H. 2035 LQ GP EIR - Traffic Impact AnalysisTerra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR
Technical Appendices
APPENDIX H
City of La Quinta General Plan
Circulation Element Update
Traffic Impact Analysis
Prepared by
ITERIS, Inc.
1700 Carnegie Avenue, Suite 100
Santa Ana, CA 92705-5551
May 14, 2012
H-1
CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN
CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE
Traffic Impact Analysis
Submitted to:
City of La Quinta
May 14, 2012
16J10‐1626
Submitted by:
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page i City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... i
Appendices .............................................................................................................................. ii
List of Tables........................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 STUDY AREA ......................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 7
2.1 ROADWAY CONFIGURATIONS ................................................................................................... 7
2.2 EXISTING LANE WIDTH STANDARDS ........................................................................................ 10
2.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................................................................................................. 12
2.4 MULTIMODAL MOBILITY ....................................................................................................... 14
3.0 Traffic Operations Analysis Methodology.................................................................... 22
3.1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 22
3.2 ROADWAY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 23
4.0 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ......................................................................... 24
4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS (OCTOBER 2010) ................................................................................. 24
4.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH SEASONAL FACTOR ....................................................................... 26
5.0 Existing Roadway Analysis .......................................................................................... 28
6.0 Forecast Year 2035 With Preferred Land Use Plan ....................................................... 31
6.1 TRAFFIC FORECAST METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 31
6.2 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE ........................................................................................... 32
6.2.1 Needed Intersection Enhancements for LOS D ....................................................... 37
6.2.2 Final Intersection Configurations for LOS D ............................................................ 45
6.3 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 51
7.0 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 55
7.1 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................................. 56
7.2 MIDBLOCK IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................... 58
7.3 TRANSPORTATION GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS FOR A SUSTAINABLE CITY OF LA QUINTA .......... 62
7.3.1 Complete Streets ..................................................................................................... 62
7.3.2 Greenhouse Gas Reductions ................................................................................... 63
7.3.3 Existing Goals, Policies and Programs .................................................................... 63
7.3.4 Recommended Goals, Policies and Programs ......................................................... 66
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page ii City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Traffic Counts
Appendix B: LOS Calculation Sheets
Appendix C: Alternatives Analysis
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page iii City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Lane Width Standards Comparison ................................................................................ 12
Table 2: Intersection Level of Service Definitions ......................................................................... 22
Table 3: Roadway Capacities ........................................................................................................ 23
Table 4: Roadway Level of Service Ranges ................................................................................... 24
Table 5: Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS Without Seasonal Factor ...................................... 25
Table 6: Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS With Seasonal Factor ............................................ 27
Table 7: Existing Roadway Segment Analysis ............................................................................... 28
Table 8: General Plan Buildout (2035) Peak Hour Intersection LOS With Preferred Land Use Plan
(2002 General Plan Network ‐ Peak Season) ................................................................................ 36
Table 9: General Plan Buildout (2035) Peak Hour Intersection LOS With Preferred Land Use Plan
(Enhanced General Plan Network – Peak Season) ....................................................................... 44
Table 10: General Plan Buildout (2035) Roadway Segment Analysis With Preferred Land Use
Plan With Adopted General Plan Network (Peak Season) ............................................................ 52
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 2: Study Intersection Locations............................................................................................ 6
Figure 3: Existing Intersection Configurations ................................................................................ 8
Figure 4: Existing City Roadway Classifications ............................................................................ 11
Figure 5: Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Peak Season) .............................................. 13
Figure 6: Existing Bicycle Routes ................................................................................................... 16
Figure 7: Existing SunLine Bus Routes .......................................................................................... 17
Figure 8: Existing Truck Routes ..................................................................................................... 18
Figure 9: Existing Golf Cart / NEV Routes ..................................................................................... 19
Figure 10a: Future Buildout Golf Cart / NEV Routes .................................................................... 20
Figure 10b: Future Buildout Golf Cart / NEV Routes .................................................................... 21
Figure 11: General Plan Buildout (2035) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Peak Season) .......... 34
Figure 12: General Plan Buildout (2035) Intersection Configurations ......................................... 35
Figure 13: General Plan Buildout (2035) With Enhanced Intersection Configurations ................ 43
Figure 14: General Plan Buildout (2035) Unacceptably Operating Roadway Segments .............. 61
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page 1 City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared to analyze land use scenarios and their effects on
major roadways and intersections in the La Quinta General Plan planning area. The TIA presents the
results of analyses performed to 1) evaluate existing traffic operations in the City of La Quinta, and 2) to
analyze in detail the impacts of the new Preferred Land Use Plan for year 2035 (Land Use Plan). The TIA
also addresses the broader mobility issues of the City, including opportunities to better manage traffic
and the shift to greater use of alternative modes of travel.
As part of the analysis, a focused and detailed travel demand model for the City was developed based
on existing and planned land uses and the traffic they generate. In addition to providing General Plan
traffic forecasting, the TIA will facilitate and inform analysis of future projects such as specific plans and
development plans. The La Quinta Traffic Analysis Model (LQTAM) covers all of the Coachella Valley and
all six counties in the SCAG region.
The LQTAM is a focused, fined‐grain and refined version of the regional model developed by the County
and known as the 2008 RivTAM model. Therefore, LQTAM is an outgrowth, extension, and refinement
to the RivTAM model. For purposes of providing a detailed and tailored analysis for the City General Plan
a new transportation analysis zone (TAZ) structure was developed. The land uses in each TAZ are
analyzed across a wide set of parameters and the resulting traffic is distributed across the roadway
network and assigned to specific streets and specific times of the day. The LQTAM's 949 zones were
designed to detail the La Quinta area and to aggregate a set of zones outside of the area. Of the 949
zones, 101 zones were contained within the City of La Quinta and 22 zones were contained within the
Sphere of Influence (SOI). It should be noted that certain areas in the RivTAM model that are influential
to future traffic in the La Quinta planning area, especially those adjoining the southeast quadrant of the
planning area, reflect land uses that are more intense than those assigned by the currently adopted
County General Plan. Extensive efforts were undertaken to adjust buildout conditions in this area to
reflect the current County General Plan.
The La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element study area was defined through collaboration among
City staff from both the Departments of Planning and Public Works, and engineering and planning
professionals of Iteris, Inc. and Terra Nova. The study area consists of all intersections and roadway
segments considered necessary to analyze the impacts of the future Land Use Plan. The LQTAM
analyzed 63 roadway segments and 37 intersections within the city limits and SOI. The analysis indicated
that the General Plan buildout of the proposed Preferred Land Use Plan would require enhanced
improvements and/or management strategies (beyond those set forth in the 2002 General Plan) to be
implemented at 23 intersections in order to provide traffic operations at acceptable peak period Levels
of Service (LOS D or better) during the peak season. Some of the identified improvements are in
adjacent cities, and others may impact adjacent land uses.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page 2 City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
Of the 37 intersections analyzed, the following four have the potential to be operating at unacceptable
levels of service by 2035 General Plan buildout:
• Washington Street/Fred Waring Drive;
• Adams Street/Miles Avenue;
• Jefferson Street/Highway 111;
• Madison Street/Avenue 50.
Of the 63 midblock segments analyzed for average daily operations, 57 are forecast to operate at
acceptable peak season LOS, while 3 are forecast to operate at LOS E and 3 are forecast to operate at
LOS F based on the standard capacities set forth in the General Plan (see list below):
• Washington Street between Avenue 42 and Fred Waring Drive (LOS E);
• Washington Street between Highway 111 to Avenue 48 (LOS E);
• Washington Street between Avenue 48 and Eisenhower Drive (LOS E);
• Washington Street between Fred Waring Drive and Miles Avenue (LOS F);
• Madison Street between Avenue 54 and Airport Boulevard (LOS F);
• Harrison Street between Airport Boulevard and Avenue 58 (LOS F).
The physical widening at intersections and roadway segments would be needed to provide traffic
operations at acceptable peak period LOS D or better, if the approach to providing acceptable peak
period LOS is solely through traditional roadway widening. This report gives consideration to alternative
physical improvements and management strategies that would require an ongoing commitment to
systems operations or deliver conditions worse than LOS D. These include implementation of a
"Complete Streets" strategy that maximizes opportunities for alternative modes of travel, including
walking, bicycling, golf carts and NEVs.
The California Complete Streets Act (Assembly Bill 1358, signed into law in 2008) requires that any
substantive local General Plan Circulation Element revision, “plan for a balanced, multimodal
transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, defined to
include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of
commercial goods, and users of public transportation, in a manner that is suitable to the rural,
suburban, or urban context of the general plan”. Successful long‐term implementation of this policy is
intended to result in:
• More options for people to go from one place to another,
• Less traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions,
• More walkable communities (with healthier, more active people), and
• Fewer barriers for older adults, children, and people with disabilities.
Management and operations of the City’s arterial network should include monitoring of actual levels of
service. This would allow for identification of timely capital improvements, and/or initiation of
transportation demand management (TDM) and transportation systems management (TSM) programs
during peak season peak periods and other times of the year. With the thoughtful application of
recommended physical improvements and management strategies, it is expected that all or most
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page 3 City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
components of the City's transportation system will operate at acceptable levels of service upon General
Plan buildout.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) presents the results of analyses performed to 1) evaluate existing
traffic operations in the City of La Quinta, and 2) to analyze the impacts of the new Preferred Land Use
Plan for year 2035 (Land Use Plan). Relevant information from this Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be
included in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element Update and shall also serve as the basis for
impact analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The impact analyses for
the three alternative land use allocations are included in the Appendices. Figure 1 shows the City of La
Quinta study area, including city boundaries and sphere of influence.
Before describing the details of this TIA, it is important to note that existing and future traffic conditions
can be improved throughout the City with individual and collective choices to contribute to a more
efficiently used transportation system. For example, the forecast peak season traffic volumes analyzed
in this TIA may be reduced by transportation demand management (TDM) measures and service levels
improved by operational efficiencies gained through transportation systems management (TSM)
programs.
In pursuit of this strategic approach, policies and programs are recommended in TIA Section 7 for
implementation in the City of La Quinta, and for the City of La Quinta advocacy along shared boundaries
and for Coachella Valley wide implementation. Such advocacy would address the large volume of
forecast regional traffic that has no origin or destination in the City, but simply passes through the City,
especially along the Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive corridors.
TDM programs aim to put more person trips into fewer vehicles, by increasing bicycling, carpools,
vanpools, transit ridership, and neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs). Their effectiveness depends on
their levels of adoption. For example, ongoing study of approximately 10 NEVs used in the South Bay
communities in Los Angeles County document that 28 percent of household trips are made by NEV. The
potential for reducing demand in a destination resort community like La Quinta is equally favorable.
TSM programs and projects support travelers with real time travel information so that they can make
smart travel choices in selection of time of travel, mode of travel, and routes of travel. TSM projects can
also offer Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) projects for the most efficient traffic signal
coordination, and for informing motorists of routes around traffic congestion that may result from
special events and traffic incidents. TSM programs are very effective when integrated into planned
major events, such as scheduled art festivals, golf or tennis matches.
City of La Quinta
General Plan Update
Q:\2010\16\Jobs\J10-1626 La Quinta GP Circulation Element\Gra
FIGURE 1
Study Area
Page 4
) *+ ,-111
!"#$10
N
NOT TO SCALE
Avenue 48
Avenue 49
Avenue 50
Avenue 52
Avenue 54
Airport Blvd
Avenue 58
Avenue 60
Avenue 62
Avenue 64
Westward Ho Dr
Calle Tampico
Fred Waring Dr
Miles Ave
Ei
s
e
n
h
o
w
e
r
D
r
Av
e
n
i
d
a
B
e
r
m
u
d
a
s
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
Ad
a
m
s
S
t
Du
n
e
P
a
l
m
s
R
d
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Ma
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
Ha
r
r
i
s
o
n
S
t
Legend
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page 5 City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
1.1 STUDY AREA
The General Plan Circulation Element study area was defined through collaboration among City staff
from both the Departments of Planning and Public Works, and engineering and planning professionals of
Iteris, Inc., a leading firm in transportation planning and Intelligent Transportation Systems engineering
consulting. The study area consists of all intersections considered necessary to analyze the impacts of
the future Land Use Plan. Intersections which were not selected for analysis were deemed to be
locations where impacts would be considered less than significant. The study area includes the following
thirty‐seven (37) intersections, which were selected along arterials that provide primary access to
and/or mobility through the City of La Quinta:
1. Washington Street/Fred Waring Drive
2. Washington Street/Miles Avenue
3. Washington Street/Channel Drive
4. Washington Street/Highway 111
5. Washington Street/Avenue 48
6. Washington Street/Eisenhower Drive
7. Washington Street/Avenue 50
8. Washington Street/Calle Tampico
9. Washington Street/Avenue 52
10. Eisenhower Drive/Calle Tampico
11. Avenida Bermudas/Avenue 52
12. Adams Street/Fred Waring Drive
13. Adams Street/Miles Avenue
14. Adams Street/Highway 111
15. Adams Street/Avenue 48
16. Dune Palms Road/Fred Waring Drive
17. Dune Palms Road/Miles Avenue
18. Dune Palms Road/Westward Ho Drive
19. Dune Palms Road/Highway 111
20. Dune Palms Road/Avenue 48
21. Jefferson Street/Fred Waring Drive
22. Jefferson Street/Highway 111
23. Jefferson Street/Avenue 48
24. Jefferson Street/Avenue 49
25. Jefferson Street/Avenue 50
26. Jefferson Street/Avenue 52
27. Jefferson Street/Avenue 54
28. Madison Street/Avenue 50
29. Madison Street/Avenue 52
30. Madison Street/Avenue 54
31. Madison Street/Avenue 58
32. Madison Street/Avenue 60
33. Monroe Street/Avenue 52
34. Monroe Street/Avenue 54
35. Monroe Street/Avenue 58
36. Monroe Street/Avenue 60
37. Monroe Street/Avenue 62
The locations of the study intersections are illustrated in Figure 2.
City of La Quinta
General Plan Update
Q:\2010\16\Jobs\J10-1626 La Quinta GP Circulation Element\Gra
FIGURE 2
Study Intersection Locations
Page 6
) *+ ,-111
!"#$10
1 12 16 21
2 13 17
3
4 18
14 19 22
5 15 20 23
24
6
7
10 8
11
9
25
26
28
29 33
343027
31 35
32 36
37
N
NOT TO SCALE
Avenue 48
Avenue 49
Avenue 50
Avenue 52
Avenue 54
Airport Blvd
Avenue 58
Avenue 60
Avenue 62
Avenue 64
Westward Ho Dr
Calle Tampico
Fred Waring Dr
Miles Ave
Ei
s
e
n
h
o
w
e
r
D
r
Av
e
n
i
d
a
B
e
r
m
u
d
a
s
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
Ad
a
m
s
S
t
Du
n
e
P
a
l
m
s
R
d
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Ma
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
Ha
r
r
i
s
o
n
S
t
Legend
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Study Intersection#
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page 7 City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section presents an overview of the study area roadway system as it existed in October 2010. It also
describes the methodology used to determine existing traffic volumes, as well as existing bicycle, transit,
truck, and golf cart routes within the City of La Quinta and its Sphere of Influence (SOI).
2.1 ROADWAY CONFIGURATIONS
The existing lane configurations of the study intersections are illustrated in Figure 3, and are described
below:
Washington Street, oriented in a north‐south direction, consists of three lanes in each direction through
the majority of the study area, and is currently classified as an Augmented Major Arterial. Washington
Street provides access to State Highway 111 and to Interstate 10 (I‐10) north of city limits.
Eisenhower Drive is oriented in an east‐west direction at Washington Street, and transitions to a north‐
south roadway at Avenue 50. Eisenhower Drive consists of two lanes in each direction and is classified as
a Primary Arterial.
Avenida Bermudas, oriented in a north‐south direction, consists of two lanes in each direction, and is
classified as a Secondary Arterial.
Adams Street, oriented in a north‐south direction, consists of two lanes in each direction. It is classified
as a Secondary Arterial, and built as a Primary Arterial between Highway 111 and Avenue 48.
Dune Palms Road, oriented in a north‐south direction, consists of two lanes in each direction between
Fred Waring Drive and Westward Ho Drive, one lane in each direction between Westward Ho Drive and
Highway 111, and two lanes in each direction between Highway 111 and Avenue 48. Dune Palms Road
is classified as a Secondary Arterial.
Jefferson Street, oriented in a north‐south direction, consists of three lanes in each direction, and is
classified as a Major Arterial north of Avenue 54 and as a Modified Secondary Arterial between Avenue
58 and Avenue 62. Jefferson Street provides access to State Highway 111 and to Interstate 10 (I‐10)
north of city limits.
Madison Street, oriented in a north‐south direction, consists of one lane in each direction between
Avenue 50 and Avenue 54 and two lanes in each direction between Avenue 54 and Avenue 60. Madison
Street is classified as a Primary Arterial between Avenue 50 and Avenue 58, as a Secondary Arterial
between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60, and as a Modified Secondary Arterial between Avenue 60 and
Avenue 62.
Monroe Street, oriented in a north‐south direction, consists of one lane in each direction, and is
classified as a Primary Arterial between Avenue 52 and Avenue 60 and as a Modified Secondary Arterial
between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62. Monroe Street provides access to State Highway 111 and to
Interstate 10 (I‐10) north of city limits.
Q:\2010\16\Jobs\J10-1626 La Quinta GP Circulation Element\Gra\Lane_Configuration.cdr
City of La Quinta
General Plan Update
FIGURE 3
Existing Intersection Configurations
Page 8
S
T
O
P
STOP
S
T
O
P
ST
O
P
S
T
O
P
STOP
S
T
O
P
ST
O
P
S
T
O
P
STOP
S
T
O
P
ST
O
P
S
T
O
P
S
T
O
P
ST
O
P
S
T
O
P
STOP
S
T
O
P
ST
O
P
S
T
O
P
STOP
S
T
O
P
ST
O
P
S
T
O
P
STOP
S
T
O
P
ST
O
P
S
T
O
P
STOP
S
T
O
P
ST
O
P
S
T
O
P
S
T
O
P
ST
O
P
YIELD
S
T
O
P
STOP
S
T
O
P
ST
O
P
S
T
O
P
STOP
S
T
O
P
ST
O
P
1. Washington St &
Fred Waring Dr
2. Washington St &
Miles Ave
3. Washington St &
Channel Dr
4. &
Hwy 111
Washington St 5. Washington St &
Ave 48
6. Washington St &
Eisenhower Dr
7. Washington St &
Ave 50
8. Washington St &
Calle Tampico
9. Washington St &
Ave 52
10. Eisenhower Dr &
Calle Tampico
11. Ave 52 &
Avenida Bermudas
12. Adams St &
Fred Waring Dr
13. Adams St &
Miles Ave
14. Adams St &
Hwy 111
15. Adams St &
Ave 48
16. Dune Palms Rd &
Fred Waring Dr
17. Dune Palms Rd &
Miles Ave
18. Dune Palms Rd &
Westward Ho Dr
19. Dune Palms Rd &
Hwy 111
20. Dune Palms Rd &
Ave 48
21. Jefferson St &
Fred Waring Dr
22. Jefferson St &
Hwy 111
23. Jefferson St &
Ave 48
24. Jefferson St &
Ave 49
25. Jefferson St &
Ave 50
26. Jefferson St &
Ave 52
27. Jefferson St &
Ave 54
28. Madison St &
Ave 50
29. Madison St &
Ave 52
30. Madison St &
Ave 54
31. Madison St &
Ave 58
32. Madison St &
Ave 60
33. Monroe St &
Ave 52
34. Monroe St &
Ave 54
35. Monroe St &
Ave 58
36. Monroe St &
Ave 60
37. Monroe St &
Ave 62
OVR
OVR OVR
OVR
OVR
OVR OVR OVR
OVR
OVR
Note: One-lane roundabout
STOP
S
S
OVR
OVR OVR
Legend
Right Turn Overlap PhaseOVR
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Signalized Intersection
Stop Controlled ApproachSTOP
Roundabout IntersectionYIELD
Split-phased ControlS
OVR
S
S
S
S
) *+ ,-111
!"#$10
1 12 16 21
2 13 17
3
4 18
14 19 22
5 15 20 23
24
6
7
10 8
11
9
25
26
28
29 33
343027
31 35
32 36
37
N
NOT TO SCALE
Avenue 48
Avenue 49
Avenue 50
Avenue 52
Avenue 54
Airport Blvd
Avenue 58
Avenue 60
Avenue 62
Avenue 64
Westward Ho Dr
Calle Tampico
Fred Waring Dr
Miles Ave
Ei
s
e
n
h
o
w
e
r
D
r
Av
e
n
i
d
a
B
e
r
m
u
d
a
s
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
Ad
a
m
s
S
t
Du
n
e
P
a
l
m
s
R
d
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Ma
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
Ha
r
r
i
s
o
n
S
t
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page 9 City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
Jackson Street, oriented in a north‐south direction, consists of one lane in each direction, and is
classified as a Primary Arterial. Jackson Street is located in the City’s SOI and provides access to State
Highway 111 and to Interstate 10 (I‐10) north of city limits.
