000 18,500 118,500 to 148,50 II Restriping Costs 50,000 to 70,000 10,000 60,000 to 80,00 III Signal Interconnect and Coordination Costs 150,000 50,000 200,000 Subtotals: 670,000 to 930,000 138,000 808,000 to 1,068,00 Administration/Contract Management(12%): 96,960 to 128,160 Plan Checking/Inspections(12%): 96,960 to 128.160 Miscellaneous/Contingencies(15%): 121,200 to 160,200 Total: 1,123,120 to 1,484,520 Rounded: 1,200,000 to 1,500,000 Replacing Marbelite Poles for Eastbound&Northbound Traffic: 200,000 to 250,000 Grand Total: 1,400,000 to 1,750,000 H 9ERT 39 GROVER & ASsocieTEc 9 �'-, , r `. .. Improvement Cost Estimates Table 9: Indian Canyon Drive Alternative 4 Cost Estimate Construction Cost(S) Desi� Total($) Restriping Costs 45,000 , to 60,000 10,000 55,000 to 70,000 Subtotals: 45,000 to 60,000 10,000 55,000 to 70,000 Administration/Contract Management(12%): 6,600 to 8,400 Plan Checking/Inspections(12%): 6,600 to 8,400 Miscellaneous/Contingencies(15%): 8,250 to 10,500 Total: 76,450 to 97,300 Call: 75,000 to 100,000 ^^ 40 t l,BERT ROVER & A. 50 eT c