Van Buren Street, oriented in a north‐south direction, consists of one lane in each direction, and is
classified as a Primary Arterial between Avenue 52 and Avenue 60 and as a Secondary Arterial between
Avenue 60 and Avenue 62. Van Buren Street is located in the City’s SOI.
Harrison Street, oriented in a north‐south direction, consists of one lane in each direction, and is
classified as a Major Arterial. Harrison Street is located in the City’s SOI.
Fred Waring Drive (Avenue 44), oriented in an east‐west direction, consists of three lanes in each
direction between Washington Street and Adams Street and between Dune Palms Road and Jefferson
Street. Between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road, Fred Waring Drive consists of two lanes in the
eastbound direction and one lane in the westbound direction. Fred Waring Drive is classified as a
Primary Arterial.
Miles Avenue, oriented in an east‐west direction, consists of two lanes in each direction, and is classified
as a Primary Arterial.
Highway 111, oriented in an east‐west direction, consists of three lanes in each direction, and is
classified as a Major Arterial.
Avenue 48, oriented in an east‐west direction, consists of two lanes in each direction, and is classified as
a Primary Arterial.
Avenue 50, oriented in an east‐west direction, consists of two lanes in each direction, and is classified as
a Primary Arterial.
Calle Tampico, oriented in an east‐west direction, consists of two lanes in each direction, and is
classified as a Primary Arterial west of Washington Street. East of Washington Street, Calle Tampico
consists of one lane in each direction and is classified as a Collector Street.
Avenue 52, oriented in an east‐west direction, consists of two lanes in each direction between Avenida
Bermudas and Jefferson Street. Between Jefferson Street and Monroe Street, Avenue 52 consists of two
eastbound lanes and one westbound lane. Between Monroe Street and Jackson Street, Avenue 52
consists of one eastbound lane and two westbound lanes. Avenue 52 is classified as a Primary Arterial
throughout the City and the City’s SOI.
Avenue 54, oriented in an east‐west direction, consists of two lanes in each direction, and is classified as
a Primary Arterial between Jefferson Street and Madison Street and as a Secondary Arterial between
Madison Street and Van Buren Street.
Avenue 56/Airport Boulevard, oriented in an east‐west direction, consists of two lanes in each
direction, and is classified as a Primary Arterial.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
10
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
Avenue 58, oriented in an east‐west direction, consists of two lanes in each direction between Madison
Street and Monroe Street and one lane in each direction between Monroe Street and Harrison Street.
Avenue 58 is classified as a Secondary Arterial.
Avenue 60, oriented in an east‐west direction, consists of one lane in each direction, and is classified as
a Secondary Arterial between Madison Street and Monroe Street and as a Primary Arterial between
Monroe Street and Harrison Street.
Avenue 62, oriented in an east‐west direction, consists of one lane in each direction, and is classified as
a Modified Secondary Arterial between Jefferson Street and Madison Street, as a Modified Collector
Street between Madison Street and Monroe Street, and as a Secondary Arterial east of Monroe Street.
Figure 4 shows the existing City of La Quinta roadway classifications.
2.2 EXISTING LANE WIDTH STANDARDS
Existing City of La Quinta Street standards call for 12 foot standard thru lanes with a 14 foot maximum
outside thru lane, 12 foot standard combination (thru/turn option) lanes, 11 foot standard turn pocket,
12 foot standard right turn lane, and 8 foot maximum bike/golf cart lane. A 6 foot bike lane typical on
lower speed streets (4 foot AC plus 2 foot Gutter pan) is also noted. Flexibility in applying these
standards is sometimes needed to address special circumstances.
These existing City standards are generally consistent with the California Highway Design Manual, which
calls for the basic lane width for new construction on roadways to be 12 feet. The American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 2004 Policy on Geometric Design of Highways
and Streets documents that “there are circumstances where lanes less than 12 feet wide should be used
where pedestrian crossings, right‐of‐way, or existing development become stringent controls the use of
11 foot lanes is acceptable”. AASHTO further calls for a four foot minimum bicycle lane width. It does
not reference combination lanes for bicycles and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles.
The National Complete Street Coalition supports the AASHTO Green Book reference to providing
substantial flexibility for use of lane widths narrower than 12 ft on urban and suburban arterials. The
Coalition cites the Transportation Research Board 2007 paper “Relationship of Lane Width to Safety for
Urban and Suburban Arterials” that use of narrower lanes along both midblock and intersection
approaches can provide benefits to users and the surrounding community including shorter pedestrian
crossing distances, and reduced interference with surrounding development.
A comparison table of existing City lane width standards and the above‐referenced standards is shown
in Table 1.
City of La Quinta
General Plan Update
Q:\2010\16\Jobs\J10-1626 La Quinta GP Circulation Element\Gra
FIGURE 4
Existing City Roadway Classifications
Page 11
) *+ ,-111
!"#$10
Avenue 48
Avenue 49
Avenue 50
Avenue 52
Avenue 54
Airport Blvd
Avenue 58
Avenue 60
Avenue 62
Avenue 64
Westward Ho Dr
Calle Tampico
Fred Waring Dr
Miles Ave
Ei
s
e
n
h
o
w
e
r
D
r
Av
e
n
i
d
a
B
e
r
m
u
d
a
s
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
Ad
a
m
s
S
t
Du
n
e
P
a
l
m
s
R
d
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Ma
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
Ha
r
r
i
s
o
n
S
t
N
NOT TO SCALE
Legend
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Primary Road
Collector Road
Major Road
Secondary Road
Freeway
Modified Secondary Arterial
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
12
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
TABLE 1: LANE WIDTH STANDARDS COMPARISON
Agency Left Turn lane Thru Lane Right Turn Lane Bicycle Lane Bike/NEV Lane
City of La Quinta 11 ft 12 – 14 ft 12 ft 6 – 8 ft 8 ft
CA Highway Design Manual 12 ft 12 ft 12 ft 4 ft minimum ‐‐
AASHTO 10 – 12 ft 10 – 13 ft 10 – 12 ft 4 ft. minimum ‐‐
2.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Vehicle turning movement counts were conducted at the study intersections in October 2010 on typical
weekdays of Tuesday (October 5), Wednesday (October 6), and Thursday (October 7) weekdays; no
counts were taken Monday or Friday. Counts were collected during the a.m. (6:30 – 9:30) and p.m.
(1:45 – 4:45) peak periods. The afternoon peak period was confirmed to be earlier than the typical 4 pm
to 6 pm peaks in suburban areas. Determination of these peak periods was based on an analysis of
Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) 24‐hour traffic count data within the study area.
The peak hour volume used in the analysis was the highest single hour of traffic during each of the peak
periods. Detailed vehicle turning movement data are included in Appendix A. Figure 5 shows the
existing peak hour volumes at the study intersections.
The months of January, February, and March are considered the peak months in terms of traffic volumes
in the City of La Quinta. Therefore, to reflect peak season conditions, existing October traffic volumes
were increased by a seasonal growth factor. The seasonal growth factor was calculated by comparing
previous peak season volumes with October volumes at several intersections. The results of the
comparison showed that the peak season volumes were approximately nine percent higher in both the
a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Therefore, a conservatively high seasonal growth factor of ten percent was
used in this analysis, rounded up from nine percent to be conservative (with the resulting potential to
slightly overestimate future traffic demands). The ten percent seasonal growth factor is consistent with
the City’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines.
Q:\2010\16\Jobs\J10-1626 La Quinta GP Circulation Element\Gra\Lane_Configuration.cdr
City of La Quinta
General Plan Update
FIGURE 5
Existing Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Page 13
1. Washington St &
Fred Waring Dr
2. Washington St &
Miles Ave
3. Washington St &
Channel Dr
4. &
Hwy 111
Washington St 5. Washington St &
Ave 48
6. Washington St &
Eisenhower Dr
7. Washington St &
Ave 50
8. Washington St &
Calle Tampico
9. Washington St &
Ave 52
10. Eisenhower Dr &
Calle Tampico
11. Ave 52 &
Avenida Bermudas
12. Adams St &
Fred Waring Dr
13. Adams St &
Miles Ave
14. Adams St &
Hwy 111
15. Adams St &
Ave 48
16. Dune Palms Rd &
Fred Waring Dr
17. Dune Palms Rd &
Miles Ave
18. Dune Palms Rd &
Westward Ho Dr
19. Dune Palms Rd &
Hwy 111
20. Dune Palms Rd &
Ave 48
21. Jefferson St &
Fred Waring Dr
22. Jefferson St &
Hwy 111
23. Jefferson St &
Ave 48
24. Jefferson St &
Ave 49
25. Jefferson St &
Ave 50
26. Jefferson St &
Ave 52
27. Jefferson St &
Ave 54
28. Madison St &
Ave 50
29. Madison St &
Ave 52
30. Madison St &
Ave 54
31. Madison St &
Ave 58
32. Madison St &
Ave 60
33. Monroe St &
Ave 52
34. Monroe St &
Ave 54
35. Monroe St &
Ave 58
36. Monroe St &
Ave 60
37. Monroe St &
Ave 62
Legend
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
AM/PM Peak Hour VolumesXXX/YYY
3
5
6
/
2
5
7
9
4
9
/
9
5
9
4
0
/
7
2
14
8
/
2
3
5
69
5
/
9
4
8
29
7
/
2
2
7
132/317
338/819
172/356
94/60
826/530
344/238
8
6
/
1
0
1
1
0
0
9
/
1
1
4
6
4
8
/
8
3
11
3
/
1
7
9
75
6
/
1
1
7
1
58
/
4
0
36/73
81/217
30/50
81/66
296/186
183/114
1
6
/
2
3
1
0
2
6
/
9
7
1
1
3
/
1
0
5
89
/
1
6
7
75
3
/
9
6
3
62
/
9
1
47/78
13/31
28/89
52/105
17/20
116/224
6
8
4
/
3
7
3
9
0
9
/
6
4
3
5
7
/
9
1
19
1
/
4
1
9
61
3
/
7
5
7
46
/
6
7
61/152
385/901
237/530
66/167
686/590
188/368
1
5
2
9
/
1
0
8
5
5
2
1
/
4
1
0
48
/
1
2
9
63
8
/
1
1
0
0
410/482
252/186
9
/
1
2
1
3
3
0
/
9
3
0
7
/
1
1
22
/
3
4
71
4
/
1
0
3
4
27
9
/
4
6
1
639/472
4/1
7/9
3/3
2/6
13/41
1
6
/
5
9
2
8
/
7
1
3
7
2
/
6
5
11
4
/
1
8
5
57
5
/
8
2
0
44
/
7
5
37/40
105/86
14/14
83/104
120/77
308/198
2
6
/
3
5
6
8
3
/
3
5
7
1
1
7
/
4
2
22
/
3
2
39
0
/
4
8
4
19
2
/
2
9
3
177/281
64/100
11/42
37/26
66/54
54/39
3
/
5
9
/
1
4
3
/
9
16
7
/
2
0
3
7/
1
1
21
8
/
3
6
9
664/219
349/205
1/0
20/12
143/291
165/139
3
/
1
5
0
8
/
3
5
8
6
7
/
5
8
19
/
4
0
16
3
/
3
1
5
2/1
1/4
187/246
68/84
1
0
/
4
9
4
/
5
8
8
3
5
/
2
7
3
26
/
3
2
24
/
9
0
8/
3
7
24/18
289/120
3/4
166/313
171/329
17/36
2
6
9
/
1
9
5
6
7
/
1
2
7
8
0
/
1
1
3
10
0
/
6
8
10
3
/
9
0
19
/
9
12/15
428/807
158/229
130/105
923/542
48/63
1
2
0
/
1
1
9
2
8
1
/
3
9
8
4
9
/
9
6
53
/
3
8
34
8
/
3
5
6
35
/
2
3
15/31
198/308
139/122
93/65
391/207
45/32
1
2
7
/
1
0
9
3
7
6
/
2
8
5
2
3
/
5
1
11
9
/
2
2
2
27
3
/
2
7
4
95
/
1
4
6
88/209
471/1043
27/110
51/80
776/1049
101/170
8
/
1
2
1
4
/
3
2
1
6
/
1
6
12
5
/
2
2
4
12
/
2
0
17
9
/
2
3
9
261/153
276/321
7/12
10/11
484/335
234/172
1
8
5
/
1
3
4
1
7
7
/
1
3
5
546/936
113/100
233/135
927/580
1
1
4
/
4
9
2
9
2
/
2
4
6
2
2
1
/
8
9
54
/
1
6
32
7
/
2
2
2
23
/
1
1
18/33
209/297
97/66
171/103
348/237
29/14
4
3
/
5
9
2
4
4
/
2
0
6
5
1
/
4
0
24
/
2
9
25
2
/
2
7
4
15
6
/
4
7
104/65
128/119
91/95
128/73
135/69
104/32
7
8
/
8
7
3
4
4
/
1
2
4
3
7
/
9
2
19
3
/
2
3
4
26
5
/
2
7
3
14
7
/
1
4
9
73/135
419/1196
45/55
69/116
694/1006
174/155
0
/
1
0
/
7
1
/
4
4
19
0
/
3
5
4
10
9
/
1
2
0
176/97
235/438
0/1
0/3
553/360
350/250
4
2
/
1
6
3
6
7
1
/
6
3
0
9
6
/
1
3
9
22
3
/
4
5
80
1
/
7
2
3
12
4
/
4
9
218/136
676/618
71/160
166/135
426/398
148/53
2
9
0
/
2
7
4
6
0
1
/
4
2
7
5
6
/
7
0
22
8
/
3
4
2
58
8
/
5
6
3
16
4
/
2
5
1
112/321
441/1122
110/410
48/78
627/836
224/163
2
8
1
/
2
4
0
6
2
7
/
5
7
6
2
6
/
8
0
13
2
/
1
6
3
50
8
/
5
6
2
59
/
5
4
25/42
231/440
167/298
80/62
546/356
189/150
1
1
/
1
2
7
2
7
/
7
7
0
1
7
/
3
0
68
/
1
1
0
62
4
/
7
4
2
18
/
1
9
1/9
0/8
0/7
29/18
5/4
195/117
2
6
/
3
0
4
2
9
/
4
4
4
2
6
/
4
7
10
0
/
2
0
5
39
0
/
4
3
0
21
4
/
1
6
4
166/172
178/276
26/33
49/71
251/181
172/146
1
4
4
/
1
5
6
2
1
0
/
2
3
4
1
1
/
1
1
10
3
/
5
7
24
0
/
2
5
6
11
5
/
1
1
2
76/49
192/209
183/203
6/3
148/186
142/101
3
/
0
7
9
/
1
3
6
2
3
/
3
6
27
3
/
2
7
3
12
6
/
1
3
1
2/
1
3/4
3/4
2/0
36/26
6/3
219/261
6
2
/
7
0
1
1
8
/
1
8
4
1
6
/
1
9
39
/
3
3
14
8
/
1
2
6
47
/
3
4
40/56
197/382
28/54
12/15
306/214
29/36
2
7
/
4
5
9
7
/
1
5
6
2
/
1
7
34
/
4
2
97
/
1
0
3
39
/
4
4
45/56
213/244
17/19
9/8
227/183
46/31
1
6
7
/
1
9
4
1
0
6
/
1
8
6
1
8
/
3
5
27
/
2
6
88
/
9
2
11
/
8
8/12
122/92
182/209
21/13
108/84
15/45
1
/
1
1
0
2
/
1
0
0
6
/
4
54
/
5
3
76
/
1
4
7
24
/
2
1
32/41
10/21
1/4
3/2
14/6
24/65
76
/
1
5
2
2/
2
2/7
32/16
30/18
99/72
1
8
/
2
1
9
4
/
1
3
2
4
/
1
4
79
/
8
5
14
3
/
1
3
0
24
/
4
9
56/61
172/216
19/28
9/5
209/163
104/49
9
/
7
9
6
/
1
1
9
1
5
/
7
10
/
4
3
11
6
/
7
8
50
/
9
36/30
99/171
22/16
12/10
103/86
4/25
1
1
/
8
3
5
/
4
7
4
/
7
11
/
1
6
40
/
5
0
26
/
3
7
6/38
36/59
7/8
6/7
27/41
14/8
5
1
/
2
6
2
9
/
2
9
2
/
3
10
/
1
5
22
/
3
7
16
/
1
2
12/14
23/55
55/43
0/2
11/13
6/8
41
/
2
5
34
/
3
0
33/33
1/17
0/1
16/16
) *+ ,-111
!"#$10
1 12 16 21
2 13 17
3
4 18
14 19 22
5 15 20 23
24
6
7
10 8
11
9
25
26
28
29 33
343027
31 35
32 36
37
N
NOT TO SCALE
Avenue 48
Avenue 49
Avenue 50
Avenue 52
Avenue 54
Airport Blvd
Avenue 58
Avenue 60
Avenue 62
Avenue 64
Westward Ho Dr
Calle Tampico
Fred Waring Dr
Miles Ave
Ei
s
e
n
h
o
w
e
r
D
r
Av
e
n
i
d
a
B
e
r
m
u
d
a
s
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
Ad
a
m
s
S
t
Du
n
e
P
a
l
m
s
R
d
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Ma
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
Ha
r
r
i
s
o
n
S
t
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
14
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
Existing 24‐hour roadway segment volumes, which were collected during peak season conditions at 58
locations, were obtained from CVAG. At 7 additional locations where CVAG data was not available, 24‐
hour roadway segment volumes were calculated from peak hour intersection counts at adjacent
intersections. In order to determine an appropriate ratio of peak hour traffic to 24‐hour traffic (known
as the K factor), data was compared at several roadway segments where both CVAG volumes and
October 2010 peak hour counts were available. Comparison of the data showed that, on average,
October 2010 peak hour counts were equal to 8% of the CVAG 24‐hour count data, thus resulting in a K
factor of 0.08. In most urbanized areas, the K factor ranges between 0.09 and 0.10 (i.e., the peak hour
typically comprises 9% to 10% of the average daily traffic volume). The 0.08 K factor value is not
unexpected in the City of La Quinta, where peak hours are less than typical in most urban areas. This is
beneficial in consideration of average daily traffic (ADT) operations, as a lower K factor translates to
higher ADT capacities. These higher capacities, as defined from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual
(released in 2011), were assigned to La Quinta arterials that were forecast to exceed the lower capacity
values that are used in the City’s Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (September 22, 2010).
2.4 MULTIMODAL MOBILITY
This section presents existing multimodal mobility routes throughout the City of La Quinta. Existing
transportation choices that the City has invested in include pedestrian facilities along most streets,
bicycle routes, multi‐purpose paths, truck routes, bus routes and stops, and golf cart/Neighborhood
Electric Vehicle (NEV) routes.
Figure 6 shows the existing bicycle routes within the City. The bicycle routes provide a transportation
choice for both recreation and commute trips during favorable weather periods, which is most of the
year in the City. For trips of five miles or less, which includes most of the internal City of La Quinta trips,
bicycles have been demonstrated in several communities to be a preferred choice vs. driving and
parking a vehicle.
Figure 7 depicts the existing truck routes to facilitate goods movement within and through the City.
Figure 8 shows the existing SunLine bus routes within the City. As shown, Bus Line 111 generally runs
along Highway 111. It currently offers 20‐minute service in each direction (i.e., headways) during typical
weekdays. Bus Line 70 generally runs along Washington Street and currently offers 45‐minute
headways during typical weekdays.
Figure 9 shows the existing Phase I golf cart/Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) routes. These are
currently located primarily in the City’s southwest portion. Figures 10a and 10b show the future, Phase
II, proposed NEV routes. This is a recent multimodal initiative of the City, and holds great promise for
contributing transportation choices for sustainable communities. Electric golf carts, the first mass‐
produced electric vehicles for private consumer use, are now purpose‐built for general transportation.
Street legal golf carts come with various operating limitations such as top speed and heavy regulation on
which type of streets these types of carts are permitted to be used. They are now used in many
communities to deliver the benefits of reduced pollution emissions, and are marketed as being ideal for
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
15
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
driving to the neighborhood golf course, to a neighborhood restaurant, or for other local trip making
needs. They are touted as being easy to recharge and cost only pennies per day to operate.
The California Vehicle Code (CVC) confirms some important distinctions between golf carts and
Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs). Golf carts are designed to be operated at not more than 15
miles per hour, have at least three wheels, and weigh not more than 1,300 pounds. Registration is not
required to operate a golf cart on a highway designated for such use by ordinance or resolution within
one mile of a golf course. Golf carts may not be operated on roads with speed zones above 25 mph
except by ordinance or resolution by a local authority, and must meet equipment Requirements for On‐
Road Use as specified in CVC §24001.5.
NEVs, also known as Low‐Speed Vehicles (LSV), are four wheeled motor vehicles that reach a speed of
more than 20 miles per hour (mph) but not more than 25 mph within one mile on a paved level
roadway. Their gross vehicle weight rating is less than 3,000 pounds. They are actually a motor vehicle
requiring a 17‐digit conforming vehicle identification number, registration, insurance, and the operator’s
valid California driver license. NEV/LSVs can travel on streets posted more than 35 miles per hour if an
NEV lane is provided.
The effectiveness of authorized traffic devices and the perceived safety of NEVs were evaluated in the
referenced “Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Transportation Plan Evaluation” 2008 report to the California
Legislature. The survey of NEV users, bicyclists, and the general public (traditional motorists, users of
public transit, etc) contained questions for all road users regarding the perceived safety of NEVs and
their perceived effect on traffic flow. Traditional motorists and bicyclists were questioned about their
opinions regarding safety issues and potential conflicts in shared use lanes with NEVs. NEV users were
asked to express their opinion about many different aspects of their NEV usage including but not limited
to: 1) implemented signage, striping, and pavement markings, 2) safety concerns with motorists, such as
at intersection or in left turning lanes, and 3) safety concerns with bicyclists and shared NEV/bicycle
lanes.
Major findings are summarized below.
• The introduction of NEVs was found to have little effect on the speed of traffic flow. An
approximate 3 mph reduction in average speeds after NEV installation led to a finding that the
introduction of NEVs may have a calming effect on vehicle speeds. Page 26 of the above
referenced report to the California Legislature states: “With regards to traffic flow, the survey
indicates that traditional automobile drivers feel that NEVs slightly decrease the travel speed. A
speed study…confirmed this finding, but it should be noted that the reduced speed was still
above the posted speed limit”.
• Bicyclists expressed concern about the quiet nature of NEVs which surprise bicyclists when an
NEV passes. NEVs are quieter than traditional automobiles and bicyclists may not have rear‐
view mirrors, so a potential conflict can arise when an NEV passes a slower moving bicyclist from
the rear. Pedestrians would be expected to have similar, and potentially greater concerns if
NEVs were combined with them on multipurpose trails. Such combination is not recommended.
City of La Quinta
General Plan Update
Q:\2010\16\Jobs\J10-1626 La Quinta GP Circulation Element\Gra
FIGURE 6
Existing Bicycle Routes
Page 16
) *+ ,-111
!"#$10
Avenue 48
Avenue 49
Avenue 50
Avenue 52
Avenue 54
Airport Blvd
Avenue 58
Avenue 60
Avenue 62
Avenue 64
Westward Ho Dr
Calle Tampico
Fred Waring Dr
Miles Ave
Ei
s
e
n
h
o
w
e
r
D
r
Av
e
n
i
d
a
B
e
r
m
u
d
a
s
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
Ad
a
m
s
S
t
Du
n
e
P
a
l
m
s
R
d
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Ma
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
Ha
r
r
i
s
o
n
S
t
N
NOT TO SCALE
Legend
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Bear Creek Path
Shared Route
Bike Route
Existing Bike Route
City of La Quinta
General Plan Update
Q:\2010\16\Jobs\J10-1626 La Quinta GP Circulation Element\Gra
FIGURE 7
Existing SunLine Bus Routes
Page 17
) *+ ,-111
!"#$10
Avenue 48
Avenue 49
Avenue 50
Avenue 52
Avenue 54
Airport Blvd
Avenue 58
Avenue 60
Avenue 62
Avenue 64
Westward Ho Dr
Calle Tampico
Fred Waring Dr
Miles Ave
Ei
s
e
n
h
o
w
e
r
D
r
Av
e
n
i
d
a
B
e
r
m
u
d
a
s
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
Ad
a
m
s
S
t
Du
n
e
P
a
l
m
s
R
d
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Ma
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
Ha
r
r
i
s
o
n
S
t
N
NOT TO SCALE
Legend
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Bus Line 111
Bus Line 70
SunLine Bus Route
City of La Quinta
General Plan Update
Q:\2010\16\Jobs\J10-1626 La Quinta GP Circulation Element\Gra
FIGURE 8
Existing Truck Routes
Page 18
) *+ ,-111
!"#$10
Avenue 48
Avenue 49
Avenue 50
Avenue 52
Avenue 54
Airport Blvd
Avenue 58
Avenue 60
Avenue 62
Avenue 64
Westward Ho Dr
Calle Tampico
Fred Waring Dr
Miles Ave
Ei
s
e
n
h
o
w
e
r
D
r
Av
e
n
i
d
a
B
e
r
m
u
d
a
s
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
Ad
a
m
s
S
t
Du
n
e
P
a
l
m
s
R
d
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Ma
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
Ha
r
r
i
s
o
n
S
t
N
NOT TO SCALE
Legend
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Truck Routes
Weight Restricted
City of La Quinta
General Plan Update
Q:\2010\16\Jobs\J10-1626 La Quinta GP Circulation Element\Gra
FIGURE 9
Existing Golf Cart Routes
Page 19
Avenue 52
Ei
s
e
n
h
o
w
e
r
D
r
Calle Tampico
Av
e
n
i
d
a
B
e
r
m
u
d
a
s
Avenue 50
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
N
NOT TO SCALE
Legend
Golf Cart Route
Class 2
Class 3
Not Permitted
City of La Quinta
General Plan Update
Q:\2010\16\Jobs\J10-1626 La Quinta GP Circulation Element\Gra
FIGURE 10a
Future Buildout Golf Cart/NEV Paths
Page 20
Ha
r
r
i
s
o
n
S
t
05
.
1
4
.
1
2
Legend
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Class I Golf Cart/NEV Paths
Class II Golf Cart/NEV Paths
Class III Golf Cart/NEV Paths
Multi-Purpose Paths
“See Figure 10b
for details of this area”
Note: Any installation of Golf Cart/NEV paths shall be consistent with California Vehicle Code 21260.
City of La Quinta
General Plan Update
Q:\2010\16\Jobs\J10-1626 La Quinta GP Circulation Element\Gra
FIGURE 10b
Future Buildout Golf Cart/NEV Paths
Page 21
Note: Any installation of Golf Cart/NEV paths shall be consistent with California Vehicle Code 21260.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
22
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
3.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
This section details the methodologies applied to the traffic analyses included in Sections 4.0, 5.0, and
6.0. The efficiency of traffic operations on a facility can be described in terms of Level of Service (LOS).
The level of service concept is a measure of average operating conditions along a given roadway
segment and is especially important at an intersection during the peak hour. For both roadway
segments and intersections, levels range from A to F, with A representing excellent (free‐flow)
conditions and F representing extreme congestion.
3.1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Intersections are the most critical and typically most constrained portion of the vehicular roadway
network. In this report, intersection levels of service are analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) 2000 operations method, employing TRAFFIX software developed by Dowling Corporation,
Version 7.9. In this methodology, level of service (LOS) is defined by the average peak hour control
delay experienced by vehicles at an intersection, taking into account the effects of intersection
characteristics such as lane geometry and signal phasing. Table 2 presents the delay associated with
each LOS grade, as well as a qualitative description of intersection operations at that grade, for both
signalized and unsignalized intersections.
TABLE 2: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Level
of
Service
Description
Signalized
Intersection
Delay
(seconds per vehicle)
Unsignalized
Intersection
Delay
(seconds per vehicle)
A
Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear
quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all
drivers find freedom of operation.
< 10 < 10
B
Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat
restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable
flow. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully
utilized and traffic queues start to form.
>10 and < 20 >10 and < 15
C
Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait more
than 60 seconds, and back‐ups may develop behind turning
vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted.
>20 and < 35 >15 and < 25
D
Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait more than
60 seconds during short peaks. There are no long‐standing
traffic queues.
>35 and < 55 >25 and < 35
E
Poor operation. Some long‐standing vehicular queues develop
on critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to
several minutes.
>55 and < 80 >35 and < 50
F
Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups form
locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or
prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approach
lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential
for stop and go type traffic flow.
> 80 > 50
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2000.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
23
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
The City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (September 22, 2010) states that the City strives to
maintain the minimum level of service for its intersections at not worse than LOS D. The County of
Riverside Measure A funding guidelines do not specify a minimum level of service.
At intersections along roadways contained in the Riverside County Congestion Management Program
(CMP) System of Highway and Roadways, the minimum level of service required is to be not worse than
LOS E. Within the City of La Quinta, Highway 111 is designated as a CMP facility. Therefore, LOS E
operations are considered acceptable at intersections along Highway 111.
3.2 ROADWAY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Table 3 presents the maximum daily capacity of a roadway in the City of La Quinta based on its
functional classification. Average daily traffic (ADT) represents the total number of vehicles (both
directions) traveling on a roadway segment throughout the course of 24 hours.
TABLE 3: ROADWAY CAPACITIES
Classification Lane Configuration Capacity (ADT)
Local 2U 9,000
Collector 2U 14,000
Modified Secondary 2D 19,000
Secondary 4U 28,000
Primary 4D 41,400
Major 6D 59,300
Augmented Major 8D 76,000
Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (September 22, 2010).
The roadway capacities are approximate, general plan level values. They are affected by many factors
including percentage of trucks, road grade, vertical and horizontal sight distance, driveway spacing,
median island presence/openings, and on‐street parking. The City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐
13 (September 22, 2010) specifies that the maximum daily volume to capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.90 shall be
used for all roadway segments being analyzed.
For Primary and Major Arterial classifications the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) was referenced
to give consideration to the City of La Quinta lower than typical peak hour K factor of 8 percent, and the
resulting increase in average daily capacities. Table 4 summarizes the level of service ranges for each
roadway classification. The lower end of capacity values are for facilities designed for 30 mph posted
speed limits, average signal spacing of 1,050 feet, and 20 access points per mile. The high end of
capacity values, which are most appropriate for the City of La Quinta, are for facilities designed for 45
mph posted speed limits, average signal spacing of 1,500 feet, and 10 access points per mile. To the
extent that less access driveways and further spacing between traffic signals are provided, capacity
values would be qualitatively higher than documented by the 2010 HCM.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
24
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
TABLE 4: ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE RANGES
Classification Lane Configuration 0.90 of LOS E LOS E LOS F
Primary 4D 38,340 39,200 – 42,600 ‐‐
Major 6D 54,990 56,000 – 61,000 ‐‐
The 0.90 of LOS E is the maximum service volume that can theoretically be accommodated on City of La
Quinta arterials while still delivering the desired levels of service. As indicated, a Primary Arterial should
not exceed 38,340 vehicles and a Major Arterial should not exceed 54,990 vehicles per day.
4.0 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
This section evaluates traffic operations at the study intersections for each of the following scenarios
during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours:
• Existing Conditions (October 2010 traffic volumes)
• Existing Conditions With Seasonal Factor
4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS (OCTOBER 2010)
A level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate existing intersection operations during the a.m.
and p.m. peak hours based on intersection volumes collected in October 2010 using the TRAFFIX
Software (City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13, September 22, 2010). Table 5 summarizes the
existing levels of service at the study intersections.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
25
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
TABLE 5: EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS WITHOUT SEASONAL FACTOR
Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay
(Sec) V/C LOS Delay
(Sec) V/C
1. Washington St & Fred Waring Dr Signal C 33.2 0.737 C 32.6 0.635
2. Washington St & Miles Ave Signal C 28.6 0.538 C 27.2 0.584
3. Washington St & Channel Dr Signal B 18.1 0.383 C 24.3 0.579
4. Washington St & Hwy 111 Signal C 33.8 0.685 D 37.0 0.846
5. Washington St & Ave 48 Signal C 26.9 0.825 C 24.0 0.649
6. Washington St & Eisenhower Dr Signal C 23.0 0.527 C 20.2 0.522
7. Washington St & Ave 50 Signal C 28.6 0.682 C 25.2 0.530
8. Washington St & Calle Tampico Signal C 24.6 0.402 C 25.2 0.369
9. Washington St & Ave 52 Signal C 20.5 0.370 C 23.7 0.281
10. Eisenhower Dr & Calle Tampico Signal C 23.7 0.384 C 27.0 0.362
11. Avenida Bermudas & Ave 52 Signal C 31.6 0.777 C 26.3 0.291
12. Adams St & Fred Waring Dr Signal C 32.0 0.703 C 28.0 0.581
13. Adams St & Miles Ave Signal C 31.2 0.405 C 30.3 0.458
14. Adams St & Hwy 111 Signal C 28.8 0.403 C 28.2 0.543
15. Adams St & Ave 48 Signal C 28.8 0.550 C 27.5 0.440
16. Dune Palms Rd & Fred Waring Dr Signal C 24.3 0.599 B 19.5 0.558
17. Dune Palms Rd & Miles Ave Signal C 32.1 0.508 C 31.0 0.336
18. Dune Palms Rd & Westward Ho Dr Signal C 30.1 0.510 C 30.6 0.537
19. Dune Palms Rd & Hwy 111 Signal C 30.2 0.444 C 26.0 0.529
20. Dune Palms Rd & Ave 48 Signal C 23.5 0.481 C 25.7 0.413
21. Jefferson St & Fred Waring Dr Signal C 30.6 0.473 C 30.4 0.438
22. Jefferson St & Hwy 111 Signal C 30.0 0.449 C 29.8 0.565
23. Jefferson St & Ave 48 Signal C 31.9 0.537 C 31.0 0.509
24. Jefferson St & Ave 49 Signal C 23.7 0.395 C 20.1 0.356
25. Jefferson St & Ave 50 Signal C 32.2 0.521 C 32.1 0.407
26. Jefferson St & Ave 52 Roundabout A 6.6 ‐ A 6.2 ‐
27. Jefferson St & Ave 54 AWSC B 10.9 0.425 B 10.9 0.439
28. Madison St & Ave 50 AWSC B 14.5 0.635 C 22.1 0.857
29. Madison St & Ave 52 AWSC B 11.3 0.424 B 12.0 0.391
30. Madison St & Ave 54 AWSC B 10.3 0.310 B 10.8 0.383
31. Madison St & Ave 58 AWSC A 8.3 0.097 A 8.9 0.156
32. Madison St & Ave 60 AWSC A 7.9 0.128 A 8.9 0.258
33. Monroe St & Ave 52 AWSC B 12.6 0.461 B 12.9 0.476
34. Monroe St & Ave 54 AWSC A 9.8 0.240 B 10.1 0.316
35. Monroe St & Ave 58 AWSC A 7.6 0.082 A 8.3 0.192
36. Monroe St & Ave 60 AWSC A 7.8 0.085 A 8.0 0.118
37. Monroe St & Ave 62 AWSC A 7.4 0.066 A 7.3 0.070
Notes:
HCM 2000 Operations Methodology; AWSC = All‐way Stop‐controlled
LOS = Level of Service, Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), V/C = Volume‐to‐Capacity Ratio.
During the October “shoulder” season, and as shown in Table 5, all but one of the 37 study intersections
currently operate at LOS C or better. Only the intersection of Washington Street/Highway 111 is
operating in the LOS D range, very near LOS C, and only during the p.m. peak hour. Clearly, all study
intersections are operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better).
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
26
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
4.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH SEASONAL FACTOR
In order to reflect existing traffic conditions during the peak season, an existing conditions with seasonal
factor analysis was evaluated using the TRAFFIX Software, consistent with the City of La Quinta
Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 (September 22, 2010). Based on input from City staff and consistent with
the City’s Engineering Bulletin #06‐13, a modestly conservative ten percent seasonal growth factor was
added to the existing traffic counts. The results of the intersection level of service analysis are
summarized in Table 6.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
27
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
TABLE 6: EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS WITH SEASONAL FACTOR
Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay
(Sec) V/C LOS Delay
(Sec) V/C
1. Washington St & Fred Waring Dr Signal C 34.9 0.810 C 34.1 0.699
2. Washington St & Miles Ave Signal C 29.2 0.592 C 28.0 0.642
3. Washington St & Channel Dr Signal B 18.2 0.422 C 25.3 0.642
4. Washington St & Hwy 111 Signal D 35.3 0.753 D 42.3 0.930
5. Washington St & Ave 48 Signal C 32.3 0.907 C 25.1 0.714
6. Washington St & Eisenhower Dr Signal C 23.7 0.579 C 20.7 0.574
7. Washington St & Ave 50 Signal C 30.3 0.750 C 25.6 0.583
8. Washington St & Calle Tampico Signal C 24.7 0.442 C 25.4 0.406
9. Washington St & Ave 52 Signal C 20.6 0.407 C 23.9 0.309
10. Eisenhower Dr & Calle Tampico Signal C 24.1 0.422 C 27.2 0.398
11. Avenida Bermudas & Ave 52 Signal D 38.6 0.855 C 26.3 0.321
12. Adams St & Fred Waring Dr Signal C 34.6 0.773 C 28.8 0.640
13. Adams St & Miles Ave Signal C 31.4 0.447 C 30.8 0.505
14. Adams St & Hwy 111 Signal C 29.0 0.443 C 28.7 0.598
15. Adams St & Ave 48 Signal C 29.6 0.605 C 27.7 0.484
16. Dune Palms Rd & Fred Waring Dr Signal C 25.4 0.659 C 20.2 0.615
17. Dune Palms Rd & Miles Ave Signal C 31.9 0.494 C 31.0 0.370
18. Dune Palms Rd & Westward Ho Dr Signal C 30.8 0.561 C 31.4 0.590
19. Dune Palms Rd & Hwy 111 Signal C 30.3 0.488 C 26.6 0.582
20. Dune Palms Rd & Ave 48 Signal C 24.1 0.529 C 25.9 0.454
21. Jefferson St & Fred Waring Dr Signal C 31.2 0.520 C 30.6 0.481
22. Jefferson St & Hwy 111 Signal C 30.3 0.494 C 30.8 0.622
23. Jefferson St & Ave 48 Signal C 32.5 0.591 C 31.4 0.560
24. Jefferson St & Ave 49 Signal C 23.9 0.435 C 20.1 0.392
25. Jefferson St & Ave 50 Signal C 32.7 0.574 C 32.6 0.447
26. Jefferson St & Ave 52 Roundabout A 7.5 ‐ A 7.0 ‐
27. Jefferson St & Ave 54 AWSC B 11.6 0.481 B 11.6 0.496
28. Madison St & Ave 50 AWSC C 17.1 0.725 D 32.4 0.981
29. Madison St & Ave 52 AWSC B 12.1 0.483 B 13.0 0.447
30. Madison St & Ave 54 AWSC B 10.8 0.354 B 11.5 0.439
31. Madison St & Ave 58 AWSC A 8.4 0.107 A 9.1 0.175
32. Madison St & Ave 60 AWSC A 8.0 0.143 A 9.1 0.286
33. Monroe St & Ave 52 AWSC B 13.8 0.528 B 14.4 0.546
34. Monroe St & Ave 54 AWSC B 10.2 0.272 B 10.6 0.357
35. Monroe St & Ave 58 AWSC A 7.7 0.091 A 8.5 0.216
36. Monroe St & Ave 60 AWSC A 7.9 0.094 A 8.1 0.131
37. Monroe St & Ave 62 AWSC A 7.5 0.073 A 7.4 0.077
Notes:
Seasonal factor equal to a 10% increase of October 2010 traffic counts.
HCM 2000 Operations Methodology; AWSC = All‐way Stop‐controlled
LOS = Level of Service, Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), V/C = Volume‐to‐Capacity Ratio.
During the peak season, and as shown in Table 6, all but four of the 37 study intersections operate at
LOS C or better. The intersection of Washington Street/Highway 111 operates at LOS D, very near LOS C,
during the a.m. peak hour. During the p.m. peak hour, this intersection operates at a slightly worse
delay during peak season conditions, but remains at LOS D. The intersection of Avenida
Bermudas/Avenue 52 operates at LOS D and very near LOS C, during the a.m. peak hour. The
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
28
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
intersection of Madison Street/Avenue 50 operates at LOS D during only the p.m. peak hour. This
intersection is all‐way stop‐controlled, therefore LOS ranges are smaller than those applied to signalized
intersections. All study intersections are operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better).
5.0 EXISTING ROADWAY ANALYSIS
Existing 24‐hour roadway segment volumes were obtained from CVAG, which were collected during
peak season conditions (January, February, and March 2010). The existing roadway segment average
daily volume‐to‐capacity ratio and level of service analysis results, based on the methodologies
described in Section 3.2, are summarized in Table 7.
TABLE 7: EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
Roadway Link Existing ADT Roadway
Designation
Alternate
Modes
Served
Existing
Number of
Lanes
Existing
Capacity
Existing
V/C Ratio ‐ LOS
Washington St
Ave 42 to Fred Waring Dr 37,426 Major SunLine Bus 6 59,300 0.63 – B
Fred Waring Dr to Miles Ave 40,633 Major SunLine Bus 6 59,300 0.69 – B
Miles Ave to Hwy 111 32,915 Major Bicycles 6 59,300 0.56 – A
Hwy 111 to Ave 48 36,710 Major Bicycles,
SunLine Bus 6 59,300 0.62 – B
Ave 48 to Eisenhower Dr 33,465 Major SunLine Bus 6 59,300 0.56 – A
Eisenhower Dr to 600’ north of Ave 50 27,129 Major Bicycles,
SunLine Bus 6 59,300 0.46 – A
600’ north of Ave 50 to Ave 50 27,129 Major Bicycles,
SunLine Bus 5 47,500* 0.57 – A
Ave 50 to Calle Tampico 23,434 Major Bicycles,
SunLine Bus 6 59,300 0.40 – A
Eisenhower Dr
Washington St to Ave 50 12,0131 Primary Bicycles,
Golf carts 4 41,400 0.29 – A
Ave 50 to Calle Tampico 9,9751 Primary Bicycles,
Golf carts 4 41,400 0.24 – A
Avenida Bermudas
Calle Tampico to Ave 52 3,3881 Secondary Sunline Bus 4 28,000 0.12 – A
Ave 52 to Calle Durango 9,2751 Secondary Bicycles 4 28,000 0.33 – A
Adams St
Westward Ho Dr to Hwy 111 13,724 Secondary SunLine Bus 4 41,400 0.33 – A
Hwy 111 to Ave 48 12,035 Secondary Bicycles 4 41,400 0.29 – A
Dune Palms Rd
Westward Ho Dr to Hwy 111 9,282 Secondary Bicycles 2 19,000 0.49 – A
Hwy 111 to Ave 48 8,373 Secondary Bicycles 4 41,400 0.20 – A
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
29
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
Roadway Link Existing ADT Roadway
Designation
Alternate
Modes
Served
Existing
Number of
Lanes
Existing
Capacity
Existing
V/C Ratio ‐ LOS
Jefferson St
Country Club Rd to Fred Waring Dr 20,913 Major Bicycles 6 59,300 0.35 – A
Fred Waring Dr to Miles Ave 23,764 Major Bicycles 6 59,300 0.40 – A
Westward Ho Dr to Hwy 111 27,112 Major None 6 59,300 0.46 – A
Hwy 111 to Ave 48 26,889 Major Bicycles 6 59,300 0.45 – A
Ave 48 to Ave 50 27,133 Major Bicycles 6 59,300 0.46 – A
Ave 50 to Ave 52 16,169 Major Bicycles 6 59,300 0.27 – A
Ave 52 to Ave 54 12,399 Major Bicycles 6 59,300 0.21 – A
Madison St
Ave 50 to Ave 52 5,664 Primary None 2 14,000 0.40 – A
Ave 54 to Airport Blvd 9,219 Primary None 4 41,400 0.22 – A
Airport Blvd to Ave 58 6,348 Primary Bicycles 4 41,400 0.15 – A
Ave 58 to Ave 60 3,341 Secondary Bicycles 4 41,400 0.08 – A
Monroe St
Ave 52 to Ave 54 3,147 Primary None 2 14,000 0.22 – A
Ave 54 to Airport Blvd 2,532 Primary Bicycles 2 14,000 0.18 – A
Jackson St
Ave 54 to Airport Blvd 3,338 Primary None 2 14,000 0.24 – A
Airport Blvd to Ave 58 2,326 Primary None 2 14,000 0.17 – A
Ave 58 to Ave 60 1,734 Primary None 2 14,000 0.12 – A
Ave 60 to Ave 62 1,569 Primary None 2 14,000 0.11 – A
Van Buren St
Ave 52 to Ave 54 4,663 Primary None 2 14,000 0.33 – A
Ave 54 to Airport Blvd 3,346 Primary None 2 14,000 0.24 – A
Airport Blvd to Ave 58 1,472 Primary None 2 14,000 0.11 – A
Ave 58 to Ave 60 1,176 Primary None 2 14,000 0.08 – A
Ave 60 to Ave 62 1,017 Secondary None 2 14,000 0.07 – A
Harrison St
Airport Blvd to Ave 58 6,690 Major None 2 14,000 0.48 – A
Fred Waring Dr (Ave 44)
Washington St to Adams St 24,492 Primary None 6 59,300 0.41 – A
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
30
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
Roadway Link Existing ADT Roadway
Designation
Alternate
Modes
Served
Existing
Number of
Lanes
Existing
Capacity
Existing
V/C Ratio ‐ LOS
Miles Ave
Washington St to Adams St 9,828 Primary Bicycles,
SunLine Bus 4 41,400 0.24 – A
Hwy 111
Washington St to Adams St 29,726 Major SunLine Bus,
Trucks 6 59,300 0.50 – A
Adams St to Dune Palms Rd 31,348 Major SunLine Bus,
Trucks 6 59,300 0.53 – A
Dune Palms Rd to Jefferson St 38,037 Major SunLine Bus,
Trucks 6 59,300 0.64 – B
Ave 48
Washington St to Adams St 12,903 Primary Bicycles 4 41,400 0.31 – A
Dune Palms Rd to Jefferson St 18,364 Primary Bicycles 4 41,400 0.44 – A
Ave 50
Washington St to Jefferson St 9,663 Primary Bicycles 4 41,400 0.23 – A
Jefferson St to Madison St 9,990 Primary None 4 41,400 0.24 – A
Calle Tampico
Eisenhower Dr to Avenida Bermudas 5,3501 Primary Bicycles,
Golf carts 41,400 0.13 – A
Avenida Bermudas to Washington St 10,0631 Primary Sunline Bus,
Golf carts 41,400 0.24 – A
Ave 52
Avenida Bermudas to Washington St 16,133 Primary Bicycles,
Golf carts 4 41,400 0.39 – A
Washington St to Jefferson St 13,529 Primary Bicycles 4 41,400 0.33 – A
Jefferson St to Madison St 10,306 Primary Bicycles 2 19,000 0.54 – A
Madison St to Monroe St 7,238 Primary None 2 19,000 0.38 – A
Ave 54
Jefferson St to Madison St 8,386 Primary Bicycles 4 41,400 0.20 – A
Airport Blvd
Madison St to Monroe St 1,893 Primary Bicycles 4 41,400 0.05 – A
Ave 58
Madison St to Monroe St 2,188 Secondary Bicycles 4 41,400 0.05 – A
Monroe St to Jackson St 1,554 Secondary None 2 14,000 0.11 – A
Ave 60
Madison St to Monroe St 3,067 Secondary None 2 19,000 0.16 – A
Monroe St to Jackson St 855 Primary None 2 14,000 0.06 – A
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
31
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
Roadway Link Existing ADT Roadway
Designation
Alternate
Modes
Served
Existing
Number of
Lanes
Existing
Capacity
Existing
V/C Ratio ‐ LOS
Ave 62
Madison St to Monroe St 1,0251 Modified
Collector None 2 14,000 0.07 – A
Monroe St to Jackson St 804 Secondary None 2 14,000 0.06 – A
Jackson St to Van Buren St 557 Secondary None 2 14,000 0.04 – A
Van Buren St to Harrison St 866 Secondary None 2 14,000 0.06 – A
Notes:
V/C = Volume‐to‐Capacity Ratio
1 = Volumes calculated from peak hour counts as described in Section 2.2.
* Capacity was calculated as a ratio of 6‐lane Major Arterial capacity.
As shown in Table 7, the roadway segments analyzed are currently operating at LOS A, with the
exception of three segments of Washington Street and one segment of Highway 111 operating at LOS B.
Clearly all analyzed roadway segments are currently operating well within the acceptable levels of
service.
6.0 FORECAST YEAR 2035 WITH PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN
This section discusses traffic forecast methodology and evaluates traffic operations at the study
intersections and roadway segments in forecast year 2035 assuming buildout of the City of La Quinta
Preferred Land Use Plan. The analysis also assumes regional growth in background traffic outside the
city limits and SOI. Regional growth outside of the City of La Quinta is directly derived from and is
consistent with the SCAG and CVAG socioeconomic data projections of population, housing and
employment. These regional growth assumptions are inputs to RivTAM, and are established and
accepted official regional projections that are required by State and regional agencies to be used in all
models in order to maintain the validity of the traffic model and legality of forecasts for use in
environmental analyses.
It should be noted that certain areas in the RivTAM model that are influential to future traffic in the La
Quinta planning area, especially those adjoining the southeast quadrant of the planning area, reflect
land uses that are more intense than those assigned by the currently adopted County General Plan. Prior
planning work by the County concluded that an eight‐lane facility would be needed along Harrison
Street. Extensive efforts were undertaken to adjust buildout conditions in this area to reflect the current
County General Plan.
6.1 TRAFFIC FORECAST METHODOLOGY
This section discusses the development of the La Quinta focused travel demand model based on the
Year 2008 Riverside Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM). The entire travel demand model was developed
using the TransCAD modeling software package by Caliper Corporation, Version 5.0R2. TransCAD is one
of the predominantly used commercial travel demand forecasting software platforms that incorporates
Geographic Information System (GIS), enhanced network editing and travel demand modeling
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
32
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
capabilities and is the official software used by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
and the County of Riverside. The purpose for developing a focused and detailed model for the City is for
use in General Plan traffic forecasting as well as other applications such as specific plans and
development plan analyses. The La Quinta Traffic Analysis Model (LQTAM) covers all of the six counties
in the SCAG region. A new zone structure with 949 zones was designed to detail the La Quinta area and
to aggregate a set of zones outside of the area. Of the 949 zones, 101 zones were contained within the
City of La Quinta and 22 zones were contained within the SOI. The model roadway network within the
City and SOI area was expanded to include roadways classified as Collector and above, as shown in the
City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element.
The structure of the La Quinta Model is consistent with the RivTAM model to ensure compatibility
between the two models. Building on RivTAM will also minimize the time and effort needed to maintain
and update the LQTAM as new elements of the RivTAM model are put into the model job stream. As
noted above, the RivTAM model includes land uses and intensities planned east and southeast of the
City planning area that have not yet been adopted by the County. Therefore, the unadjusted model
substantially overstates the potential effects of traffic from these areas on the southeast quadrant of
the City planning area. The analysis conducted for this La Quinta General Plan first evaluated the
socioeconomic data that is in the adopted RivTAM to reflect the assigned but not yet adopted land use
designations for the Vista Santa Rosa area and the South Valley Implementation Project planning area.
Because those assumptions generate about 10% more trips than what would be generated with build
out of only approved General Plan land uses, the latter scenario was used for this analysis.
Specifically, the model consists of a traditional four step modeling process including (1) trip generation,
(2) trip distribution, (3) mode split (travel mode choice), and (4) traffic assignment. Two model
scenarios were included in the La Quinta Model, namely the base year 2009 peak season and the
forecast year 2035 peak season. Given the updated zone structure, corresponding modifications
regarding the input data tables and matrices in the four steps were conducted for both of the model
scenarios.
The validation for base year 2009 was followed to ensure the results match with both the RivTAM model
and traffic counts. Detailed information on model development and validation can be obtained in
LQTAM Model Documentation and Validation (Iteris, February 2011).
Year 2035 turning movement volumes at the study intersections were developed by post‐processing
existing turning movement volumes and year 2009 and 2035 approach and departure volumes using the
methodology described in National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report (NCHRP) 255,
Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design (Transportation Research Board,
1982). Figure 11 shows the forecast year 2035 with Preferred Land Use Plan peak hour volumes at the
study intersections, and with traffic generated outside of La Quinta and passing through La Quinta
during peak season conditions.
6.2 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
A level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate forecast year 2035 with Preferred Land Use Plan
intersection operations during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, using the TRAFFIX Software (City of La
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
33
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13, September 22, 2010), assuming the adopted General Plan roadway
network will be modified to downgrade Washington Street to a 6‐lane facility between Highway 111 and
Avenue 48.
Forecast year 2035 with Preferred Land Use Plan traffic volumes were developed as described in the
“Traffic Forecast Methodology” section. The future lane configurations of the study intersections reflect
buildout of both the currently adopted general plan roadway network and City of La Quinta Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) improvements (as of 2011) as shown in Figure 12. The CIP is a five‐year
capital improvement plan. Table 8 summarizes the forecast year 2035 with Preferred Land Use Plan
levels of service at the study intersections based on the future lane configurations shown in Figure 11.
These levels of service do not reflect any additional improvements (such as signalization of stop‐
controlled intersections and intersection widening), which are discussed further in the following
sections.
Q:\2010\16\Jobs\J10-1626 La Quinta GP Circulation Element\Gra\Lane_Configuration.cdr
City of La Quinta
General Plan Update
FIGURE 11
General Plan Buildout (2035) Peak Hour Intersection Volumes (Peak Season)
Page 34
1. Washington St &
Fred Waring Dr
2. Washington St &
Miles Ave
3. Washington St &
Channel Dr
4. &
Hwy 111
Washington St 5. Washington St &
Ave 48
6. Washington St &
Eisenhower Dr
7. Washington St &
Ave 50
8. Washington St &
Calle Tampico
9. Washington St &
Ave 52
10. Eisenhower Dr &
Calle Tampico
11. Ave 52 &
Avenida Bermudas
12. Adams St &
Fred Waring Dr
13. Adams St &
Miles Ave
14. Adams St &
Hwy 111
15. Adams St &
Ave 48
16. Dune Palms Rd &
Fred Waring Dr
17. Dune Palms Rd &
Miles Ave
18. Dune Palms Rd &
Westward Ho Dr
19. Dune Palms Rd &
Hwy 111
20. Dune Palms Rd &
Ave 48
21. Jefferson St &
Fred Waring Dr
22. Jefferson St &
Hwy 111
23. Jefferson St &
Ave 48
24. Jefferson St &
Ave 49
25. Jefferson St &
Ave 50
26. Jefferson St &
Ave 52
27. Jefferson St &
Ave 54
28. Madison St &
Ave 50
29. Madison St &
Ave 52
30. Madison St &
Ave 54
31. Madison St &
Ave 58
32. Madison St &
Ave 60
33. Monroe St &
Ave 52
34. Monroe St &
Ave 54
35. Monroe St &
Ave 58
36. Monroe St &
Ave 60
37. Monroe St &
Ave 62
Legend
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
AM/PM Peak Hour VolumesXXX/YYY
2
4
/
3
5
2
4
4
2
/
2
0
9
0
6
/
1
2
21
/
3
5
12
3
1
/
1
8
1
7
87
8
/
1
2
8
6
1135/1120
3/1
10/18
2/2
3/5
14/27
3
6
2
/
2
2
3
5
6
7
/
6
1
0
4
0
/
9
7
11
1
/
3
1
8
62
0
/
5
9
6
14
4
/
2
2
5
165/400
1025/1774
144/284
135/180
1370/1670
94/284
4
3
6
/
4
7
8
1
2
6
5
/
1
0
8
2
1
3
2
/
1
7
9
43
7
/
7
1
2
15
6
4
/
1
4
7
7
20
0
/
3
5
6
195/512
863/1810
299/833
175/299
1053/1734
526/491
6
8
2
/
8
3
5
1
4
0
5
/
1
6
9
9
9
4
/
3
0
3
21
3
/
3
5
4
99
2
/
1
2
7
5
68
/
5
4
89/81
539/589
1150/1362
144/135
403/425
182/483
1
7
/
2
1
7
6
1
/
2
4
8
6
1
7
0
/
4
2
2
25
1
/
6
1
2
10
4
4
/
1
1
3
1
45
/
1
7
8/28
28/111
3/8
168/258
136/32
605/632
5
/
2
2
0
/
9
2
3
/
3
39
0
/
5
0
7
11
/
2
1
25
9
/
4
8
0
369/341
379/449
3/8
6/9
502/544
539/503
6
0
7
/
5
8
5
1
4
5
4
/
1
4
1
1
3
1
/
1
0
3
22
0
/
3
5
5
15
6
9
/
1
7
8
0
17
9
/
2
2
3
82/111
385/607
517/599
97/82
654/614
243/260
6
/
1
7
1
2
7
3
/
1
4
8
0
3
5
/
7
3
26
0
/
5
1
3
12
2
3
/
1
5
1
3
11
0
/
1
8
6
170/226
25/144
8/29
45/23
60/59
230/566
1
4
/
1
0
2
1
3
5
3
/
1
0
5
5
1
4
8
/
9
2
33
/
3
1
10
0
3
/
8
7
2
12
7
/
3
8
3
237/351
55/92
16/72
68/41
31/62
91/45
4
0
2
/
8
0
7
1
7
3
/
3
2
3
1274/1883
321/343
282/269
2059/1703
3
/
5
0
1
8
2
1
/
1
9
2
7
1
6
/
7
0
90
/
1
8
6
20
7
4
/
2
2
7
9
7/
5
7
30/24
0/20
0/31
33/37
1/8
233/142
3
4
5
/
3
9
7
5
9
0
/
4
7
2
5
/
1
8
20
8
/
6
5
9
37
4
/
5
1
8
73
2
/
3
7
8
369/907
180/280
221/597
2/7
409/303
329/206
9
2
7
/
8
2
1
1
7
1
6
/
1
8
2
3
1
6
6
/
2
1
8
37
0
/
4
1
1
14
4
9
/
1
7
5
0
46
7
/
4
2
0
227/453
1333/1862
566/853
256/222
1695/1969
490/526
3
/
2
3
5
/
1
9
1
8
/
5
0
83
8
/
9
6
3
8/
1
0
18
9
/
9
7
580/71
462/274
39/68
208/507
916/1064
8
6
/
8
3
4
3
9
/
1
0
0
1
2
9
2
/
2
4
2
95
/
8
1
54
1
/
5
4
0
23
/
3
5
38/131
383/787
167/84
373/227
462/681
77/96
5
8
/
1
6
2
1
2
1
1
/
1
5
0
0
1
5
3
/
3
0
1
35
3
/
4
3
9
14
7
4
/
1
6
0
3
28
8
/
2
9
6
144/192
321/585
50/122
293/458
534/565
461/285
3
4
0
/
3
1
2
1
0
8
4
/
1
2
8
8
5
6
/
1
7
2
16
5
/
2
4
4
11
0
6
/
1
3
7
1
67
/
1
7
0
150/168
562/751
231/358
82/83
690/894
210/176
1
5
7
/
1
5
3
2
3
5
0
/
2
3
7
5
8
5
/
1
3
5
21
2
/
4
0
9
19
0
5
/
2
3
0
8
11
2
/
8
5
71/125
121/292
60/58
122/145
343/442
270/370
3
/
1
7
0
2
/
7
1
7
6
2
/
4
8
14
/
2
1
21
4
/
6
1
7
2/1
1/4
213/282
64/63
3
9
/
9
5
4
3
1
/
9
4
8
7
3
/
1
2
2
45
/
8
8
65
2
/
6
6
4
18
4
/
7
6
122/105
122/128
119/81
180/146
87/92
131/121
4
2
5
/
5
6
9
6
5
1
/
9
9
7
6
8
/
1
0
2
38
6
/
3
2
4
11
2
6
/
1
5
2
0
20
6
/
2
5
1
103/68
519/627
621/636
60/38
565/894
568/567
6
6
/
1
2
9
1
2
7
9
/
1
6
0
0
1
5
3
/
4
8
57
/
2
4
0
11
8
5
/
1
5
2
2
20
4
/
1
3
4
215/257
454/752
182/246
145/114
497/751
35/159
2
2
/
3
4
2
4
3
5
/
2
3
4
6
5
/
1
2
4
31
/
1
7
9
19
5
8
/
2
1
1
8
84
/
1
2
1
61/102
3/20
41/117
66/68
11/8
129/145
2
1
/
1
6
1
1
1
/
1
0
5
7
9
8
/
1
6
5
25
/
9
22
/
8
0
17
/
7
3
22/16
219/36
2/4
85/103
204/240
12/12
2
1
0
/
2
2
8
6
8
9
/
5
4
4
1
0
9
/
3
0
1
32
2
/
4
1
1
56
6
/
6
7
4
22
6
/
2
0
9
108/300
907/1983
125/128
157/348
1137/1719
212/444
7
6
/
1
2
6
2
7
/
3
9
17
0
9
/
1
9
3
0
14
0
/
8
3
3/
1
3/4
4/4
38/13
8/3
1071/1280
1
4
4
/
8
6
8
7
7
/
1
0
8
0
2
2
7
/
3
2
2
12
2
/
2
9
4
94
0
/
1
1
0
5
66
/
1
5
8
15/176
203/548
84/89
368/416
180/471
178/197
1
0
3
2
/
7
5
0
1
9
5
9
/
1
6
9
0
1
3
3
/
2
1
0
49
0
/
7
2
6
15
4
7
/
1
5
5
4
76
/
1
0
1
115/229
784/1189
475/829
164/310
1120/807
438/658
4
2
2
/
5
1
5
7
1
/
1
4
6
1
5
4
/
2
6
5
11
6
/
8
8
12
8
/
1
2
3
18
/
1
3
20/17
1279/1881
506/566
368/375
1985/2060
69/104
0
/
1
0
/
1
8
1
/
3
8
52
8
/
7
9
0
20
9
/
4
1
5
369/367
453/565
0/1
0/3
746/595
742/782
2
7
3
/
2
0
4
1
1
9
5
/
1
5
7
9
9
2
/
8
3
27
4
/
4
0
0
12
2
3
/
1
5
0
8
25
3
/
2
7
5
202/285
563/986
94/138
47/88
789/845
172/420
2
3
8
/
1
9
7
6
0
5
/
1
0
6
5
9
/
4
7
14
4
/
5
2
0
53
4
/
8
3
5
25
1
/
2
0
4
110/252
43/419
173/213
0/30
173/146
423/434
1039/1115
2
9
5
3
/
2
5
3
7
7
0
1
/
6
9
8
84
/
1
5
6
16
9
4
/
2
3
3
0
479/860
279/259
1
4
3
/
2
0
8
5
8
9
/
1
3
5
7
4
2
/
1
9
2
18
3
/
2
0
9
92
3
/
1
0
1
1
16
6
/
1
1
1
68/120
369/700
199/143
66/127
495/684
100/206
3
3
4
/
7
0
9
1
1
6
9
/
1
1
6
2
1
8
9
/
2
1
5
10
8
/
4
0
13
5
2
/
1
3
0
6
24
3
/
1
2
3
297/292
380/583
348/252
1038/1035
79/58
3
1
7
/
3
3
1
1
2
2
8
/
1
3
8
8
3
6
/
2
0
0
17
6
/
2
4
6
10
2
2
/
1
2
7
5
13
2
/
1
6
1
103/138
694/793
112/131
95/144
776/976
170/200
1
/
1
0
/
4
41
1
/
7
3
5
1/
1
37
/
3
2
36/31
2/25
4/2
0/2
558/701
) *+ ,-111
!"#$10
1 12 16 21
2 13 17
3
4 18
14 19 22
5 15 20 23
24
6
7
10 8
11
9
25
26
28
29 33
343027
31 35
32 36
37
N
NOT TO SCALE
Avenue 48
Avenue 49
Avenue 50
Avenue 52
Avenue 54
Airport Blvd
Avenue 58
Avenue 60
Avenue 62
Avenue 64
Westward Ho Dr
Calle Tampico
Fred Waring Dr
Miles Ave
Ei
s
e
n
h
o
w
e
r
D
r
Av
e
n
i
d
a
B
e
r
m
u
d
a
s
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
Ad
a
m
s
S
t
Du
n
e
P
a
l
m
s
R
d
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Ma
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
Ha
r
r
i
s
o
n
S
t
7
8
1
/
8
2
4
1
5
0
9
/
1
8
9
1
1
5
1
/
1
9
5
230/465
1401/1654
578/752
40
4
/
3
8
4
15
3
5
/
1
6
2
0
47
1
/
4
3
8
238/203
1501/2020
453/558
1
3
5
/
1
4
9
2
0
0
7
/
2
3
9
8
7
9
/
1
2
3
69/113
128/239
60/49
23
1
/
3
6
2
19
7
3
/
2
1
1
5
11
3
/
8
0
115/150
314/469
246/408
1
8
/
3
5
2
0
7
0
/
2
3
4
5
4
/
1
3
0
62/104
2/21
40/113
32
/
1
7
8
20
2
3
/
1
9
1
5
87
/
1
2
0
61/67
10/8
125/150
9
7
5
/
7
0
5
1
6
9
6
/
1
6
6
4
1
3
1
/
2
1
5
102/216
796/1168
480/735
50
7
/
7
1
2
15
9
5
/
1
3
7
5
76
/
9
1
151/310
990/821
355/700
2
6
4
0
/
2
4
3
3
6
6
2
/
7
1
7
89
/
1
5
5
17
1
5
/
2
0
3
5
484/800
277/257
2
2
/
3
4
2
1
8
9
/
1
9
7
6
5
/
1
3
1038/1138
3/1
9/17
21
/
3
7
12
6
1
/
1
5
6
3
88
1
/
1
1
7
8
2/1
3/5
12/26
2
0
/
4
1
6
4
1
/
2
3
8
2
1
7
5
/
4
1
0
13/27
51/110
6/8
25
4
/
5
0
7
10
7
4
/
9
8
0
50
/
2
5
145/271
128/56
467/627
1
4
/
1
0
2
1
2
4
3
/
9
4
8
1
4
2
/
8
8
238/352
57/99
16/64
35
/
3
1
10
0
2
/
7
2
3
13
5
/
3
9
1
67/37
32/68
91/45
3
/
2
3
5
/
2
2
1
8
/
4
4
630/85
493/246
82
2
/
7
5
3
9/
1
1
20
2
/
1
2
5
36/69
181/558
744/940
3
/
1
6
2
9
/
7
1
5
6
1
/
4
6
2/1
1/4
15
/
1
7
21
1
/
5
3
9
214/284
62/61
2
0
/
1
9
1
0
4
/
1
0
7
8
0
7
/
1
6
0
27/15
285/33
3/4
26
/
8
22
/
7
4
17
/
7
8
84/109
200/295
11/12
3
1
7
/
5
1
5
6
2
/
1
4
6
1
3
2
/
2
4
6
21/17
1365/1710
515/461
12
1
/
9
1
12
8
/
1
1
5
16
/
1
5
371/325
1837/2137
75/108
1
5
9
/
2
2
6
5
0
3
/
1
3
5
9
5
2
/
1
8
3
50/110
391/610
216/125
18
4
/
1
8
1
94
9
/
8
7
4
15
1
/
1
0
9
64/119
426/730
66/203
3
3
6
/
2
2
6
5
3
1
/
6
3
3
3
7
/
9
9
168/389
1034/1701
160/273
10
6
/
2
7
6
65
6
/
5
1
8
13
7
/
1
9
3
126/190
1151/1750
80/304
6
/
2
2
2
/
1
0
2
4
/
3
353/360
362/444
3/8
40
3
/
4
5
6
11
/
1
9
28
6
/
4
3
9
6/9
479/526
482/509
3
1
3
/
7
3
1
1
2
2
/
3
5
3
1316/1834
337/210
255/215
2009/1802
9
4
/
7
8
3
4
6
/
9
9
4
3
4
1
/
3
0
5
26/93
396/713
197/64
84
/
6
9
54
5
/
3
8
1
19
/
2
2
351/268
356/717
43/107
3
7
/
8
5
4
0
0
/
1
0
2
1
7
1
/
1
0
5
119/107
124/104
120/87
46
/
5
9
66
3
/
5
8
0
18
5
/
5
2
179/133
85/66
126/106
1
5
6
/
2
4
6
6
2
6
/
5
7
5
9
6
/
2
8
2
112/312
911/1828
115/125
35
1
/
3
5
4
56
8
/
6
1
5
20
7
/
2
0
8
144/336
951/1803
216/456
0
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
/
3
5
331/391
489/489
0/1
52
7
/
7
1
5
18
3
/
4
2
9
0/3
689/573
648/812
2
5
5
/
6
3
9
1
0
1
1
/
1
4
0
5
1
6
1
/
2
2
0
305/346
1055/1120
357/472
12
1
/
4
5
14
0
4
/
1
1
7
6
24
4
/
1
2
1
356/246
1024/1099
88/83
3
9
4
/
4
6
0
9
8
3
/
1
1
4
7
1
4
2
/
1
7
2
151/513
917/1643
307/746
44
8
/
6
4
0
15
5
2
/
1
3
0
8
17
3
/
3
2
1
176/318
919/1874
395/584
5
2
0
/
5
9
9
1
1
6
5
/
1
4
5
5
2
8
/
9
3
78/113
414/545
532/504
22
9
/
3
2
8
15
6
8
/
1
5
4
5
17
7
/
2
3
3
91/67
604/602
210/257
3
/
4
4
1
4
4
5
/
1
9
5
9
1
2
/
7
4
27/24
0/21
0/30
86
/
1
7
6
20
8
2
/
1
9
4
5
9/
4
5
31/36
1/7
235/146
3
6
/
1
5
9
8
5
6
/
1
4
9
6
1
0
8
/
2
8
5
157/177
351/511
53/89
37
0
/
4
2
1
14
8
5
/
1
2
8
5
26
2
/
2
9
4
257/415
424/635
419/326
3
2
0
/
5
6
5
4
0
4
/
9
9
6
5
7
/
9
4
81/62
550/532
638/526
39
0
/
2
5
8
11
0
6
/
1
1
7
9
18
7
/
2
1
6
57/33
495/851
412/543
5
9
/
1
3
8
2
5
/
3
9
3/4
4/4
16
9
3
/
1
6
6
4
15
8
/
4
8
3/
1
35/8
8/3
734/1329
2
3
4
/
2
1
3
9
3
2
/
1
6
1
0
8
5
/
7
6
179/287
594/894
94/118
29
6
/
3
5
2
12
5
0
/
1
2
5
7
25
3
/
2
7
7
39/78
626/909
124/439
2
3
6
/
2
8
5
9
2
1
/
1
3
9
5
3
0
/
1
8
0
96/130
719/669
117/94
18
0
/
2
3
2
10
5
1
/
1
0
2
0
12
0
/
1
4
5
89/126
635/959
140/229
4
4
3
/
8
4
6
1
0
1
5
/
1
5
8
2
7
8
/
2
4
1
80/80
555/496
1127/1172
22
8
/
2
6
3
10
1
2
/
9
6
9
57
/
5
1
139/114
319/450
160/470
7
/
2
3
9
0
5
/
1
3
5
1
4
3
/
6
7
153/223
39/142
11/40
28
9
/
2
9
5
11
7
0
/
1
2
1
4
13
2
/
1
6
3
23/28
38/80
79/499
2
4
0
/
3
3
3
3
0
4
/
2
9
9
3
/
1
2
375/967
228/303
184/489
20
6
/
5
3
6
24
5
/
3
1
8
78
9
/
4
0
1
1/5
433/365
258/187
2
4
2
/
2
3
4
8
0
6
/
1
3
5
8
5
0
/
1
4
7
138/183
613/660
217/271
18
8
/
2
2
5
10
8
9
/
1
0
8
9
62
/
1
3
8
69/92
543/1004
173/279
7
8
/
1
1
4
9
3
0
/
1
5
7
8
1
5
0
/
4
6
169/215
480/609
217/205
49
/
1
8
1
11
5
7
/
1
1
8
0
21
3
/
9
4
99/135
364/802
16/189
7
6
/
8
7
5
8
0
/
1
0
3
5
2
6
5
/
2
6
9
11/138
252/374
94/72
12
9
/
2
0
0
90
3
/
8
9
0
32
/
1
3
1
337/404
82/472
102/186
1
9
0
/
2
1
2
3
7
1
/
9
2
5
6
/
3
2
141/267
63/350
193/174
14
7
/
3
6
6
41
7
/
5
7
5
29
5
/
2
2
5
0/22
134/174
251/419
1
/
2
0
/
3
36/32
2/24
35
9
/
4
9
5
2/
1
37
/
3
1
3/2
0/3
327/601
Q:\2010\16\Jobs\J10-1626 La Quinta GP Circulation Element\Gra\Lane_Configuration.cdr
City of La Quinta
General Plan Update
) *+ ,-111
!"#$10
1 12 16 21
2 13 17
3
4 18
14 19 22
5 15 20 23
24
6
7
10 8
11
9
25
26
28
29 33
343027
31 35
32 36
37
N
NOT TO SCALE
Avenue 48
Avenue 49
Avenue 50
Avenue 52
Avenue 54
Airport Blvd
Avenue 58
Avenue 60
Avenue 62
Avenue 64
Westward Ho Dr
Calle Tampico
Fred Waring Dr
Miles Ave
Ei
s
e
n
h
o
w
e
r
D
r
Av
e
n
i
d
a
B
e
r
m
u
d
a
s
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
Ad
a
m
s
S
t
Du
n
e
P
a
l
m
s
R
d
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Ma
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
Ha
r
r
i
s
o
n
S
t
Page 35
YIELD
1. Washington St &
Fred Waring Dr
2. Washington St &
Miles Ave
3. Washington St &
Channel Dr
4. &
Hwy 111
Washington St 5. Washington St &
Ave 48
6. Washington St &
Eisenhower Dr
7. Washington St &
Ave 50
8. Washington St &
Calle Tampico
9. Washington St &
Ave 52
10. Eisenhower Dr &
Calle Tampico
11. Ave 52 &
Avenida Bermudas
12. Adams St &
Fred Waring Dr
13. Adams St &
Miles Ave
14. Adams St &
Hwy 111
15. Adams St &
Ave 48
16. Dune Palms Rd &
Fred Waring Dr
17. Dune Palms Rd &
Miles Ave
18. Dune Palms Rd &
Westward Ho Dr
19. Dune Palms Rd &
Hwy 111
20. Dune Palms Rd &
Ave 48
21. Jefferson St &
Fred Waring Dr
22. Jefferson St &
Hwy 111
23. Jefferson St &
Ave 48
24. Jefferson St &
Ave 49
25. Jefferson St &
Ave 50
26. Jefferson St &
Ave 52
27. Jefferson St &
Ave 54
28. Madison St &
Ave 50
29. Madison St &
Ave 52
30. Madison St &
Ave 54
31. Madison St &
Ave 58
32. Madison St &
Ave 60
33. Monroe St &
Ave 52
34. Monroe St &
Ave 54
35. Monroe St &
Ave 58
36. Monroe St &
Ave 60
37. Monroe St &
Ave 62
OVR
OVR OVR
OVR
OVR
OVR OVR OVR
OVR
OVR
Legend
Split-phased Control
Right Turn Overlap PhaseOVR
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Existing Signal
Existing Stop Controlled ApproachSTOP
Existing RoundaboutYIELD
Lane Added
General Plan Buildout or
CIP Improvement
S
S
S
S
T
O
P
OVR
S
S
S
S
FIGURE 12
General Plan Buildout (2035) Intersection Configurations
Re-stripe as two-lane roundabout
Future Signal
OVR
OVR OVR
OVR
OVR
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
36
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
TABLE 8: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2035) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS WITH PREFERRED
LAND USE PLAN (2002 GENERAL PLAN NETWORK ‐ PEAK SEASON)
Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay
(Sec) V/C LOS Delay
(Sec) V/C
1. Washington St & Fred Waring Dr Signal F 82.4 1.179 F 150.0 1.336
2. Washington St & Miles Ave Signal D 36.2 0.897 F 105.5 1.231
3. Washington St & Channel Dr Signal B 13.1 0.591 C 24.3 0.886
4. Washington St & Hwy 111 Signal D 41.5 0.911 D 52.5 1.018
5. Washington St & Ave 48 Signal E 61.1 1.064 D 50.2 1.038
6. Washington St & Eisenhower Dr1 Signal C 28.3 0.771 C 31.4 0.819
7. Washington St & Ave 50 Signal C 33.5 0.813 F 125.6 1.190
8. Washington St & Calle Tampico2 Signal C 20.4 0.492 C 24.2 0.481
9. Washington St & Ave 52 Signal C 31.8 0.800 C 25.3 0.769
10. Eisenhower Dr & Calle Tampico Signal C 23.1 0.361 C 24.6 0.438
11. Avenida Bermudas & Ave 52 Signal C 27.2 0.707 C 26.5 0.238
12. Adams St & Fred Waring Dr Signal D 39.9 0.957 E 68.6 1.067
13. Adams St & Miles Ave Signal D 35.1 0.764 E 71.3 1.077
14. Adams St & Hwy 111 Signal C 32.8 0.683 D 35.8 0.877
15. Adams St & Ave 48 Signal C 30.0 0.607 C 32.4 0.618
16. Dune Palms Rd & Fred Waring Dr Signal C 24.7 0.766 E 66.0 1.101
17. Dune Palms Rd & Miles Ave Signal D 36.3 0.709 D 50.8 0.945
18. Dune Palms Rd & Westward Ho Dr Signal C 32.5 0.758 D 43.5 0.938
19. Dune Palms Rd & Hwy 111 Signal C 32.4 0.610 D 41.1 0.903
20. Dune Palms Rd & Ave 48 Signal C 33.2 0.768 E 69.7 1.075
21. Jefferson St & Fred Waring Dr Signal D 36.9 0.831 D 44.9 0.963
22. Jefferson St & Hwy 111 Signal C 34.6 0.789 F 80.7 1.137
23. Jefferson St & Ave 48 Signal E 57.3 1.036 E 57.9 1.021
24. Jefferson St & Ave 49 Signal B 17.7 0.656 B 16.9 0.678
25. Jefferson St & Ave 50 Signal D 37.3 0.806 E 58.0 1.009
26. Jefferson St & Ave 52 Roundabout C 21.3 ‐ F 68.1 ‐
27. Jefferson St & Ave 54 New Signal3 F 200.8 1.193 F 430.6 1.670
28. Madison St & Ave 50 New Signal3 E 72.9 1.084 F 209.8 1.518
29. Madison St & Ave 52 New Signal3 D 47.9 0.931 F 116.5 1.227
30. Madison St & Ave 54 New Signal3 F 213.0 1.492 F 274.2 1.712
31. Madison St & Ave 58 New Signal3 C 25.9 0.628 F 108.6 1.210
32. Madison St & Ave 60 New Signal3 F 130.3 1.294 F 172.4 1.402
33. Monroe St & Ave 52 New Signal3 D 48.2 0.914 F 127.8 1.269
34. Monroe St & Ave 54 New Signal3 D 36.2 0.860 F 95.8 1.190
35. Monroe St & Ave 58 New Signal3 D 36.5 0.735 E 61.7 1.040
36. Monroe St & Ave 60 New Signal3 D 35.0 0.683 E 74.4 1.094
37. Monroe St & Ave 62 New Signal3 C 29.6 0.540 E 66.1 0.856
Notes:
BOLD indicates unsatisfactory level of service.
LOS = Level of Service, Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), V/C = Volume‐to‐Capacity Ratio.
1 = Calculation based on implementation of a second southbound right‐turn lane (per 2011 CIP).
2 = Calculation based on implementation of a third eastbound left‐turn lane (per 2011 CIP).
3 = 2035 Conditions assume signalization of existing lanes.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
37
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
As shown in Table 8, based upon the assumed buildout of the currently adopted General Plan roadway
network, maintaining Washington Street at six lanes, the following intersections are forecast to operate
at unsatisfactory peak season peak period levels of service (LOS E or worse during peak season peak
periods):
• Washington Street/Fred Waring Drive (a.m. and p.m. peak hour);
• Washington Street/Miles Avenue (p.m. peak hour);
• Washington Street/Avenue 48 (a.m. and p.m. peak hour);
• Washington Street/Avenue 50 (p.m. peak hour);
• Adams Street/Fred Waring Drive (p.m. peak hour);
• Adams Street/Miles Avenue (p.m. peak hour);
• Dune Palms Road/Fred Waring Drive (p.m. peak hour);
• Dune Palms Road/Avenue 48 (p.m. peak hour);
• Jefferson Street/Highway 111 (p.m. peak hour);
• Jefferson Street/Avenue 48 (a.m. and p.m. peak hour);
• Jefferson Street/Avenue 50 (p.m. peak hour);
• Jefferson Street/Avenue 52 (p.m. peak hour);
• Jefferson Street/Avenue 54 (a.m. and p.m. peak hour);
• Madison Street/Avenue 50 (a.m. and p.m. peak hour);
• Madison Street/Avenue 52 (p.m. peak hour);
• Madison Street/Avenue 54 (a.m. and p.m. peak hour);
• Madison Street/Avenue 58 (p.m. peak hour);
• Madison Street/Avenue 60 (a.m. and p.m. peak hour);
• Monroe Street/Avenue 52 (a.m. and p.m. peak hour);
• Monroe Street/Avenue 54 (p.m. peak hour);
• Monroe Street/Avenue 58 (p.m. peak hour);
• Monroe Street/Avenue 60 (p.m. peak hour); and
• Monroe Street/Avenue 62 (p.m. peak hour).
6.2.1 NEEDED INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS FOR LOS D
By the year 2035, with General Plan buildout for the Preferred Land Use Plan there will be a need for
improvements beyond those set forth in the current City General Plan at the above listed intersections
to maintain acceptable LOS D. Additional widening at some intersections is not always viewed as a
community improvement, and overriding considerations may be identified by the community that
would not allow completion of the physical widening necessary to implement the number of travel lanes
needed to achieve LOS D.
Proper consideration of balancing mobility with other values requires that the potential widening
projects be viewed from the perspectives of the users (vehicles, transit, bicyclist, NEV, pedestrian), and
the nearby community that is often more concerned about local aesthetic, social and economic impacts.
The intent is to increase highway mobility and safety in a manner that is compatible with, and enhancing
to, City of La Quinta community values and plans.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
38
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
Management and operations of the City’s arterial network should include monitoring of actual levels of
service. This would allow for identification of timely capital improvements, and/or initiation of
transportation demand management (TDM) and transportation systems management (TSM) programs
during peak season peak periods and other times of the year when needed to reduce volumes and to
reduce the needed improvements.
TDM programs aim to put more person trips into fewer vehicles, by increasing bicycling, carpools,
vanpools, and transit ridership. TSM programs and projects support travelers with real time travel
information so that they can make smart travel choices in selection of time of travel, mode of travel, and
routes of travel.
The physical widening at intersections shown below would be needed to provide traffic operations at
acceptable peak period LOS D or better, if the approach to providing acceptable peak period LOS is
solely through traditional roadway widening. Section 7 gives consideration to alternative physical
improvements and management strategies that would require an ongoing commitment to systems
operations or deliver conditions worse than LOS D.
• Washington Street/Fred Waring Drive –
o Add a third northbound left‐turn lane and a fourth northbound through lane.
o Add fourth southbound through lane and a right‐turn overlap phase.
o Add a fourth eastbound through lane and a second eastbound right‐turn lane.
o Add a fourth westbound through lane and a right‐turn overlap phase.
• Washington Street/Miles Avenue –
o Add a second southbound left‐turn lane.
o Add a dedicated westbound right‐turn lane, converting the number two through lane to
a through lane only, and add a westbound right‐turn overlap phase.
• Washington Street/Avenue 48 –
o Add a second southbound left‐turn lane (CIP improvement).
o Add a third westbound left‐turn lane and a right‐turn overlap phase.
• Washington Street/Avenue 50 –
o Add a dedicated northbound right‐turn lane, converting the number three through lane
to a through only lane.
o Add a second westbound left‐turn lane (CIP improvement), convert the number two
westbound through lane to a through/right‐turn lane, and add a second westbound
right‐turn lane.
o Lengthen the existing eastbound single left turn pocket from the existing 130‐feet to the
maximum effective left turn pocket length of 300‐feet; or add a second eastbound left‐
turn lane in order to provide adequate capacity for school‐related traffic occurring
during non‐peak hours, as well as to line up with the recommended dual westbound
left‐turn lanes.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
39
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
• Adams Street/Fred Waring Drive –
o Add a second northbound left‐turn lane by removal of one southbound departure lane.
o Add a third eastbound through lane (CIP improvement).
o Add a third westbound through lane (CIP improvement).
• Adams Street/Miles Avenue –
o Add a dedicated northbound right‐turn lane, converting the number two through lane
to a through only lane.
o Add a dedicated westbound right‐turn lane, converting the number two through lane to
a through only lane.
• Dune Palms Road/Fred Waring Drive –
o Add a second northbound left‐turn lane.
o Add a third eastbound through lane (CIP improvement).
o Add a third westbound through lane (CIP improvement).
• Dune Palms Road/Avenue 48 –
o Add a dedicated westbound right‐turn lane, converting the number two through lane to
a through only lane.
o Add a westbound right‐turn overlap phase.
• Jefferson Street/Highway 111 –
o Add a fourth northbound through lane.
o Add a third southbound left‐turn lane and a fourth southbound through lane.
• Jefferson Street/Avenue 48 –
o Add an eastbound right‐turn overlap phase.
• Jefferson Street/Avenue 50 –
o Add a second westbound left‐turn lane.
o Add a second eastbound left‐turn lane in order to provide adequate capacity for school‐
related traffic occurring during non‐peak hours, as well as to line up with the
recommended dual westbound left‐turn lanes.
• Jefferson Street/Avenue 52 –
o Add a third lane to the roundabout; or replace with a traditional signalized intersection
of :
o Northbound approach of two left‐turn lanes, two through lanes, and one right‐
turn lane;
o Southbound approach of one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, and one right‐
turn lane;
o Eastbound approach of one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, and one right‐turn
lane with a right‐turn overlap phase; and
o Westbound approach of one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, and one right‐
turn lane with a right‐turn overlap phase.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
40
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
• Jefferson Street/Avenue 54 –
o Construct a two‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or
o Signalize intersection and add a second westbound right‐turn lane and a right‐turn
overlap phase.
• Madison Street/Avenue 50 –
o Construct a two‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or
o Signalize intersection.
o Add a third northbound through lane and a dedicated right‐turn lane, converting the
new number three through lane to a through only lane.
o Add a second southbound left‐turn lane and a dedicated right‐turn lane, converting the
number two through lane to a through only lane.
o Add a dedicated westbound right‐turn lane with a right‐turn overlap phase, converting
the number two through lane to a through only lane.
In consideration of potential community concerns with the channel bridge/cover widening costs that
would be needed to enable these improvements, other options are considered in Section 7.
• Madison Street/Avenue 52 –
o Construct a two‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or
o Signalize intersection.
o Add a dedicated northbound right‐turn lane, converting the number two through lane
to a through only lane.
o Add a second southbound left‐turn lane and a dedicated right‐turn lane, converting the
number two through lane to a through only lane.
o Add a dedicated westbound right‐turn lane, converting the number two through lane to
a through only lane.
• Madison Street/Avenue 54 –
o Construct a two‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or
o Signalize intersection.
o Add a dedicated eastbound free right‐turn lane, converting the number two through
lane to a through only lane.
o Add a westbound right‐turn overlap phase.
• Madison Street/Avenue 58 –
o Construct a two‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or
o Signalize intersection.
o Add a westbound right‐turn overlap phase.
• Madison Street/Avenue 60 –
o Construct a two‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or
o Signalize intersection.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
41
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
o Add a second southbound left‐turn lane and a dedicated right‐turn lane with a right‐turn
overlap phase, converting the number two through lane to a through only lane.
o Add a second eastbound left‐turn lane.
o Add a dedicated westbound right‐turn lane, converting the number two through lane to
a through only lane.
• Monroe Street/Avenue 52 –
o Construct a two‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or
o Signalize intersection.
o Add a second northbound left‐turn lane and a dedicated right‐turn lane, converting the
number two through lane to a through only lane.
o Add a second southbound left‐turn lane and a dedicated right‐turn lane, converting the
number two through lane to a through only lane.
o Add a dedicated eastbound right‐turn lane, converting the number two through lane to
a through only lane.
o Add a dedicated westbound right‐turn lane, converting the number two through lane to
a through only lane.
• Monroe Street/Avenue 54 –
o Construct a two‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or
o Signalize intersection.
o Add a third northbound through lane and a dedicated right‐turn lane, converting the
new number three through lane to a through only lane.
o Add a dedicated southbound right‐turn lane, converting the number two through lane
to a through only lane.
o Add a dedicated eastbound right‐turn lane, converting the number two through lane to
a through only lane.
o Add a dedicated westbound right‐turn lane, converting the number two through lane to
a through only lane.
• Monroe Street/Avenue 58 –
o Construct a two‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or
o Signalize intersection.
o Add a dedicated northbound right‐turn lane converting the number two through lane to
a through only lane.
• Monroe Street/Avenue 60 –
o Construct a two‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or
o Signalize intersection.
o Convert the westbound number two through/right‐turn lane to a dedicated right‐turn
lane with a right‐turn overlap phase.
• Monroe Street/Avenue 62 –
o Construct a two‐lane roundabout (will require further detailed analysis); or
o Signalize intersection.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
42
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
o Convert the number two westbound through/right‐turn lane to a dedicated right‐turn
lane with a right‐turn overlap phase.
Figure 13 shows the future lane configurations of the study intersections assuming the lane widening to
achieve LOS D. Table 9 summarizes the forecast year 2035 with Preferred Land Use Plan levels of
service at the study intersections if they were implementation.
Q:\2010\16\Jobs\J10-1626 La Quinta GP Circulation Element\Gra\Lane_Configuration.cdr
City of La Quinta
General Plan Update
) *+ ,-111
!"#$10
1 12 16 21
2 13 17
3
4 18
14 19 22
5 15 20 23
24
6
7
10 8
11
9
25
26
28
29 33
343027
31 35
32 36
37
N
NOT TO SCALE
Avenue 48
Avenue 49
Avenue 50
Avenue 52
Avenue 54
Airport Blvd
Avenue 58
Avenue 60
Avenue 62
Avenue 64
Westward Ho Dr
Calle Tampico
Fred Waring Dr
Miles Ave
Ei
s
e
n
h
o
w
e
r
D
r
Av
e
n
i
d
a
B
e
r
m
u
d
a
s
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
Ad
a
m
s
S
t
Du
n
e
P
a
l
m
s
R
d
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Ma
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
Ha
r
r
i
s
o
n
S
t
YIELD
1. Washington St &
Fred Waring Dr
2. Washington St &
Miles Ave
3. Washington St &
Channel Dr
4. &
Hwy 111
Washington St 5. Washington St &
Ave 48
6. Washington St &
Eisenhower Dr
7. Washington St &
Ave 50
8. Washington St &
Calle Tampico
9. Washington St &
Ave 52
10. Eisenhower Dr &
Calle Tampico
11. Ave 52 &
Avenida Bermudas
12. Adams St &
Fred Waring Dr
13. Adams St &
Miles Ave
14. Adams St &
Hwy 111
15. Adams St &
Ave 48
16. Dune Palms Rd &
Fred Waring Dr
17. Dune Palms Rd &
Miles Ave
18. Dune Palms Rd &
Westward Ho Dr
19. Dune Palms Rd &
Hwy 111
20. Dune Palms Rd &
Ave 48
21. Jefferson St &
Fred Waring Dr
22. Jefferson St &
Hwy 111
23. Jefferson St &
Ave 48
24. Jefferson St &
Ave 49
25. Jefferson St &
Ave 50
26. Jefferson St &
Ave 52
27. Jefferson St &
Ave 54
28. Madison St &
Ave 50
29. Madison St &
Ave 52
30. Madison St &
Ave 54
31. Madison St &
Ave 58
32. Madison St &
Ave 60
33. Monroe St &
Ave 52
34. Monroe St &
Ave 54
35. Monroe St &
Ave 58
36. Monroe St &
Ave 60
37. Monroe St &
Ave 62
FIGURE 13
General Plan Buildout (2035) With Enhanced Intersection Configurations
Page 43
OVR
OVR OVR
OVR
OVR
OVR OVR OVR
OVR
OVR
Re-stripe as three-lane roundabout
Legend
Split-phased Control
Right Turn Overlap PhaseOVR
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Existing Signal
Existing Stop Controlled ApproachSTOP
Existing RoundaboutYIELD
Lane Added
Improvements
S
S
S
OVR
S
S
S
S
OVR
OVR
OVR
OVR
OVR
OVR OVR
OVR
OVROVR
FREE
OVR OVR
OVR
FREE Free Right Turn Lane
OVR
OVR
Future Signal
OVR
OVR
OVR
OVR
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
44
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
TABLE 9: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2035) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS WITH PREFERRED
LAND USE PLAN (ENHANCED GENERAL PLAN NETWORK – PEAK SEASON)
Intersection Traffic
Control
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
LOS Delay
(Sec) V/C LOS Delay
(Sec) V/C
1. Washington St & Fred Waring Dr Signal D 37.3 0.820 D 54.2 1.018
2. Washington St & Miles Ave Signal C 25.5 0.724 D 40.8 0.970
3. Washington St & Channel Dr Signal B 13.1 0.591 C 24.3 0.886
4. Washington St & Hwy 111 Signal D 41.5 0.911 D 52.5 1.018
5. Washington St & Ave 48 Signal D 38.9 1.033 D 46.9 1.030
6. Washington St & Eisenhower Dr1 Signal C 28.3 0.771 C 31.4 0.819
7. Washington St & Ave 50 Signal C 23.3 0.590 C 33.8 0.891
8. Washington St & Calle Tampico2 Signal C 20.4 0.492 C 24.2 0.481
9. Washington St & Ave 52 Signal C 31.8 0.800 C 25.3 0.769
10. Eisenhower Dr & Calle Tampico Signal C 23.1 0.361 C 24.6 0.438
11. Avenida Bermudas & Ave 52 Signal C 27.2 0.707 C 26.5 0.238
12. Adams St & Fred Waring Dr Signal C 31.9 0.851 D 37.0 0.889
13. Adams St & Miles Ave Signal C 34.7 0.764 D 46.6 0.938
14. Adams St & Hwy 111 Signal C 32.8 0.683 D 35.8 0.877
15. Adams St & Ave 48 Signal D 38.6 0.818 D 54.0 0.942
16. Dune Palms Rd & Fred Waring Dr Signal B 19.3 0.666 C 30.3 0.879
17. Dune Palms Rd & Miles Ave Signal D 36.3 0.709 D 50.8 0.945
18. Dune Palms Rd & Westward Ho Dr Signal C 32.5 0.758 D 43.5 0.938
19. Dune Palms Rd & Hwy 111 Signal C 32.4 0.610 D 41.1 0.903
20. Dune Palms Rd & Ave 48 Signal C 25.3 0.590 C 31.2 0.770
21. Jefferson St & Fred Waring Dr Signal D 36.9 0.831 D 44.9 0.963
22. Jefferson St & Hwy 111 Signal C 32.1 0.695 D 53.8 1.033
23. Jefferson St & Ave 48 Signal D 40.4 0.909 D 46.2 0.974
24. Jefferson St & Ave 49 Signal B 17.7 0.656 B 16.9 0.678
25. Jefferson St & Ave 50 Signal C 33.9 0.753 D 43.4 0.923
26. Jefferson St & Ave 52 Roundabout A 3.0 ‐ A 3.4 ‐
27. Jefferson St & Ave 54 New Signal3 B 15.3 0.650 B 15.4 0.645
28. Madison St & Ave 50 New Signal3 D 38.2 0.874 D 51.4 0.998
29. Madison St & Ave 52 New Signal3 D 39.8 0.883 D 54.5 0.986
30. Madison St & Ave 54 New Signal3 D 38.2 0.818 D 52.7 0.965
31. Madison St & Ave 58 New Signal3 C 24.7 0.581 D 52.6 1.007
32. Madison St & Ave 60 New Signal3 D 51.8 0.975 D 38.7 0.829
33. Monroe St & Ave 52 New Signal3 C 33.9 0.722 D 53.7 1.023
34. Monroe St & Ave 54 New Signal3 C 30.2 0.696 D 44.8 0.930
35. Monroe St & Ave 58 New Signal3 C 34.9 0.735 D 46.6 0.933
36. Monroe St & Ave 60 New Signal3 C 30.7 0.544 D 43.3 0.884
37. Monroe St & Ave 62 New Signal3 B 10.3 0.289 B 13.5 0.490
Notes:
BOLD indicates unsatisfactory level of service.
LOS = Level of Service, Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), V/C = Volume‐to‐Capacity Ratio.
1 = Calculation based on implementation of a second southbound right‐turn lane (per 2011 CIP).
2 = Calculation based on implementation of a third eastbound left‐turn lane (per 2011 CIP).
3 = 2035 Conditions assume signalization of existing lanes.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
45
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
As shown in Table 9, all study intersections are forecast to operate at acceptable levels of service
assuming implementation of the recommended improvements.
6.2.2 FINAL INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS FOR LOS D
Based on the improvements recommended in Section 6.2.1, the final intersection configurations
required to provide LOS D operations for all 37 intersections are described below:
• Washington Street/Fred Waring Drive –
o Northbound approach: three left‐turn lanes, four through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, four through lanes, one right‐turn lane with
a right‐turn overlap phase
o Eastbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, four through lanes, two right‐turn lanes
o Westbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, four through lanes, one right‐turn lane with a
right‐turn overlap phase
• Washington Street/Miles Avenue –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Westbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane with a
right‐turn overlap phase.
• Washington Street/Channel Drive –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Southbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Eastbound approach: one shared left‐turn/through/right‐turn lane
o Westbound approach: one shared left‐turn/through lane, one right‐turn lane.
• Washington Street/Highway 111 –
o Northbound approach: three left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: three left‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one shared
through/right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, two right‐turn lanes with
a right‐turn overlap phase
o Westbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane with
a right‐turn overlap phase.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
46
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
• Washington Street/Avenue 48 –
o Northbound approach: two through lanes and one shared through/right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes
o Westbound approach: three left‐turn lanes and one right‐turn lane with a right‐turn
overlap phase.
• Washington Street/Eisenhower Drive –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one shared through/right‐
turn lane, one right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, one shared left‐turn/through lane/right‐turn
lane
o Westbound approach: one shared left‐turn/through lane/right‐turn lane
• Washington Street/Avenue 50 –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one shared
through/right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Westbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane, one right‐turn lane with a right‐turn overlap phase.
• Washington Street/Calle Tampico –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Southbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane with a
right‐turn overlap phase
o Eastbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, one shared left‐turn/through lane, one right‐
turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one shared through/right‐turn lane
• Washington Street/Avenue 52 –
o Northbound approach: one shared left‐turn/through/right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one shared left‐turn/through lane, two right‐
turn lanes with a right‐turn overlap phase
o Eastbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane with a
right‐turn overlap phase
• Eisenhower Drive/Calle Tampico –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
47
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
o Eastbound approach: one shared left‐turn/through/right‐turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one right‐turn lane with a right‐turn overlap
phase
• Avenue 52/Avenida Bermudas –
o Northbound approach: one shared left‐turn/through , one right‐turn lane with a right‐
turn overlap phase
o Southbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Westbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
• Adams Street/Fred Waring Drive –
o Northbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, one through lane, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
• Adams Street/Miles Avenue –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
• Adams Street/Highway 111 –
o Northbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane with a
right‐turn overlap phase
o Eastbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Westbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lane, one right‐turn lane
• Adams Street/Avenue 48 –
o Northbound approach: one shared left‐turn/through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Southbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one left‐turn/through lane, one right‐turn
lane
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
• Dune Palms Road/Fred Waring Drive –
o Northbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: two through lanes, one shared through/right‐turn lane
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
48
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, three through lanes
• Dune Palms Road/Miles Avenue –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Southbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
• Dune Palms Road/Westward Ho Drive –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Southbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane with a right‐turn overlap phase
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one shared through/right‐turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one right‐turn lane with a
right‐turn overlap phase
• Dune Palms Road/Highway 111 –
o Northbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Westbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
• Dune Palms Road/Avenue 48 –
o Northbound approach: one shared left‐turn/through/right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane with a
right‐turn overlap phase
• Jefferson Street/Fred Waring Drive –
o Northbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane with a
right‐turn overlap phase
o Westbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
• Jefferson Street/Highway 111 –
o Northbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, four through lanes, one right‐turn lane with
a right‐turn overlap phase
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
49
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
o Southbound approach: three left‐turn lanes, four through lanes, one right‐turn lane with
a right‐turn overlap phase
o Eastbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane with a
right‐turn overlap phase
o Westbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane with
a right‐turn overlap phase
• Jefferson Street/Avenue 48 –
o Northbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane with a
right‐turn overlap phase
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
• Jefferson Street/Avenue 49 –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one shared through/right‐turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one shared through/right‐turn lane
• Jefferson Street/Avenue 50 –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Westbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
• Jefferson Street/Avenue 50 –
o Three‐lane roundabout
• Jefferson Street/Avenue 54 –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one right‐turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, two right‐turn lanes with a
right‐turn overlap phase
• Madison Street/Avenue 50 –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
50
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane with a
right‐turn overlap phase
• Madison Street/Avenue 52 –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
• Madison Street/Avenue 58 –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane with a
right‐turn overlap phase
• Madison Street/Avenue 60 –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Southbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane with a
right‐turn overlap phase
o Eastbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
• Monroe Street/Avenue 52 –
o Northbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
• Monroe Street/Avenue 54 –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, three through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
• Monroe Street/Avenue 58 –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, two through lanes, one right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
51
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
• Monroe Street/Avenue 60 –
o Northbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Southbound approach: two left‐turn lanes, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one shared through/right‐
turn lane
o Westbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one through lane, one right‐turn lane with a
right‐turn overlap phase
• Monroe Street/Avenue 62 –
o Northbound approach: one shared left‐turn/through/right‐turn lane
o Southbound approach: one shared left‐turn/through lane, one right‐turn lane
o Eastbound approach: one left‐turn lane, one shared through/right‐turn lane
o Westbound approach: one shared left‐turn/through lane, one right‐turn lane with a
right‐turn overlap phase
6.3 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
Forecast year 2035 with Preferred Land Use Plan 24‐hour roadway segment volumes were derived by
adding the growth in raw LQTAM volumes between 2009 and 2035 to the existing 24‐hour roadway
segment volumes obtained from CVAG, as shown in Section 5.0. The forecast year 2035 with Preferred
Land Use Plan roadway segment volume‐to‐capacity ratio and level of service analysis results, based on
the methodologies including the 2010 HCM capacities as described in Section 3.2, are summarized in
Table 10.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
52
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
TABLE 10: GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT (2035) ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS WITH
PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN WITH ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN NETWORK (PEAK SEASON)
Roadway Link 2035 ADT Roadway
Designation
Modes
Served
2035
Number of
Lanes
2035
Capacity
2035
V/C Ratio ‐ LOS
Washington St
Ave 42 to Fred Waring Dr 58,241 Major SunLine Bus 6 61,100 0.95 – E
Fred Waring Dr to Miles Ave 64,210 Major SunLine Bus 6 61,100 1.05 – F
Miles Ave to Hwy 111 54,141 Major Bicycles 6 61,100 0.89 – D
Hwy 111 to Ave 48 57,955 Major Bicycles,
SunLine Bus 6 61,100 0.95 – E
Ave 48 to Eisenhower Dr 58,267 Major SunLine Bus 6 61,100 0.95 – E
Eisenhower Dr to Ave 50 41,381 Major Bicycles,
SunLine Bus 6 61,100 0.68 – B
Ave 50 to Calle Tampico 36,164 Major Bicycles,
SunLine Bus 6 61,100 0.59 – A
Eisenhower Dr
Washington St to Ave 50 21,435 Primary Bicycles,
Golf carts 4 42,600 0.50 – A
Ave 50 to Calle Tampico 15,291 Primary Bicycles,
Golf carts 4 42,600 0.36 – A
Avenida Bermudas
Calle Tampico to Ave 52 3,919 Secondary Sunline Bus 4 28,000 0.14 – A
Ave 52 to Calle Durango 10,836 Secondary Bicycles 4 28,000 0.39 – A
Adams St
Westward Ho Dr to Hwy 111 21,347 Secondary SunLine Bus 4 42,600 0.50 – A
Hwy 111 to Ave 48 22,132 Secondary Bicycles 4 42,600 0.52 – A
Dune Palms Rd
Westward Ho Dr to Hwy 111 16,547 Secondary Bicycles 4 28,000 0.59 – A
Hwy 111 to Ave 48 20,999 Secondary Bicycles 4 28,000 0.75 – C
Jefferson St
Country Club Rd to Fred Waring Dr 34,274 Major Bicycles 6 61,100 0.56 – A
Fred Waring Dr to Miles Ave 44,436 Major Bicycles 6 61,100 0.73 – C
Westward Ho Dr to Hwy 111 48,090 Major None 6 61,100 0.79 – C
Hwy 111 to Ave 48 46,656 Major Bicycles 6 61,100 0.76 – C
Ave 48 to Ave 50 53,649 Major Bicycles 6 61,100 0.88 – D
Ave 50 to Ave 52 35,143 Major Bicycles 6 61,100 0.58 – A
Ave 52 to Ave 54 31,532 Major Bicycles 6 61,100 0.52 – A
Madison St
Ave 50 to Ave 52 34,204 Primary None 4 42,600 0.80 – C
Ave 54 to Airport Blvd 47,529 Primary None 4 42,600 1.12 – F
Airport Blvd to Ave 58 35,638 Primary Bicycles 4 42,600 0.84 – D
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
53
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
Roadway Link 2035 ADT Roadway
Designation
Modes
Served
2035
Number of
Lanes
2035
Capacity
2035
V/C Ratio ‐ LOS
Ave 58 to Ave 60 26,920 Secondary Bicycles 4 42,600 0.63 – B
Monroe St
Ave 52 to Ave 54 32,749 Primary None 4 42,600 0.77 – C
Ave 54 to Airport Blvd 34,453 Primary Bicycles 4 42,600 0.81 – D
Jackson St
Ave 54 to Airport Blvd 28,524 Primary None 4 42,600 0.67 – B
Airport Blvd to Ave 58 28,380 Primary None 4 42,600 0.67 – B
Ave 58 to Ave 60 23,174 Primary None 4 42,600 0.54 – A
Ave 60 to Ave 62 16,826 Primary None 4 42,600 0.39 – A
Van Buren St
Ave 52 to Ave 54 28,531 Primary None 4 42,600 0.67 – B
Ave 54 to Airport Blvd 22,172 Primary None 4 42,600 0.52 – A
Airport Blvd to Ave 58 21,641 Primary None 4 42,600 0.51 – A
Ave 58 to Ave 60 20,134 Primary None 4 42,600 0.47 – A
Ave 60 to Ave 62 11,627 Secondary None 4 28,000 0.42 – A
Harrison St
Airport Blvd to Ave 58 79,828
Augmented
Major None 8 76,000 1.05 – F
Fred Waring Dr (Ave 44)
Washington St to Adams St 52,881 Primary None 6 61,100 0.87 – D
Miles Ave
Washington St to Adams St 15,151 Primary Bicycles,
SunLine Bus 4 42,600 0.36 – A
Hwy 111
Washington St to Adams St 53,511 Major SunLine Bus,
Trucks 6 61,100 0.88 ‐ D
Adams St to Dune Palms Rd 40,481 Major SunLine Bus,
Trucks 6 61,100 0.66 – B
Dune Palms Rd to Jefferson St 50,659 Major SunLine Bus,
Trucks 6 61,100 0.83 – D
Ave 48
Washington St to Adams St 16,902 Primary Bicycles 4 42,600 0.40 – A
Dune Palms Rd to Jefferson St 32,855 Primary Bicycles 4 42,600 0.77 – C
Ave 50
Washington St to Jefferson St 16,121 Primary Bicycles 4 42,600 0.38 – A
Jefferson St to Madison St 30,593 Primary None 4 42,600 0.72 – C
Calle Tampico
Eisenhower Dr to Avenida Bermudas 5,350 Primary Bicycles,
Golf carts 4 42,600 0.13 – A
Avenida Bermudas to Washington St 10,063 Primary Sunline Bus,
Golf carts 4 42,600 0.24 – A
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
54
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
Roadway Link 2035 ADT Roadway
Designation
Modes
Served
2035
Number of
Lanes
2035
Capacity
2035
V/C Ratio ‐ LOS
Ave 52
Avenida Bermudas to Washington St 16,133 Primary Bicycles,
Golf carts 4 42,600 0.38 – A
Washington St to Jefferson St 31,770 Primary Bicycles 4 42,600 0.75 – C
Jefferson St to Madison St 28,944 Primary Bicycles 4 42,600 0.68 – B
Madison St to Monroe St 26,510 Primary None 4 42,600 0.62 – B
Ave 54
Jefferson St to Madison St 29,390 Primary Bicycles 4 42,600 0.69 – C
Airport Blvd
Madison St to Monroe St 17,177 Primary Bicycles 4 42,600 0.40 – A
Ave 58
Madison St to Monroe St 10,199 Secondary Bicycles 4 28,000 0.36 – A
Monroe St to Jackson St 18,633 Secondary None 2 28,000 0.67 – B
Ave 60
Madison St to Monroe St 14,846 Secondary None 4 28,000 0.53 – A
Monroe St to Jackson St 9,960 Primary None 4 42,600 0.23 – A
Ave 62
Madison St to Monroe St 9,624
Modified
Collector None 4 28,000 0.34 – A
Monroe St to Jackson St 19,822 Secondary None 4 28,000 0.71 – C
Jackson St to Van Buren St 7,022 Secondary None 4 28,000 0.25 – A
Van Buren St to Harrison St 3,631 Secondary None 4 28,000 0.13 – A
Notes:
V/C = Volume‐to‐Capacity Ratio
As shown in Table 10, while the majority of the roadway segments are forecast to operate acceptably
(V/C ratios less than or equal to 0.90 or LOS D or better), the segments bulleted below are forecast to
operate unacceptably (V/C greater than 0.90) based on their current roadway classifications. They will
require ongoing and diligent focus on well coordinated operations of traffic signals and access control
along the segments to maximize efficient circulation. Roadway segment theoretical maximum carrying
capacities, also called “service volumes”, can be increased with delivery of more uniform travel speeds
and less slowing and stopping at red lights. This is best accomplished with implementation of an
Intelligent Transportation Systems master plan.
• Washington Street between Avenue 42 and Miles Avenue and between Highway 111 and
Eisenhower Drive as a 6‐lane Major is forecast to exceed theoretical maximum carrying capacity
by up to 3,000 vehicles per day (vpd), with the most problematic segment between Fred Waring
Drive and Miles Avenue. LOS D service volumes are exceeded by over 9,000 vpd.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
55
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
• Madison Street between Avenue 54 and Airport Boulevard as a 4‐lane Primary is forecast to
exceed theoretical maximum carrying capacity by approximately 4,900 vpd. LOS D service
volumes are exceeded by over 9,000 vpd.
• Harrison Street between Airport Boulevard and Avenue 58 as an 8‐lane Augmented Major is
forecast to exceed theoretical maximum carrying capacity by approximately 3,800 vpd. Although
the capacity of Harrison Street was assumed to be that of an Augmented Major Road (76,000
vehicles per day), it would likely operate as an Expressway due to limited accessibility compared
to an Augmented Major Road, thus carrying a larger capacity. Prior study by the County raised
the potential of grade separated intersections to further enhance capacity.
In order to increase roadway capacity without the addition of travel lanes along segments operating
unacceptably, deployment of some or all of the following improvements should be considered:
• In cooperation and coordination with adjoining jurisdictions and major event centers to be
served, commit to ongoing funding and operations of intelligent transportation systems to
o Deliver traffic signal coordination along corridors in “real time” to optimize the
progression of vehicles at the most efficient travel speeds;
o Operate Transit Signal Priority at signal along major transit routes;
o Operate Dynamic Message Signs to route traffic around congestion to alternate
corridors/to available parking during peak periods and planned events.
• Continue with the City’s established minimum driveway spacing and access restrictions, and use
of speed change lanes;
• Construct raised median islands with minimum opening spacing; and/or
• Work with Sunline Transit Agency to add bus stop amenities and improved peak period
headways along major transit routes.
• Aggressively implement peak season bicycling, carpool and vanpool incentives with major
employers.
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
A city’s circulation infrastructure affects more than mobility. Issues of local access and resulting “sense
of place” are also important considerations in adopting a general plan circulation network. The following
subsections consider intersection and midblock LOS.
The proposed General Plan buildout of the Preferred Land Use Plan would require additional
improvements to be implemented at 23 intersections in order to provide traffic operations at acceptable
peak period LOS (LOS D or better) during the peak season. Some of the identified improvements are in
adjacent cities, and others may impact adjacent land uses. Recommended intersection improvements
are detailed in section 7.1.
Of the 63 midblock segments analyzed for average daily operations, 57 are forecast to operate at
acceptable peak season LOS, while 3 are forecast to operate at LOS E and 3 are forecast to operate at
LOS F based on the standard capacities set forth in the General Plan. Opportunities to improve efficiency
of general plan designated travel lanes are detailed in section 7.2.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
56
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
7.1 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
The intersection improvements necessary to provide acceptable LOS upon buildout of the preferred
General Plan land use plan were detailed in Section 6.2.1. Some of the potential improvements would
impact neighboring cities or require existing building acquisition/modification that may not be feasible.
For such potentially impacted intersections, presented below are forecast LOS results of not
implementing all of the intersection widening improvements. In addition, some recommendations from
the Washington Street/Highway 111 Transportation Systems Management (TSM)/Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Corridor Study (VRPA, September 2009) are considered below. Also
considered at relevant locations are benefits of Intelligent Transportation Systems to provide adaptive
traffic signal timing for improved service levels.
• Washington Street/Fred Waring Drive – Acceptable intersection operations may be pursued by
combinations of 1) widening, and 2) TSM/TDM measures. The extent of TSM/TDM will depend on
the extent of widening that is determined to be feasible, as presented below:
1. Intersection widening
i) City of La Quinta and Indian Wells jurisdiction widening could add a third northbound left‐
turn lane and a fourth northbound through lane. This would improve a.m. peak hour
conditions to LOS E. The p.m. peak hour conditions would remain at LOS F but the average
intersection delay would be reduced by 38 seconds per signal cycle.
ii) Coordinate with the City of Palm Desert to consider the potential for improvements in the
northwest intersection quadrant, specifically the adding of a fourth southbound through
lane, a southbound right‐turn overlap phase, a fourth westbound through lane (La Quinta),
and a westbound right‐turn overlap phase (La Quinta). With construction of these added to
the widening proposed in the City of La Quinta, p.m. peak hour conditions would improve to
LOS E. The City of Palm Desert General Plan (2004) does not call for these improvements,
but does call for consideration of a third northbound left‐turn lane in the City of La
Quinta/Indian Wells, which is consistent with improvements in the City of La Quinta
identified above. In 2009 the City of Palm Desert considered coordinating with the City of
Indian Wells for construction of an eastbound free‐right turn lane.
iii) Coordinate with the City of Indian Wells to consider improvements in the southwest
intersection quadrant, specifically the adding of a fourth eastbound through lane and a
second eastbound right‐turn lane with a right‐turn overlap phase. With construction of the
two City of Indian Wells improvements impacting lanes, but not assuming improvements in
the City of Palm Desert, p.m. peak hour conditions would remain at LOS F but the average
intersection delay would be reduced by an additional 23 seconds.
iv) If the recommended improvements in the Cities of La Quinta, Palm Desert, and Indian Wells
are all implemented, the p.m. peak hour conditions would be improved to LOS D operations.
2. TSM/TDM measures for trip rerouting, in addition to some of the above listed improvements
that are determined feasible.
i) Design and implement an Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Master Plan in
coordination with the cities of Palm Desert and Indian Wells, and in coordination with the
Indian Wells Tennis Event Center. This ITS Plan would enable dynamic route reassignment
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
57
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
of traffic around congestion and to available parking through the use of Dynamic Message
Signs and adaptive traffic signal control. It would deliver the best access to events for
attendees, and around event traffic for residents that are not attending the events.
(1) To achieve LOS E, and to minimize the level of impacts experienced at nearby
intersections, approximately 200 northbound left‐turning vehicles would need to be
diverted, approximately 100 southbound left‐turning vehicles would need to be
diverted, and approximately 100 southbound through movement vehicles would need
to be diverted around congestion and onto adjacent Arterials. Assuming these trip
diversions, the necessary roadway widening improvements would be reduced to the
addition of the third northbound left‐turn lane (City of La Quinta/Indian Wells), the
second eastbound right‐turn lane with a right‐turn overlap phase (City of Indian Wells),
and a fourth westbound through lane (Cities of La Quinta and Palm Desert). Therefore,
the fourth northbound through lane, fourth southbound through lane, fourth eastbound
through lane, and westbound right‐turn overlap phase, recommended previously, would
no longer be necessary.
(2) In order to achieve LOS D operations, assuming the same approximate ranges of trip
diversion shown above, the addition of the fourth eastbound through lane, the
westbound right‐turn overlap phase, and third eastbound left‐turn lane would be
required. Therefore, the fourth northbound through lane and fourth southbound
through lane, recommended previously, would continue to no longer be necessary.
(3) Federal Highways Administration confirms that Event Traffic Management can enhance
community image by providing a safe, efficient, and convenient environment for those
who travel to and from an event, while at the same time minimizing any congestion‐
related impacts it may have on other motorists. A trip that exceeds the expectations of
those attending an event, or others whose trips may be affected by the event, are
important factors to consider when making decisions regarding the provision of
customer services and allocating agency resources. Advanced planning and coordination
also allows agencies to develop and deploy the operational strategies, traffic control
plans, protocols, procedures, and technologies needed to control traffic and share real‐
time information with other stakeholders on the day of the event. These capabilities
allow agencies to proactively manage and control traffic to accommodate the increased
travel demand generated by the event and use the available roadway capacity in the
most efficient and effective manner.
• Adams Street/Miles Avenue – Add a dedicated westbound right‐turn lane, converting the number
two through lane to a through only lane. Implementation of this improvement alone will only
achieve LOS E operations in the p.m. peak hour.
Consider adding a dedicated northbound right‐turn lane, converting the number two through lane
to a through only lane in order to achieve LOS D operations. This would impact three to four
residential property side yards.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
58
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
• Jefferson Street/Highway 111 – Acceptable intersection operations may be pursued by the
following improvement options:
1. LOS D operation may be attained with intersection widening with a fourth northbound
through lane, a third southbound left‐turn lane, a fourth southbound through lane.
These improvements may be considered incompatible with adjacent community values
and plans of both the cities of La Quinta and Indio.
2. LOS D operation may be attained with adaptive signal control along the Jefferson Street
Corridor and intersection widening for a fourth southbound through lane, and a third
southbound left‐turn lane. This eliminates the need for a fourth northbound through
lane
It is recommended that the City of La Quinta coordinate with the City of Indio on
potential TSM measures to optimize the traffic carrying capacity of available pavement
widths.
3. LOS E operations may be achieved with the addition of only a third southbound left‐turn
lane which may be considered in lieu of any additional through lanes, assuming
coordination with the City of Indio.
• Madison Street/Avenue 50 – Coordinate with the City of Indio to signalize intersection. Add a third
northbound through lane and a dedicated right‐turn lane, converting the new number three through
lane to a through only lane. Add a second southbound left‐turn lane and a dedicated right‐turn lane,
converting the number two through lane to a through only lane. Add a dedicated westbound right‐
turn lane with a right‐turn overlap phase, converting the number two through lane to a through only
lane.
In lieu of the third northbound through lane, which is both costly and potentially conflicting with
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) facilities, provide both a 2nd northbound left turn lane and a
lengthened northbound right turn only lane, which will facilitate the shift of the forecast demand
westerly to Jefferson Street and/or easterly to Monroe Street. Assuming the implementation of
TSM/TDM measures for trip rerouting, it is estimated that approximately 400 northbound trips
accommodated in the p.m. peak hour could be diverted to left or right‐turn trips in order to achieve
LOS D operations, assuming all other improvements listed above and shown in Figure 13.
7.2 MIDBLOCK IMPROVEMENTS
Figure 14 depicts the midblock segments that are forecast to operate at unacceptable service levels for
average daily operations. The three (3) LOS E and three (3) LOS F segments will require focus on
methods to improve operating efficiencies and provide capacity beyond the standard set forth in the
General Plan. Capacity is generally optimized with the provision of 12‐foot lanes, 12‐foot lateral
clearances from the edge of the traveled lanes to obstructions along the edge of the road and in the
median and median dividers and speed change lanes.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
59
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
The HCM 2010, recently released by the highly esteemed Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies (advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine) was used to determine
arterial improvement needs. Chapter 15 was consulted to confirm capacity attributes for arterials that
are significantly influenced by signalized intersections. Signalized intersections have been defined as the
most constraining and defining portions of roadway capacities, and as the ultimate arbiters of capacity.
Where the intersection configurations noted in Section 7.1 can be provided, midblock capacities will be
increased and midblock LOS improved.
In the General Plan study area, the highest forecast volumes for 2035 are along Harrison Street between
Airport Boulevard and Avenue 58. The high traffic forecast of 72,700 ADT on Harrison Street, reflect
land use assumptions incorporated into the RivTAM model by County traffic engineers, planners and
demographers. These assumed land uses, including the South Valley Parkway Implementation Program
(SVPIP) and the Vista Santa Rosa Community Plan area were considered during the process of reporting
growth plans to SCAG for the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). It should be noted that these are
not adopted land use plans, although a major portion of their potential traffic has been assumed in the
growth plans provided to SCAG and resulting in the 2008 RTP.
Harrison Street volumes forecast for 2035 indicate a need for an 8‐lane facility. Here and elsewhere in
the southeast quadrant of the General Plan planning area, the City may wish to retain the current lane
designations. Whether and to what extent land use patterns may change to the east and south of the
planning area, the City should monitor, evaluate and provide thoughtful input to the County and other
jurisdictions that propose changes in area land uses.
The remaining forecast deficient midblock segments include the Washington Street/Fred Waring Drive
intersection where buildout of identified improvements is uncertain. Focused and ongoing attention to
operations will be required along the following corridor:
• Washington Street between Fred Waring Drive and Eisenhower Drive.
Capacity is generally optimized with the provision of 12‐foot lanes, 12‐foot lateral clearances from the
edge of the traveled lanes to obstructions along the edge of the road and in the median and median
dividers and speed change lanes. The number of access points (i.e., intersections, driveways, and median
island openings) also has an influence on capacity, by affecting vehicle conflicts. Consideration of
driveway consolidation and/or access restrictions along forecast deficient midblock segments is
recommended.
The Complete Streets approach gives first priority to improving transit service on the Washington Street
and Highway 111 corridors, providing a convenient and efficient system as a preferable alternative to
automobile use.
• Work with Sunline Transit Agency to develop transit preferential treatments to establish
consistency in treatment type and design. Potential treatments and measures include:
o Traffic signal priority for buses; and
o Enhanced bus stops and amenities, such as wider sidewalks, shelters, electronic vehicle
arrival information.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
60
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
• Make convenient transfers between transit lines, systems and modes possible by establishing
common or closely located terminals for local and regional transit systems and by coordinating
fares and schedules.
• Improve pedestrian, bicycle, and NEV access to transit facilities.
• Encourage the maintenance and efficient operation of the fleet of transit vehicles.
Signal operations are recommended to optimize traffic progression along all corridors. The Federal
Highway Association (FHWA) has documented that outdated signal timing accounts for 5 to 10 percent
of all traffic delay on major roadways, and is promoting Adaptive Signal Control Technology to
continuously improve the efficiency of traffic signal timing by updating phase splits and offsets in
response to current traffic conditions. Benefits have been demonstrated to reduce stops and delay up to
29%, and to decrease travel times by up to 35%.
The locations where roundabouts are recommended are generally one mile away from the nearest
signalized intersection or adjacent roundabout. These isolated roundabouts would not disrupt traffic
signal progression, since the further a signalized intersection is from a roundabout, the fewer closely
spaced vehicle platoons would be expected to arrive at the roundabout, as platoons tend to disperse as
they move down a corridor.
Incorporating Adaptive Signal Control Technology into existing closed loop traffic signal systems keeps
signal timing operating at a high level of efficiency and provides the ability to actively monitor traffic
conditions resulting in fewer complaints, increased capacities, and reduced congestion. It is eligible for
Federal aid. The FHWA Resource Center Operations Technical Services Team will provide workshops,
training, and technical assistance for agencies interested in pursuing deployment. In fact, FHWA will
conduct outreach in 2012 in pursuit of helping 40 agencies implement Adaptive Signal Control
Technology.
City of La Quinta
General Plan Update
FIGURE 14
General Plan Buildout (2035)
Unacceptably Operating Roadway SegmentsPage 61
) *+ ,-111
!"#$10
Avenue 48
Avenue 49
Avenue 50
Avenue 52
Avenue 54
Airport Blvd
Avenue 58
Avenue 60
Avenue 62
Avenue 64
Westward Ho Dr
Calle Tampico
Fred Waring Dr
Miles Ave
Ei
s
e
n
h
o
w
e
r
D
r
Av
e
n
i
d
a
B
e
r
m
u
d
a
s
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
Ad
a
m
s
S
t
Du
n
e
P
a
l
m
s
R
d
Je
f
f
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
Ma
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
Mo
n
r
o
e
S
t
Ja
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
Ha
r
r
i
s
o
n
S
t
N
NOT TO SCALE
Legend
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
LOS E (V/C of 0.90-1.00)
LOS F (V/C > 1.00)
Intersection improvements
uncertain due to feasibility
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
62
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
7.3 TRANSPORTATION GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS FOR A SUSTAINABLE CITY OF LA
QUINTA
With a legacy of transportation infrastructure largely constructed to maximize the movement of private
vehicles, how can the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element be crafted, constructed and
operated to best move people and goods? As the City of La Quinta begins consideration of its
circulation plans through the year 2035, there is need to take account of Federal, State and regional
context in establishing policy direction.
7.3.1 COMPLETE S TREETS
Federal transportation focus is now on economic competitiveness, sustainability, livability, state of
repair, and environmental benefits. “Complete streets” are envisioned to enable safe access and travel
for all users – pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, transit users, and travelers of all ages and abilities.
Ensuring that roads provide safe mobility for all travelers, not just motor vehicles, is at the heart of
complete streets. Typical elements that make up a complete street include sidewalks, bicycle lanes,
shared‐use paths, designated bus lanes, safe and accessible transit stops, and frequent and safe
crossings for pedestrians – including median islands, accessible pedestrian signals, and curb extensions.
A design for a complete street in a rural area, such as Vista Santa Rosa, may look quite different from
one in an urban or suburban area. As examples, a complete street in a rural area could involve providing
wide shoulders or a separate multiuse path instead of sidewalks, while a complete street in a more
urban/suburban area such as the Highway 111 corridor may be customized to accommodate the needs
and expectations of travelers who either want to pass through the City or to gain orderly access to the
adjacent uses.
Complete streets are closely associated with the principles promoted by the Interagency Partnership for
Sustainable Communities. This Partnership is a joint endeavor involving the U.S. Department of
Transportation, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and is intended to:
• Provide more transportation choices for all travelers;
• Support existing communities through transit‐oriented, mixed‐use development and land
recycling (e.g., reuse of underused properties); and
• Value communities by investing in healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods.
The California Complete Streets Act (Assembly Bill 1358, signed into law in 2008) requires that any
substantive local General Plan Circulation Element revision, “plan for a balanced, multimodal
transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, defined to
include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of
commercial goods, and users of public transportation, in a manner that is suitable to the rural,
suburban, or urban context of the general plan”. Successful long‐term implementation of this policy is
intended to result in:
• More options for people to go from one place to another,
• Less traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions,
• More walkable communities (with healthier, more active people), and
• Fewer barriers for older adults, children, and people with disabilities.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
63
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
7.3.2 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS
State enactment of AB 32 and SB 375 legislation sets new standards for California's production of
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. SB 375 specifically gives our regional Metropolitan Planning
Organization, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) the responsibility to work with
local jurisdictions to develop a regional strategy for reducing GHG. These efforts focus on reduction of
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), as transportation in California generates approximately 38% of GHG
emissions. Best practices in transportation as espoused by the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA), have been drawn upon in the following subsection.
The role of transportation in these efforts is expected to include:
• Transportation Investment, particularly transit and other multimodal infrastructure investment
that may impact GHG emissions;
• Transportation Planning and Demand Management, planning and programs that reduce
demand for low‐occupancy auto traffic and improve efficiency of commercial vehicles; and
• Transportation System Management and operational policies and practices.
7.3.3 EXISTING GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
In order to develop recommendations on Goals, Policies and Programs, the existing City of La Quinta
General Plan policies were reviewed as detailed below.
• Policy 1 of the Existing Circulation Element is to “Establish and maintain a master plan of
roads…to assure minimal levels of 0.80 V/C roadway segment and LOS D intersection
operations.
This Policy is inconsistent with the City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 reference that the
maximum daily volume to capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.90 shall be used for all roadway segments being
analyzed. Key to the V/C calculation is the capacity assumption. The recently released Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010, provides generalized daily service volumes based on the percent of
average daily traffic that is accounted for by the peak hour (i.e., the K‐factor). However, 9% is the
lowest K‐factor addressed in HCM2010. Iteris has interpolated the values, presented below, for
consideration by the City.
Facility Type Existing LQ 2010 HCM 8% K Factor
V/C 0.90/E LOS D LOS E
4‐Lane Divided 38,340 41,900 42,600
6‐Lane Divided 54,990 60,800 61,100
It may be appropriate to revise Policy 1 to reflect the HCM 2010 capacity values, as adjusted
above, given the City’s low peak hour K‐factor.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
64
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
• Policy 2 calls for coordination with adjacent and overlapping agencies to maximize capacities on
regional roadways.
The City may wish to consider adding language to “Advocate for a regional system to operate
managed lanes for transit on high volume arterials (e.g Harrison Street), and consider market‐based
price or charge for single occupant auto use within them during peak periods, to capture the true
cost of private vehicle use and encourage the use of ride‐sharing and alternative transportation.
Programs 2.3 and 2.4 call for Major Arterials to provide a 60 mph design speed, and Primary
Arterials to provide a 50 mph design speed. The Highway Design Manual calls for arterial streets to
achieve a design speed range between 40 mph and 60 mph, and arterials with extensive
development to achieve a design speed range between 30 mph and 40 mph. With the City intention
to expand golf cart operations throughout much of the arterial network, it may be more appropriate
to consider a lesser design speed of 50 to 55 mph rather than 60 mph for Major Arterials, and 40 to
45 mph for Primary Arterials. The typical driver proceeds at a speed that is perceived as
comfortable, not at the posted speed limit. A 45 mph maximum speed posting to enable
designation of an arterial for golf cart and NEV use would point to selection of a 55 mph design
speed, using the guideline of design speed being 10 mph over posted speed limit.
Programs 2.3 and 2.4 also call for Major Arterials to provide intersection spacing of 2,600 feet in
residential areas and 1,060 feet for commercial frontage. An issue brief on this topic was prepared
by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and US DOT. One of the most aggressive access
management programs is in the State of Florida. The Florida Department of Transportation Systems
Planning Office conducted an extensive literature search and concluded that minimum acceptable
arterial signal distances range between 1,050 feet and 1,350 feet.
Programs 2.3 and 2.4 also call for right turn in/out driveways to be further than 250 feet on
intersection approach, 150 feet on intersection exit leg, and 250 feet between driveways. The ITE
issue brief includes further information on the functional area of intersection where driveways
should not be located. An additional literature search was conducted, and the most relevant
information was found in a summary of AASHTO and NCHRP information summarized by the
Georgia Department of Transportation. Spacing between driveways is recommended to be at least
equal to the distance traveled, at the posted speed limit, during the normal perception and reaction
time plus the distance traveled as the vehicle decelerates to a stop. For an Arterial with a minimum
posted speed limit of 45 mph, a 275‐foot distance is recommended.
• Policy 3 calls for City participation in regional planning to encourage City policies on regional
transportation issues.
These efforts may be strengthened with City use of the following National Traffic Operations Council
(NTOC) examples of ways to broadly describe the benefits of a multimodal, intelligent transportation
system:
o “Safer, smarter, more affordable roads”
o “Operations: Making your roads work for you”
o “Operations: The flexible alternative”
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
65
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
o “Enhancing the value of your roads”
• Policy 4 encourages Sunline Transit expansion of ridership and the service area.
An approach to build transit ridership is by promoting transit oriented development at the City’s
highest served transit corridor crossings. During consideration of the Zoning Code, the City may
explore opportunities for Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zones within one‐quarter mile radii
intersections where existing or future bus lines intersect (i.e., Highway 111/Adams Street, and
Highway 111/Harrison Street).
• Policy 6 is to encourage the use of bicycle routes and multi‐use trails.
The City may consider creating an interconnected transportation system that allows a shift in travel
from private passenger vehicles to alternative modes, including neighborhood electric vehicles
(NEV) bicycling, bicycle‐sharing, and walking. This consideration should ensure transportation
centers are multi‐modal to allow transportation modes to intersect, and are conveniently located.
• Policy 7 is to assess the potential for perimeter trails.
These appear to be more recreation focus, and would be of limited benefit to the overall
transportation network operations.
• Policy 9 calls for a directional sign program for high use areas.
Changeable message signs may be considered at major activity centers to route traffic around
congestion and to available parking. For example, Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive may
route event attendees to available parking and through traffic around event related traffic
congestion.
• Policy 12 is to designate Washington Street, Jefferson Street and Highway 111 as Truck Routes.
The City may want to consider use of concrete travel lanes to enhance structural integrity. This has
also been noted as a means of increasing solar reflectivity, thereby reducing the “heat island”
intensity.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
66
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
7.3.4 RECOMMENDED GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
What is intended to be accomplished with the Circulation Element goal? The National Traffic Operations
Council (NTOC) and others have worked to prepare a Business Plan to convince potential stakeholders
like the City of La Quinta that their goal should be greater adoption of Intelligent Transportation Systems
to deliver more efficient operations from existing or less new pavement widths. A possible goal could
be:
“A multimodal and intelligent transportation system to improve the near and long term future safety,
efficiency and costs of moving people and goods, both through the Coachella Valley and to the
residential/commercial resort developments that are the City of La Quinta.”
Goals, Policies and Programs to promote multimodal transportation operations will be needed to meet
the intent of Federal, State and regional transportation direction. The application of the California Air
Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) best practices would call for Circulation Element goals
to:
“Reduce GHG emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours of delay by
increasing or encouraging the use of alternative modes and transportation technologies.”, and
“Implement and manage a hierarchy of Complete Street multimodal transportation
infrastructure and programs to deliver improved mobility and reduce associated GHG
emissions.”
Policies (1.) and Programs (a.) for consideration as part of Goal I are outlined below.
“Reduce GHG emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours of delay by increasing or
encouraging the use of alternative modes and transportation technologies.”
1. Create an interconnected transportation system that allows a shift in travel from private
passenger vehicles to alternative modes, including public transit, golf carts, ride‐sharing, car‐
sharing, bicycling, bicycle‐sharing, and walking.
a. Ensure transportation centers are multi‐modal to allow transportation modes to
intersect, and are conveniently located. Convenient locations may be in the vicinities of:
i. Washington Street/Fred Waring Drive/Via Sevilla
ii. Miles Avenue/Adams Street
iii. Adams Street/Highway 111/Avenue 47
iv. Avenue 47/Caleo Bay
v. Washington Street/Calle Tampico
vi. Eisenhower Drive/Avenida. Montezuma
b. Work with SunLine Transit to expand bus routes and service, to include Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) along Highway 111 and along Harrison Street.
c. Expand golf cart routes, and bicycle routes to connect residential and activity centers
with transportation centers.
d. Support programs that encourage private, for‐profit community car‐sharing to provide
“station cars” and/or golf carts/NEVs for short trips to/from transit centers.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
67
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
e. Include designated parking spaces for car share vehicles at convenient locations
accessible by public transit.
f. Work with SunLine Transit to ensure transit stops are safe and sheltered, with adequate
seating, lighting, trash receptacles, cleaning and maintenance.
g. Operate transit‐preferential measures such as transit signal priority and bypass lanes.
h. Support “Smart bus” technology, using GPS and electronic displays at transit stops to
provide customers with “real‐time” arrival and departure time information (and allow
the system operator to respond more quickly and effectively to disruptions in service).
i. Develop and implement bicycle‐preferential measures such as deployment of video
detection at traffic signals, and development of bicycle stations at intermodal
hubs/transportation centers, with attended or “valet” service during peak use periods.
j. Encourage covered, secure bicycle parking near building entrances and at transportation
centers.
k. Adopt bicycle parking standards that accommodate at least 5% of projected use at all
public and commercial facilities (vs. current code for 3% of certain uses).
l. Conduct bicycle and pedestrian safety educational programs to teach drivers, riders, and
walkers the laws, riding protocols, routes, safety tips, and “healthy community”
benefits.
2. Promote ride sharing programs to reduce VMT by shifting demand to the greatest available
source of unused travel capacity – empty seats in private vehicles.
a. Designate a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride‐sharing vehicles at
employment and activity centers.
b. Provide a web site or message board for coordinating shared rides.
3. Adopt a comprehensive parking policy to capture the true cost of private vehicle use and
encourage the use of alternative transportation, including:
a. Consider parking pricing to discourage private vehicle use, especially at peak times.
b. Create parking benefit districts, which invest meter revenues in alternative mode
infrastructure and other public amenities.
c. Require new commercial and retail developments to provide preferred parking for
electric vehicles and vehicles using alternative fuels.
4. Support and promote the use of low‐ and zero‐emission vehicles, and alternative fuels, and
other measures to directly reduce emissions from motor vehicles.
a. Develop infrastructure necessary to encourage the use of zero‐emission vehicles and
clean alternative fuels, such as development of electric vehicle charging facilities and
conveniently located alternative fueling stations.
b. Support efforts to establish regionwide incentives to taxicab owners to use alternative
fuel or gas‐electric hybrid vehicles.
c. Enforce State idling laws for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction
vehicles.
5. Conduct performance monitoring of the above‐listed Policies and, based on documented levels
of success, consider reducing existing off‐street parking requirements. Many cities have found
they can reduce minimum parking requirements for certain uses that are within convenient
access of an intermodal transit hub. Consideration may be given to Urban Land Institute (ULI)
recommended maximums compared with current City of La Quinta code requirements:
a. Office: ULI 0.5 to 3 spaces per thousand square feet (tsf); La Quinta 4 spaces per tsf.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
68
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
b. Retail: ULI 4.5 spaces per tsf; La Quinta 5 spaces per tsf.
6. During consideration of the Zoning Code, explore opportunities for Transit Oriented
Development Overlay Zones within one‐quarter mile radii of intersections where existing or
future bus lines intersect.
a. Highway 111/Adams Street
b. Highway 111/Harrison Street
“Implement and manage a hierarchy of Complete Street multimodal transportation infrastructure and
programs to deliver improved mobility and reduce associated GHG emissions.”
Policies and Programs for consideration:
1. Streets are fundamentally designed to serve people. Streets must work not only for motorists,
but also for transit riders, bicyclists, golf cart/NEV users, and pedestrians. While every street is
to provide for pedestrians, other non‐vehicular modes will be incorporated wherever possible.
2. Complete streets match the street context with modal emphasis of streets. While many streets
will continue to operate with an automobile emphasis, it is recommended that the City use
Complete Street level of service (LOS) analyses to optimize modal LOS by designating mode‐
preferred streets. The Programs outlined below are recommended to be realized over time, and
to be essential components of mobility in La Quinta by 2035.
a. Transit‐preferred
i. Highway 111
ii. Washington Street, north City limits to Miles Avenue
iii. Miles Avenue, Washington Street to Adams Street
iv. Adams Street, Miles Avenue to Avenue 47
v. Washington Street, Avenue 47 to Calle Tampico
vi. Calle Tampico, Washington Street to Eisenhower Drive
vii. Harrison Street
viii. Jefferson Street
b. Golf cart/NEV/bicycle‐preferred
i. Eisenhower Drive
ii. Park Avenue
iii. Calle Tampico
iv. Avenue 52
v. Avenida. Bermudas
vi. Dune Palms Road
vii. Jefferson Street
viii. Adams Street
ix. Madison Street
x. Avenue 62
3. As year 2035 approaches, and if forecast congestion levels do materialize, advocate for a
regional system to operate managed lanes for transit on high volume arterials (e.g., Highway
111, Harrison Street), and consider market‐based price or charge for single occupant auto use
within them during peak periods, to capture the true cost of private vehicle use and encourage
the use of ride‐sharing and alternative transportation.
a. Encourage construction of managed lanes or similar mechanisms whenever necessary to
relieve congestion and reduce emissions.
Traffic Impact Analysis Final
Report
Page
69
City of La Quinta
General Plan Circulation Element Update
i. Highway 111
ii. Harrison Street
b. Consider creation of benefit districts, which share toll revenues with 1) cities adjacent to
tolled facilities for use in local transportation operations and/or other public amenities,
and 2) the transit agency for enhanced transit operations.
c. Expand and optimize signal timing programs where emissions reduction benefits can be
demonstrated, including coordinating with adjoining jurisdictions.
4. Explore FHWA’s program to encourage agencies to implement Adaptive Signal Control
Technology, and pursue the FHWA model systems engineering documentation to define the
most appropriate signal control for the City of La Quinta. In view of the potential constraints at
intersections that are shared with adjacent jurisdictions, a regional or multiagency perspective
through the model systems engineering process may be most appropriate.